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]