>"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

--