Instincto and Useful Diseases

Medical research relies solely on a set of individuals fed according to certain common principles: cooking, seasoning, grains, milk and dairy products, etc. Even laboratory animals do not have access to natural food. Lacking a control group—that is, a group of subjects not exposed to the same artificial factors—or failing to consider the culinary element, it is impossible to base reasoning on the criteria of the body’s natural functioning. The universality of dietary habits inevitably leads to confusion between normal and pathological. A disorder that is regularly encountered in the population is considered a priori as an integral part of the risks inherent in the human condition, without any incentive to link it to its dietary causes.

From this state of affairs, it follows that all medical data concerning the incidence rate of diseases, their severity, their progression, their after-effects, etc., are based on this same principle. are hampered by ignorance of what the same diseases would be like in a natural dietary context. Since the question cannot be explored, or even formulated, it is simply ignored by the majority of researchers.

To use a metaphor: if all drivers of gasoline-powered cars used, and always had used, an inappropriate fuel, for example, poorly refined fuel, common sense would attribute engine failures to their design or improper use, without knowing how they would function with the fuel for which they were designed. Similarly, medicine assumes that the various diseases listed in nosology are inherent to the genetic makeup of the human organism, or to certain lifestyle factors (sedentary behavior, overwork, stress, etc.), or even to the vagaries of biological processes, due to the inability to understand the effects of processed food.

In contrast, the instincto experiment consists of giving the human “engine” the fuel for which it was designed. Within a natural dietary framework, adapted to the body’s genetic makeup, it becomes possible to define the criteria for its natural functioning. Regarding pathology, one can thus catalog the progression of different diseases, the types of symptoms, their severity, duration, and long-term effects, and compare them to what occurs under traditional dietary conditions.

Under these conditions closer to nature, diseases clearly fall into two categories: processes that increase disorder, or “true diseases,” leading to the degradation of certain functions or organs; and processes that tend to restore order, or “useful diseases,” which, on the contrary, work for the integrity of the body and, in most cases, result in a positive outcome. This distinction is borne out in practice: some conditions persist for varying lengths of time regardless of diet, while others disappear quickly or remain in a mild form under a natural diet, and their symptoms worsen when returning to traditional foods.

The paradox of “useful illness” stems from the fact that conventional medicine labels any process affecting health within the ordinary framework as “disease,” ignoring the fact that the same process is not pathological within the natural dietary framework. Some forty years of observations of individuals practicing instincto-based eating for varying periods have shown that this is a general phenomenon, affecting most so-called infectious diseases, that is, those attributed to viruses or bacteria.

For example, the flu: the symptoms observed under traditional conditions are often severe. Fever, fatigue, sweating, catarrh, and diarrhea require the patient to be bedridden and can sometimes be life-threatening. The question arises as to how the same flu virus manifests under natural dietary conditions. Experience shows that the same symptoms are most often barely perceptible. After a sufficient period of exposure, the annual flu passes almost without symptoms: the process seems to occur and last the same amount of time, but in a mild or asymptomatic form.

The first explanation, consistent with current virological theories, would be that the body, thanks to a more suitable diet, has better immune defenses. It would recognize the virus earlier, more effectively prevent its replication, and also be better able to prevent complications. In other words, the virus would constitute a disruptive process, which a better-nourished body would be able to counteract more effectively.

But if that were the case, the virus would have no visible effect. However, even when symptoms remain extremely mild, certain signs show that the viral process is at work: coated tongue, bad breath, body odor, dark urine—it is clear that the body is doing some work. The question then arises as to the purpose of this process. Is it, as virology teaches us, a defense mechanism against the virus? This explanation makes little sense, once the virus no longer appears dangerous.

However, another hypothesis deserves consideration: the virus, known to carry a certain amount of genetic information within its envelope, could provide an organism’s cells with a subprogram not aimed at their destruction, but at implementing certain regulatory processes. Bacteria, often associated with viral processes, could perform certain secondary functions within the same program.

This idea finds support in the very principle of homeostasis upon which life is based: a set of extremely complex, organized processes tends spontaneously to return to equilibrium whenever an external or internal cause disrupts it. A significant loss of calories, during a cold bath for example, is immediately compensated by an activation of glucose metabolism and by shivering, increasing its use in the muscles; conversely, an excessively high external temperature triggers sweating to cool the skin. This spontaneous return to equilibrium necessarily exists at the level of all vital functions: without this capacity to restore order, any exertion would inevitably tend towards death. Therefore, nothing prevents us from considering certain illnesses as processes of this nature, mobilized, for example, to eliminate foreign molecules of dietary origin accumulated in the body.

