From: [log in to unmask]

Alexander Rice wrote

> I believe the expulsion of Laurie from this list has not been sufficiently
> justified. Tom has left of his own accord, and I will miss his presence.
> However, Laurie deserves to remain a contributor as long as he wishes to
> be, or until a truly valid reason for his expulsion presents itself.

> IMHO,
> Alexander

The following was submitted by Laurie:

TB> B-12 is required for growing new blood cells, which is an ongoing
TB> maintenance
TB> activity of the body. A common symptom of B-12 deficiency is anemia,
TB> specifically pernicious anemia. So unless you stop growing new blood
TB> cells,
TB> you do need B-12. (B-12 is also needed for the nervous system.)
LF>    "Neither animals nor plants can synthesize vitamin B12, which is
LF>manufactured only be a few microorganisms.  Pernicious anemia is not
LF>simply the result of a deficiency of vitamin B12 in the diet but is
LF>caused by the failure of the patient to absorb vitamin B12 from
LF>ingested food, due to the lack of a specific glycoprotein in gastric
LF>juice called the _intrinsic factor_.  This protein binds one molecule
LF>of vitamin B12 and carries it into the intestinal cells, from which it
LF>is transported, bound to other proteins called transcobalamins, to the
LF>peripheral tissues."  [Lehnenger, Biochemistry, 1981, p. 349.]
LF>    So, pernicious anemia is unrelated to dietary intake of B12, as
LF>you falsely claim.

Here Laurie has completely twisted the statement of Lehnenger.  Lehnenger says
that vitamin B12 deficiency "is caused by the failure of the patient to absorb
vitamin B12 from ingested food...".  For B12 to be absorbed from the food
there must be B12 in the food.  Laurie has taken a statement
concerning a patient with B12 intake who is unable to absorb the B12 to mean
that B12 intake is unnecessary.  So Laurie is propagating incorrect and very
possibly harmful information here under the guise of scientific fact.  Then to
top it off he throws in a subtle insult to someone who disagrees with him.

The fact is that vitamin B12 deficiency does cause anemia and possibly
irreversible nervous system damage.  If you eat a purely vegan diet and wash
the dirt off your food there is a definite possibility that you will develope
vitamin B12 deficiency.

A lot of Laurie's posts contain claims that to me seem of dubious reliability.
The above example proves to me that his familiarity with scientific literature
is no assurance that he knows what he is talking about or that what he says is
accurate.  I am uncomfortable being in a situation of propagating ideas that
I personally believe are very questionable.

John Coleman writes:
>(These are my opinions on moderation in general and veg-raw)

>Yes, it seems to have got ruff recently, I do not envy you MC! Laurie has always
>been blunt, but his opinions should be respected, he should be entitled to say as
>he chooses- we all should, I draw the line on my lists only when personal insults
>(obsenities etc...) start. IMO if a person cannot defend their viewspoints with
>facts & figures they should not make them, if you are wrong, be honest and admit
>it, that is part of being a mature adult.

I guess I am more sensitive to insults and put downs than you are.  I see this
list as an information resource for people attempting to live on a raw food
diet.  There is no reason to have arguments or put people down.

At heart I see the argument between Tom and Laurie as really a confrontation
of two different approaches.  Tom's approach is to say I tried this, this is
what happened.  It worked or it didn't work.  I have friends who tried it.
Their experience was similar.  I talked with other people involved with raw
foods.  Their perceptions matched mine.  Based on the sum total experience of
a lot of people doing this over a long period of time this is what I
recommend.  This is what works and this is what doesn't.

Laurie's approach is to try to determine "rationally" what a raw foods diet
should be.  This lends itself to lots of debates and philosophical arguments.
Lots of time spent discussing numbers and theory.

Personally I prefer Tom's approach.  Obviously the people upset about my
canning Laurie prefer his approach.

I have been on a predominately raw foods diet for a number of years.  One
thing I noticed was that I met very very few people who were on a raw foods
diet.  This didn't surprise me.  What did surprise me was that I met a fair
number of people who had been on all raw diets, usually for a period of a few
years, had good things to say about it, but had not stayed with it.  One of my
reasons for reinstating the mailing list was to find out what happened.  Why
was it hard to stay on the diet?  What could one do to make it work?  I
believed philosophically that it was the way to go.  The question for me was
how to implement it over the long haul.

