Alan:
>If someone claims he or she feels better
>after eating raw meat, for example, then there must be some proper
>description of "feeling better" as well as some research to back this
>up.

Tom:
I simply cannot resist re-stating Alan's assertion, with a tiny but
significant change:

>If someone claims he or she feels better
>after eating a fruit diet, for example, then there must be some proper
>description of "feeling better" as well as some research to back this
>up.

Note that I changed "raw meat" to "a fruit diet" in the above. Two points
here:

1. Burden of proof. The burden of proof rests on those making positive
claims. It is common practice in raw for folks to latch on to absurd
claims and theories, then aggressively demand that others disprove them.
This is an attempt to reverse the burden of proof. For an example of
such an absurd claim: "spices are toxic," a claim which may be "proven"
via bogus crank science.

2. Speaking of crank science, there is absolutely no scientific proof of the
efficacy of fruitarian diets. All we have is anecdotal evidence, and
look at the source: individuals known to be plagiarists, fanatics who are
so hostile they get thrown off multiple mailing lists and must start their
own crank science forums, "role models" who are emaciated, etc.

Returning to crank science: there are fruitarian extremists who claim
a scientific basis for fruitarianism, but my observation is that their
"science" falls apart under close scrutiny.

Tom Billings