Fever clearly illustrates this ambiguity. Representing a deviation from the normal temperature of 37°C, it is a priori considered a sign of functional disorder—an excessive temperature can indeed prove fatal, and it is cause for concern. However, we must not overlook the possibility that a parameter may deviate from its normal value during a useful biological process. The fact that it is associated with pathological symptoms in the context of a traditional diet does not allow us to conclude that it is harmful: it is only within the natural framework, by observing how fever develops outside the harmful influence of processed food, that we can make a definitive judgment. However, this caution was already characteristic of medicine in past centuries, and some members of the medical community today are returning to it, recommending against suppressing a reasonable fever, as it is not inherently harmful. Insofar as the deviations observed under instincto remain minimal and pose no danger, the very notion of disease becomes obsolete here.

Is such an idea plausible? It clashes with the general consensus that a virus (etymologically, “poison”) is necessarily a pathogen. Yet, in the majority of cases of contamination, common viruses remain asymptomatic or cause only transient symptoms (even in the context of food). Similarly, bacteria are not necessarily harmful: while pathogenic bacteria are certainly identified, we do not know how these same bacteria would behave in a natural food environment.

Secondly, our hypothesis must be compatible with the factual data of virology and bacteriology. Nothing in current knowledge contradicts this, except perhaps the ingrained thinking habits of the scientific community and the general public. However, a majority opinion is not necessarily reliable and should not preclude the exploration of different ways of thinking. The body of scientific data on the behavior of viruses and bacteria, on the contrary, offers a more logical explanation.

Thirdly: the definition of a category of beneficial illnesses becomes fully meaningful when we understand that foreign molecules from culinary practices or the consumption of products outside the human diet can accumulate in the body and cause major dysfunctions. The process of elimination then consists of removing the most harmful substances. It is no longer a matter of avoiding more or less bothersome symptoms, but of balancing the inconveniences of the process against the potential or already proven consequences of the accumulated substances.

The concept of a beneficial illness, considered as a process of order, must logically adhere to a series of criteria:

Positive outcome:

After the active phase, the general condition must be improved—for example, a lessening or remission of the symptoms of a true illness, improved health, rejuvenation, etc. This was already reflected in the wisdom of physicians of old regarding childhood illnesses, which were considered beneficial to future health.

Mild form:

During the active phase, the symptoms must remain easily tolerable, even imperceptible, and must not endanger the individual.

Limited duration:

A process of order, programmed by the organism, should in principle last only as long as it serves its purpose.

Absence of inflammatory pain:

Most illnesses owe their severity to the pain that accompanies them; Under instincto, inflammatory processes systematically remain within tolerable limits, if not completely painless.

Homeostatic regulation:

If an external factor aggravates the process (lack of sleep, overeating, excessive fatigue, etc.), the intensity of symptoms must be brought back into balance by spontaneous correction (more imperative sleepiness, decreased appetite, conserving effort, etc.).

Sensitivity of the process to certain processed foods or foods foreign to the natural diet:

If the regulating process consists of eliminating foreign molecules, the introduction of the same molecules via the digestive tract can either accelerate the process or interrupt it—which is easily verified by reintroducing different types of traditional foods one by one: the reintroduction of a single factor, for example, dairy products or seasonings, produces symptoms that can be immediately linked to their cause.

Interruption of the process in case of significant strain on the body:

The obligation to perform excessive work may, in some cases, lead the body to suppress or postpone the ordering process, according to the general law of energy conservation.

Greater duration or intensity in individuals with a more complex dietary history:

The greater the disruption caused by unhealthy food, the longer the ordering processes will be and the more energy they will require.

Less favorable outcome with medications intended to interrupt the process:

Toxic substances, which in themselves constitute an additional disruption, may block an ordering process, but the resulting improvement will be minimal or nonexistent.

Contagiousness:

A process beneficial to the individual is also beneficial to the species; therefore, from an evolutionary perspective, it can be expected to be transmissible.

In terms of medical practice, the concept of “useful illness” profoundly changes therapeutic perspectives: it reintroduces certain principles of wisdom from physicians of yesteryear, who, for example, recommended “letting” the flu run its course. The physician retains their essential role in ensuring patient safety, provided they respect the body’s natural healing processes, even under a diagnosis typically considered pathological. It will certainly take considerable time for the medical profession to fully embrace this shift.