All these theoretical debates don't do much for me.  There was all that
discussion about protein requirements.  The old line that mother's milk
contains such and such percentage protein, which is similar to the protein
content of fruit, indicates that fruit can meet all your protein requirements
was brought up.  Then it was brought up that maybe adults require more protein
than babies due to their increased size.  And then, oh yeah, it matches the
protein concentration but not the sugar or fat concentration.  All this was
bandied back and forth, numbers thrown around.  What was the result?  What are
our protein requirements?  If an answer was in there I certainly missed it.

It is possible to come up with all kinds of wonderful theories.  The protein/
mother's milk/fruit idea goes back to Viktoras Kulvinskas's "Survival in the
Twentyfirst Century" book.  He discusses it all in there.  He went around
promoting fruit and sprouts and wheatgrass, a very clean diet.  Theoretically
it made great sense.  He has a physics degree and is a good logical thinker.
But he couldn't stick with it.  He was bingeing all the time.

I do know that
when I first started raw foods it was easy to go for long stretches on just
fruit.  I felt great.  But now I can't do that.  When I eat just fruit my body
feels that something is missing.  I don't believe that this is due to
inadequate detoxification.  I believe my body is telling me that a fruit or
fruit and greens diet does not meet my needs.

Another thing I know is that Laurie lives in Florida.  His situation there may
be very different from mine.  I personally believe that a fruit and greens
diet might work if you live in a warm climate with a pristine environment
and get plenty of exercise.  That is not my situation.  I work at a desk all
day and don't get enough exercise.  In the States the air pollution here
in Baltimore is
second only to that in Los Angelos.  The weather gets very cold in the
winter and very hot in the summer.  There is high humidity year round which
seems to amplify the temperature extremes.

So I want to find what will work for someone in my situation.  If someone asks
me about raw foods I don't want to tell them that they have to move to Ecuador.

Finally, the form of arguing or "debating" that Laurie likes to engage in just
doesn't suit itself to a mailing list.  Its just too hard to keep track of the
different threads.  We discussed moving things to a usenet group before but
there wasn't much interest.  Most people seemed to prefer a moderated format.

>Curtesy is nice, but nobody should be incriminated if they do not offer it. I
>think finding the truth using logic and good data is more important than issues
>of individual ego. If a person feels offended, they should advise the moderator
>enclosing the offending mail, and the list also. If *the list* agree the offender
>should be removed. (I favour sharing decisions, not unilateral actions)

Tom was constantly complaining to me about Laurie's posts.  I didn't do much
about them.  If I was a better moderator maybe I would have been able to
defuse the situation.  I was pretty
overwhelmed by the whole situation and didn't know what to do.  Tom also
complained to the list about Laurie's posts but that seems to have just gotten
him more drawn in.

For a mailing list like this to work I feel that courtesy is essential.  I
really don't want to have to get involved in personal squabbles.  If people
are courteous they
should be able to work out their differences or at least agree to disagree.
If they are discourteous it may not matter much if they are right because they
are going to turn a lot of people off.  If someone is discourteous it says to
me that they are more interested in defending their ego than in discovering
the truth.  So to have a discussion that really gets to the truth it is
necessary to be courteous.  If you really are interested in getting to the
truth there shouldn't be any ego involvement at all.

John Coleman writes:
> ... and I think it fair to warn
>someone of their alleged indescretions first, in public, prior to removal.

What happened was I was going through a number of posts Laurie had sent in and
was trying to come up with a polite considerate way to tell him why I thought
they were unacceptable and give him a chance to redo them.  Then I thought, to
hell with this.  This guy is totally rude and inconsiderate.  Why am I
knocking myself out to be nice to him?  I personally don't feel that he
contributes much of worth.  With Tom gone he is going to dominate the list.
No one is going to be able to post without Laurie giving them the one and only
truth as he knows it and you had better not disagreee.
Forget it.  I don't need it.

I kept thinking of an op-ed piece I read awhile ago by some minister discussing
Farakhan.  To the argument many people have that Farakhan does say a lot of
things that are true he replied that rat poison is 90% good corn.  That was my
gut feeling about Laurie.  A lot of what he says is ok and may be accurate.
But the overall affect is very negative.

Unsubscribing him seemed like a pretty good solution.  I wanted to open things
up to get more people to post.  With Laurie posting it wasn't going to happen.
It was a pretty quick decision but I don't regret it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well thats my response to the complaints about unsubscribing Laurie.  I
suppose some people might find that it doesn't answer all the
issues brought up and doesn't fully address others.  They will be right.
I just try to do the best I can with what I'm given.

And Laurie is still around.  I haven't somehow banished him from the internet.
Anyone who wants to can always email him directly.

Sincerely,
Michael