>>>Having followed Rex's posts myself, I do not agree with these
>>>accusations at all.

Peter:
>>Maybe you would like to share with us on which points you disagree
>>and specifically why?

Alan:
>Most of his posts were on the Brix method (at least the ones that
>I saw) and he always made it clear that the method was by no means
>the "bees knees" but merely the best known method (known to  him)
>of testing the quality (as expressed by the simple sugar index)
>and hence ripeness of two otherwise (on the outside) identical
>fruits. Nobody in here has contested this with a better method
>and thus I fail to understand all the criticism and whining in here
>from others on the subject. Rex merely indicated that it was,
>in his opinion, at least an aid and certainly better than nothing.

Like most people on this list I am a big supporter of the brix method
of assessing food quality.  Rex got into trouble with his absurd
speculations about fruitarianism and poor attitude when called on it.

Alan:
>>>I have found his posts to be fairly honest and straightforward and
>>>can feel his frustration at some of the responses, none of which
>>>offered satisfactory alternative information.

Peter:
>>I have seen no evidence of the above. If you have any, please share
>>it. Rex got into trouble for his arrogance of consistently dodging
>>the question of how high brix can compensate for imbalance in
>>macronutrients and for avoiding the the real question of what makes
>>him think that a high brix, fruitarian diet can bring optimal health
>>to anybody.

Alan:
>This is a good example (particularly coming from a moderator, although
>I am aware that you did not post the questions yourself).

David Mayne is now the moderator of this list.

Alan:
>Rex never claimed that a high brix means a better balance of
>macronutrients, or that a high brix, fruitarian diet can bring optimal
>health to anybody.

That was exactly what he was suggesting.

Alan:
>He merely implied that a high brix is certainly better than a lower
>reading from the point of view of quality.

Nobody ever disputed that.

>Maybe you would like to answer these questions on his behalf.

I already have.

Peter:
>>:) (Warning: Since no credible science supports fruitarianism and
>>considering its very poor track record, just claiming that a few of
>>your friends have been doing well on such a diet will not cut it.

Alan:
>Thank all gods that the world and the humans and animals in it do
>not have to rely on scientific reports to know whether they feel well.

And thank the gods for those who do not try to impress others with
exaggerated claims. ;-)

Alan:
>It was my profession for 14 years in the British Foreign Office to
>study scientific reports (or should I say..what is published and what
>is not published and why). To put it in a nutshell, if you follow the
>events in www.notmilk.com, for example, you get a pretty good idea
>of how food research is handled in modern western countries "for
>the good of the citizens" (or should I say the major industrial
>companies).

Poor argumentation - bad science does not justify unfounded claims or
hype.

Alan:
>Although I was only fruitarian only for 3 years only, I have
>provided the information you mention. The only info I have not
>provided is the amounts..as they may and did differ from day to
>day.

What % of your calories comes from fruit?  How much is from tropical
fruits?  How much from dried fruits? How much from nuts? Avocados?

Alan:
>As to any "burden of proof". I for one merely stated that I could not
>keep up the diet for financial reasons only,

Very convenient. :)

Alan:
>others (admittedly not nearly as many as the vegetarians or even the
>ovos, ovo-lacto and "normal" eaters) are still keeping it up (14 years
>in the case of Helmut Wandmaker) and getting good results.

Your sales pitch is getting a bit worn. Helmut was in California not
too long ago and he chose of all people to visit the NFL boys in San
Diego.  Sorry, but Helmut sounds like another fruitarian nut to me.

Alan:
> Dr. Norman Walker was just lucky to die at the age of 116 and must be
>"abnormal" in some way, etc.

Norman lived to be 109 and enjoyed eating both cheese and fish.

Peter:
>>BTW, your charts on primate diets were interesting but were not only
>>outdated (see upcoming article by Tom on BeyondVeg)

Alan:
>Perhaps you ought to challenge Jane Goodall et al on that score
>(although I would be rather surprised if wild apes have suddenly
>changed their diet and the year-long observations of ape researchers
>were a complete waste of time). But, then again, nothing surprises
>me any more nowadays.

