According to an adage, “if health is lost, everything is lost”. The increasing health consciousness among individuals has given health experts a reason to look for reasons of health hazards. Consequently, many studies have been carried out to ascertain these reasons. The health experts, as per the given argument, have taken into consideration a five year study which investigates on the possible therapeutic effect of raw food diet. At the first glance, the five year study looks quite convincing due to the period the study has been carried out. However, this study is in itself questionable.
The five year study, although carried out for a good period, fails to clarify the number of people it has tested. What if, only 5 to 10 people might have undergone the experiment. The experts are overlooking the basic immunity of people, which is different for different people. All 5-10 people tested might have strong immune system and during the period of five years, they didn’t show any signs of common cold. On similar ground, number of people in control group, who were fed antioxidant supplimentaries, should also be revealed.
The study should also answer in what conditions were people in control group kept. What if, they were residing in countries which have comparatively lower temperatures thorughout the year. Consequently, common cold might have affected them more. On similar grounds, what if team which was being fed raw food resided in normal weather?
In the argument, the quantity of antioxidant being fed to people is also not revealed. What if, the amount of supplementary anioxidants being fed to control group is very less as compared to raw food being fed to other team. This might also affect the results in the end.
So, unless aforementioned questions are answered, we cannot conclude whether raw food diet is better than packaged antioxidants.