>Who do you consider a reliable source? And how do you >determine?

do they contradict themselves, or is their position internally consistent?
is it consistent with known or readily-researched facts?
does the person claim more professional status than is warranted?
is what they are saying contradicted by other established authorities that
have no axe to grind?
do they present their findings clearly or obfuscate with unnecessary detail,
prolix text, aphorisms, analogies, anecdotes etc.

obviously almost any politican fails. cordain, erasmus, sears, weil, ornish
fail.

i regard Enig/Weston-Price and the Danish guy [Raffnskov?] to be valuable
sources.

When you can speak to someone [as i have] who has lived with indigenous
people and describes their eating patterns...the raw eyes, heart, liver of
reindeer, liver of seal, etc then that is also a valuable source.

Andrew






>
>