IFAW - Saving Harp Seals [Archive]

KrakAttiK

April 17th, 2004, 08:05 PM

http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/general/default.aspx?oid=21446

Saving Harp Seals

The Canadian government has announced plans to expand the seal hunt
and permit the deliberate culling of nearly one million seals over
three years... the highest level of government-sanctioned cruelty to
seals since the 1960s.

IFAW led the campaign to "Save the Seals" in the 1970's. Now we need
your help to stop this latest attack on defenseless seal pups.

IFAW Takes Action to End the Hunt
The seal hunt starts this week and IFAW is on the ice. Read our field
notes and view our photos and footage each day. Find out how you can
help stop the cruelty.
http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/general/default.aspx?oid=82073

Seal hunt facts
Learn more about government-sanctioned cruelty in the seal hunt. And
how you can save defenseless pups from suffering.
http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/general/default.aspx?oid=82078

Latest News
Click here to read the latest news on our campaign, in Canada and
around the world.
http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/general/default.aspx?oid=84957

Seal Images and Video: from the IFAW Archives
Feel free to use photos and videos from IFAW's archives to decorate
your desktop and help put an end to the seal hunt in Canada.

http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/general/default.aspx?oid=33930

Sign our
"Million Signatures
for a Million Seals"
Petition

http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/general/default.aspx?oid=85044

The Canadian government's plan to deliberately cull the harp seal herd
has no scientific justification and is out of step with modern
science. Sign our petition to call for an end to this cruel hunt.

PETITION TO THE CANADIAN HOUSE OF COMMONS

I, the undersigned, am deeply opposed to Canada’s plan to slaughter
nearly one million seals over a three-year period - the highest quota
in history. The vast majority of these animals (95%) are just days or
weeks old and continuing to ignore the cruelty and waste inherent in
this industry is simply unacceptable. Please act immediately to end
this abuse and repair the damage to Canada's reputation as a humane
and ecologically responsible society.

Cheerio

--
To avoid grizzlies, the Alaska Department of Fish & Game advises hikers
to wear noisy little bells on clothes and carry pepper spray. Also watch
for signs of activity: Black bear scat is smaller and contains berries;
grizzly scat has little bells in it and smells like pepper.

tsarkon

April 17th, 2004, 08:36 PM

Seals make tasty meals and I look forward to consuming many of them this
season.

KrakAttiK

April 17th, 2004, 08:40 PM

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 19:36:13 GMT, tsarkon > wrote:

>Seals make tasty meals and I look forward to consuming many of them this
>season.

Keep supporting the cull and you might find that's all you're left to
eat if the world boycotts CA.

Cheerio

--
To avoid grizzlies, the Alaska Department of Fish & Game advises hikers
to wear noisy little bells on clothes and carry pepper spray. Also watch
for signs of activity: Black bear scat is smaller and contains berries;
grizzly scat has little bells in it and smells like pepper.

Jim Carter

April 17th, 2004, 08:50 PM

Invective

April 17th, 2004, 09:13 PM

"KrakAttiK" > wrote in message
...
> http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/general/default.aspx?oid=21446
>
> Saving Harp Seals
>
> The Canadian government has announced plans to expand the seal hunt
> and permit the deliberate culling of nearly one million seals over
> three years... the highest level of government-sanctioned cruelty to
> seals since the 1960s.

All the children dying all over the world through starvation, disease and
war, and what do the fat arsed, mushy minded leftists worry themselves over?
Seals. Then they'll waddle into Macdonalds in their Gucci sandles and slurp
back their big macs.

Hey, lameoid, there are literally MILLIONS and MILLIONS of seals. You could
at least worry over some endangered animals. Oh, but the baby seals are so
cuuuuuuuuuuuuuttttteeee. Ohhhh. Oooohhhh.

Not when they get to be enormous, five hundred pound fish eating vacuums
cleaners, but hey, who wants to think about that, right? Fish are like,
slimy and stuff (ick!). Who cares about them!?

Ray

April 17th, 2004, 09:18 PM

"tsarkon" > wrote in message
news:NGfgc.147429$Pk3.92697@pd7tw1no...
> Seals make tasty meals and I look forward to consuming many of them this
> season.

Ah!

We have an Eskimo on the NG:-)

KrakAttiK

April 17th, 2004, 09:34 PM

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 20:13:07 GMT, "Invective" >
wrote:

>
>"KrakAttiK" > wrote in message
...
>> http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/general/default.aspx?oid=21446
>>
>> Saving Harp Seals
>>
>> The Canadian government has announced plans to expand the seal hunt
>> and permit the deliberate culling of nearly one million seals over
>> three years... the highest level of government-sanctioned cruelty to
>> seals since the 1960s.
>
>All the children dying all over the world through starvation, disease and
>war, and what do the fat arsed, mushy minded leftists worry themselves over?
>Seals. Then they'll waddle into Macdonalds in their Gucci sandles and slurp
>back their big macs.

Protecting seals from deviants is the same as protecting children from
deviants, in fact protecting anything from deviants is a priority.

I bet you have a fair old waddle yourself crouton arse!

>Hey, lameoid, there are literally MILLIONS and MILLIONS of seals. You could
>at least worry over some endangered animals. Oh, but the baby seals are so
>cuuuuuuuuuuuuuttttteeee. Ohhhh. Oooohhhh.

Got to stop the deviants here, before they start on the other wildlife
and the children, oops you already have.

>Not when they get to be enormous, five hundred pound fish eating vacuums
>cleaners, but hey, who wants to think about that, right? Fish are like,
>slimy and stuff (ick!). Who cares about them!?

Don't eat fish either, in fact just get a life goofy.

Cheerio

--
To avoid grizzlies, the Alaska Department of Fish & Game advises hikers
to wear noisy little bells on clothes and carry pepper spray. Also watch
for signs of activity: Black bear scat is smaller and contains berries;
grizzly scat has little bells in it and smells like pepper.

Ködos

April 17th, 2004, 10:15 PM

"KrakAttiK" > wrote in message
...
> http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/general/default.aspx?oid=21446
>
> Saving Harp Seals

> Cheerio
>
> --

I say! How are things in Merry Old England?

Now **** off. Killing Seals is good fun and you know it. You're just
jealous that you can't get in on it.

Ködos

April 17th, 2004, 10:25 PM

Club a seal for Jesus.

Andy

April 17th, 2004, 10:59 PM

"KrakAttiK" > wrote in message
...
| http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/general/default.aspx?oid=21446
|
| Saving Harp Seals

Hey ****-wit. they dont kill baby harp seals. Eben the National Geographic
says so.

I have seen you retards using those picture from the 70s still.

I am going to Canada for skiing.

Olaf Timandahaff

April 18th, 2004, 01:48 AM

The game never ends, when, KrakAttiK >'s
whole world depends, on the turn of a friendly card:

>On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 19:36:13 GMT, tsarkon > wrote:
>
>>Seals make tasty meals and I look forward to consuming many of them this
>>season.
>
>Keep supporting the cull and you might find that's all you're left to
>eat if the world boycotts CA.
>
I wrote a letter to Newfoundland about this very thing and they were
very helpful. I don't like these namby-pamby sealskin coats that are
all nice and fluffy. I dress in my own punk style. They had a special
coat made up for me out of some old boiler of a Cod Inhaler they ran
over with a boat [& shot several times] It is absolutely Bee-youti-
Full! It has propeellor lacerations and more bullet holes than Sonny
Corleone. Hip & Punk, that coat has it all!
>
>
>
>Cheerio

Yes they are good too.

@* sympatico.ca

April 19th, 2004, 09:58 PM

You annal *******s have probably never been outside the urban life you
live. Stay in England where you belong. Because of you we have no more
Cod.

KrakAttiK wrote:
> http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/general/default.aspx?oid=21446
>
> Saving Harp Seals
>
>
>
> The Canadian government has announced plans to expand the seal hunt
> and permit the deliberate culling of nearly one million seals over
> three years... the highest level of government-sanctioned cruelty to
> seals since the 1960s.
>
>
>
> IFAW led the campaign to "Save the Seals" in the 1970's. Now we need
> your help to stop this latest attack on defenseless seal pups.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> IFAW Takes Action to End the Hunt
> The seal hunt starts this week and IFAW is on the ice. Read our field
> notes and view our photos and footage each day. Find out how you can
> help stop the cruelty.
> http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/general/default.aspx?oid=82073
>
>
>
>
> Seal hunt facts
> Learn more about government-sanctioned cruelty in the seal hunt. And
> how you can save defenseless pups from suffering.
> http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/general/default.aspx?oid=82078
>
>
>
>
> Latest News
> Click here to read the latest news on our campaign, in Canada and
> around the world.
> http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/general/default.aspx?oid=84957
>
>
>
>
> Seal Images and Video: from the IFAW Archives
> Feel free to use photos and videos from IFAW's archives to decorate
> your desktop and help put an end to the seal hunt in Canada.
>
> http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/general/default.aspx?oid=33930
>
>
> Sign our
> "Million Signatures
> for a Million Seals"
> Petition
>
> http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/general/default.aspx?oid=85044
>
> The Canadian government's plan to deliberately cull the harp seal herd
> has no scientific justification and is out of step with modern
> science. Sign our petition to call for an end to this cruel hunt.
>
>
>
>
>
> PETITION TO THE CANADIAN HOUSE OF COMMONS
>
>
>
> I, the undersigned, am deeply opposed to Canada’s plan to slaughter
> nearly one million seals over a three-year period - the highest quota
> in history. The vast majority of these animals (95%) are just days or
> weeks old and continuing to ignore the cruelty and waste inherent in
> this industry is simply unacceptable. Please act immediately to end
> this abuse and repair the damage to Canada's reputation as a humane
> and ecologically responsible society.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Cheerio
>

@* sympatico.ca

April 19th, 2004, 09:59 PM

You anal *******s have probably never been outside the urban life you
live. Stay in England where you belong. Because of you we have no more
Cod.

KrakAttiK wrote:
> http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/general/default.aspx?oid=21446
>
> Saving Harp Seals
>
>
>
> The Canadian government has announced plans to expand the seal hunt
> and permit the deliberate culling of nearly one million seals over
> three years... the highest level of government-sanctioned cruelty to
> seals since the 1960s.
>
>
>
> IFAW led the campaign to "Save the Seals" in the 1970's. Now we need
> your help to stop this latest attack on defenseless seal pups.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> IFAW Takes Action to End the Hunt
> The seal hunt starts this week and IFAW is on the ice. Read our field
> notes and view our photos and footage each day. Find out how you can
> help stop the cruelty.
> http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/general/default.aspx?oid=82073
>
>
>
>
> Seal hunt facts
> Learn more about government-sanctioned cruelty in the seal hunt. And
> how you can save defenseless pups from suffering.
> http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/general/default.aspx?oid=82078
>
>
>
>
> Latest News
> Click here to read the latest news on our campaign, in Canada and
> around the world.
> http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/general/default.aspx?oid=84957
>
>
>
>
> Seal Images and Video: from the IFAW Archives
> Feel free to use photos and videos from IFAW's archives to decorate
> your desktop and help put an end to the seal hunt in Canada.
>
> http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/general/default.aspx?oid=33930
>
>
> Sign our
> "Million Signatures
> for a Million Seals"
> Petition
>
> http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/general/default.aspx?oid=85044
>
> The Canadian government's plan to deliberately cull the harp seal herd
> has no scientific justification and is out of step with modern
> science. Sign our petition to call for an end to this cruel hunt.
>
>
>
>
>
> PETITION TO THE CANADIAN HOUSE OF COMMONS
>
>
>
> I, the undersigned, am deeply opposed to Canada’s plan to slaughter
> nearly one million seals over a three-year period - the highest quota
> in history. The vast majority of these animals (95%) are just days or
> weeks old and continuing to ignore the cruelty and waste inherent in
> this industry is simply unacceptable. Please act immediately to end
> this abuse and repair the damage to Canada's reputation as a humane
> and ecologically responsible society.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Cheerio
>

@* sympatico.ca

April 19th, 2004, 10:00 PM

Jeff T

April 20th, 2004, 12:18 AM

"KrakAttiK" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 19:36:13 GMT, tsarkon > wrote:
>
> >Seals make tasty meals and I look forward to consuming many of them this
> >season.
>
> Keep supporting the cull and you might find that's all you're left to
> eat if the world boycotts CA.
>
>

Thanks to ******s like you, I have choosen not to go on vacation in the
Great "Hypocrite" Britian region. Instead, I will stay in Canada, and spend
my money here... Honestly, having walked this earth more then once, the
Brits are as arrogant and ignorant as the Americans anyways, I'm much
happier here.

The money saved I will take a longer vacation in Asia later this year...
Maybe I will snack on some dog or cat while I'm there.

>
>
> Cheerio
>
> --
> To avoid grizzlies, the Alaska Department of Fish & Game advises hikers
> to wear noisy little bells on clothes and carry pepper spray. Also watch
> for signs of activity: Black bear scat is smaller and contains berries;
> grizzly scat has little bells in it and smells like pepper.

Invective

April 20th, 2004, 11:24 PM

"KrakAttiK" > wrote in message
...
> http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/general/default.aspx?oid=21446
>
> Saving Harp Seals
>
>
Fri, April 16, 2004

The slaughter of the truth
By MICHAEL HARRIS -- For the Ottawa Sun

Not much has changed since that brilliant March day back in 1981 on the St.
John's waterfront when Captain Morrissey Johnson threw a Greenpeace
demonstrator off the deck of the Lady Johnson before setting sail for the
annual Newfoundland seal hunt.

I can still hear the smack. The young lady hit the wharf with a thud heard
around the world. The crowd of Newfoundlanders cheered lustily. They were
there for the traditional blessing of the fleet, wishing safe passage for
their "swilers" and they didn't appreciate the international condemnation
and humiliation that the "come-from-aways" were dishing out.

What their urban denouncers did not know is that many of the people on the
dock that day had lost family members in the annual trek to the hunt which
had been going on since 1800. In the 19th century, the seal hunt, then a
land-based harvest, accounted for a staggering one-third of Newfoundland's
exports. Much of the island's history has been written in human blood in the
twin quest for cod and seal.

To this day, seal flippers are a hot commodity on the St. John's waterfront
every spring, the main ingredient in flipper pie. Newfoundland is a place
where rural people still have their feed of moose, caribou, seal, ptarmigan,
and wild salmon according to the season. There are no sushi restaurants in
places like Harbour Grace, Twillingate, or Harbour Breton. But there is the
land and sea and everything in them.

All these years later, emotions are still running high. In the United
Kingdom, the Independent made the seal hunt its lead story under the
headline, "The Bloody Slaughter." Even the BBC intoned that up to 350,000
"baby seals" would be killed this season, a gross distortion of the facts.
And so the standoff continues. Newfoundlanders sorely resent their
vilification by animal rights activists and the protesters continue to
display an appalling ignorance and opportunistic exploitation of the seal
hunt. Brigitte Bardot may have been replaced by Paris Hilton as the poster
girl of the anti-sealing lobby, but the appeal is unchanged; a triumph of
marketing over matter.

Forgotten in the bloody pictures of "whitecoats" being clubbed to death is
the harsh reality of all animal slaughter. Whether it is chickens in a mass
production facility, cattle in a stockyard, or seals on the March ice off
Newfoundland's northeast coast, there is nothing pleasant about the
commercial harvesting of any living creature for human consumption --
regardless of what part is being consumed.

