What may or may not rightly constitute Paleo seems to be more of a matter of
opinion, akin to a Papal mandate for some. 

As I understand it, our constructs (convenient fictions?) of Paleo are an
artifact of emerging sciences; in the same manner, Pauling (noteworthy for
being awarded two Nobel prizes among other exceptional contributions to mid
20th century science), and many others delving into the roots of human
physiology are advancing understanding of what makes us tick. His
orthomolecular therapies, while subject to misinformation campaigns by Big
Pharma, do in point of fact bear results. 

As far as New-Age is concerned, Paleo luddites constitute a group as rigid
and unthinking as the Shirley MacLaine crowd! My interests remain with
science, its underlying context expressed in paradigms subject to analysis,
not in conversion to rigidly uberglauben (over-belief) ideologies and
quasi-religious fundamentalism.

Caveat lector!

-----Original Message-----
From: Paleolithic Eating Support List [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Geoffrey Purcell
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 7:44 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: glycation

Well, we will have to agree to disagree on this issue. Quackwatch, from my
POV, is an essential website which has helped debunk many New-Age-oriented
notions such as Pauling's claims re megadosing of vitamins etc. And
processed supplements are hardly a palaeo concept.

 

Geoff