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

You have pointed to no data that indicates we inherently get ill. Once you
stop making yourself sick with the cultural dietary error, the body simply
gets well and stays like that, as it does in all other species most of the
time.

> Classic _post hoc_ fallacy AGAIN!

simple cause and effect - I did not believe myself ill

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

I didn't know you read everyones mind.

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

All "causations" are "inferred".

> 1. You are not a disinterested observer.

true, what scientist is?

> 2. You did not follow any scientific method.

I removed the suspected causative element, then returned it and observed the
results. That is a basic form of science. Now, as for some well controlled
confirmation from some academics, I admit we don't have that. But since most
of them work for the chemical industry, I double we shall have that. But who
cares, it is an accepted foundation of evolutionary biology that we are
adapted to the environments of our ancestors.

> 3. You are INCOMPETENT to conduct the necessary
> investigation.

rubbish, I am the ideal observer - only I experience my daily reality every
day, anyone else only gets a sample

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

I have a good understanding of scientific principles.

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

Irrespective, I am correct. People like you have damned all sorts of correct
hypothesis and then were proven wrong later. You are so skeptical that you
have become incapable of entertaining a new hypothesis - that excludes you
from any real scientific credibility.

John