Most of our urban kill floors are dark inner sanctums the public never gets
to see. The great difference in the seal hunt is that it is an outdoor
abattoir operation involving wild animals. The blood that is spilled is
there for all to see. The impact is gruesome enough against the dazzling
white snow and ice, but when you depict the slaughter of a baby seal that
looks more like a stuffed toy than a creature in the wild it is emotionally
devastating.

It was largely because of that horrific image that the International Fund
for Animal Welfare (IFAW) was able to raise $80 million a year to fund their
anti-seal hunt protests in the 1980s -- an amount six times greater than the
entire budget of the Newfoundland Fisheries Department to run an industry
and fight back against well-financed detractors.

Newfoundlanders are appalled by the hypocrisy factor. The French could
force-feed geese to bloat their livers for foie gras, calves could be
dispatched by the thousands for their livers and veal cutlets, lambs could
be butchered for their prized rack, and cattle might be dismembered alive on
slaughterhouse assembly lines, but there weren't many photo ops (or for that
matter photographers), for those far vaster but largely accepted varieties
of death on wheels.

The icefields are another matter. Protesters documented, and in some cases,
orchestrated, the most horrific images imaginable in which Newfoundlanders
came across as sadistic brutes who routinely skinned baby seals alive for
fun and profit. The protesters were so good at public relations that by 1983
the large-vessel seal hunt in Newfoundland was closed as country after
country, including the United States, caved in to Greenpeace and the IFAW
and banned the sale of seal products within their borders.

More importantly, the real poster star of the anti-sealing campaign, the
cute and cuddly whitecoat, has not been hunted since 1987, when it was given
legal protection by the federal government -- protection that extends to
this day. Yet when the Department of Fisheries and Oceans sanctioned this
year's cull of 300,000 harp seals, the anti-sealing lobby reproduced
pictures of the same animals that are no longer being hunted to condemn a
practice that they have seriously distorted and never understood. The
U.S.-based Humane Society is taking full-page ads in big American newspapers
to urge a travel boycott on Canada -- the same group that was silent on the
destruction of migratory salmon stocks at the hands of U.S. fishermen.

The successful closing down of the annual seal hunt has been devastating to
coastal communities in Newfoundland. Traditionally, the hunt provided
fishermen with their first cash of the year and a means of outfitting
themselves for the new fishing season. Since 1992, when the cod fishery was
closed because of gross human overfishing, the intervention on behalf of the
harp and hooded seal has led to an explosion in the size of their herds at
the worst possible moment. In 1983, when the commercial hunt was closed,
there were 3.1 million harp seals and roughly 450,000 hooded seals. Today,
the herd has doubled in size, and that is bad news for Newfoundland's
decimated cod stocks.

Seals are prodigious feeders. They eat fish to the tune of 6% of their body
weight per day. Although cod comprise only 3% of the seal's diet, the size
of the herd has a deadly multiplier effect. In 1994, seals consumed 88,000
metric tonnes of cod off Newfoundland's northeast coast, compared to just
24,000 tonnes caught by the commercial fishery in the last year of the cod
fishery before the closure. The grim fact comes down to this: Whether seals
eat juvenile cod (38,000 fish to the tonne) or the cod's favorite food,
caplin, they have a profound effect on the ocean's food web when their
numbers are very high and the northern cod has been all but wiped out.
Protecting one animal in the ocean's ecosystem without understanding the
impact of the intervention on others is not compassion but tampering. For
years, the sorcerer's apprentice has been loose on the Grand Banks. Perhaps
that is why Greenpeace, traditionally a vocal opponent of the hunt, has
decided not to campaign against the cull this year.

Did the seals wipe out the northern cod? No, man did. Is every part of the
seal hunt noble? Of course not. The harvesting of animals for their penises
which are a hot aphrodisiac in China, is deplorable. (The practice has been
banned.) But for the 11,000 Newfoundlanders who still get an important part
of their income from today's limited seal hunt, they are not there to feed
China's erotic fantasies or skin baby animals alive. They are there to cling
to their bald rock and make a living with what's at hand, just as they've
always done.

Within the regulations of the hunt and the fiats of basic humanity, they
should be left alone to do it.

William J. Wolfe

April 21st, 2004, 09:02 AM

tsarkon > wrote in message news:<NGfgc.147429$Pk3.92697@pd7tw1no>...
> Seals make tasty meals and I look forward to consuming many of them this
> season.

A-MEN! There is nothing so stimulating and satisfying as fresh killed
wild meat, whether its any one of a hundred species of fish, duck or
goose, or whether its whale, deer, kangaroo, impala, springbok or pig.
Leave the grain stuffed tasteless beef and pork for the weak of
stomach, give me wild meat any day.

Oh yeah, meat eaters are better lovers.

William J. Wolfe

April 21st, 2004, 09:05 AM

"Andy" > wrote in message >...
> "KrakAttiK" > wrote in message
> ...
> | http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/general/default.aspx?oid=21446
> |
> | Saving Harp Seals
>
> Hey ****-wit. they dont kill baby harp seals. Eben the National Geographic
> says so.
>
> I have seen you retards using those picture from the 70s still.
>
> I am going to Canada for skiing.

Bugger the skiing. That's like being a heroin addict on ice. Climb up
high, then slide back down again.

I'm going to Canada to do some serious hunting. Nothing like a Caribou
steak on a cold Canadain winter night, washed down with a bottle of a
good dry red wine.

Wally

April 21st, 2004, 02:09 PM

pearl

April 21st, 2004, 04:44 PM

"William J. Wolfe" > wrote in message
om...
<..>
> Oh yeah, meat eaters are better lovers.

- Interesting that you should feel a need to point that out. ..

'.. a high level of total cholesterol and a low level of high
density lipoprotein cholesterol are important risk factors
for erectile dysfunction. '
http://aje.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/140/10/930

'Researchers have established that though erections can be
inspired by everything under the sun, ultimately they depend
on blood flow. And, just as blockages in the arteries to the
heart can cause a heart attack and choked-off blood to the
brain can lead to a stroke, when the arteries to the genitals
are clogged, that part of the body will not work so well either.
When the arteries are impeded only slightly, it takes longer
to get an erection. As the obstruction worsens, complete
impotence occurs. By age 60, this affects one in four
American men.

The bad news is that artery blockages, a major cause of
erectile dysfunction, are strongly linked to one of America's
most popular food categories-meat. The good news is that
such blockages can be prevented, and even reversed, by
changes in diet and lifestyle.

Breakthrough research by Dean Ornish, M.D., at the
University of California-San Francisco showed that a
combination of a low-fat vegetarian diet, moderate exercise,
stress management, and no smoking lets the arteries begin to
clean themselves out in 82 percent of patients. Many of the
other factors contributing to impotence, including diabetes,
obesity, and hypertension, can also be influenced by a menu
change. Side effects from various medications are another
root cause of impotence. In fact, two of the worst culprits are
blood pressure pills and cholesterol-lowering drugs, both
prescribed for conditions that could be dramatically improved
by a vegetarian diet. With the right food and exercise, many
men can cut back on, and even discontinue, drug therapy.
...'
http://www.pcrm.org/health/Commentary/commentary9806.html

William J. Wolfe

April 21st, 2004, 11:08 PM

"pearl" > wrote in message >...

>
> - Interesting that you should feel a need to point that out. ..

<remainder of rant deleted to conserve electrons>

And the point of your ravings is ...?

William J. Wolfe

April 21st, 2004, 11:10 PM

"Wally" > wrote in message >...
> "William J. Wolfe" > wrote in message
> om...
> | "Andy" > wrote in message
> >...
> | > "KrakAttiK" > wrote in message
> | > ...
> | > | http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/general/default.aspx?oid=21446
> | > |
> | > | Saving Harp Seals
> | >
> | > Hey ****-wit. they dont kill baby harp seals. Eben the National
> Geographic
> | > says so.
> | >
> | > I have seen you retards using those picture from the 70s still.
> | >
> | > I am going to Canada for skiing.
> |
> | Bugger the skiing. That's like being a heroin addict on ice. Climb up
> | high, then slide back down again.
> |
> | I'm going to Canada to do some serious hunting. Nothing like a Caribou
> | steak on a cold Canadain winter night, washed down with a bottle of a
> | good dry red wine.
>
> Sauteered in baby harp oils, with a dash of crispy dolphin skin?

No ****ing way. If I want fish flavoured meat I eat fish.

[email protected]

April 22nd, 2004, 12:15 AM

On 21 Apr 2004 15:08:27 -0700, (William J.
Wolfe) wrote:

>"pearl" > wrote in message >...
>
>>
>> - Interesting that you should feel a need to point that out. ..
>
><remainder of rant deleted to conserve electrons>
>
>And the point of your ravings is ...?

Eat meat, die young(er) and leave the world to the meek.

rick etter

April 22nd, 2004, 12:21 AM

"Terry Crawford" > wrote in message
...
> On 21 Apr 2004 15:08:27 -0700, (William J.
> Wolfe) wrote:
>
> >"pearl" > wrote in message
>...
> >
> >>
> >> - Interesting that you should feel a need to point that out. ..
> >
> ><remainder of rant deleted to conserve electrons>
> >
> >And the point of your ravings is ...?
>
> Eat meat, die young(er) and leave the world to the meek.
==================
Only problem is that isn't the case. The longest lived people as a group in
the world are not vegans. Kinda screws the whole vegan rant, doesnt it?

>

William J. Wolfe

April 22nd, 2004, 07:41 AM

Terry Crawford ) wrote in message >...
> On 21 Apr 2004 15:08:27 -0700, (William J.
> Wolfe) wrote:
>
> >"pearl" > wrote in message >...
> >
> >>
> >> - Interesting that you should feel a need to point that out. ..
> >
> ><remainder of rant deleted to conserve electrons>
> >
> >And the point of your ravings is ...?
>
> Eat meat, die young(er) and leave the world to the meek.

Meaning you, little lettuce muncher. As some nutrition person once
told me - "you are what you eat." Who wants to look like a ****ing
lentil.

William J. Wolfe

April 22nd, 2004, 07:45 AM

"rick etter" > wrote in message t>...
> "Terry Crawford" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On 21 Apr 2004 15:08:27 -0700, (William J.
> > Wolfe) wrote:
> >
> > >"pearl" > wrote in message
> >...
> > >
> > >>
> > >> - Interesting that you should feel a need to point that out. ..
> > >
> > ><remainder of rant deleted to conserve electrons>
> > >
> > >And the point of your ravings is ...?
> >
> > Eat meat, die young(er) and leave the world to the meek.
> ==================
> Only problem is that isn't the case. The longest lived people as a group in
> the world are not vegans. Kinda screws the whole vegan rant, doesnt it?

Rabid veggie munchers are just like he other antisocial bigots, the
queers, the antinukes, the tree huggers, the flat earthers. They will
grab at any straw of insignificant evidence to promote their cause.

[email protected]

April 23rd, 2004, 07:54 PM

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 23:21:18 GMT, "rick etter" >
wrote:

>
>"Terry Crawford" > wrote in message
...
>> On 21 Apr 2004 15:08:27 -0700, (William J.
>> Wolfe) wrote:
>>
>> >"pearl" > wrote in message
>...
>> >
>> >>
>> >> - Interesting that you should feel a need to point that out. ..
>> >
>> ><remainder of rant deleted to conserve electrons>
>> >
>> >And the point of your ravings is ...?
>>
>> Eat meat, die young(er) and leave the world to the meek.
>==================
>Only problem is that isn't the case. The longest lived people as a group in
>the world are not vegans. Kinda screws the whole vegan rant, doesnt it?
>
>

Damn. OK, steak tonight with a nice big Cabernet Suauvignon. MMMmmmm.

[email protected]

April 23rd, 2004, 07:54 PM

On 21 Apr 2004 23:41:37 -0700, (William J.
Wolfe) wrote:

>Terry Crawford ) wrote in message >...
>> On 21 Apr 2004 15:08:27 -0700, (William J.
>> Wolfe) wrote:
>>
>> >"pearl" > wrote in message >...
>> >
>> >>
>> >> - Interesting that you should feel a need to point that out. ..
>> >
>> ><remainder of rant deleted to conserve electrons>
>> >
>> >And the point of your ravings is ...?
>>
>> Eat meat, die young(er) and leave the world to the meek.
>
>Meaning you, little lettuce muncher. As some nutrition person once
>told me - "you are what you eat." Who wants to look like a ****ing
>lentil.

Yow. The thing about these postings and email in general is that I
write a and you (all of us) some times read b.

I am not against veg heads and don't care what they shove down their
gullets. I am an omnivore, just like dog planned it. I do object of
course that the veg heads have mounted some morally superior bitch and
are riding it for all it is worth. I won't tell them how to live their
llives and they can do the same. And we all just get along, real nice
like.

pearl

April 23rd, 2004, 11:48 PM

"Terry Crawford" > wrote in message ...
> On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 23:21:18 GMT, "rick etter" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Terry Crawford" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On 21 Apr 2004 15:08:27 -0700, (William J.
> >> Wolfe) wrote:
> >>
> >> >"pearl" > wrote in message
> >...
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> - Interesting that you should feel a need to point that out. ..
> >> >
> >> ><remainder of rant deleted to conserve electrons>
> >> >
> >> >And the point of your ravings is ...?
> >>
> >> Eat meat, die young(er) and leave the world to the meek.
> >==================
> >Only problem is that isn't the case. The longest lived people as a group in
> >the world are not vegans. Kinda screws the whole vegan rant, doesnt it?
> >
> >
>
> Damn. OK, steak tonight with a nice big Cabernet Suauvignon. MMMmmmm.

Actually, the people etter, our dietary wizardness, was referring to
are vegetarians. That's right,- vegetarian Seventh-day Adventists.
Longevity of the vegan sub-set wasn't studied seperately, afaIa, but
other epidemiological (study of populations) research shows that
vegans are less at risk of chronic disease than lacto-ovo vegetarians.
Kind of really screws the whole meatarian rant, doesn't it, eh etter?

Dutch

April 24th, 2004, 02:22 AM

"pearl" > wrote
> "Terry Crawford" > wrote
> > On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 23:21:18 GMT, "rick etter" >
> > wrote:

[..]
> > >> Eat meat, die young(er) and leave the world to the meek.
> > >==================
> > >Only problem is that isn't the case. The longest lived people as a
group in
> > >the world are not vegans. Kinda screws the whole vegan rant, doesnt
it?

> > Damn. OK, steak tonight with a nice big Cabernet Suauvignon. MMMmmmm.
>
> Actually, the people etter, our dietary wizardness, was referring to
> are vegetarians. That's right,- vegetarian Seventh-day Adventists.

He's referring to the longest-lived race of people in the world, the
Okinawans, who consume one to three servings of fish a day, along with soy,
lots of fresh fruits and vegetables, some poultry and eggs, and almost no
processed foods or alcohol.

> Longevity of the vegan sub-set wasn't studied seperately, afaIa, but
> other epidemiological (study of populations) research shows that
> vegans are less at risk of chronic disease than lacto-ovo vegetarians.
> Kind of really screws the whole meatarian rant, doesn't it, eh etter?

