Marc, I desperately attend to the addage of "live and let live", but your thinly veiled diatribe of the medical profession (1 in 10 doctors has sex with patients??) in the context of this ongoing lecture on alternative diets, demands a response. Your proposals for healthy living seem no more grounded in reality than the campaign to use pyramid power as an alternative to fossil fuels. I'm not being sarcastic; I really think what you are espousing is of the same ilk. Medical science is, simply stated, incomplete. It is, and will be, subject to ongoing development, refinement, and frequent correction. But, as slow as the process of advancement may be, it is still subject to the rules of sound investigation and experimentation. When medical science conducts a study of the therapeutic quality of some agent, the participants of the study are randomized and the protocol is double-blinded (neither the researchers nor the participants know who is in the control group versus the test group). Participants are carefully selected to meet entry criteria (to avoid confounding variables) and the findings of the study are validated by rigorous statistical analysis. Before anything is published in a conventional medical journal, the editors send the article to three or more "peers" (ie experts in the respective field) who then read over the findings and decide whether the study procedure was sound and the findings justifiable. Even then, a single journal article will rarely change clincal practice. The study design if often repeated by different research groups to verify the findings before consensus guidelines are created. Admittedly it is not perfect, but it is the best we can do. I hate to impeach your authority in this subject, but what you are proposing in the preceding pages is very difficult to prove. Studies of alternative diets and medicines are often very poorly designed with exceptionally loose entry criteria. The analysis of the data is generally superficial at best and flawed at worst. But the most telling aspect is that, whenever an alternative claim is subject to the same rigorous model of testing as a conventional claim, it is impossible to duplicate the purported benefit. The scientific method is not exclusive to conventional medicine; it is available to alternative practioners, but still they persist in conducting sham studies with highly contestable findings. It is not elitism that makes us dismissive of their claims, just the fact that they are unwilling to play by the rules of proper investigation and experimentation. The fact that the gurus of alternative care continue to champion their wares knowing full well that it is based on no substantial evidence is.....well, it's less ethical than the ebay seller who advertises Zegna suits simply because they are made of that company's fabric. Again, if you have found a lifestyle that you are happy with, I applaud you. And, certainly, you are more than free to share it with the rest of us (fecal pics not withstanding). But if you impugn the integrity of conventional medical practioners and suggest that these icons of "better living through sprouts" are viable alternatives, you need more than a good herbal enema. You need a lengthy session with our own Dr. Bresch, comfortable sofa and all.