The first article is nothing more then a researcher speculating on causes based on his own beliefs. It's interpreting data to fit a predetermined outcome. No scientist actually concerned for his reputation will actually accept this as a valid form of reasoning.
The second article is poorly researched, misleading, and has no proven data to back it up.
1.) Poorly researched: "But plant enzymes, which raw dieters wish to preserve, are largely mashed up with other proteins and rendered useless by acids in the stomach." - This is not true if the food is properly combined. Fruits, for example, will pass through the stomach in the matter of minutes and will not cause a secretion of acid.
2.) Misleading: "The Inuit have survived thousands of years almost entirely on a diet of raw fish and meat." - Surviving and thriving are not the same thing. The average lifespan of Inuits is more then 15 years less then of an average Canadian. There are also very high incidents of cancer, osteoporosis, hear disease, etc. in the Inuit population.
3.) No data: "Major and surprising sources of food-borne illness, however, are raw sprouts, green onions and lettuce." - I personally have been unable to find any data to back up this claim. The couple incidents I did find were traced back to the produce being contaminated when it came into contact with meat or mishandled in some other way.
|