No rant, just a fact that dispels one of the myths of veganism.

rick etter

April 24th, 2004, 03:14 AM

"pearl" > wrote in message
...
> "Terry Crawford" > wrote in message
...
> > On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 23:21:18 GMT, "rick etter" >
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Terry Crawford" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >> On 21 Apr 2004 15:08:27 -0700, (William J.
> > >> Wolfe) wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >"pearl" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > >> >
> > >> >>
> > >> >> - Interesting that you should feel a need to point that out. ..
> > >> >
> > >> ><remainder of rant deleted to conserve electrons>
> > >> >
> > >> >And the point of your ravings is ...?
> > >>
> > >> Eat meat, die young(er) and leave the world to the meek.
> > >==================
> > >Only problem is that isn't the case. The longest lived people as a
group in
> > >the world are not vegans. Kinda screws the whole vegan rant, doesnt
it?
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Damn. OK, steak tonight with a nice big Cabernet Suauvignon. MMMmmmm.
>
> Actually, the people etter, our dietary wizardness, was referring to
> are vegetarians. That's right,- vegetarian Seventh-day Adventists.
> Longevity of the vegan sub-set wasn't studied seperately, afaIa, but
> other epidemiological (study of populations) research shows that
> vegans are less at risk of chronic disease than lacto-ovo vegetarians.
> Kind of really screws the whole meatarian rant, doesn't it, eh etter?
====================
Not at all, fool. You should learn to read real things instead of your
propaganda. The longest lived groups of people are not vegan, period.
Your whole religion is still just smoke and mirrors, killer.

>
>

William J. Wolfe

April 24th, 2004, 05:48 AM

"Ködos" > wrote in message >...
> Club a seal for Jesus.

If not for Jesus, please do it for the children. For goodness sake,
think of the children.

usual suspect

April 24th, 2004, 02:28 PM

Inner-earth Lesley wrote:
>>>>>>- Interesting that you should feel a need to point that out. ..
>>>>>
>>>>><remainder of rant deleted to conserve electrons>
>>>>>
>>>>>And the point of your ravings is ...?
>>>>
>>>>Eat meat, die young(er) and leave the world to the meek.
>>>
>>>==================
>>>Only problem is that isn't the case. The longest lived people as a group in
>>>the world are not vegans. Kinda screws the whole vegan rant, doesnt it?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Damn. OK, steak tonight with a nice big Cabernet Suauvignon. MMMmmmm.
>
> Actually, the people etter, our dietary wizardness, was referring to
> are vegetarians. That's right,- vegetarian Seventh-day Adventists.

Be fully accurate in describing SDAs in the study. They are:
- vegetarians
- tee-totalers (zero alcohol consumption)
- non-smokers
- regular exercisers
- active church members
- Christians
- very moderate/temperate sorts

It's not just the diet that explains longevity. It's the entire lifestyle. Why
aren't you pushing for people to attend church, to not smoke, to get regular
exercise, and to abstain from booze, Chelsea?

> Longevity of the vegan sub-set wasn't studied seperately,

Probably the best science we have was summarized in the American Journal
of Clinical Nutrition in 1999, in an article entitled Mortality in
Vegetarians and Nonvegetarians. In an enormous undertaking, twelve
researchers took all of the biggest and best studies to date on
vegetarian mortality rates and pooled all the data together. They took a
decade of mortality data from 28,000 vegetarians from Germany,
California, and Britain. And found... no survival advantage for
vegetarians. What about vegans though? Despite even having lower
cholesterol levels than vegetarians, the vegans in the study didn't live
any longer either. Vegans had the same mortality rate as meateaters.
http://vegnews.org/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=121

> afaIa, but
> other epidemiological (study of populations) research shows that
> vegans are less at risk of chronic disease than lacto-ovo vegetarians.

Ipse dixit. Comparative studies between Western omnivorous populationad and
Indian vegetarian populations shows that people tend to die of the same causes
regardless of culture or diet.

It is usually claimed that the lives of predominantly meat-eating
peoples are short-lived, but the Aborigines of Australia, who
traditionally eat a diet rich in animal products, are known for their
longevity (at least before colonisation by Europeans). Within Aboriginal
society, there is a special caste of the elderly (42). Obviously, if no
old people existed, no such group would have existed. In his book
Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, Dr. Price has numerous photographs
of elderly native peoples from around the world (42). Explorers such as
Vilhjalmur Stefansson reported great longevity among the Inuit (again,
before colonisation). (43)

Similarly, the Russians of the Caucasus mountains live to great ages on
a diet of fatty pork and whole milk products. The Hunzas, also known for
their robust health and longevity, eat substantial portions of goat's
milk which has a higher saturated fat content than cow's milk (44). In
contrast, the largely vegetarian inhabitants of southern India have the
shortest life-spans in the world (45). Dr Weston Price, DDS, travelled
around the world in the 1920s and 1930s, investigating native diets.
Without exception, he found a strong correlation among diets rich in
animal fats, with robust health and athletic ability. Special foods for
Swiss athletes, for example, included bowls of fresh, raw cream! In
Africa, Dr Price discovered that groups whose diets were rich in fatty
fish and organ meats, like liver, consistently carried off the prizes in
athletic contests, and that meat-eating tribes always dominated peoples
whose diets were largely vegetarian (42).
http://www.vegetarian-diet.info/vegetarian-diet-issues-lifespan.htm

> Kind of really screws the whole meatarian rant, doesn't it, eh etter?

Quite the contrary, Lesley. Those who eat balanced diets and have balanced lives
tend to outlive their less temperate counterparts.

Dutch

April 25th, 2004, 02:32 AM

"pearl" > wrote
> http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/70/3/525S

The problem I have with the Oxford study is that they grouped all
meat-eaters together as a single group, those 23% who ate meat once a week
or less were averaged in with those who who ate it several times a day, and
did not differentiate between those who avoided pork, fatty meats, or all
red meat. IOW people with very poor dietary habits were grouped with those
meat-eaters whose results may have been very favorable. Generally. consuming
larger amounts of fresh fruit and vegetables relative to meats is more
healthy, that's a given.

Bryan

April 25th, 2004, 05:08 AM

You are both right and you are both wrong. There will always be those
examples in nature and the world that will forever confound the experts and
spit in the face of science. Accept that premise, and the rest is mashed
potatoes and gravy.... now back to boating

Bryan

pearl

April 25th, 2004, 10:48 AM

"Dutch" > wrote in message ...
> "pearl" > wrote

Not indicating snips now Dutch?

How about acknowledging that you were wrong about Adventists?

> > http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/70/3/525S
>
> The problem I have with the Oxford study is that they grouped all
> meat-eaters together as a single group, those 23% who ate meat once a week
> or less were averaged in with those who who ate it several times a day, and
> did not differentiate between those who avoided pork, fatty meats, or all
> red meat. IOW people with very poor dietary habits were grouped with those
> meat-eaters whose results may have been very favorable.

'The most striking results from the analysis were the strong positive
associations between increasing consumption of animal fats and ischemic
heart disease mortality [death rate ratios (and 95% CIs) for the highest
third of intake compared with the lowest third in subjects with no prior
disease were 3.29 (1.50, 7.21) for total animal fat, 2.77 (1.25, 6.13)
for saturated animal fat, and 3.53 (1.57, 7.96) for dietary cholesterol;
P for trend: <0.01, <0.01, and <0.001, respectively]. '

> Generally. consuming
> larger amounts of fresh fruit and vegetables relative to meats is more
> healthy, that's a given.

'.. disease rates were significantly associated within a range of dietary
plant food composition that suggested an absence of a disease prevention
threshold. That is, the closer a diet is to an all-plant foods diet, the greater
will be the reduction in the rates of these diseases.'
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Nov98/thermogenesis_paper.html

usual suspect

April 26th, 2004, 10:57 PM

pearl wrote:
<...>
>>Adventists to a person do not smoke or drink alcohol and they maintain close
>>supportive family relationships. The effect of their diets per se apart from
>>these other factors is not known.
>
> Animal product consumption and mortality because of all
> causes combined, coronary heart disease, stroke, diabetes,
> and cancer in Seventh-day Adventists.

Probably the best science we have was summarized in the American Journal
of Clinical Nutrition in 1999, in an article entitled Mortality in
Vegetarians and Nonvegetarians. In an enormous undertaking, twelve
researchers took all of the biggest and best studies to date on
vegetarian mortality rates and pooled all the data together. They took a
decade of mortality data from 28,000 vegetarians from Germany,
California, and Britain. And found... no survival advantage for
vegetarians. What about vegans though? Despite even having lower
cholesterol levels than vegetarians, the vegans in the study didn't live
any longer either. Vegans had the same mortality rate as meateaters.
http://vegnews.org/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=121

<...>

pearl

April 27th, 2004, 01:16 PM

"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote:
> <...>
> >>Adventists to a person do not smoke or drink alcohol and they maintain close
> >>supportive family relationships. The effect of their diets per se apart from
> >>these other factors is not known.
> >
> > Animal product consumption and mortality because of all
> > causes combined, coronary heart disease, stroke, diabetes,
> > and cancer in Seventh-day Adventists.
>
> Probably the best science we have was summarized in the American Journal
> of Clinical Nutrition in 1999, in an article entitled Mortality in
> Vegetarians and Nonvegetarians. In an enormous undertaking, twelve
> researchers took all of the biggest and best studies to date on
> vegetarian mortality rates and pooled all the data together. They took a
> decade of mortality data from 28,000 vegetarians from Germany,
> California, and Britain. And found... no survival advantage for
> vegetarians. What about vegans though? Despite even having lower
> cholesterol levels than vegetarians, the vegans in the study didn't live
> any longer either. Vegans had the same mortality rate as meateaters.
> http://vegnews.org/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=121

But the S-D Adventists, study says otherwise.
Any idea what their agricultural methods are?

The article you quote goes on;

'.. it's important to realize that even as we vegetarians are now
with no changes, just because we don't seem to live longer, doesn't
mean we're not healthier. These studies were of mortality rates only.
Everybody's got to die some time and so it's not only how long one
lives, but also how well one lives. Vegetarians still have less heart
disease, less obesity, less hypertension, less diabetes, less colon
cancer-even less emergency appendectomies. The list goes on and
on. So it still makes sense to go vegetarian, just for health reasons
alone, but with all that one would think we'd have a survival
advantage. We have a tremendous potential for reducing heart
disease risk, but there's something getting in our way. What is it
about vegetarian and especially vegan diets that's increasing our
risk of heart disease so much that it's canceling out our potential?

The first reason why vegetarian nutrition experts think we're not
doing as well as we should is that we're not getting enough omega 3
fatty acids in our diet and we're getting too many omega 6 fatty
acids. For more information about these essential fatty acids, I
recommend the book Becoming Vegan by Melina and Davis and
an article by Jack Norris, R.D. entitled "Staying a Healthy Vegan"
at http://www.veganoutreach.org/health/stayinghealthy.html.

Suffice to say that every vegetarian and vegan should:

Step 1. Every day eat 1-2 tablespoons of ground up flax seeds

Step 2. If you have any of the following oils in your house, throw
them away: corn oil, safflower oil, sunflower oil, or cottonseed oil.
If you feel the need to use oil, use olive or canola instead.

Reason number two why we're not living up to our potential-
or more accurately, living out to our potential is probably even
more important. Reasons number two is homocysteine.
Homocysteine is a toxic metabolite-it attacks our blood vessels,
it' attacks our brain cells; it's a risk factor for heart disease, for
stroke, for Alzheimer's and a growing number of other diseases.
And, up to 25% of lacto-vegetarians and 80% of vegans have
seriously elevated levels in their blood. This is probably why the
latest research suggests vegetarians have over twice the risk of
dying from degenerative brain diseases.

Why do we build up more of this toxic stuff than meat-eaters?
Because, simply, we don't get enough vitamin B12. We now
have quite convincing data that there seems to be an epidemic
of this functional B12 deficiency among vegans. Every person
on this planet needs a regular and reliable source of B12. For
vegans this means vitamin B12 supplements or vitamin B12
fortified foods.

If one chooses the supplement route, one can take 100mcg
of B12 once a day, or 2000mcg once a week. Ideally the
supplements should be chewed or let to dissolve under the
tongue. Alternately, if one relies solely on B12 fortified foods,
one needs to eat servings of B12-fortified foods at least twice
a day, There does not seem to be a harm of taking too much.
And if you haven't been getting enough, once you start
supplementing your diet, odds are your homocysteine levels
will drop, you may physically and mentally feel better, and
you'll lower your risk of becoming paralyzed, demented and
dead-all for just pennies a day!

{pearl- beneficial gut microflora (which antibiotics severely
disrupt) resident in the small intestine produce B12, as long
as the trace-mineral cobalt is consumed in adequate amounts.
Conventionally-grown foods are deficient in cobalt and other
minerals. Research has shown that organically (sustainably)
grown foods have higher levels of minerals, including cobalt,
and also B12, which plants take up from soil rich in B12}.

When I first learned about all this, my first thought was that
it just didn't seem natural. When human beings were evolving,
I kept thinking, they didn't have to take flax. I learned that
that's because there were no such things as cottonseed oil,
no such thing as trans fats. Prehistoric peoples got much of
their omega 3's from wild plants that tend to have much
higher levels than the ones currently cultivated. Purslane, for
example, the most common plant in the world, is one of the
highest plant sources of omega 3's. But, as a culture we just
don't eat weeds anymore.

And those cavepersons didn't have to take vitamin B12
supplements I thought. Well, one of the reasons is because
they didn't chlorinate it out of their water supply. People
used to be able to get B12 from well water, drinking from
mountain streams, etc. It's true that we don't get a lot of
B12 in our water anymore, but we don't get a lot of cholera
either-that's a good thing. The problem is that we live in an
unnatural world which is compromising our health,
compromising our vegetarian potential. But we can reclaim
that potential with a but few simple changes, and maximize
our chances for optimal health and longevity. '

http://vegnews.org/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=121

>
> <...>
>

usual suspect

April 27th, 2004, 01:36 PM

pearl lied:
>><...>
>>
>>>>Adventists to a person do not smoke or drink alcohol and they maintain close
>>>>supportive family relationships. The effect of their diets per se apart from
>>>>these other factors is not known.
>>>
>>>Animal product consumption and mortality because of all
>>>causes combined, coronary heart disease, stroke, diabetes,
>>>and cancer in Seventh-day Adventists.
>>
>> Probably the best science we have was summarized in the American Journal
>> of Clinical Nutrition in 1999, in an article entitled Mortality in
>> Vegetarians and Nonvegetarians. In an enormous undertaking, twelve
>> researchers took all of the biggest and best studies to date on
>> vegetarian mortality rates and pooled all the data together. They took a
>> decade of mortality data from 28,000 vegetarians from Germany,
>> California, and Britain. And found... no survival advantage for
>> vegetarians. What about vegans though? Despite even having lower
>> cholesterol levels than vegetarians, the vegans in the study didn't live
>> any longer either. Vegans had the same mortality rate as meateaters.
>> http://vegnews.org/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=121
>
> But the S-D Adventists, study says otherwise.

No, it does not. The difference between 81.2 (Okinawa) and 84.5 (SDA) is not
significant enough to motivate people to give up foods they enjoy -- and which
can still be part of a healthy diet and lifestyle. Find studies on populations
who eat lean meats, avoid alcohol and saturated fats, don't smoke, pray, and get
lots of exercise. The SDA data are not diet-only, but about healthy lifestyle.

> Any idea what their agricultural methods are?

Yes, most of the SDAs I know here purchase their food at HEB and Albertson's
(large chains) just live everyone else even though they don't buy meat.

