I think you’re right, we’re not going to get any furher with this. Basically, you’re saying to me that I am ignorant, and making myself sound ridiculous, because of these statements:
(i) Eating raw food does not cure cancer, HIV, malaria, and every other disease known to mankind
(ii) Being “out of balance” is not a meaningful medical diagnosis. It is just an empty new age phrase
If you disagree with those two statements, then, yes, the distance between our two positions is probably too great to be bridged.
Seriously, Cdnuts, tell me what being “out of balance” means in practical, physiological terms. I’ve asked about that once, and you ignored me. Do you understand what I am asking for? Like when we talk about heart disease, we know that what we are talking about is coronary arteries that are blocked by fatty deposits. When we talk about HIV, we know we are talking about a virus that impairs immune response. So, in the same terms, when we talk about being “out of balance” what are we talking about?
If you can’t tell me what “being out of balance” means in those terms, then it doesn’t mean anything. And you can’t, because it doesn’t.
If I go to the doctor as say, “hey doc, I have ED, no libido, brainfog and fatigue. What is going on?” and he says. “Aha. I see the problem. You are out of balance.” Have we really got anywhere? Has what he has told me brought me any closer to actually understanding what is happening in my body on a physical level?
No, because being “out of balance” just doesn’t mean anything in this context. It is just words put together in a row. It’s as meaningless as saying something like,
“You are suffering these symptoms because your pylange is out of sync. I can’t explain it more simply than that. Your phylange is totally out of sync, and that is why you feel ill. What do you mean, break it down on a physical level. YOUR PHYLANGE IS OUT OF SYNC. I can’t break it down beyond that.”
As far as being "educated in this type of thing?, you seem to think that this is simply a case of having read the particular websites that you referred me to. Here’s a newsflash: just because someone has written something on a website, that doesn’t make it true.
None of the information on those sites is based on a standard of evidence that most rational people demand. Where are the placebo-controlled trials on raw food as a cure for cancer? Where is the scientific research on states of “balance” and how they relate to cancer, or HIV, or whatever?
It is insane that you can argue that yes, raw food does cure cancer, that disease is just a matter of some kind of metaphysical “balance” and also say that I am making ill-informed statements.
I’m not quite sure which of my statements are ignorant or ill-informed. I just stick to the evidence that we have, and base my judgements on other ideas on the evidence that can be found to corroborate them.
In summary:
[b]My position is that we have some disease, we don’t know what it is, and we don’t know how to fix it. Eating raw food probably won’t fix it.
Your position is that we have a disease, and the disease is that we are “out of balance”. Being “out of balance” is a condition that cannot be broken down beyond this phrase; if you want to know what is happening to a body that is “out of balance” you must just read those words slowly, one at a time, and maybe you will get it. We can fix our condition by eating raw food. In fact, every disease in the world is simply a matter of being “out of balance” and can be fixed by eating raw food. Those who argue otherwise have been brainwashed.[/b]
Readers are free to decide which sounds more reasonable.