Since you still seem to be around after your goodbye, Denis, there is a bit
from a previous post that I didn't find time to respond to before...

Tom:
>2) Assuming the raw diet is correlated with mental problems: does the raw
>diet promote mental illness, or merely attract the mentally unbalanced? Did
>the diet make them crazy, or does the diet just attract crazy people?
>Does a fanatical diet attract fanatics?

>There is no established, proven answer to question 2. It is my opinion and
>observation, that both factors are involved.

Denis:
>***I don't know how to interpret this  nonsense in the light of your
>private experience,  but one thing is almost
>certain, Tom :  You have never raised children on raw diet. Cause if you
>did, you would know that
>100% raw diet  is harmless for the development of sound mental health.

You seem to be generalizing backwards here. That a child raised all-raw
does well begs the question: what of adults who switch to all-raw after
decades of mis-nourishment? Further, until the all-raw child is compared
with the, say, 90% raw child one can not really conclude that 100% is
better.

>HOwever, raising children
>on a pure raw diet, is, at least in France, not a way to encourage their
>social promotion within
>the current day environment.

And given the _extremely_ social nature of humans this could surely cause
some distress, and perhaps occasion some degree of mental imbalance.
Raising a raw child doesn't sound "harmless" at all in such a situation.
You seem to be contradicting yourself here.

>You cannot even say that the raw diet attracts the mentally unbalanced. All
> you can say is that
>the raw diet attracts those people who are looking forward to be more
>atuned to their social environment

Huh? This doesn't make any sense to me. People are attracted to raw diets
to be attuned to their "social environment"? I assume this isn't the same
"current day environment" you mentioned above.

>and that they hope to find people sharing their fears, obsessions, and
>hopes  in the raw world.

Making it sound like quite the cult after all. Dumping one's fears,
obsessions, and hopes into a dietary practice already sounds mentally
unbalanced to me.

>The question of whether these people are normal or not normal, ie judging
>their behaviour from god knows what
>superior standpoint, is none of your concern.

If Tom is concerned about it, it is legitimatly his concern. You're welcome
to tell him what he can't be concerned about, of course, but it seems to
show that you are a bit defensive on the issue of mental unbalance
yourself. But from your own god knows what superior standpoint I'm sure it
doesn't seem that way at all.

Cheers,
Kirt