<...>

pearl

April 27th, 2004, 01:53 PM

sociopathic "usual suspect" > lied in message
...

pearl wrote:
> >><...>
> >>
> >>>>Adventists to a person do not smoke or drink alcohol and they maintain close
> >>>>supportive family relationships. The effect of their diets per se apart from
> >>>>these other factors is not known.
> >>>
> >>>Animal product consumption and mortality because of all
> >>>causes combined, coronary heart disease, stroke, diabetes,
> >>>and cancer in Seventh-day Adventists.
> >>
> >> Probably the best science we have was summarized in the American Journal
> >> of Clinical Nutrition in 1999, in an article entitled Mortality in
> >> Vegetarians and Nonvegetarians. In an enormous undertaking, twelve
> >> researchers took all of the biggest and best studies to date on
> >> vegetarian mortality rates and pooled all the data together. They took a
> >> decade of mortality data from 28,000 vegetarians from Germany,
> >> California, and Britain. And found... no survival advantage for
> >> vegetarians. What about vegans though? Despite even having lower
> >> cholesterol levels than vegetarians, the vegans in the study didn't live
> >> any longer either. Vegans had the same mortality rate as meateaters.
> >> http://vegnews.org/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=121
> >
> > But the S-D Adventists, study says otherwise.
>
> No, it does not.

It certainly does say otherwise.

> The difference between 81.2 (Okinawa) and 84.5 (SDA) is not
> significant enough to motivate people to give up foods they enjoy -- and which
> can still be part of a healthy diet and lifestyle. Find studies on populations
> who eat lean meats, avoid alcohol and saturated fats, don't smoke, pray, and get
> lots of exercise. The SDA data are not diet-only, but about healthy lifestyle.

Within that population, animal product consumption increases mortality.

Animal product consumption and mortality because of all
causes combined, coronary heart disease, stroke, diabetes,
and cancer in Seventh-day Adventists.
Snowdon DA. Division of Epidemiology, School of Public Health,
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
This report reviews, contrasts, and illustrates previously published
findings from a cohort of 27,529 California Seventh-day Adventist
adults who completed questionnaires in 1960 and were followed
for mortality between 1960 and 1980. Within this population, meat
consumption was positively associated with mortality because of all
causes of death combined (in males), coronary heart disease (in
males and females), and diabetes (in males). Egg consumption was
positively associated with mortality because of all causes combined
(in females), coronary heart disease (in females), and cancers of the
colon (in males and females combined) and ovary. Milk consumption
was positively associated with only prostate cancer mortality, and
cheese consumption did not have a clear relationship with any cause
of death. The consumption of meat, eggs, milk, and cheese did not
have negative associations with any of the causes of death investigated.
PMID: 3046303 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE

> > Any idea what their agricultural methods are?
>
> Yes, most of the SDAs I know here purchase their food at HEB and Albertson's
> (large chains) just live everyone else even though they don't buy meat.
>
> <...>
>

usual suspect

April 27th, 2004, 02:13 PM

inner earth chelsea wrote:
>>>><...>
>>>>
>>>>>>Adventists to a person do not smoke or drink alcohol and they maintain close
>>>>>>supportive family relationships. The effect of their diets per se apart from
>>>>>>these other factors is not known.
>>>>>
>>>>>Animal product consumption and mortality because of all
>>>>>causes combined, coronary heart disease, stroke, diabetes,
>>>>>and cancer in Seventh-day Adventists.
>>>>
>>>> Probably the best science we have was summarized in the American Journal
>>>> of Clinical Nutrition in 1999, in an article entitled Mortality in
>>>> Vegetarians and Nonvegetarians. In an enormous undertaking, twelve
>>>> researchers took all of the biggest and best studies to date on
>>>> vegetarian mortality rates and pooled all the data together. They took a
>>>> decade of mortality data from 28,000 vegetarians from Germany,
>>>> California, and Britain. And found... no survival advantage for
>>>> vegetarians. What about vegans though? Despite even having lower
>>>> cholesterol levels than vegetarians, the vegans in the study didn't live
>>>> any longer either. Vegans had the same mortality rate as meateaters.
>>>> http://vegnews.org/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=121
>>>
>>>But the S-D Adventists, study says otherwise.
>>
>>No, it does not.
>
> It certainly does say otherwise.

No, it doesn't. You're reading into it, as usual.

>>The difference between 81.2 (Okinawa) and 84.5 (SDA) is not
>>significant enough to motivate people to give up foods they enjoy -- and which
>>can still be part of a healthy diet and lifestyle. Find studies on populations
>>who eat lean meats, avoid alcohol and saturated fats, don't smoke, pray, and get
>>lots of exercise. The SDA data are not diet-only, but about healthy lifestyle.
>
> Within that population, animal product consumption increases mortality.

Significantly? What rational person would gladly give up fish, steak, eggs, or
dairy for an average of only three extra years?

> Animal product consumption and mortality because of all
> causes combined, coronary heart disease, stroke, diabetes,
> and cancer in Seventh-day Adventists.
> Snowdon DA. Division of Epidemiology, School of Public Health,
> University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
> This report reviews, contrasts, and illustrates previously published
> findings from a cohort of 27,529 California Seventh-day Adventist
> adults who completed questionnaires in 1960 and were followed
> for mortality between 1960 and 1980. Within this population, meat
> consumption was positively associated with mortality because of all
> causes of death combined (in males), coronary heart disease (in
> males and females), and diabetes (in males). Egg consumption was
> positively associated with mortality because of all causes combined
> (in females), coronary heart disease (in females), and cancers of the
> colon (in males and females combined) and ovary.

Were those eggs consumed alone or with saturated fats like those found in
butter, bacon, sausages, etc.?
http://www.enc-online.org/dietc.htm

> Milk consumption
> was positively associated with only prostate cancer mortality, and
> cheese consumption did not have a clear relationship with any cause
> of death.

So consumption of cheese -- what the anti-milk activists call "concentrated
milk" -- doesn't have a relationship with mortality but unconcentrated milk
does. Go figure. BTW, did the researchers break down dairy consumption in terms
of whole milk, reduced fat, and non-fat?

> The consumption of meat, eggs, milk, and cheese did not
> have negative associations with any of the causes of death investigated.

See this one from the same author, dummy:
Diet, obesity, and risk of fatal prostate cancer

DA Snowdon, RL Phillips and W Choi

Findings described in this report are for 6,763 white male Seventh-day
Adventists who completed a dietary questionnaire in 1960. Between 1960
and 1980 mortality data were collected on cohort members. *Overweight*
men had a significantly higher risk of fatal prostate cancer than men
near their desirable weight. The predicted relative risk of fatal
prostate cancer was 2.5 for *overweight* men. Suggestive positive
associations were also seen between fatal prostate cancer and the
consumption of milk, cheese, eggs, and meat. There was an orderly dose-
response between each of the four animal products and risk. The
predicted relative risk of fatal prostate cancer was 3.6 for those who
heavily consumed all four animal products. The results of this study and
others suggest that animal product consumption and *obesity* may be risk
factors for fatal prostate cancer.
MY EMPHASIS, DUMMY.
http://aje.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/120/2/244

Same survey, same researchers. Compare these findings to other studies of
*OVERWEIGHT* study participants. *Obesity* kills, STUPID CHELSEA.

> PMID: 3046303 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE
>
>
>>>Any idea what their agricultural methods are?
>>
>>Yes, most of the SDAs I know here purchase their food at HEB and Albertson's
>>(large chains) just live everyone else even though they don't buy meat.
>>
>><...>
>>
>
>

usual suspect

April 27th, 2004, 02:18 PM

usual suspect wrote:
<...>
> See this one from the same author, dummy:
> Diet, obesity, and risk of fatal prostate cancer
>
> DA Snowdon, RL Phillips and W Choi
>
> Findings described in this report are for 6,763 white male Seventh-day
> Adventists who completed a dietary questionnaire in 1960. Between 1960
> and 1980 mortality data were collected on cohort members. *Overweight*
> men had a significantly higher risk of fatal prostate cancer than men
> near their desirable weight. The predicted relative risk of fatal
> prostate cancer was 2.5 for *overweight* men. Suggestive positive
> associations were also seen between fatal prostate cancer and the
> consumption of milk, cheese, eggs, and meat. There was an orderly dose-
> response between each of the four animal products and risk. The
> predicted relative risk of fatal prostate cancer was 3.6 for those who
> heavily consumed all four animal products. The results of this study
> and
> others suggest that animal product consumption and *obesity* may be
> risk
> factors for fatal prostate cancer.
> MY EMPHASIS, DUMMY.
> http://aje.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/120/2/244
>
> Same survey, same researchers. Compare these findings to other studies
> of *OVERWEIGHT* study participants. *Obesity* kills, STUPID CHELSEA.

http://www.obesity-and-cancer.com/
http://dceg.cancer.gov/prost-cancer.html
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/51/2/568
http://www.coloradohealthsite.org/cancer/treatment_8.html
http://www.fao.org/docrep/V4700E/V4700E0g.htm
http://www.stanford.edu/~jpc/Chapter5.htm
http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/conference/kolonel.html

<...>

pearl

April 27th, 2004, 02:40 PM

"pearl" > wrote in message ...
<..>
> Homocysteine is a toxic metabolite-it attacks our blood vessels,
> it' attacks our brain cells; it's a risk factor for heart disease, for
> stroke, for Alzheimer's and a growing number of other diseases.
> And, up to 25% of lacto-vegetarians and 80% of vegans have
> seriously elevated levels in their blood. This is probably why the
> latest research suggests vegetarians have over twice the risk of
> dying from degenerative brain diseases.
<..>
> http://vegnews.org/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=121

?

Ref #235 - Giem P
SO: Neuroepidemiology. 1993; 12(1): 28-36
AB: We investigated the relationship between animal product
consumption and evidence of dementia in two cohort substudies.
The first enrolled 272 California residents matched for age,
sex, and zip code (1 vegan, 1 lacto-ovo-vegetarian, and 2
'heavy' meat eaters in each of 68 quartets). This design ensured
a wide range of dietary exposure. The second included 2,984
unmatched subjects who resided within the Loma Linda,
California area. All subjects were enrolled in the Adventist
Health Study. The matched subjects who ate meat (including
poultry and fish) were more than twice as likely to become
demented as their vegetarian counterparts (relative risk 2.18,
p = 0.065) and the discrepancy was further widened (relative
risk 2.99, p = 0.048) when past meat consumption was taken
into account. There was no significant difference in the
incidence of dementia in the vegetarian versus meat-eating
unmatched subjects. There was no obvious explanation for
the difference between the two substudies, although the power
of the unmatched sub-study to detect an effect of 'heavy' meat
consumption was unexpectedly limited. There was a trend
towards delayed onset of dementia in vegetarians in both
substudies.
http://www.llu.edu/llu/health/abstracts/abstracts2.htm

pearl

April 27th, 2004, 02:44 PM

infantile liar "useless suspect" > wrote in message
...

pearl wrote:
<..>
> > The consumption of meat, eggs, milk, and cheese did not
> > have negative associations with any of the causes of death investigated.
>
> See this one from the same author, dummy:
> Diet, obesity, and risk of fatal prostate cancer
>
> DA Snowdon, RL Phillips and W Choi
>
> Findings described in this report are for 6,763 white male Seventh-day
> Adventists who completed a dietary questionnaire in 1960. Between 1960
> and 1980 mortality data were collected on cohort members. *Overweight*
> men had a significantly higher risk of fatal prostate cancer than men
> near their desirable weight. The predicted relative risk of fatal
> prostate cancer was 2.5 for *overweight* men. Suggestive positive
> associations were also seen between fatal prostate cancer and the
> consumption of milk, cheese, eggs, and meat. There was an orderly dose-
> response between each of the four animal products and risk. The
> predicted relative risk of fatal prostate cancer was 3.6 for those who
> heavily consumed all four animal products. The results of this study and
> others suggest that animal product consumption and *obesity* may be risk
> factors for fatal prostate cancer.
> MY EMPHASIS, DUMMY.
> http://aje.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/120/2/244
>
> Same survey, same researchers. Compare these findings to other studies of
> *OVERWEIGHT* study participants. *Obesity* kills,

J Clin Gastroenterol. 1986 Aug;8(4):451-3.
Energy intake and body weight in ovo-lacto vegetarians.
Levin N, Rattan J, Gilat T.
Vegetarians have a lower body weight than omnivores. In
this study the relationship between the weight/height ratio and
food consumption was evaluated in 92 ovo-lacto vegetarians
and 113 omnivores in Israel. The average weight of the
vegetarians was significantly lower than that of the omnivores
(60.8 kg vs. 69.1 kg), even though the vegetarian diet supplied
a significantly higher amount of calories than the nonvegetarian
diet (3,030.5 cal/day vs. 2,626.8 cal/day). Consumption of fat
was similar in both groups. Carbohydrate consumption was
higher in the vegetarians while protein consumption was lower.
The prevalence of obesity was significantly lower in the
vegetarian group (5.4%) as compared to 19.5% among the
omnivores. The lower body weight of vegetarians despite a
higher caloric intake is of considerable interest.
PMID: 3760524

Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1998 May;22(5):454-60.
Low body mass index in non-meat eaters: the possible roles
of animal fat, dietary fibre and alcohol.
Appleby PN, Thorogood M, Mann JI, Key TJ. Imperial
Cancer Research Fund Cancer Epidemiology Unit, Radcliffe
Infirmary, Oxford, UK.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the associations of diet and other
lifestyle factors with body mass index (BMI) using data from
the Oxford Vegetarian Study.
SUBJECTS: 1914 male and 3378 female non-smokers
aged 20-89 y at recruitment to the study.
MEASUREMENTS: All subjects completed a diet/lifestyle
questionnaire at recruitment giving details of their usual diet
and other characteristics including height and weight, smoking
and drinking habits, amount of exercise, occupation and
reproductive history. Answers to the food frequency
questionnaire were used to classify subjects as either meat
eaters or non-meat eaters, and to estimate intakes of animal
fat and dietary fibre. Subjects were further classified according
to their alcohol consumption, exercise level, social class, past
smoking habits and parity. RESULTS: Mean BMI was lower
in non-meat eaters than in meat eaters in all age groups for both
men and women. Overall age-adjusted mean BMIs in kg/m2
were 23.18 and 22.05 for male meat eaters and non-meat
eaters respectively (P < 0.0001) and 22.32 and 21.32 for
female meat eaters and non-meat eaters respectively (P < 0.0001).
In addition to meat consumption, dietary fibre intake, animal
fat intake, social class and past smoking were all independently
associated with BMI in both men and women; alcohol
consumption was independently associated with BMI in men,
and parity was independently associated with BMI in women.
After adjusting for these factors, the differences in mean BMI
between meat eaters and non-meat eaters were reduced by
36% in men and 31% in women.
CONCLUSIONS: Non-meat eaters are thinner than meat
eaters. This may be partly due to a higher intake of dietary fibre,
a lower intake of animal fat, and only in men a lower intake of
alcohol.
PMID: 9622343

<..>

Bryan

April 27th, 2004, 03:25 PM

JESUS!!!!!!! QUIT HUMPING EACH OTHERS LEGS AND GET A PAIR OF LIVES! WHO
CARES, MEAT- VEGETABLES.... ITS ALL FOOD....NOW BOTH OF YOU SHUT UP! YOU'RE
GIVING US ALL A HEADACHE. BESIDES THIS IS A BOATING POST. NOW SCRAM!

