> Well argued?

Yes.

> "Although both Howell books proposing the food-enzyme theory are dated,
> they are still among the most often-cited references in raw-food
> circles. In the 1946 book, for example, most scientific references cited
> are from the 1920s and 1930s. (By the way, isn't it startling that three
> major raw-foodist references are more than 50 years old--leukocytosis,
> Pottenger's cats, and Howell's 1946 book?) As we proceed, we'll see
> several examples where Howell's claims are based on such outdated science"
>
> The proposition that old is no good looks like junk science when we
> think of the Pythagorean theorem. It would be a very good thing if we
> could see modern confirmation of Howell's work, also Kouchakoff etc.,
> but who would fund such? Cargill? Monsanto?

The premise isn't that old is no good.  You have carefully cited only part
of the argument.  The other part is that many of Howell's claims rest on
research allegedly published in a book that apparently no longer exists. 
Howell's credibility is also undermined by his belief in vitalism.  When
you have alleged "science" that is (a) old; (b) based on research that is
no longer available; and (c) produced by an individual who holds other
crank beliefs, such as vitalism, then the appropriate response is strong
skepticism.

The Pythagorean Theorem is mathematics, not science.  Mathematics is a
purely deductive discipline that deals with theorems and proofs, not an
inductive one that deals with empirical observations and explanations. 
It's a false analogy to compare Howell's alleged discoveries with
Pythagoras.  It is part of the very nature of science that research is
replicated and refined, or refuted.

Todd Moody