I do not have the charts accessible right now but let us go back to the
issue when Tom's article is up.

Peter:
>>but did not cover how the dietary needs of our immediate primate
>>ancestors changed as their brains grew and they developed an
>>extensive use of tools.

Alan:
>Another claim that that the brain runs on some other energy source
>other than simple sugars perhaps????

????? Such a response is a clear sign of a brain lacking in essential
fatty nutrients. :)

Alan:
>Information on better methods than Brix when it comes to monitoring
>the sugar content of foods. Information on better methods than Kirlian
>photography when it comes to assessing the vitality of any live food.
>It is both fruitless and time consuming to reply to criticisms which
>do not provide any counterargumentation.

For there to be a counterargument, there must first be an argument. :)

Alan:
>A few men went to the moon, full stop. If somebody has a valid
>argument which indicates that they perhaps did not go to the moon,
>then they should say so or hold back. Merely criticising the fact that
>somebody did not provide sufficient proof that these guys went to the
>moon (particularly in the age of Internet when anybody can get as much
>info as they want on almost anything) is counterproductive IMOHO.

The problem with this analogy is that you rarely provide anything as
concrete as a full stop. :)

Alan:
>Can you quote any posts from others (except perhaps the one from me on
>Kirlian photography) suggesting a possible better method of assessing
>food (fruit in this case) quality?

Who says I have an opinion about kirlian?

Peter:
>> This may be the best for you to do.  You will probably fit in much
>> better on JR's idealistic "raw" list.

Alan:
>I am, of course, also on this list. ;-)

So how are things in tutti fruity land? :)

Alan:
>What do you mean by constructive dialogue. I find myself providing
>info and personal experiences if and when I can. I see little from
>others (with the exception of people like Rex or Jean-Louis). As an
>outsider looking in, so to speak, this is my opinion of the
>list to date.

I and many others have given you indications of what constitutes
constructive dialog.  If you do not get it by now, I doubt that there
is much more anybody can do.

Alan:
>I have yet to hear opposing views..coupled with opposing
>arguments..which is the crux of the issue. If I say white is
>white and somebody says "Not so" then I want to know why. I
>want convincing counterarguments and not people merely claiming
>I am talking out of my hat and am not providing any proof.

Regarding your claim "But a healthy cooked diet as opposed to raw I
have yet to see" - how am I supposed to come up with a "convincing
counterargument" when you provide so little argument for me to agree or
disagree with?

Alan:
>Kirt has never provided any evidence to support his claims that
>anything I have said is exaggerated.

Kirt is not making claims - you are.  That is the whole point.  He is
just asking you to provide support for your claims.  The constructive
dialog begins when you deliver this.

Alan:
>It is one thing to say "You are spouting a load of unproven bulls..t
>(which he certainly didn't say in exactly those words of course)
>and thus dismiss the fact that someone out there in this world is
>actually succeeding on his or her diet..and it is another (and better
>approach)..to say "Yes but you may be doing this and that wrong for
>this or that reason (and perhaps also proving tangible quotes).

If your tone and attitude had been like you are presenting in these
lines without hype and exaggeration then maybe a positive dialog would
have been a possibility with you.

Alan:
>I have never, for example, questioned the success of the omnivore
>crowd (i.e. those eating raw veggie and meat), simply because if it
>working for them all well and good.

Maybe you would if it had been presented to you with the kind of
defensive posturing and rigid evasiveness that is the hallmark of
yourself and so many others on the diet fringe...  ;-)

Alan:
>My reasons for not eating (organic and raw meat) have little or
>nothing to do with health and I have said so and listed my reasons.

Whatever your reasons for eating what you do, they have absolutely
nothing to do with the issue at hand namely your almost total lacking
in ability to deal constructively with opposition.