B

usual suspect

April 27th, 2004, 05:37 PM

retarded foot-rubber lesley wrote:
> <..>
>>>The consumption of meat, eggs, milk, and cheese did not
>>>have negative associations with any of the causes of death investigated.
>>
>>See this one from the same author, dummy:
>>Diet, obesity, and risk of fatal prostate cancer
>>
>>DA Snowdon, RL Phillips and W Choi
>>
>>Findings described in this report are for 6,763 white male Seventh-day
>>Adventists who completed a dietary questionnaire in 1960. Between 1960
>>and 1980 mortality data were collected on cohort members. *Overweight*
>>men had a significantly higher risk of fatal prostate cancer than men
>>near their desirable weight. The predicted relative risk of fatal
>>prostate cancer was 2.5 for *overweight* men. Suggestive positive
>>associations were also seen between fatal prostate cancer and the
>>consumption of milk, cheese, eggs, and meat. There was an orderly dose-
>>response between each of the four animal products and risk. The
>>predicted relative risk of fatal prostate cancer was 3.6 for those who
>>heavily consumed all four animal products. The results of this study and
>>others suggest that animal product consumption and *obesity* may be risk
>>factors for fatal prostate cancer.
>>MY EMPHASIS, DUMMY.
>>http://aje.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/120/2/244
>>
>>Same survey, same researchers. Compare these findings to other studies of
>>*OVERWEIGHT* study participants. *Obesity* kills,
>
>
> J Clin Gastroenterol. 1986 Aug;8(4):451-3.
> Energy intake and body weight in ovo-lacto vegetarians.
> Levin N, Rattan J, Gilat T.
> Vegetarians have a lower body weight than omnivores.

*Entirely* irrelevant to the issue at hand. Stop moving goalposts, you nasty
foot-fetishist.

<...>

usual suspect

April 27th, 2004, 05:41 PM

STUPID pearl wrote:
> <..>
>>Homocysteine is a toxic metabolite-it attacks our blood vessels,
>>it' attacks our brain cells; it's a risk factor for heart disease, for
>>stroke, for Alzheimer's and a growing number of other diseases.
>>And, up to 25% of lacto-vegetarians and 80% of vegans have
>>seriously elevated levels in their blood. This is probably why the
>>latest research suggests vegetarians have over twice the risk of
>>dying from degenerative brain diseases.
>
> <..>
>
>>http://vegnews.org/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=121
>
> ?
>
> Ref #235 - Giem P
> SO: Neuroepidemiology. 1993; 12(1): 28-36
> AB: We investigated the relationship between animal product
> consumption and evidence of dementia in two cohort substudies.

My God, you stupid woman. Why can't you stick to one issue at a time instead of
treating scientific studies the same way you treat your conspiracy theory
sources? What's the incidence of dementia in groups like the Inuit who eat very
little in the way of plant foods and a lot of meat?

<snip of stuff you'll NEVER understand or stop abusing>

ipse dixit

April 27th, 2004, 06:35 PM

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 16:37:42 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:

>*Entirely* irrelevant to the issue at hand. Stop moving goalposts, you nasty
>foot-fetishist.

For the record, and to head off any criticism that I'm
trying to assist Pearl here, I've argued in the past that
seventh day adventists, because of confounding factors,
are a subset of people and so aren't representative of
our population generally.

[start]
Their avoidance of baccy and booze make them confounding
factors if the rest of us don't avoid these habits. Also, I might
add, these figures are based on a small subset of people and
aren't representative of the whole population. Making a judgment
based on a hasty generalisation using an unrepresented sample is
a logically flawed argument.

Unrepresentative Sample
AKA: Biased Sample
Type: Weak Analogy
N% of sample S has characteristic C.
(Where S is a sample unrepresentative of the population P.)
Therefore, N% of population P has characteristic C.

N% of the Seventh Day Adventists has characteristic C.
C- live longer on a vegetarian diet.
(SDA is a sample unrepresentative of the population P
because they don't smoke or drink)
Therefore N% of population P has characteristic C.

You are trying to claim that N% of our population would
live longer following a vegetarian diet similar to the N% of
SDA, but you cannot because their confounding factors
make them an unrepresentative sample
[end] http://tinyurl.com/3ffoc

So let's go back to the evidence you brought instead.

Probably the best science we have was summarized in the
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in 1999, in an article
entitled Mortality in Vegetarians and Nonvegetarians. In an
enormous undertaking, twelve researchers took all of the
biggest and best studies to date on vegetarian mortality rates
and pooled all the data together. They took a decade of
mortality data from 28,000 vegetarians from Germany,
California, and Britain. And found... no survival advantage
for vegetarians. What about vegans though? Despite even
having lower cholesterol levels than vegetarians, the vegans
in the study didn't live any longer either. Vegans had the same
mortality rate as meateaters.
http://vegnews.org/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=121

Knowing high levels of cholesterol generally shorten life, aren't
you a little sceptical of the evidence presented by the American
Journal of Clinical Nutrition on this point?

Paul Rooney

April 27th, 2004, 06:40 PM

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 18:35:22 +0100, ipse dixit <f@chance> wrote:

>On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 16:37:42 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>
>>*Entirely* irrelevant to the issue at hand. Stop moving goalposts, you nasty
>>foot-fetishist.
>
>For the record, and to head off any criticism that I'm
>trying to assist Pearl here, I've argued in the past that
>seventh day adventists, because of confounding factors,
>are a subset of people and so aren't representative of
>our population generally.

One of my cats is a foot-fetishist.

--

Paul

My Lake District walking site (updated 29th September 2003):

http://paulrooney.netfirms.com

pearl

April 27th, 2004, 10:44 PM

"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote:
> > <..>
> >>>The consumption of meat, eggs, milk, and cheese did not
> >>>have negative associations with any of the causes of death investigated.
> >>
> >>See this one from the same author, dummy:
> >>Diet, obesity, and risk of fatal prostate cancer
> >>
> >>DA Snowdon, RL Phillips and W Choi
> >>
> >>Findings described in this report are for 6,763 white male Seventh-day
> >>Adventists who completed a dietary questionnaire in 1960. Between 1960
> >>and 1980 mortality data were collected on cohort members. *Overweight*
> >>men had a significantly higher risk of fatal prostate cancer than men
> >>near their desirable weight. The predicted relative risk of fatal
> >>prostate cancer was 2.5 for *overweight* men. Suggestive positive
> >>associations were also seen between fatal prostate cancer and the
> >>consumption of milk, cheese, eggs, and meat. There was an orderly dose-
> >>response between each of the four animal products and risk. The
> >>predicted relative risk of fatal prostate cancer was 3.6 for those who
> >>heavily consumed all four animal products. The results of this study and
> >>others suggest that animal product consumption and *obesity* may be risk
> >>factors for fatal prostate cancer.
> >>MY EMPHASIS, DUMMY.
> >>http://aje.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/120/2/244
> >>
> >>Same survey, same researchers. Compare these findings to other studies of
> >>*OVERWEIGHT* study participants. *Obesity* kills,
> >
> >
> > J Clin Gastroenterol. 1986 Aug;8(4):451-3.
> > Energy intake and body weight in ovo-lacto vegetarians.
> > Levin N, Rattan J, Gilat T.
> > Vegetarians have a lower body weight than omnivores.
>
> *Entirely* irrelevant to the issue at hand. Stop moving goalposts, you nasty
> foot-fetishist.

Temper, temper. You tried to move the goalposts, but they
were just too heavy for you. hahaha. BTW, thanks for this;

'Suggestive positive associations were also seen between fatal
prostate cancer and the consumption of milk, cheese, eggs, and
meat. There was an orderly dose- response between each of
the four animal products and risk. The predicted relative risk of
fatal prostate cancer was 3.6 for those who heavily consumed
all four animal products.'

Not so useless, after all. Rah.

>
> <...>
>

pearl

April 27th, 2004, 11:09 PM

"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote:
<..>
> > Ref #235 - Giem P
> > SO: Neuroepidemiology. 1993; 12(1): 28-36
> > AB: We investigated the relationship between animal product
> > consumption and evidence of dementia in two cohort substudies.
>
> My God, you stupid woman.

"All cruelty springs from weakness." (Seneca, 4BC-AD65)

> Why can't you stick to one issue at a time instead of
> treating scientific studies the same way you treat your conspiracy theory
> sources?

The issue in this threadlet is diet.

> What's the incidence of dementia in groups like the Inuit who eat very
> little in the way of plant foods and a lot of meat?

Meat and fish. You tell us. The omega 3s in fish may be protective,
but there's another problem;

'In a survey of 93% of the adult population of a Baffin region
settlement in the NWT (Nunavut), Sampath (1974) found that over
one third of those interviewed had a mental disorder according to
DSM-II criteria. High prevalence rates were found for schizophrenia
(28/1000), affective psychoses (46/1000), neuroses (116/1000) and
personality disorder (177/1000). On a measure of global distress,
the Health Opinion Survey questionnaire, women reported more
symptoms than men and an increase in severe symptoms with age.
In contrast, men showed a decrease in severe symptomatology with
age. Sampath (1976a,b) attributed these differences to differential
effects of modernization. Among those with personality disorders
70% were found to have a hysterical personality often with
dissociative symptoms which Sampath related to 'pibloktoq'.
http://www.mcgill.ca/psychiatry/transcultural/pdf/Report4.pdf

'Experimental and clinical studies of nonhumans and humans
reveal somatic and behavioral effects of hypervitaminosis A
which closely parallel many of the symptoms reported for
Western patients diagnosed as hysterical and Inuit sufferers
of pibloktoq. Eskimo nutrition provides abundant sources
of vitamin A and lays the probable basis in some individuals
for hypervitaminosis A through ingestion of livers, kidneys,
and fat of arctic fish and mammals, where the vitamin often
is stored in poisonous quantities.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=4049004&dopt=Abstract

> <snip of stuff you'll NEVER understand or stop abusing>

Why are you asking for more evidence, when you have this?

<restore>

Ref #235 - Giem P
SO: Neuroepidemiology. 1993; 12(1): 28-36
AB: We investigated the relationship between animal product
consumption and evidence of dementia in two cohort substudies.
The first enrolled 272 California residents matched for age,
sex, and zip code (1 vegan, 1 lacto-ovo-vegetarian, and 2
'heavy' meat eaters in each of 68 quartets). This design ensured
a wide range of dietary exposure. The second included 2,984
unmatched subjects who resided within the Loma Linda,
California area. All subjects were enrolled in the Adventist
Health Study. The matched subjects who ate meat (including
poultry and fish) were more than twice as likely to become
demented as their vegetarian counterparts (relative risk 2.18,
p = 0.065) and the discrepancy was further widened (relative
risk 2.99, p = 0.048) when past meat consumption was taken
into account. There was no significant difference in the
incidence of dementia in the vegetarian versus meat-eating
unmatched subjects. There was no obvious explanation for
the difference between the two substudies, although the power
of the unmatched sub-study to detect an effect of 'heavy' meat
consumption was unexpectedly limited. There was a trend
towards delayed onset of dementia in vegetarians in both
substudies.
http://www.llu.edu/llu/health/abstracts/abstracts2.htm

pearl

April 27th, 2004, 11:25 PM

"ipse dixit" <f@chance> wrote in message ...
<..>
> For the record, and to head off any criticism that I'm
> trying to assist Pearl here,

Heaven forbid!

> I've argued in the past that
> seventh day adventists, because of confounding factors,
> are a subset of people and so aren't representative of
> our population generally.
>
> [start]
> Their avoidance of baccy and booze make them confounding
> factors if the rest of us don't avoid these habits. Also, I might
> add, these figures are based on a small subset of people and
> aren't representative of the whole population. Making a judgment
> based on a hasty generalisation using an unrepresented sample is
> a logically flawed argument.
>
> Unrepresentative Sample
> AKA: Biased Sample
> Type: Weak Analogy
> N% of sample S has characteristic C.
> (Where S is a sample unrepresentative of the population P.)
> Therefore, N% of population P has characteristic C.
>
> N% of the Seventh Day Adventists has characteristic C.
> C- live longer on a vegetarian diet.
> (SDA is a sample unrepresentative of the population P
> because they don't smoke or drink)
> Therefore N% of population P has characteristic C.
>
> You are trying to claim that N% of our population would
> live longer following a vegetarian diet similar to the N% of
> SDA, but you cannot because their confounding factors
> make them an unrepresentative sample
> [end] http://tinyurl.com/3ffoc

And I replied; http://tinyurl.com/2kdp9

In short; SDA studies are also representative of the non-smoking,
non-drinking meat-eating and vegetarian general population. They
are helpful for determining the effects of diet alone, without the
confounding factors of drinking alcohol and smoking. Studies of
the general smoking and non, and drinking and non, populations do
take those factors into account anyway. This just makes it easier.

> So let's go back to the evidence you brought instead.
>
> Probably the best science we have was summarized in the
> American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in 1999, in an article
> entitled Mortality in Vegetarians and Nonvegetarians. In an
> enormous undertaking, twelve researchers took all of the
> biggest and best studies to date on vegetarian mortality rates
> and pooled all the data together. They took a decade of
> mortality data from 28,000 vegetarians from Germany,
> California, and Britain. And found... no survival advantage
> for vegetarians. What about vegans though? Despite even
> having lower cholesterol levels than vegetarians, the vegans
> in the study didn't live any longer either. Vegans had the same
> mortality rate as meateaters.
> http://vegnews.org/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=121
>
> Knowing high levels of cholesterol generally shorten life, aren't
> you a little sceptical of the evidence presented by the American
> Journal of Clinical Nutrition on this point?

Yes.

usual suspect

April 28th, 2004, 12:12 AM

ipse dixit wrote:
>>*Entirely* irrelevant to the issue at hand. Stop moving goalposts, you nasty
>>foot-fetishist.
>
> For the record, and to head off any criticism that I'm
> trying to assist Pearl here, I've argued in the past that
> seventh day adventists, because of confounding factors,
> are a subset of people and so aren't representative of
> our population generally.

We agree. I mentioned their prophetess, Ellen G White, earlier. IVU has a page
with some of her quotes.
http://www.ivu.org/history/adventists/white.html

See also:
http://www.whiteestate.org/about/egwbio.asp#health

Lesley's incessant (ab)use of SDA studies focuses on one factor alone rather
than all the others: strict temperance, prayer, life of modesty, etc.:

--start--
What's the "recommended way of life" noted above? According to their
"prophetess" Ellen G White, SDAs should be:
- vegetarians
- tee-totalers (zero alcohol consumption)
- non-smokers
- *regular exercisers*
- active church members
- Christians
- very moderate/temperate sorts
--end--

> [start]
> Their avoidance of baccy and booze make them confounding
> factors if the rest of us don't avoid these habits. Also, I might
> add, these figures are based on a small subset of people and
> aren't representative of the whole population. Making a judgment
> based on a hasty generalisation using an unrepresented sample is
> a logically flawed argument.
>
> Unrepresentative Sample
> AKA: Biased Sample
> Type: Weak Analogy
> N% of sample S has characteristic C.
> (Where S is a sample unrepresentative of the population P.)
> Therefore, N% of population P has characteristic C.
>
> N% of the Seventh Day Adventists has characteristic C.
> C- live longer on a vegetarian diet.
> (SDA is a sample unrepresentative of the population P
> because they don't smoke or drink)
> Therefore N% of population P has characteristic C.
>
> You are trying to claim that N% of our population would
> live longer following a vegetarian diet similar to the N% of
> SDA, but you cannot because their confounding factors
> make them an unrepresentative sample
> [end] http://tinyurl.com/3ffoc

Correct. Pedantic, but correct.

