> It is. Your testimony doesn't diminish the fact, it only confirms it.

If we were just talking about my testimony, I would agree, but we are not.
We are talking about the testimonies of many people. Ehret also did crude
trials of his system on others and got the same effect. That diet is a
factor in common cold causation is not disputed by scientific medicine BTW,
although there are many other factors that are part of the overall picture.

> You are the former but not the latter. You are quite gullible.

ahah, another mind reading expert, throw away your chrystal ball

> Since you failed to account for anything else, why base it upon diet? We
already
> have your answer:

Tell us why you don't think crummy diets contribute to the common cold.

> You're a drama queen, no doubt, but this was hardly a scientific
experiment AND
> you failed to weed out extraneous variables which may have been fully or
> partially responsible for any changes.

Of course you are right, there are many variables involved, I did not just
change diet alone. There was a feature on the common cold on TV recently,
the Dr. mentioned a list of over 8 contributing factors. They even had a guy
on who never had a cold in over 8 years. He was not a raw foodist either.

> Exogenous sources do not confirm intuitive findings. That is NOT the
scientific
> method, Coleman -- it's the opposite.

It depends by what you mean by scientific method. You are talking about a
very thorough method, that is good science, but even simple methods applied
systematically can pick out causation.

> By you, but not by educated people familiar with the scientific method.

yes, most people can fairly remain doubtful

> No, you do not. It's not research. Your expermentation on yourself has
nothing
> to do with the scientific method, as noted above.

again, depends on what you call method

> It's unnatural. See other thread for my response about why your use of
pills is
> medicinal.

raw food is unnatural?? well I'll take a look at that thread...

John