Bear,

I have read all of your posts from the beginning as well as the essays on your website, so I won't waste your time. I have some questions which you did not address.

1. If all carbohydrates are essentially "poison," and if insulin is very damaging to the tissues in the body, then why do you think the mechanism exists in the first place? Why would the pancreas produce something as damaging as insulin? Why doesn't the body simply pass carbs without attempting to digest them? My observations have been that when the body itself is responsible for an undesirable effect, it's the result of the body's attempt to correct a problem, e.g. laying down of plaque in arteries to repair damage. What problem does the body think is occurring in tissues, which the damaging properties of insulin are supposed to correct?

2. On one hand you recommend removing the amalgam from your teeth, and then you suggest injecting the mercury back into your body in the form of flu shots? Were you aware that many vaccines contain mercury as well as lots of other nasty substances? Incidentally I am a dentist--I have removed amalgams from patients and about 50% notice a change.

3. You state emphatically that no cancer of any kind is diet or nutritionally related. Is that simply your conclusion based on the fact that your diet has led to otherwise excellent health? Are you aware of the fact that in the presence of glucose, cells in the body de-differentiate into cancer cells? And that this has been demonstrated repeatedly? And that in people with cancer, when carbs are totally removed from the diet, their cancers have disappeared. It's doubtless that there are certainly other contributing factors, but to claim that diet has no bearing is to disregard fact.

You state that you have smoked and are clearly still smoking pot. It never entered your mind that that could have been a contributing factor in your throat cancer?

4. The argument that an infant or child's acceptance or rejection of food is a determinant of whether it is appropriate for human consumption seems flawed to me. Are you saying that the first time sweets are introduced, whether fruit or candy, an infant or child will reject them? That people have no natural desire or craving for sweet things?

If you claim to have no desire for sweet things, or that variety is not an issue, then why do you make ice cream?

5. You state that vigorous exercise is necessary for good health. Is that based on your own experience? Of course, no studies have ever been performed on zero-carb individuals. Naturally, after eating this way you had increased energy and were able to accomplish more than before. Wouldn't that indicate that the diet alone could supply one with the basic abilities to hunt?

As to physical activity, it seems to me that simply engaging in sports would simulate the activities of hunting. If, when pushed beyond certain limits, muscles begin to burn, why wouldn't the natural reaction be to stop, unless pre-conditioned to think that exercise is good?

I can't believe that prehistoric man would have engaged in deliberate exercise. If food was scarce and difficult to obtain why would he expend more energy than he had to?

I'm sure you believe that you and your wife have benefited from exercise. My question is basically: How do you know that in a zero-carb person lack of exercise is bad?