> So let's go back to the evidence you brought instead.
>
> Probably the best science we have was summarized in the
> American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in 1999, in an article
> entitled Mortality in Vegetarians and Nonvegetarians. In an
> enormous undertaking, twelve researchers took all of the
> biggest and best studies to date on vegetarian mortality rates
> and pooled all the data together. They took a decade of
> mortality data from 28,000 vegetarians from Germany,
> California, and Britain. And found... no survival advantage
> for vegetarians. What about vegans though? Despite even
> having lower cholesterol levels than vegetarians, the vegans
> in the study didn't live any longer either. Vegans had the same
> mortality rate as meateaters.
> http://vegnews.org/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=121
>
> Knowing high levels of cholesterol generally shorten life,

I don't know *that*. It helps to distinguish between HDL and LDL. Elevated LDL
(the bad cholesterol) does tend to shorten life due to heart disease. Elevated
HDL, though, is one of the factors which tends to appear in those with less
heart disease and extended longevity. Total cholesterol can be high due to
elevated HDL, as it is in the Inuit and similar groups.

> aren't
> you a little sceptical of the evidence presented by the American
> Journal of Clinical Nutrition on this point?

No, because the data show the *same* thing in places where vegetarianism is more
common (i.e., India). People die, and they die from the same types of ailments
at about the same ages. The two SDA studies by Snowdon (one Lesley offered, the
other I offered) both show that *obese* people who eat *a lot of saturated fat*
die younger. That isn't news.

As for cholesterol itself, I think we need to distinguish between healthy and
unhealthy diets whether they contain meat or not. People can go veg-n and be
worse off if they eat the wrong foods. People can continue to eat meat, eggs,
and dairy and stay healthy if they make the right choices. Lean red meats
(especially game) and oily cold-water fish are rich in omega-3 FAs and in
studies have shown to elevate HDL and help lower LDL. Exercise is also a factor
to consider in these studies because exercise elevates HDL. LDL is raised by the
consumption of saturated fats, not cholesterol.

There are three kinds of fats in foods: saturated, polyunsaturated and
monounsaturated fats. Only saturated fatty acids can raise your blood
cholesterol.
http://www.mssm.edu/cvi/cholesterol.shtml

See also:
http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/foodnut/09319.html

And these two, pro-meat (lean meat):
http://www.ag.ohio-state.edu/~meatsci/news/6_30_leanredmeat.html
http://news.uns.purdue.edu/html4ever/020204.Watkins.paleo.html

usual suspect

April 28th, 2004, 12:13 AM

Paul Rooney wrote:
>>>*Entirely* irrelevant to the issue at hand. Stop moving goalposts, you nasty
>>>foot-fetishist.
>>
>>For the record, and to head off any criticism that I'm
>>trying to assist Pearl here, I've argued in the past that
>>seventh day adventists, because of confounding factors,
>>are a subset of people and so aren't representative of
>>our population generally.
>
> One of my cats is a foot-fetishist.

Take it to Ireland and let Lesley ("pearl") have her way with it.

pearl

April 28th, 2004, 12:17 AM

"Bryan" > wrote in message
.rogers.com...
<..> WHO CARES, MEAT- VEGETABLES.... ITS ALL FOOD....NOW BOTH OF YOU SHUT UP! YOU'RE
> GIVING US ALL A HEADACHE. BESIDES THIS IS A BOATING POST. NOW SCRAM!
>
> B

AHOY!! LEARN HOW TO USE YOUR KILLFILE!

pearl

April 28th, 2004, 12:18 AM

"Paul Rooney" > wrote in message ...
<..>
> One of my cats is a foot-fetishist.

Is its name Tango?

FTR, I'm not. The OP's MO is foolish AH.

ipse dixit

April 28th, 2004, 12:18 AM

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 23:25:57 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>"ipse dixit" <f@chance> wrote in message ...
><..>
>> For the record, and to head off any criticism that I'm
>> trying to assist Pearl here,
>
>Heaven forbid!

Good sense forbids, L. My good sense.

>> I've argued in the past that
>> seventh day adventists, because of confounding factors,
>> are a subset of people and so aren't representative of
>> our population generally.
>>
>> [start]
>> Their avoidance of baccy and booze make them confounding
>> factors if the rest of us don't avoid these habits. Also, I might
>> add, these figures are based on a small subset of people and
>> aren't representative of the whole population. Making a judgment
>> based on a hasty generalisation using an unrepresented sample is
>> a logically flawed argument.
>>
>> Unrepresentative Sample
>> AKA: Biased Sample
>> Type: Weak Analogy
>> N% of sample S has characteristic C.
>> (Where S is a sample unrepresentative of the population P.)
>> Therefore, N% of population P has characteristic C.
>>
>> N% of the Seventh Day Adventists has characteristic C.
>> C- live longer on a vegetarian diet.
>> (SDA is a sample unrepresentative of the population P
>> because they don't smoke or drink)
>> Therefore N% of population P has characteristic C.
>>
>> You are trying to claim that N% of our population would
>> live longer following a vegetarian diet similar to the N% of
>> SDA, but you cannot because their confounding factors
>> make them an unrepresentative sample
>> [end] http://tinyurl.com/3ffoc
>
>And I replied; http://tinyurl.com/2kdp9
>
>In short; SDA studies are also representative of the non-smoking,
>non-drinking meat-eating and vegetarian general population.

No, they are not because SDA's follow an abstemious
life generally, apart from booze and baccy, and work
*exceptionally hard*. Apart from that they exercise and
live clean lives, and these factors make them a subset
of vegetarians and therefore not representative of them.

[The idea that eating well, exercising and shunning
cigarettes promotes health is nothing new -- experts
continually hammer the message home. What is new
here, is that clean living has been linked to a longer life.

I have great respect for Seventh Day Adventists and
believe in many of the principles their denomination
advocates. However, I am not convinced that their
teaching on vegetarianism is accurate. I certainly can
be wrong here.

This, and many other studies, clearly show that
Adventists as a group are far healthier than most
Americans. There are many other alternative
explanations for this, besides the elimination of
animal foods though. Clearly exercise, ideal body
weight and not smoking or drinking to excess could
easily account for the increase in life expectancy
Adventists have.]
http://www.mercola.com/2001/jul/21/vegetarian.htm

See? It's not just the booze and baccy. There are
other confounding factors about them which you're
ignoring, and these factors make them a sub set and
unrepresentative of other vegetarians.

>They
>are helpful for determining the effects of diet alone, without the
>confounding factors of drinking alcohol and smoking.

But you're ignoring other the confounding factors
mentioned above which may also play a huge part
in their health and longevity, such as hard work,
maintaining ideal body weight and clean living.
SDA's are only analogous to others SDA's and
not to the general vegetarian or vegan.

> Studies of
>the general smoking and non, and drinking and non, populations do
>take those factors into account anyway. This just makes it easier.

If all vegetarians followed an SDA lifestyle you'd
have a point, but they don't, so you don't.

>> So let's go back to the evidence you brought instead.
>>
>> Probably the best science we have was summarized in the
>> American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in 1999, in an article
>> entitled Mortality in Vegetarians and Nonvegetarians. In an
>> enormous undertaking, twelve researchers took all of the
>> biggest and best studies to date on vegetarian mortality rates
>> and pooled all the data together. They took a decade of
>> mortality data from 28,000 vegetarians from Germany,
>> California, and Britain. And found... no survival advantage
>> for vegetarians. What about vegans though? Despite even
>> having lower cholesterol levels than vegetarians, the vegans
>> in the study didn't live any longer either. Vegans had the same
>> mortality rate as meateaters.
>> http://vegnews.org/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=121
>>
>> Knowing high levels of cholesterol generally shorten life, aren't
>> you a little sceptical of the evidence presented by the American
>> Journal of Clinical Nutrition on this point?
>
>Yes.

So am I.

usual suspect

April 28th, 2004, 12:32 AM

pearl wrote:
>>><..>
>>>
>>>>>The consumption of meat, eggs, milk, and cheese did not
>>>>>have negative associations with any of the causes of death investigated.
>>>>
>>>>See this one from the same author, dummy:
>>>>Diet, obesity, and risk of fatal prostate cancer
>>>>
>>>>DA Snowdon, RL Phillips and W Choi
>>>>
>>>>Findings described in this report are for 6,763 white male Seventh-day
>>>>Adventists who completed a dietary questionnaire in 1960. Between 1960
>>>>and 1980 mortality data were collected on cohort members. *Overweight*
>>>>men had a significantly higher risk of fatal prostate cancer than men
>>>>near their desirable weight. The predicted relative risk of fatal
>>>>prostate cancer was 2.5 for *overweight* men. Suggestive positive
>>>>associations were also seen between fatal prostate cancer and the
>>>>consumption of milk, cheese, eggs, and meat. There was an orderly dose-
>>>>response between each of the four animal products and risk. The
>>>>predicted relative risk of fatal prostate cancer was 3.6 for those who
>>>>heavily consumed all four animal products. The results of this study and
>>>>others suggest that animal product consumption and *obesity* may be risk
>>>>factors for fatal prostate cancer.
>>>>MY EMPHASIS, DUMMY.
>>>>http://aje.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/120/2/244
>>>>
>>>>Same survey, same researchers. Compare these findings to other studies of
>>>>*OVERWEIGHT* study participants. *Obesity* kills,
>>>
>>>
>>>J Clin Gastroenterol. 1986 Aug;8(4):451-3.
>>>Energy intake and body weight in ovo-lacto vegetarians.
>>>Levin N, Rattan J, Gilat T.
>>> Vegetarians have a lower body weight than omnivores.
>>
>>*Entirely* irrelevant to the issue at hand. Stop moving goalposts, you nasty
>>foot-fetishist.
>
> Temper, temper.

My temper is under control. I laugh at you, I don't lose my cool.

> You tried to move the goalposts, but they
> were just too heavy for you.

No, Lesley, I showed your misuse of the studies you cite. I can show you fat
veg-ns and thin meat-eaters. It has nothing to do with your points taken from
the SDA study. As Derek has also rightly shown, SDAs are not merely vegetarian.
Their lifestyles encompass factors far beyond the scope of the studies you've
(mis)used to make points.

> hahaha. BTW, thanks for this;
>
> 'Suggestive positive associations were also seen between fatal
> prostate cancer and the consumption of milk, cheese, eggs, and
> meat. There was an orderly dose- response between each of
> the four animal products and risk. The predicted relative risk of
> fatal prostate cancer was 3.6 for those who heavily consumed
> all four animal products.'

Pay attention: those surveyed in that study were OBESE and they HEAVILY consumed
those products. Both factors -- obesity and level of consumption -- are notable.

> Not so useless, after all. Rah.

I'm not, but you sure are.

usual suspect

April 28th, 2004, 12:42 AM

pearl wrote:
<...>
> In short; SDA studies are also representative of the non-smoking,
> non-drinking meat-eating and vegetarian general population.

Ipse dixit. They are not. Their church was founded by Ellen G White as part of
the Great Disappointment. The Great Disappointment was also known as the
Millerite Advent, in which a certain Bible teacher predicted Christ's return but
someone forgot to let Christ in on it. White readjusted the dates (a few times)
and also broadened her message to encompass complete sobriety in the form of
abstinence from alcohol, tobacco, and meat, along with fastidious study of the
Scriptures (the Branch Davidians were an off-shoot of the SDAs, fwiw), frequent
exercise, prayer, and other such habits. Most vegetarians do not engage in
anything close to the lifestyle promoted by Ellen White or her followers.

> They
> are helpful for determining the effects of diet alone,

No, they are not. Derek has shown you Mercola's opinion. It's spot on.

> without the
> confounding factors of drinking alcohol and smoking. Studies of
> the general smoking and non, and drinking and non, populations do
> take those factors into account anyway.

Not always.

> This just makes it easier.

You mean it makes it easier for you to peddle your peculiar interpretations of
scientific studies.

<...>

usual suspect

April 28th, 2004, 12:44 AM

pearl wrote:
> <..>
>
>>One of my cats is a foot-fetishist.
>
> Is its name Tango?
>
> FTR, I'm not.

Liar. You make money playing with feet.

> The OP's MO is foolish AH.

FU

Paul Rooney

April 28th, 2004, 08:48 AM

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 00:18:49 +0100, "pearl" >
wrote:

>"Paul Rooney" > wrote in message ...
><..>
>> One of my cats is a foot-fetishist.
>
>Is its name Tango?
>
>FTR, I'm not. The OP's MO is foolish AH.
>

No. Sylvester.

--

Paul

My Lake District walking site:

http://paulrooney.netfirms.com

Bryan

April 28th, 2004, 09:09 AM

Sigh.......
Amusing watching the when Harry met Sally post. Here's an idea, why
don't both of you go to McDonalds.....one orders the BigMac combo with a
coke, the other a salad and bottled water. Step two would be to consume your
meals and enjoy each others silence (for a change). Step three would be to
ponder the sad truth........meat or vegetables.....the **** all ends up in
the same place.

B :-\

pearl

April 28th, 2004, 11:15 AM

"ipse dixit" <f@chance> wrote in message ...
> On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 23:25:57 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> >"ipse dixit" <f@chance> wrote in message ...
> ><..>
> >> For the record, and to head off any criticism that I'm
> >> trying to assist Pearl here,
> >
> >Heaven forbid!
>
> Good sense forbids, L. My good sense.

You reckon.

> >> I've argued in the past that
> >> seventh day adventists, because of confounding factors,
> >> are a subset of people and so aren't representative of
> >> our population generally.
> >>
> >> [start]
> >> Their avoidance of baccy and booze make them confounding
> >> factors if the rest of us don't avoid these habits. Also, I might
> >> add, these figures are based on a small subset of people and
> >> aren't representative of the whole population. Making a judgment
> >> based on a hasty generalisation using an unrepresented sample is
> >> a logically flawed argument.
> >>
> >> Unrepresentative Sample
> >> AKA: Biased Sample
> >> Type: Weak Analogy
> >> N% of sample S has characteristic C.
> >> (Where S is a sample unrepresentative of the population P.)
> >> Therefore, N% of population P has characteristic C.
> >>
> >> N% of the Seventh Day Adventists has characteristic C.
> >> C- live longer on a vegetarian diet.
> >> (SDA is a sample unrepresentative of the population P
> >> because they don't smoke or drink)
> >> Therefore N% of population P has characteristic C.
> >>
> >> You are trying to claim that N% of our population would
> >> live longer following a vegetarian diet similar to the N% of
> >> SDA, but you cannot because their confounding factors
> >> make them an unrepresentative sample
> >> [end] http://tinyurl.com/3ffoc
> >
> >And I replied; http://tinyurl.com/2kdp9
> >
> >In short; SDA studies are also representative of the non-smoking,
> >non-drinking meat-eating and vegetarian general population.
>
> No, they are not because SDA's follow an abstemious
> life generally, apart from booze and baccy, and work
> *exceptionally hard*. Apart from that they exercise and
> live clean lives, and these factors make them a subset
> of vegetarians and therefore not representative of them.
>
> [The idea that eating well, exercising and shunning
> cigarettes promotes health is nothing new -- experts
> continually hammer the message home. What is new
> here, is that clean living has been linked to a longer life.
>
> I have great respect for Seventh Day Adventists and
> believe in many of the principles their denomination
> advocates. However, I am not convinced that their
> teaching on vegetarianism is accurate. I certainly can
> be wrong here.
>
> This, and many other studies, clearly show that
> Adventists as a group are far healthier than most
> Americans. There are many other alternative
> explanations for this, besides the elimination of
> animal foods though. Clearly exercise, ideal body
> weight and not smoking or drinking to excess could
> easily account for the increase in life expectancy
> Adventists have.]
> http://www.mercola.com/2001/jul/21/vegetarian.htm
>
> See? It's not just the booze and baccy. There are
> other confounding factors about them which you're
> ignoring, and these factors make them a sub set and
> unrepresentative of other vegetarians.

