On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 09:01:35 -0400, Mike Raiti <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>>"Jay Banks" wrote:
>>
>>Howell's books are poorly referenced, sloppy, extremist, vague,
>>unscientific. Howell's "research" is as flawed as "Pottenger's
>>Cats" and the nonsense peddled by Aajonus. The fact that nobody
>>has duplicated any of their research proves it was in error. So
>>do the fatal flaws in that research. Howell makes one illogical
>>argument after another. He has no credibility.
>>
>
>What is wrong with Pottenger's Cats?  I am a little familiar with
>what he did.  I have been corresponding with a raw foodist who has
>used Pottenger's Cat to support his view.  I would like to know your
>thought about it.

Mike, sorry for intruding but read the following:
http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-cooked/raw-cooked-1h.shtml

Fredrik