Medicine and Instinctotherapy

![!NOTE] Rejet très général des idées nouvelles par la médecine institutionnelle : cas de Harvey. Progrès thérapeutiques, mais taux d’incidence qui se maintiennent, traitements qui empoisonnent l’existence, arrivée aux 3e et 4e âges dans un état de délabrement, connaissance des taux d’incidence pronostics qui entretient souvent l’angoisse.

Instinctotherapy has often been considered an antithesis, even a competitor, to medicine.

The question is, what do we call “medicine”? Quitting smoking improves the condition of the respiratory system and rapidly lowers the probability of cancer. Can we say that it constitutes medicine?

The Petit Robert dictionary gives the following definition: Science, set of techniques and practices whose purpose is the preservation and restoration of health; art of preventing and treating human diseases. A specific medical technique.

Does eliminating a cause of illness fall within this definition? For example, quitting smoking can aim to maintain and restore health; it is a way to prevent illness. But it involves eliminating a pathogenic factor, not intervening with conventional medical methods, which consist of establishing a diagnosis and prescribing treatment.

The case is formally identical with instinctotherapy: it simply involves eliminating pathogenic factors (proven or potential) from the traditional diet by applying the natural rules of nutrition and balance, and not prescribing a particular food to cure an illness. The therapeutic action of the method is not dependent on a diagnosis, nor on a misdiagnosis, because the body manages to find on its own the substances it needs to ensure its optimal functioning. This action is twofold: on the one hand, the pathogenic factors inherent in the ordinary diet are eliminated; On the other hand, the body can benefit from the therapeutic action of the numerous substances contained in natural foods, at opportune times and in appropriate doses.

This picture reflects what nutrition has always been before humankind interfered with its natural laws. It is, in fact, a spontaneous normalization of the nutritional process; instinct merely defines the framework within which this normalization is possible.

In other words, medical treatment, whether allopathic or alternative, adds one or more additional elements to the artificial elements of ordinary food, potentially counteracting their effects, whereas instinct simply eliminates the causes of various diet-related illnesses. It is certainly a path to natural healing, but one cannot truly call it medicine, or even natural medicine. It is, in fact, a natural dietary hygiene, perhaps even the only dietary hygiene that conforms to the natural laws of nutrition. It is immediately apparent that there is no fundamental incompatibility between medical treatment and the naturalization of food.

Teaching about natural nutrition has not been considered an illegal medical practice by the courts, particularly in Switzerland and Germany, whereas the French courts have ruled that the very fact that dietary adjustments can have therapeutic effects constitutes a form of medicine in itself, the prescriptive aspect being defined by recommending a particular diet, whatever it may be, while implying that it can be beneficial to health.

It is nevertheless legitimate, even imperative, to inform the public about the positive effects of natural nutrition and to describe its fundamental principles. This is precisely the purpose of Instincto: it simply defines the natural laws of nutrition and specifies how to apply them. It is possible that some members of the medical profession, besides those who reject outright anything that might challenge their beliefs, see this as a form of unfair competition, essentially stealing their thunder by too radically eliminating the pathogenic factors associated with traditional diets.

As the well-known aphorism goes, “One-third of what we eat nourishes the body, the other two-thirds nourish the doctor.”

All humor aside, it should be noted that medical intervention itself, by allowing suffering individuals to reproduce, short-circuits the natural mechanisms of natural selection. It induces a degeneration of the human genetic heritage for which no one can offer an ethically acceptable solution. The phenomenon is exacerbated by the genotoxic effect of processed foods, which are a source of more frequent mutations. The proliferation of diseases, in turn, leads to increasing medical sophistication, creating a spiral that only the bankruptcy of insurance companies could halt. The overall picture would certainly be more positive if we did away with diseases caused by culinary practices, and if medicine only had to deal with accidents and “natural” illnesses, with the exception of “useful” diseases, which it would teach us to respect and control in order to better ensure our health.

The Besuchet Case

To illustrate how institutions react to disturbing facts, I will briefly mention an article concerning a very surprising case of metastasis regression in an undifferentiated trophoblastic teratoma. This article, reporting on the position taken by the Swiss Cancer League, claimed that a certain Jean-Jacques Besuchet had started instinctotherapy three weeks before his surgery, then, still on instincto, developed two lung metastases, which then disappeared spontaneously, only to be replaced six years later by an undiagnosed mediastinal cancer. The conclusion was that the diet could not explain the disappearance of the metastases, as they had appeared while on instincto, and that the new cancer might have revealed a collapse of the body’s defenses after six years on a raw food diet.

However, the reality is quite different: As he recounts in his book Cap sur la vie¹, Besuchet contacted my Food Ecology Center at the time three weeks before the operation. But he did not decide to change his diet, being convinced that medicine would cure him. A year and a half later, despite a long and arduous course of chemotherapy, X-rays revealed two lung metastases. Feeling cornered, he decided to follow the method and watched his metastases gradually disappear, leaving no trace after nine months of strict instincto-restricted eating. With no recurrence after five years, his doctors confirmed he was cured.

A few years later, destabilized by a difficult relationship (his partner demanded he return to a normal diet), he abandoned instincto-restricted eating. After a year of a conventional diet, he developed a new cancer (a carcinoma, unrelated to his teratoma), duly diagnosed by his doctor, and died in a suicidal state linked to his heartbreak.

I leave it to each individual to draw their own conclusions.