Alan:
>I have discussed my diet (i.e. around 50% fruit and the rest raw
>veggies, with a differing proportion of wild plants when in
>season) on a number of occasions.  I have discussed what fruits
>I eat both from my own garden and from Orkos and also which
>types of veggies I eat and which I do not. If anybody wishes
>more details they are perfectly welcome to ask and I will reply.
>I just don't like to rush into conversations by writing a book.

Your diet does not add up. Apples, pears and nuts all have short
seasons in Germany.  A breakdown of what you eat on a typical week in
May would be very helpful and in what amounts.

Peter:
>>You claim: "But a healthy cooked diet as opposed to raw I have yet
>>to see."

Alan:
>I claim that because all scientific reports I have ever read have
>never shown that heating food enhances the nutritional value of
>any food.

First, before you tell me how many scientific reports you have read on
this topic your statement has little relevance.  Second, where have you
been looking - up where the sun never shines? :)  A good nutrition
library will provide you with many reports of how cooking enhances the
uptake of nutrients.

Alan:
>Cooking does destroy many toxins in unnatural human raw foods, as well
>as enzyme inhibitors in seed foods (which I do not view as natural
>human foods either as the use of fire is a fairly recent thing in the
>history of man). In addition, the personal experiences of our group
>(many of whom are nearly 80), as well as the many readers who have
>written to us, tell a completely different story. We are not doctors
>but promoters of health. Nevertheless, the number of people who have
>been cured from all sorts of chronic ailments by going raw (and the
>fact that raw is being increasingly adopted by German conventional
>nutritionists) speaks for itself.

Blatant raw food propaganda. :)  Still, you are evading the question.
That raw diets can have therapeutic effects says nothing about the
potential therapeutic effects of various cooked diets or 80% raw diets
for that matter.  You do not have to make the claim "but a healthy
cooked diet as opposed to raw I have yet to see" to explain the
benefits you and other people in Germany supposedly have enjoyed from
raw diets.

Alan:
>OTOH, I myself can confirm that raw does not cure palmo-plantar
>pustulosis..a condition which I have suffered from long before I went
>raw and still suffer from today. It is nothing serious but I am still
>willing to talk about it.

Such generosity.:)

Alan:
>Which cooked diets have you investigated?

That is what you should be asking yourself. I have not made any
statements about cooked diets.

Alan:
>Shall I fill your hard disc with every recipe I have ever eaten??

Recipe? We are talking about the virtues of raw versus cooked diets.

Peter:
>>which methods and criteria were you using in your assessment of them
>>(comment: they might have been faulty or inaccurate)

Alan:
>One should perhaps examine the credibility of those advertisers and
>government agencies which choose to continue to promote cooked food
>(or that abomnible food pyramid, for example), and contaminated
>(pesticides, hormones, antibiotics etc.) veggies and meats.

Corruption in today's world is not the topic just now - your
evasiveness is. ;-)

Alan:
>There are enough studies around pointing out various advantages of
>vegetarianism and/or organic food as against conventional food.

And you have decided that these studies are beyond reproach? If you
want to initiate a dialog on these issues, it would help if you would
tell us on which basis you reached such a conclusion.

Alan:
>I have always stated the prerequisite for a successful raw diet is
>quality..and that experiences in Germany appear to back this up. I can
>not comment personally on every raw diet..only on that which I am
>practicing (or have practiced).

I take this to mean that you are backing off your statement "But a
healthy cooked diet as opposed to raw I have yet to see."?

Peter:
>>I assume that you would like for me to sympathize with the sentiments
>>being expressed above but how is that possible when you are so
>>unclear in your writing?

Alan:
>I have no wish to start a slanging match by mentioning individuals.

But you did start the "slanging match" with your innuendo.

Alan:
>If you didn't understand it then just accept it as my opinion.

Opinion? I would call it gutless slander.