What other confounding factors? Hard work?
You're reaching, and wrong. And this isn't about the
topic, it's about attacking me to satisfy your ego, Derek.

> >They
> >are helpful for determining the effects of diet alone, without the
> >confounding factors of drinking alcohol and smoking.
>
> But you're ignoring other the confounding factors
> mentioned above which may also play a huge part
> in their health and longevity, such as hard work,
> maintaining ideal body weight and clean living.
> SDA's are only analogous to others SDA's and
> not to the general vegetarian or vegan.

Nothing different to non-SDA health-conscious vegetarians.

> > Studies of
> >the general smoking and non, and drinking and non, populations do
> >take those factors into account anyway. This just makes it easier.
>
> If all vegetarians followed an SDA lifestyle you'd
> have a point, but they don't, so you don't.

It shows the effects of meat eating, all other factors apart.

> >> So let's go back to the evidence you brought instead.
> >>
> >> Probably the best science we have was summarized in the
> >> American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in 1999, in an article
> >> entitled Mortality in Vegetarians and Nonvegetarians. In an
> >> enormous undertaking, twelve researchers took all of the
> >> biggest and best studies to date on vegetarian mortality rates
> >> and pooled all the data together. They took a decade of
> >> mortality data from 28,000 vegetarians from Germany,
> >> California, and Britain. And found... no survival advantage
> >> for vegetarians. What about vegans though? Despite even
> >> having lower cholesterol levels than vegetarians, the vegans
> >> in the study didn't live any longer either. Vegans had the same
> >> mortality rate as meateaters.
> >> http://vegnews.org/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=121
> >>
> >> Knowing high levels of cholesterol generally shorten life, aren't
> >> you a little sceptical of the evidence presented by the American
> >> Journal of Clinical Nutrition on this point?
> >
> >Yes.
>
> So am I.

pearl

April 28th, 2004, 11:32 AM

"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote:
> >>><..>
> >>>
> >>>>>The consumption of meat, eggs, milk, and cheese did not
> >>>>>have negative associations with any of the causes of death investigated.
> >>>>
> >>>>See this one from the same author, dummy:
> >>>>Diet, obesity, and risk of fatal prostate cancer
> >>>>
> >>>>DA Snowdon, RL Phillips and W Choi
> >>>>
> >>>>Findings described in this report are for 6,763 white male Seventh-day
> >>>>Adventists who completed a dietary questionnaire in 1960. Between 1960
> >>>>and 1980 mortality data were collected on cohort members. *Overweight*
> >>>>men had a significantly higher risk of fatal prostate cancer than men
> >>>>near their desirable weight. The predicted relative risk of fatal
> >>>>prostate cancer was 2.5 for *overweight* men. Suggestive positive
> >>>>associations were also seen between fatal prostate cancer and the
> >>>>consumption of milk, cheese, eggs, and meat. There was an orderly dose-
> >>>>response between each of the four animal products and risk. The
> >>>>predicted relative risk of fatal prostate cancer was 3.6 for those who
> >>>>heavily consumed all four animal products. The results of this study and
> >>>>others suggest that animal product consumption and *obesity* may be risk
> >>>>factors for fatal prostate cancer.
> >>>>MY EMPHASIS, DUMMY.
> >>>>http://aje.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/120/2/244
> >>>>
> >>>>Same survey, same researchers. Compare these findings to other studies of
> >>>>*OVERWEIGHT* study participants. *Obesity* kills,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>J Clin Gastroenterol. 1986 Aug;8(4):451-3.
> >>>Energy intake and body weight in ovo-lacto vegetarians.
> >>>Levin N, Rattan J, Gilat T.
> >>> Vegetarians have a lower body weight than omnivores.
> >>
> >>*Entirely* irrelevant to the issue at hand. Stop moving goalposts, you nasty
> >>foot-fetishist.
> >
> > Temper, temper.
>
> My temper is under control. I laugh at you, I don't lose my cool.

You lie.

> > You tried to move the goalposts, but they
> > were just too heavy for you.
>
> No, Lesley, I showed your misuse of the studies you cite. I can show you fat
> veg-ns and thin meat-eaters. It has nothing to do with your points taken from
> the SDA study. As Derek has also rightly shown, SDAs are not merely vegetarian.
> Their lifestyles encompass factors far beyond the scope of the studies you've
> (mis)used to make points.

Nope. You tried to argue that obesity is linked to prostate cancer,
ignoring the meat aspect, then I showed you that meat eaters were
four times more likely to be obese. IDIOT.

> > hahaha. BTW, thanks for this;
> >
> > 'Suggestive positive associations were also seen between fatal
> > prostate cancer and the consumption of milk, cheese, eggs, and
> > meat. There was an orderly dose- response between each of
> > the four animal products and risk. The predicted relative risk of
> > fatal prostate cancer was 3.6 for those who heavily consumed
> > all four animal products.'
>
> Pay attention: those surveyed in that study were OBESE and they HEAVILY consumed
> those products. Both factors -- obesity and level of consumption -- are notable.

Both factors in their own right, not together. What a tired ploy.

> > Not so useless, after all. Rah.
>
> I'm not, but you sure are.

You're beneath contempt, murderous fool.

pearl

April 28th, 2004, 11:35 AM

"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote:
> <...>
> > In short; SDA studies are also representative of the non-smoking,
> > non-drinking meat-eating and vegetarian general population.
>
> Ipse dixit. They are not. Their church was founded by Ellen G White as part of
> the Great Disappointment. The Great Disappointment was also known as the
> Millerite Advent, in which a certain Bible teacher predicted Christ's return but
> someone forgot to let Christ in on it. White readjusted the dates (a few times)
> and also broadened her message to encompass complete sobriety in the form of
> abstinence from alcohol, tobacco, and meat, along with fastidious study of the
> Scriptures (the Branch Davidians were an off-shoot of the SDAs, fwiw), frequent
> exercise, prayer, and other such habits. Most vegetarians do not engage in
> anything close to the lifestyle promoted by Ellen White or her followers.

Nonsense.

> > They are helpful for determining the effects of diet alone,
>
> No, they are not. Derek has shown you Mercola's opinion. It's spot on.

I can show you a mountain of research for that purpose.

> > without the
> > confounding factors of drinking alcohol and smoking. Studies of
> > the general smoking and non, and drinking and non, populations do
> > take those factors into account anyway.
>
> Not always.

Mostly.

> > This just makes it easier.
>
> You mean it makes it easier for you to peddle your peculiar interpretations of
> scientific studies.

More nasty smear.

>
> <...>
>

pearl

April 28th, 2004, 11:38 AM

"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote:
> > <..>
> >
> >>One of my cats is a foot-fetishist.
> >
> > Is its name Tango?
> >
> > FTR, I'm not.
>
> Liar. You make money playing with feet.

You're the liar, twisted pervert.

I am a qualified health-care provider.

> > The OP's MO is foolish AH.
>
> FU
>

ipse dixit

April 28th, 2004, 11:58 AM

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 23:12:47 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:

>ipse dixit wrote:
>>>*Entirely* irrelevant to the issue at hand. Stop moving goalposts, you nasty
>>>foot-fetishist.
>>
>> For the record, and to head off any criticism that I'm
>> trying to assist Pearl here, I've argued in the past that
>> seventh day adventists, because of confounding factors,
>> are a subset of people and so aren't representative of
>> our population generally.
>
>We agree. I mentioned their prophetess, Ellen G White, earlier. IVU has a page
>with some of her quotes.
>http://www.ivu.org/history/adventists/white.html
>
>See also:
>http://www.whiteestate.org/about/egwbio.asp#health
>
>Lesley's incessant (ab)use of SDA studies focuses on one factor alone rather
>than all the others: strict temperance, prayer, life of modesty, etc.:

Which is why I've always been quick to point those
factors out. Diet isn't the only factor for health and
longevity, and my own personal experience tells me
that. While Belinda and I eat exactly the same foods,
I'm close to 17 stone while she remains as she's always
been at around 9 stone. She's always eating yet her
cholesterol is much lower than mine has ever been,
around half, and we both reckon it's due to her fitness
regimen. We're both early risers, but while I'm groping
around in the kitchen half asleep, she's up and doing her
4 mile run along Eastbourne's prom every day and jumps
rope for up to 30 minutes 3 times a week. I do nothing
apart from squeeze the bejesus out of a Bullworker
when the mood takes me.

>--start--
>What's the "recommended way of life" noted above? According to their
>"prophetess" Ellen G White, SDAs should be:
> - vegetarians
> - tee-totalers (zero alcohol consumption)
> - non-smokers
> - *regular exercisers*
> - active church members
> - Christians
> - very moderate/temperate sorts
>--end--
>
>> [start]
>> Their avoidance of baccy and booze make them confounding
>> factors if the rest of us don't avoid these habits. Also, I might
>> add, these figures are based on a small subset of people and
>> aren't representative of the whole population. Making a judgment
>> based on a hasty generalisation using an unrepresented sample is
>> a logically flawed argument.
>>
>> Unrepresentative Sample
>> AKA: Biased Sample
>> Type: Weak Analogy
>> N% of sample S has characteristic C.
>> (Where S is a sample unrepresentative of the population P.)
>> Therefore, N% of population P has characteristic C.
>>
>> N% of the Seventh Day Adventists has characteristic C.
>> C- live longer on a vegetarian diet.
>> (SDA is a sample unrepresentative of the population P
>> because they don't smoke or drink)
>> Therefore N% of population P has characteristic C.
>>
>> You are trying to claim that N% of our population would
>> live longer following a vegetarian diet similar to the N% of
>> SDA, but you cannot because their confounding factors
>> make them an unrepresentative sample
>> [end] http://tinyurl.com/3ffoc
>
>Correct. Pedantic, but correct.

There's nothing wrong in trying to drive a point home
with some good ole-fashioned pedantry. It's no good
my screaming, "That's a fallacy" without showing why,
is it?

>> So let's go back to the evidence you brought instead.
>>
>> Probably the best science we have was summarized in the
>> American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in 1999, in an article
>> entitled Mortality in Vegetarians and Nonvegetarians. In an
>> enormous undertaking, twelve researchers took all of the
>> biggest and best studies to date on vegetarian mortality rates
>> and pooled all the data together. They took a decade of
>> mortality data from 28,000 vegetarians from Germany,
>> California, and Britain. And found... no survival advantage
>> for vegetarians. What about vegans though? Despite even
>> having lower cholesterol levels than vegetarians, the vegans
>> in the study didn't live any longer either. Vegans had the same
>> mortality rate as meateaters.
>> http://vegnews.org/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=121
>>
>> Knowing high levels of cholesterol generally shorten life,
>
>I don't know *that*. It helps to distinguish between HDL and LDL. Elevated LDL
>(the bad cholesterol) does tend to shorten life due to heart disease. Elevated
>HDL, though, is one of the factors which tends to appear in those with less
>heart disease and extended longevity. Total cholesterol can be high due to
>elevated HDL, as it is in the Inuit and similar groups.

Too much chemistry for me, pally. I've never understood
any of it. Chemistry has got to be my weakest subject.
Though my cholesterol is higher than Belinda's, my quack
tells me it's nothing to worry about because it's GOOD
cholesterol. I pulled the right face to let him think I
understood him, but I didn't.

>> aren't
>> you a little sceptical of the evidence presented by the American
>> Journal of Clinical Nutrition on this point?
>
>No, because the data show the *same* thing in places where vegetarianism is more
>common (i.e., India). People die, and they die from the same types of ailments
>at about the same ages. The two SDA studies by Snowdon (one Lesley offered, the
>other I offered) both show that *obese* people who eat *a lot of saturated fat*
>die younger. That isn't news.
>
>As for cholesterol itself, I think we need to distinguish between healthy and
>unhealthy diets whether they contain meat or not. People can go veg-n and be
>worse off if they eat the wrong foods. People can continue to eat meat, eggs,
>and dairy and stay healthy if they make the right choices. Lean red meats
>(especially game) and oily cold-water fish are rich in omega-3 FAs and in
>studies have shown to elevate HDL and help lower LDL. Exercise is also a factor
>to consider in these studies because exercise elevates HDL. LDL is raised by the
>consumption of saturated fats, not cholesterol.
>
> There are three kinds of fats in foods: saturated, polyunsaturated and
> monounsaturated fats. Only saturated fatty acids can raise your blood
> cholesterol.
> http://www.mssm.edu/cvi/cholesterol.shtml
>
>See also:
>http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/foodnut/09319.html
>
>And these two, pro-meat (lean meat):
>http://www.ag.ohio-state.edu/~meatsci/news/6_30_leanredmeat.html
>http://news.uns.purdue.edu/html4ever/020204.Watkins.paleo.html

I must set aside some time to learn about these things.

pearl

April 28th, 2004, 12:16 PM

"ipse dixit" <f@chance> wrote in message ...
> On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 23:12:47 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
<..>
> >And these two, pro-meat (lean meat):
> >http://www.ag.ohio-state.edu/~meatsci/news/6_30_leanredmeat.html
> >http://news.uns.purdue.edu/html4ever/020204.Watkins.paleo.html
>
> I must set aside some time to learn about these things.

'.. disease rates were significantly associated within a range of dietary
plant food composition that suggested an absence of a disease prevention
threshold. That is, the closer a diet is to an all-plant foods diet, the greater
will be the reduction in the rates of these diseases.'
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Nov98/thermogenesis_paper.html

P.S. The Chinese, as a group, do not abstain from tobacco and alcohol.

ipse dixit

April 28th, 2004, 12:24 PM

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 11:15:18 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>"ipse dixit" <f@chance> wrote in message ...
>> On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 23:25:57 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>> >"ipse dixit" <f@chance> wrote in message ...
>> ><..>
>> >> For the record, and to head off any criticism that I'm
>> >> trying to assist Pearl here,
>> >
>> >Heaven forbid!
>>
>> Good sense forbids, L. My good sense.
>
>You reckon.

Yes.

