Wally Day wrote:

> >And Paleos.  ;-)
>
> Actually, I did not include 'paleo' in that comment because
> I was listing what I consider groups at the 'fringe' of reason.
> Although I *have* heard a few unjustified and unsupported
> statements from paleo followers, for the most part the theory
> is supportable by documentation and is scientifically sound.
> (No yin, yang, dubious "life essence", or religio-philosophical
> justification). Therein lies the difference.

I was sort of kidding myself. More from the tone than from any
specific point. When I think of my own experience, and the
almost immediate relief from negative conditions I was
barely aware I had until they were gone. When I try to
explain this stuff to anyone, I come off sounding just like
the diet freaks I always derided. I agree that paleo has at
least a reasonable starting point. I am not sure about a lot
of the science though. A lot of it seems to be fringe stuff,
never replicated. That seems to be changing.