On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 09:01:35 -0400, Mike Raiti <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>"Jay Banks" wrote: >> >>Howell's books are poorly referenced, sloppy, extremist, vague, >>unscientific. Howell's "research" is as flawed as "Pottenger's >>Cats" and the nonsense peddled by Aajonus. The fact that nobody >>has duplicated any of their research proves it was in error. So >>do the fatal flaws in that research. Howell makes one illogical >>argument after another. He has no credibility. >> > >What is wrong with Pottenger's Cats? I am a little familiar with >what he did. I have been corresponding with a raw foodist who has >used Pottenger's Cat to support his view. I would like to know your >thought about it. Mike, sorry for intruding but read the following: http://www.beyondveg.com/tu-j-l/raw-cooked/raw-cooked-1h.shtml Fredrik