Jeffrey:
>This has been a major problem in the raw food, hygienic, frutarian
>movements since their beginnings.  Making outrageous claims without
>being willing to substantiate, document or reference their material.
>For years, all my requests of these writers, and voices to give me
>documentation was diverted or ignored.  Not that I wanted to disprove
>what they were saying, but to have actual proof for myself.

Who are you anyway to question the truth that these unselfish pioneers have
sacrificed  their lives to uncover - and pass on to the needing masses? ;-)
If I hear another heart wrenching tale of the personal sacrifices such and
such raw food pioneer has made for mankind, I think I will throw up. :-/

>Science is only the attempt to investigate and prove what is.  If what
>is, is what is, then it shouldn't  be hard to prove.

Exactly. It is very unfortunate that so little research has been made. I
find it embarrassing how widely Paul Kouchakoff's work from 70 years ago
that allegedly showed how eating cooked foods cause white blood cell counts
to rise still is being quoted - especially since nobody seems to have read
his 1930 paper and next to nobody tried to replicate his experiments.

>Otherwise we are just "pissing" in the wind.

And the warmth generated very temporary. ;-)

>Years ago I wrote an article on the "counter-culture" in relation to the
>movements that came out of the 60's.  One of the things I found was that
>many promoters of counterculture movements DIDN"T really want their
>ideas to become mainstream.  It seems they enjoy  the role of being the
>"devils advocate" to whatever is the mainstream, more so then they do in
>seeing their movement become mainstream.  And why not, because if it did
>become mainstream, what use would we have of them anymore. And so, we
>see, that many of these people, prefer the egotistical role of "keeper
>of the key" or "devils advocate" as oppossed to have the information
>properly validated and disseminated to the public.

An astute observation. I think the fear of "the message" becoming part of
the mainstream is rooted in problems with identity and in a need to feel
special and that many people who are attracted to radical diets & ideas use
these as means of leveraging life-long levels of low esteem and to cover up
the fact that they have never felt special: "If everybody is on a raw food
diet then I am no longer special -> this means that I am worthless so why
go on living?."  I am, of course, not speaking from own experience. ;-)
Seen in this perspective it is not difficult to understand how come so many
diet fanatics are having a such difficulty letting go of outdated dietary
paradigms - their  personal identities and in a sense their whole lives are
on the line.

The question we have to ask ourselves is: If it was proven tomorrow beyond
any shadow of a doubt that diet - no matter which - has no impact on health
or longevity whatsoever, how would we feel about ourselves - how would we
react?

Best, Peter
[log in to unmask]