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