Alan:
>>>Take the Brix method, for example, invented here in Germany, as
> >well as the German work on Kirlian photography. Why do they
>>>seem to get up some people's noses (perhaps because they were
>>>not invented or followed-up properly in, say, the U.S.A.) despite
>>>the fact that they are still the most effective methods we have
>>>today of identifying the vitality and hence the quality of fruits
>>>and veggies?

Peter:
>>This is clearly your opinion - do you have any evidence to back up
>>this claim?

Alan:
>Am I not entitled to have an opinion? Am I not entitled to expect
>tangible counterarguments rather than the age-old and rather helpless
>counterarguments, such as  "Do you have evidence to back up your
>claim"?

No, especially not when you express yourself with such blatant
arrogance.

Alan:
>Are we in here to only miscredit information and experiences or are
>we in here to exchange information and counterarguments (and THEN
>comment)?

But you did not provide any information.  When asked to provide some,
you demand "counterarguments".  And you claim that a high fruit diet
does not damage the brain. :)

Alan:
>http://www.temple.edu/CFS/poppbib2.htm
>http://www2.arnes.si/~ljbion1s/Biophotons.htm
>http://www.cdc.unict.it/~wwwisfi/scientifica/musumeci.htm
>http://www.tcom.co.uk/hpnet/qb2.htm
>http://www.wspc.com.sg/books/lifesci/2267.html

Thanks, but at this point I am more interested in what you have to say
on the issue.

Alan:
>I would be wasting my precious time adding any more leads and
>info on Brix than Rex has.

Repeat after me: "Everybody on the raw-food list is very grateful for
the valuable education that Rex has provided about the benefits of
brix.  I realize now that the problems Rex ran into on this list had
nothing to do with his generosity." :)

Alan:
>I would comment, however, that, as far as fruits are concerned, I have
>yet to see a better combination than Kirlian and Brix to assess
>quality (other than the human nose, tongue and felling of wellbeing of
>course). Now I await the counterarguments.

I do not have any. But if you want to convince me about the relevance
of kirlian, you have come up with more than "I have yet to see" or the
arrogance that you displayed with your "Why do they seem to get up some
people's noses".

Alan:
>>>Who has offered any info on for better methods?

Peter:
>>Hold your horses. :) Before we go looking for something "better", we
>>first need to establish "good" and provide the evidence that shows
>>that Kirlian has some merit to it in the first place.

Alan:
>I always hold my horses. I'm not talking to a bunch of "greenhorns"
>in here (although there may be many lurking of course), but I slowly
>gain the impression that I'm talking to a load of sceptics who will
>not or can not provide counterarguments.

I do not know enough about kirlian to have an opinion about it either
way or provide "counterarguments".  Does that mean that you are
unwilling to educate the ignorant? :)

Alan:
>Rex was (is??) one of the few exceptions as it was not difficult to
>recognise the honesty in his posts.

If Rex is honest, that makes me a liar. :)

Alan:
>>>What I'm trying to say is that it is not the Rex's of this world
>>>that are at fault and hampering the transfer of info but the jealous
>>>and the envious and the often also half-hearted rest who are usually
>>>more interested in either picking the cherries or picking an
>>>argument.

Peter:
>>Again, these are your obviously deeply felt sentiments of yours but
>>without any form of documentation, they have little relevance to this
>>list.

Alan:
>So you get a new guy on this list who gains this impression and
>expect him to start slagging individuals?

You sure know how to play the innocent one. :) If you think that I am
envious or jealous at least have the decency and guts to say it
straight to my face. When you broadcast it in such a general way, the
negativity is not easy to respond to or deal with in a positive way.

Alan:
>Better to examine each post for the information content I would have
>thought.

Which I have done and found yours to fail quite miserably. :)

Alan:
>Lists such as this are supposed to promote international exchange
>rather than international bickering. Although I must admit, on your
>request, I was mostly bickering here. ;-)’

I am not sure what to call what you do except that your communication
skills leave a lot to be desired.

Best, Peter