Kirt:

I enjoy our debate, as long as you understand I am not continuing it out of
spite.  I simply enjoy discussing matters with others because they help me
to see things more fully.  Let me sum up a few of your points, and then give
my feelings:

> [raw foodists] may be blind to the reality that it just isn't as
>simple as their particular paradigm makes it seem.

>When long-time instinctos are
>near death from malaria, for example, and anti-malarials save their lives,
>that might give pause to the view that medication is evil.

>And the other side of the sad lie is that perfect eating is the path to
>perfect health.

>idealistic dieters pay too little attention to non-examples
>of their own theories, as well as dissing the medical establishment as
>evil.

All good points.  I think that after reading our posts, these are the
general conclusions that I will agree with about diet vs. allopathic
medicine:

a) while diet ensures good general health, it is not the answer to all
health concerns
b) while allopathic medicine has its applications (especially in
emergencies), it is not the   only answer to good health.
c) while certainly our own paradigms can limit us, we do not have to accept
other's paradigms.
d) while many different theories can exist (i.e. we can be understanding to
one another) on how to acheive optimal health, it does not mean they are all
true.

any more thoughts?

regards,

-Ben