Peter Brandt (lightheartedly I think) wrote to downplay a recent viscous ad
hominem attack on me:


> When she threatens to break your bones, maybe. ;-)
>

OK, but my ego says a few bones *were* broken.

> Naturally, but they [my questions] were not addressing the real issues.

Peter, I ask questions that make sense to me.  If they are ill-phrased, I expect a
call for clarification, not a Pearl Harbor-style sneak attack.


> What exactly is it you do not understand?
>

Right now, this incessant demand that *everyone* equally damn the old-time gurus.
Christopher summed it up very nicely: those that like the lectures of such as
Ehret should stay to the end; those that don't should get up and leave.  I can't
figure why the smaller group feels compelled to disrupt those of us who wish to
stay.  And, yes, those that paid for personal counseling, and got less than they
expected, should sue for malpractice.

> Sharing our hard-earned experiences with different health systems and diet
> advocates is a vital part of the support this list provides and I would not want
> it any differently.

100% agreed.  What does that have to do with viciousness?

> When you speak of abuse it is obviously because you feel that some of these
> leaders have been unfairly and unjustly targeted.  Could you be more specific?
>

I'll try.

For one thing I think much of the criticism directed their way is based on
knowledge that has come to light in the many, many, years since their passing.
For instance, this heart-is-a-valve theory was possibly widespread at the turn of
the century.  Then, for 50 or 60 years the heart-is-a-mighty-pump people took
over.  Now, as I understand it, lymphology is proving the heart can't possibly
*force* the blood through the body---that indeed the heart has much of a
regulating effect.  It's time to quit laughing and start studying.

Further, I feel it unfair to Ehret, Shelton, Tilden, Trall, and others to not
acknowledge the audience they spoke to.  For instance, the institutions of this
country have staunchly poo-pooed the idea that we should eat abundant fruits and
vegetables---and those less thoroughly cooked.  Now, they are starting (that's
*starting*) to suggest the wisdom of that route to everyday folks.  I suspect the
vast majority of the guru's audiences ate mostly out of cans and Pillsbury flour
sacks.

Finally, I would like to say that attacking such as Shelton by implying his
message was unsound because he had Parkinson's disease is horseshit.  I know a bit
about the etiology and progression of PD and clearly understand that neither
improved diet nor fasting can reverse the brain damage once done.  However, both
seem entirely reasonable as means to retard further harm to the nervous system.
Some say Shelton suffered for 10 years and some say 30 years, but whatever---he
deserves credit for the good he did, not damnation for personal suffering.

What can be the possible point of disparaging someone who did much good by helping
so many people become aware to the diet-health link?  Perhaps you saw the comment
on here about how Barleygreen caused a list member distress.  I accept that single
instance as true, but Barleygreen has been an absolute lifesaver for thousands of
people.  I hope the distressed person avoids it, but I equally hope the multitude
that gain increased health from it continue.

I'll end here as this is getting too long.  For any that wondered if I'd lop off
the smart-ass head of the woman that attacked me, the answer is no.  I did
consider returning the assault and then burying her in my compost heap, but it
dawned on me that the toxicity would be too hard for the pile to digest.

Regards,
Rex Harrill