Liza,

>Evidently, J. R. Ellis, you do not appear to be well informed on
>either the science behind human nutrition, the current research and
>findings in this field, or the abundance of anecdotal evidence that
>shows clearly that this notion of rawness having any particularly
>significant importance in the diet is just silliness.

I apparently am not well informed either, but the fact that shortly
after
embarking on a raw diet my body ejected a cancerous tumor is pretty
good
anecdotal evidence to me that raw foods are good for something.  And I
have
heard and read many similar "anecdotes" from others.  But I'm sure
there is
abundant research funded by General Mills and other selfless
organizations
which demonstrates that we are all crazy and that Twinkies and
Kentucky
Fried Chicken are the ideal food.

The "To" line at the top of this e-mail reads: "Raw Food Diet Support
List."
Were you under the impression that your statement above is supportive
of
people wanting to eat a raw food diet?  Or did you join the list to
criticize this diet?

>For a little background on the credibility of this person, take a
>look at the archives of this list - I think you'll find it amusing.

This is a cheap shot.  Why don't you stick to the issues instead of
launching ad hominem attacks?  For what it's worth, I agree that one
is not
necessarily relatively healthy just because one is eating mostly raw
food.
But as a general proposition, people who eat lots of fresh, raw,
organic
fruits and vegetables instead of the typical devitalized foods most
people
on this planet eat (especially in the industrialized countries) are
taking a
very important step towards improving their health.

Mark
[log in to unmask]