[log in to unmask] wrote:

> 
> More comments about the enzyme issue are found at: 
> http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-cooked/raw-cooked-2b.shtml  Yes,
> that site tends to be anti-raw, but it has the advantage of being
> generally well argued and documented.
> 

Well argued?
"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several examples where Howell's claims are based on such outdated science"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?


BTW there is hard evidence that the earth is flat, for those who dare look.

William