jean-claude:
>we could all benefit from openess either as a natural hygiene believer or
>medical paragdime believer .
>I think those two seemingly antagonist approachs have a common ground :
>concern for well being of fellow humans and....possibly righteous closed
>attitude .

I agree. The MD who refuses to consider long-established modalities
such as Ayurveda and Traditional Chinese Medicine, is just as narrow
(and self-righteous) as the strident/puritanical natural hygienist
who thinks disease does not exist and diet/fasting/lifestyle
can cure anything/everything.

I do however see two common practices in the raw/NH movement
that I consider to be risky:

a) self-diagnosis of one's own ailments [I confess -- I did this in
the distant past. Just as a lawyer should not represent himself or herself,
so too self-diagnosis is unreliable and potentially dangerous. This is
a lesson I had to learn the hard way.]

b) a willingness to play "diet doctor". This seems to flow from
the over-simplified raw/NH teachings. There are even correspondence
schools/courses (most derived from the course done by TC Fry years
ago) that, in my opinion, indirectly encourage people to
function as bogus "diet doctors."

I view being a doctor as a very serious thing -- and the people
giving bad advice as diet doctors, are ultimately responsible
(morally, if not legally) for the results of the advice they give.
This is the prime reason why I don't give any nutritional advice
(I don't want responsibility for someone else's health), and always
refer sick people to qualified health professionals (with an admonition
that someone whose only or primary training is from a raw foods
nutrition correspondence course, is definitely not a qualified
health professional).

Thanks for your comments.

PS Norm -- thanks for your nice followup. I will hopefully do a brief
reply tomorrow.

Tom Billings