John Coleman wrote:

>>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.

I wasn't asked to do so, and it's not my burden anyway.
What's wrong with you?

> Once you stop making yourself sick with the cultural dietary error,

Ipse dixit.

> the body simply
> gets well and stays like that, as it does in all other species most of the
> time.

Ipse dixit.

>
>
>>Classic _post hoc_ fallacy AGAIN!
>
>
> simple cause and effect

No. You have not shown any cause. You couldn't if you
tried.

> - 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.

I don't, and don't need to do.

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

Your inference is fallacious, and you can't elaborate
on any mechanism. You are committing *classic* _post
hoc_ fallacious reasoning.

>
>
>>1. You are not a disinterested observer.
>
>
> true, what scientist is?

You don't even try to be.

>
>
>>2. You did not follow any scientific method.
>
>
> I removed the suspected causative element,

No. You haven't shown how or why it might be
causative. You are driven by ideology: you have an
ideological need to claim that what humans have done
since before they first emerged as a species is
"unnatural", thus "bad". You are passing NORMATIVE
judgments about "nature", without even having properly
identified what nature is.

> 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

You have no competence WHATEVER in any of the relevant
sciences.

>
>
>>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.

I doubt that. You have no training in any formal science.

>
>
>>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.

Ipse dixit. False, too.