"Becoming Raw" by Brenda Davis in Health & Nutrition Programs Posted June 8, 2010 The only thing that can match the "zealotry" and "anti-science" bias of some raw-foodists is the zealotry and anti-science bias of some anti-raw-foodists. I disagree. People who argue against raw foodism usually quote facts long established by medical science. I have a hard time calling people who talk facts, zealots. And here is exactly where you go wrong. You are basically saying "if the science agrees with my opinion, it is a 'fact long established by medical science. if the science disagrees with my opinion, it is pseudo-science.'" You aren't even considering the very likely option that you may be wrong in this matter, and if "experts" that have "scientific credentials" that you approve of write a book that disagrees with your OPINION, they must have drank the kool-aid, so to speak. The reality is that the scientific method is great not because it establishes irrefutable fact, but precisely because it DOESN'T. It is the realm of religion, devotion, and zealotry to claim that something is irrefutable fact. Science by it's very nature evolves, changes with new information, and can admit when it's wrong, and it is usually wrong. My partner (who has a masters degree in environmental science) likes to say "Science never proves anything, it can only disprove something." There is a great article in the most recent Discover magazine about the "streetlight effect," where researchers tend to look for answers where the looking is good, rather than where the answer may be. I can't do the article justice, but there are a few notable quotes that illustrate my point. I do urge you to pick up the issue and turn to page 55. I think reading the article will do wonders to change your opinion on what constitutes "facts established by medical science." In the meantime, here are some notable quotes from the article: In 2005, Joan Ioannidis of the University of Ioannina in Greece examined the 45 most prominent studies published since 1990 in the top medical journals and found that about one-third of them were ultimately refuted. If one were to look at all medical studies, it would be more like two-thirds, he says. And for some kinds of leading-edge studies ... wrongness infects 90 percent or more. We should fully expect scientific theories to frequently butt heads and to wind up being disproved sometimes as researchers grope their way toward the truth. That is the scientific process: Generate ideas, test them, discard the flimsy, repeat. ... I have spent the past three years examining why expert pronouncements so often turn out to be exaggerated, misleading, or flat-out wrong. There are several good reasons why that happens, and one of them is that scientists are not as good at making trustworthy measurements as we give them credit for. It's not that they are mostly incompetents or cheats. Well, some of them are: In several confidential surveys spanning different fields, anywhere from 10 to 50 perfect of scientists have confessed to perpetrating or being aware of some sort of research misbehavior. And numerous studies have highlighted remarkably lax supervision of research assistants and technicians. ... Patient recruitment is an enormous problem in many medical studies, and researchers often end up paying for the participation of students, poor people, drug abusers, the homeless, illegal immigrants, and others who may not adequately represent the population in terms of health or lifestyle. ... Contrary to the proclamations of many scientists, unreliable medical study results do not disappear with large, randomized controlled trials, in which subjects are randomly assigned to a treatment or placebo group. Such trials are more reliable in some ways, but they do not necessary address the streetlight effect, and they are frequently refuted by other, similar trials. The article ends on a rather amusing self-deprecating note that illustrates my point: How are we supposed to cope with all this wrongness? Well, a good start would be to remain skeptical about the great majority of what you find in research journals and pretty much all of the fascinating, news-making findings you read about in the mainstream media, which tends to magnify the problems. (Except you can trust DISCOVER, naturally. And believe me, there is no way THIS article is wrong, either. After all, everything in it is backed by scientific studies.) Maybe we should just keep in mind what that Einstein fellow - you know, the one who messed up that electron experiment - had to say on the subject: "If we know what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, would it?" So again, I simply say that the research that agrees with your opinion is the research you call "established medical fact," and the research that disagrees with your opinion (or the experts), are written off. That is zealotry, not science. Science knows that it can be wrong, and most of the time, it is proved wrong when new information comes to light. Damdaman, since you are into raw foodism why don't you read Brenda Davis' book and post a review here for the rest of us? I'm not "into raw foodism," that is what is called a straw-man argument. I eat mostly cooked foods. But I find it a little tiring watching the bullying that sometimes goes on in vegan circles lately. It also drives me nuts the misunderstanding of the scientific method and the claims that "the scientific facts are this" when that is not how science works. You have an opinion, and you pick and choose which science to believe based on that opinion. I think a far better idea for advancing this topic beyond what it has devolved into over the past couple years would be for YOU to read the book with an open mind that there is no black-and-white answer here and see what the authors have to say for yourself.