John Coleman wrote:

>>There is no science, only a very obvious _post hoc_
>>fallacy: because you allege you haven't had colds or
>>flu since adopting a raw-foods diet 7 years ago, you
>>claim the diet caused it. That's classic _post hoc_
>>fallacious thinking.
>
>
> It is not.

Yes, it most certainly is. You can point to NO
*VERIFIED* causative mechanism in a so-called "raw"
diet that would prevent illness.

> I am an obsessive skeptic, and after a while I went back to
> eating cooked and processed pseudo foods, I soon started to feel more
> lethargic and congested.

Classic _post hoc_ fallacy AGAIN!

You *do* realize that no one believes you anyway, don't
you?

> Obviously I hastily reversed course. Similarly when
> going from vegetarian to vegan I noticed the number of "colds" decreased
> from 4+ per year to onlt 1-2.

_Post hoc_ fallacy. You haven't demonstrated any
causation; you are merely inferring it, FALLACIOUSLY.

> Of course there may have been other changes in
> environment that helped, but I could not see anything other than diet that
> coudl be so dramatic.

1. You are not a disinterested observer.
2. You did not follow any scientific method.
3. You are INCOMPETENT to conduct the necessary
investigation.

> When I read other books and testimonies confirming the
> finding,

....all of which ALSO commit the _post hoc_ fallacy...

> then the hypothesis is sufficient strong to be acceptable as a
> fact.

Absolutely wrong, and laughable. You are seeing what
you want to see. You are not a scientific observer.

>
>
>> You have no peer-reviewed
>>research to back up your assertion that following a
>>foods diet improves health.
>
>
> I don't need to wait for it, I do my own research!

You have not conducted anything worthy of the name
"research", and what you did has not been
peer-reviewed. You are a polemicist, John.

>
>
>>It's not raw foods when it's a pill.
>
>
> It consists of elemental substances which occur naturally the same way in
> nature.

It's not raw foods, John.

>
>
>>intrinsically unhealthful.
>
>
> Then why are there so many biological mechanisms to protect creatures from
> some of the chemicals and pathogens in it?

That's highly unethical and dishonest of you to snip
out the context, John. Here's the *real* exchange,
before you deliberately and unethicaly mangled it:

Unethical John Coleman:
however B12 from a stack of meat isn't healthy

Woods:
Ipse dixit, and false. B12 is B12, and meat is not
intrinsically unhealthful.


First, why did you deliberately and dishonestly mangle
it, John?

Second, your question is actually begging the question,
and mischaracterizes these alleged "biological
mechanisms", and assumes as fact one of your
demonstrably WRONG beliefs, that humans are "naturally"
frugivores (or whatever you're calling them this week).
To the extent that these "mechanisms" exist, they
exist to deal with all kinds of pathogens and
chemicals, not just those found in or on meat.