On the one hand, he is clearly fixated on one notion (it
can't be called a hypothesis, let along a theory, in
scientific parlance), which includes theological assertions.
How could one demonstrate, in a scientific way, that the
historical Jesus was a "vegetarian" (whatever is meant by
this term, exactly)? And what would that matter,
scientifically? These claims make one's argument weaker, not
stronger. Essentially, in our culture, "religion" is
associated with theological doctrines. Science,
theoretically, should be an interpretation of existing
evidence by a consesus of experts, though anyone should be
able to make claims based on the evidence, and then the
experts should address those claims, unless the claim is
absurd, and unfortunately, thats' where tom/doe goes wrong.
He wants religion/theology to be "science." The square peg
just doesn't go in the round hole. And since this newsgroup
is called sci.med.nutrition, he should be posting on
sci.theology.nutrition, which I don't think exists.
Now on the other hand, there's nothing wrong with him
posting abstracts of studies, but I can understand how some
will be irritated that he does not make claims based on
these studies. However, I have done that on this
newsgroups, and received more than a few idiotic follow-up
posts, such as when someone (who apparently has real
scientific credentials) said that if one allows Mead acid
to replace arachidonic acid in the so-called phospholipid
layer of cells, a cut will take months to heal. It takes
about 2 years to get the arachidonic acid out and the Mead
in, and after doing so, I've found that cuts heal much
better, with little pain or inflammation. Arachidonic acid
is the biggest health problem when you have more than a
trace of it in your body, and this claim is consistent with
all the evidence. It explains why peoples who eat plenty of
saturated fatty acids in the form or coconut or palm kernel
products, but little in the way of omega 6 polyunsaturates
don't have the heart disease that westerners do, even
though they have cholesterol in the 200-250 range. Lard,
which is considered a "saturated fat," is only 39 percent
saturated, but it has more than a little omega 6 PUFAs, and
it's pork has arachidonic acid in it, as does beef, turkey,
chicken, etc. Eating low-fat dairy is a horrible idea,
because of what pasteurization/homogenization does to the
proteins in it (see Annand's studies from the 1970s). I've
eaten huge amounts of unrefined coconut oil, raw goat
cheese (high in saturated fatty acids), dark chocolate (70%
or more cocoa mass), organic butter, at least one organic
egg a day, and boiled shrimp (all high in saturated fatty
acids and/or cholesterol) for about 3 years now. No
atherosclerosis, diabetes, inflammatory "diseases," cancer,
or autoimmune problems. Everybody else in my family (around
my age, 40, or older) is obese (I'm rail thin) and/or has
had major health problems, including a brother who needed
his gallbladder removed in his early 30s. The arachidonic
acid fouls your body up in numerous ways, just do a search
on www.pubmed.com and you'll see what I mean. And why do
the "experts" keep saying to avoid "saturated fat?" Because
they are relying on old studies that were, at least in the
context of all the evidence available today, preliminary.
If you call lard a "saturated fat," then yes, saturated fat
is generally pretty unhealthy, but what about the omega 6
PUFAs in it, some of which will be converted to arachidonic
acid in your body, and perhaps much of which will oxidize
and damage cells in your body? These people rushed to find
an answer, instead of just documenting exactly what they
did find. How can coconut oil at 92% saturated fatty acids
be classified as essentially the same thing as lard (at 39%
saturated fatty acids)? This was just one of several key
mistakes. If you need a book to get you through some basic
points, Bruce Fife's "Saturated fat may save your life," is
a good place to start, but keep in mind to avoid the idea
that polyunsaturated fatty acids are "essential." Just eat
the coconut products, which have a little omega 6 PUFAs in
them, and eat organic, DHA enhanced eggs, and you don't
have to worry about the "essential fatty acids," except to
avoid them in everything else, to as much a degree as you
possibly can.
So is tom/doe a "nut?" At least he is not trying to make
money and advance his career, as all the "experts" who said
not to eat "saturated fat" were (and still are). He just
seems to want to combine science and religion/theology,
which makes no sense, unless one redefines science in a
radical way. In science, you've got to be willing to drop a
hypothesis or theory if evidence contradicts it. I don't
think tom/doe would ever be willing to do that, and
unfortunately, the same can be said of the "experts" who
don't seem to be reading any recent studies - they were
taught something in med school and they seem to think that
it was written in stone by God somewhere, and they are
hurting people, shortening peoples live, etc. When teaching
the history of science, I ask students what would religious
people say if men had one less rib than women. The idea is
that "fundamentalists" would say that this "proves" that the
Bible should be interpreted literally (a confirmation of the
creation of Eve story). Yet the fact that men and women have
the same number of ribs does not "prove" to these people
that the Bible should not be interpreted literally. If you
do not believe intellectual rigor is important, than why do
science at all? Why not just become a holy man/woman of some
sort, and go around acting like you know everything, without
talking about "scientific proof?" If you play chess with the
rules of checkers, you're not playing chess, are you? But
that's what tom/doe, and too many "experts" want to do.