Orthorexic John Coleman wrote:

>>No. You have not shown any cause. You couldn't if you
>>tried.
>
>
> The cause of the common cold is consumption of processed, refined, or
> otherwise concentrated foods - or as Ehret put it "mucus forming foods".

Ipse dixit, and wrong. Doctors and other CREDENTIALED
medical researchers - that excludes you - say the
common cold is caused by rhinoviruses. If a rhinovirus
gets into your nasal passages and begins reproducing,
you will get a cold. YOU get colds, Orthorexic John -
stop lying about it.

>
>
>>I don't, and don't need to do.
>
>
> this contradicts your prior false claim that "no one" believes me.

False.

>
>
>>Your inference is fallacious, and you can't elaborate
>>on any mechanism. You are committing *classic* _post
>>hoc_ fallacious reasoning.
>
>
> Darwin could not elaborate on any mechanism for inheritance,

That's false.

> his theory was
> still good enough. All scientific theories go through stages of development.

Not that YOU'D know - you don't know any truly
scientific theories, preferring to dwell in the land of
pure ideology.

> None are born perfect, go study some real science.

You go do it. I have done already, and it's obvious
you never have.

> However, I do have an
> idea of how certain foods may promote the mucus syndrome that leads to a
> "common cold".

No, you don't.


>
>>You don't even try to be.
>
>
> Now how do you know that? You don't have access to my private thoughts.

Actually, I do: you reveal them here.


>>No. You haven't shown how or why it might be
>>causative.
>
>
> This is quite irrelivant.

It's the ONLY relevant thing, you idiot. We are
ADDRESSING causation, fool.

>
>
>> You are driven by ideology:
>
>
> I have no interest in any ideology of any sort what so ever, and detest
> ideology of any kind.

That's a lie. Your entire belief system about food and
"natural" diet IS ideology.

>
>
>>ideological need to claim that what humans have done
>>since before they first emerged as a species is
>
>
> A "species" is a taxanomic category created by humans - it is a fixed and
> abstract form with no basis in reality.

It does have a basis in reality, Orthorexic John:
Humans are real, and humans rationally have devised
"species" as an explanatory tool. "Species" is real.

> Humans did not "emerge as a species",

The sciences of zoology, anthropology, biology and
genetics dispute you. As you have no training in any
of those, I'll go with the Ph.D.s in those fields, who
find "species" to be a useful concept. You are
incompetent.

> we (still) evolve through gradual change like anything else.
>
>
>>"unnatural", thus "bad". You are passing NORMATIVE
>>judgments about "nature", without even having properly
>>identified what nature is.
>
>
> We evolved naturally until we first had a state of mind where we began to
> experiment in such a way as to alter our environment in ways that are not in
> the interest of our survival. Most creatures, the "natural" ones, perform
> behaviour that is in the interest of their welfare and survival. Cultural
> humans are doing precisely the opposite.

Ipse dixit, and wrong. You are merely restating that
which you are tasked to prove. You are failing.


>
>
>>You have no competence WHATEVER in any of the relevant
>>sciences.
>
>
> Now how do you know that?

We ALL know it. You have no competence in any of the
relevant sciences. Please feel free to trot out your
credentials, WITH names and phone numbers of
responsible persons at the accredited universities
where you took your degrees.

>
>
>>I doubt that. You have no training in any formal science.
>
>
> You truly are a mind reader

No, Orthorexic John. I'm just very, very good at
spotting charlatans and flim-flam artists.