>> >> I've argued in the past that
>> >> seventh day adventists, because of confounding factors,
>> >> are a subset of people and so aren't representative of
>> >> our population generally.
>> >>
>> >> [start]
>> >> Their avoidance of baccy and booze make them confounding
>> >> factors if the rest of us don't avoid these habits. Also, I might
>> >> add, these figures are based on a small subset of people and
>> >> aren't representative of the whole population. Making a judgment
>> >> based on a hasty generalisation using an unrepresented sample is
>> >> a logically flawed argument.
>> >>
>> >> Unrepresentative Sample
>> >> AKA: Biased Sample
>> >> Type: Weak Analogy
>> >> N% of sample S has characteristic C.
>> >> (Where S is a sample unrepresentative of the population P.)
>> >> Therefore, N% of population P has characteristic C.
>> >>
>> >> N% of the Seventh Day Adventists has characteristic C.
>> >> C- live longer on a vegetarian diet.
>> >> (SDA is a sample unrepresentative of the population P
>> >> because they don't smoke or drink)
>> >> Therefore N% of population P has characteristic C.
>> >>
>> >> You are trying to claim that N% of our population would
>> >> live longer following a vegetarian diet similar to the N% of
>> >> SDA, but you cannot because their confounding factors
>> >> make them an unrepresentative sample
>> >> [end] http://tinyurl.com/3ffoc
>> >
>> >And I replied; http://tinyurl.com/2kdp9
>> >
>> >In short; SDA studies are also representative of the non-smoking,
>> >non-drinking meat-eating and vegetarian general population.
>>
>> No, they are not because SDA's follow an abstemious
>> life generally, apart from booze and baccy, and work
>> *exceptionally hard*. Apart from that they exercise and
>> live clean lives, and these factors make them a subset
>> of vegetarians and therefore not representative of them.
>>
>> [The idea that eating well, exercising and shunning
>> cigarettes promotes health is nothing new -- experts
>> continually hammer the message home. What is new
>> here, is that clean living has been linked to a longer life.
>>
>> I have great respect for Seventh Day Adventists and
>> believe in many of the principles their denomination
>> advocates. However, I am not convinced that their
>> teaching on vegetarianism is accurate. I certainly can
>> be wrong here.
>>
>> This, and many other studies, clearly show that
>> Adventists as a group are far healthier than most
>> Americans. There are many other alternative
>> explanations for this, besides the elimination of
>> animal foods though. Clearly exercise, ideal body
>> weight and not smoking or drinking to excess could
>> easily account for the increase in life expectancy
>> Adventists have.]
>> http://www.mercola.com/2001/jul/21/vegetarian.htm
>>
>> See? It's not just the booze and baccy. There are
>> other confounding factors about them which you're
>> ignoring, and these factors make them a sub set and
>> unrepresentative of other vegetarians.
>
>What other confounding factors? Hard work?

That and clean living, a calm temper and plenty of
*regular* exercise.

>You're reaching, and wrong. And this isn't about the
>topic, it's about attacking me to satisfy your ego, Derek.

It IS about the topic, which is why I HAD to include
a quick preamble at the beginning of my post to head
off any criticism that I might be arguing to assist you,
and besides, how would attacking you satisfy my ego
anyway? Arm wrestling a 12 year old would satisfy it
more than attacking your ignorance and sheer stupidity,
honey.

>> >They
>> >are helpful for determining the effects of diet alone, without the
>> >confounding factors of drinking alcohol and smoking.
>>
>> But you're ignoring other the confounding factors
>> mentioned above which may also play a huge part
>> in their health and longevity, such as hard work,
>> maintaining ideal body weight and clean living.
>> SDA's are only analogous to others SDA's and
>> not to the general vegetarian or vegan.
>
>Nothing different to non-SDA health-conscious vegetarians.

Wrong, and you know it, so get off it because it doesn't
fly.

>> > Studies of
>> >the general smoking and non, and drinking and non, populations do
>> >take those factors into account anyway. This just makes it easier.
>>
>> If all vegetarians followed an SDA lifestyle you'd
>> have a point, but they don't, so you don't.
>
>It shows the effects of meat eating, all other factors apart.

You've shown nothing, and all other factors, which you
insist on ignoring set SDA's apart from other vegetarians,
making them unrepresentative.

>> >> So let's go back to the evidence you brought instead.
>> >>
>> >> Probably the best science we have was summarized in the
>> >> American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in 1999, in an article
>> >> entitled Mortality in Vegetarians and Nonvegetarians. In an
>> >> enormous undertaking, twelve researchers took all of the
>> >> biggest and best studies to date on vegetarian mortality rates
>> >> and pooled all the data together. They took a decade of
>> >> mortality data from 28,000 vegetarians from Germany,
>> >> California, and Britain. And found... no survival advantage
>> >> for vegetarians. What about vegans though? Despite even
>> >> having lower cholesterol levels than vegetarians, the vegans
>> >> in the study didn't live any longer either. Vegans had the same
>> >> mortality rate as meateaters.
>> >> http://vegnews.org/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=121
>> >>
>> >> Knowing high levels of cholesterol generally shorten life, aren't
>> >> you a little sceptical of the evidence presented by the American
>> >> Journal of Clinical Nutrition on this point?
>> >
>> >Yes.
>>
>> So am I.
>

pearl

April 28th, 2004, 12:57 PM

"ipse dixit" <f@chance> wrote in message ...
> On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 11:15:18 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> >"ipse dixit" <f@chance> wrote in message ...
> >> On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 23:25:57 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> >> >"ipse dixit" <f@chance> wrote in message ...
<..>
> >> If all vegetarians followed an SDA lifestyle you'd
> >> have a point, but they don't, so you don't.
> >
> >It shows the effects of meat eating, all other factors apart.
>
> You've shown nothing, and all other factors, which you
> insist on ignoring set SDA's apart from other vegetarians,
> making them unrepresentative.

The Adventist Health Study: Mortality studies of Seventh-day Adventists

Seventh-day Adventists have increasingly become the objects
of epidemiologic studies, both because they tend to be far more
homogeneous in many lifestyle choices and because they are
more heterogeneous in nutritional habits than the general population.

Certain lifestyle characteristics, such as heavy cigarette smoking,
consumption of alcohol, and diets heavy in fats may confound or
modify the effects of other factors, making it difficult to study them.

In the Adventist population, these potentially distorting
characteristics are largely absent, making other factors more
easily observed. Perhaps even more importantly, the wide
range of dietary habits, from strict vegetarianism to a normal
American diet, greatly enhances the ability of investigators.
...'
http://www.llu.edu/llu/health/mortality.html

"I am not convinced that their teaching on vegetarianism
is accurate. I certainly can be wrong here." - Mercola.

pearl

April 28th, 2004, 03:03 PM

"Bryan" > wrote in message
. rogers.com...
> Sigh.......
> Amusing watching the when Harry met Sally post. Here's an idea, why
> don't both of you go to McDonalds.....one orders the BigMac combo with a
> coke, the other a salad and bottled water. Step two would be to consume your
> meals and enjoy each others silence (for a change). Step three would be to
> ponder the sad truth........meat or vegetables.....the **** all ends up in
> the same place.
>
> B :-\

Funny thing is, the other two are both vegans. One ('usual suspect')
for his 'athletic performance', the other ('ipse dixit') because of a
professed belief in animal rights. Both detest me, -but not only me-,
for reasons best known to them. IMO, they both detest themselves
deep down, and part-justifiably so, but instead of sorting it out attack
others. "All cruelty springs from weakness." (Seneca, 4BC-AD65).

usual suspect

April 28th, 2004, 05:00 PM

pearl wrote:
<...>
>>>>*Entirely* irrelevant to the issue at hand. Stop moving goalposts, you nasty
>>>>foot-fetishist.
>>>
>>>Temper, temper.
>>
>>My temper is under control. I laugh at you, I don't lose my cool.
>
> You lie.

No, silly woman, I really do laugh at you.

>>>You tried to move the goalposts, but they
>>>were just too heavy for you.
>>
>>No, Lesley, I showed your misuse of the studies you cite. I can show you fat
>>veg-ns and thin meat-eaters. It has nothing to do with your points taken from
>>the SDA study. As Derek has also rightly shown, SDAs are not merely vegetarian.
>>Their lifestyles encompass factors far beyond the scope of the studies you've
>>(mis)used to make points.
>
> Nope.

Yep.

> You tried to argue that obesity is linked to prostate cancer,

I showed that obesity is the primary factor contributing to prostate cancer and
other cancers.

> ignoring the meat aspect,

I didn't ignore it, I pointed out that HIGH CONSUMPTION of foods with saturated
fat was noted as a factor in your study. You stupidly but conveniently ignored
(a) that the group with the highest mortality rate were already overweight and
(b) that their consumption wasn't moderate or average.

> then I showed you that meat eaters were
> four times more likely to be obese.

That wasn't a scientific survey.

> IDIOT.

Whore.

>>>hahaha. BTW, thanks for this;
>>>
>>>'Suggestive positive associations were also seen between fatal
>>>prostate cancer and the consumption of milk, cheese, eggs, and
>>>meat. There was an orderly dose- response between each of
>>>the four animal products and risk. The predicted relative risk of
>>>fatal prostate cancer was 3.6 for those who heavily consumed
>>>all four animal products.'
>>
>>Pay attention: those surveyed in that study were OBESE and they HEAVILY consumed
>>those products. Both factors -- obesity and level of consumption -- are notable.
>
> Both factors in their own right, not together.

Yes, together.

> What a tired ploy.

I know you don't comprehend science, which is why you rub feet for a living.
Stop trying to play like you understand what you're posting; the only person
you're fooling is yourself.

>>>Not so useless, after all. Rah.
>>
>>I'm not, but you sure are.
>
> You're beneath contempt,

Just yours, moron.

> murderous fool.

I've never murdered anyone. As for the other part of your ad hominem, pot kettle
black.

usual suspect

April 28th, 2004, 05:07 PM

pearl wrote:
>>><..>
>>>
>>>>One of my cats is a foot-fetishist.
>>>
>>>Is its name Tango?
>>>
>>>FTR, I'm not.
>>
>>Liar. You make money playing with feet.
>
> You're the liar,

No, ma'am. You make money playing with feet. Want me to go back through all your
posts about that again?

> twisted pervert.

I'm neither twisted nor perverted.

> I am a qualified health-care provider.

Bwahahaha! You're certifiable, that's for sure. Rubbing feet isn't health care.
Neither is hooking people up to bogus devices like your Zapper.

<...>

usual suspect

April 28th, 2004, 05:12 PM

pearl wrote:
>>Sigh.......
>> Amusing watching the when Harry met Sally post. Here's an idea, why
>>don't both of you go to McDonalds.....one orders the BigMac combo with a
>>coke, the other a salad and bottled water. Step two would be to consume your
>>meals and enjoy each others silence (for a change). Step three would be to
>>ponder the sad truth........meat or vegetables.....the **** all ends up in
>>the same place.
>
> Funny thing is, the other two are both vegans.

Stop calling me that. I'm vegetarian.

> One ('usual suspect')
> for his 'athletic performance', the other ('ipse dixit') because of a
> professed belief in animal rights. Both detest me, -but not only me-,
> for reasons best known to them.

I don't detest you, Lesley. You amuse me when you make your fantastic posts about:
"veganism"
"inner earth beings"
"hollow earth"
that goofy patent for a MANUFACTURED globe
helium-inflated number(s) for feed:beef
rain forest destruction
Brazil's exports (based on *Argentina's* trade)
Stolen French flying saucer
Zapper
Foot massage (as cure-all)
Astrology
Numerology
Alien abduction
bestiality
Leprechauns
Channeling
Polar fountains
Sun gazing
Chemtrails
AIDS and ebola conspiracy theory
Crop circles
sexually aroused by violent ex-convicts
participation in skinhead subculture
the validity of online IQ tests
crackpot 9-11 conspiracy theories
Jeff Rense for "news"

> IMO, they both detest themselves

No self-hatred here.

> deep down, and part-justifiably so, but instead of sorting it out attack
> others. "All cruelty springs from weakness." (Seneca, 4BC-AD65).

Seneca never met you. Neither did Will Rogers.

Paul Rooney

April 28th, 2004, 05:21 PM

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 16:12:18 GMT, usual suspect >
wrote:

>I don't detest you, Lesley.

I'm sure that's a line from a '60s song.

--

Paul

My Lake District walking site:

http://paulrooney.netfirms.com

Ron

April 28th, 2004, 08:47 PM

"rick etter" > wrote in message >...
> "pearl" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Terry Crawford" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 23:21:18 GMT, "rick etter" >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >"Terry Crawford" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >> On 21 Apr 2004 15:08:27 -0700, (William J.
> > > >> Wolfe) wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> >"pearl" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > >> >
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> - Interesting that you should feel a need to point that out. ..
> > > >> >
> > > >> ><remainder of rant deleted to conserve electrons>
> > > >> >
> > > >> >And the point of your ravings is ...?
> > > >>
> > > >> Eat meat, die young(er) and leave the world to the meek.
> > > >==================
> > > >Only problem is that isn't the case. The longest lived people as a
> group in
> > > >the world are not vegans. Kinda screws the whole vegan rant, doesnt
> it?
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Damn. OK, steak tonight with a nice big Cabernet Suauvignon. MMMmmmm.
> >
> > Actually, the people etter, our dietary wizardness, was referring to
> > are vegetarians. That's right,- vegetarian Seventh-day Adventists.
> > Longevity of the vegan sub-set wasn't studied seperately, afaIa, but
> > other epidemiological (study of populations) research shows that
> > vegans are less at risk of chronic disease than lacto-ovo vegetarians.
> > Kind of really screws the whole meatarian rant, doesn't it, eh etter?
> ====================

> Not at all, fool. You should learn to read real things instead of your
> propaganda. The longest lived groups of people are not vegan, period.
> Your whole religion is still just smoke and mirrors, killer.
>

"read real things"? Such as what etter? Field mouse stuff?

pEtter, have you ever had your head examined?

pearl

April 29th, 2004, 11:03 AM

"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote:
> <...>
> >>>>*Entirely* irrelevant to the issue at hand. Stop moving goalposts, you nasty
> >>>>foot-fetishist.
> >>>
> >>>Temper, temper.
> >>
> >>My temper is under control. I laugh at you, I don't lose my cool.
> >
> > You lie.
>
> No, silly woman, I really do laugh at you.

Only because you're a fool.

> >>>You tried to move the goalposts, but they
> >>>were just too heavy for you.
> >>
> >>No, Lesley, I showed your misuse of the studies you cite. I can show you fat
> >>veg-ns and thin meat-eaters. It has nothing to do with your points taken from
> >>the SDA study. As Derek has also rightly shown, SDAs are not merely vegetarian.
> >>Their lifestyles encompass factors far beyond the scope of the studies you've
> >>(mis)used to make points.
> >
> > Nope.
>
> Yep.

BS.

> > You tried to argue that obesity is linked to prostate cancer,
>
> I showed that obesity is the primary factor contributing to prostate cancer and
> other cancers.

'primary' now, is it? Let's see;

Diet, obesity, and risk of fatal prostate cancer
DA Snowdon, RL Phillips and W Choi

Findings described in this report are for 6,763 white male Seventh-day
Adventists who completed a dietary questionnaire in 1960. Between
1960 and 1980 mortality data were collected on cohort members.
Overweight men had a significantly higher risk of fatal prostate cancer
than men near their desirable weight. *The predicted relative risk of
fatal prostate cancer was 2.5 for overweight men*. Suggestive positive
associations were *also* seen between fatal prostate cancer and the
consumption of milk, cheese, eggs, and meat. There was an orderly
dose- response between each of the four animal products and risk.
*The predicted relative risk of fatal prostate cancer was 3.6 for those
who heavily consumed all four animal products.* The results of this study
and others suggest that animal product consumption and obesity may be
risk factors for fatal prostate cancer.
http://aje.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/120/2/244
<*emphasis mine>

Looks like animal product consumption is the primary factor
contributing to fatal prostate cancer, particularly as meat eating
is also associated with obesity.

> > ignoring the meat aspect,
>
> I didn't ignore it,

You scrawled;
"Same survey, same researchers. Compare these findings to other
studies of *OVERWEIGHT* study participants. *Obesity* kills,"

> I pointed out that HIGH CONSUMPTION of foods with saturated
> fat was noted as a factor in your study.

Not only.

'Suggestive positive associations were also seen between fatal prostate
cancer and the consumption of milk, cheese, eggs, and meat. *There was
an orderly dose- response between each of the four animal products and
risk.* The predicted relative risk of fatal prostate cancer was 3.6 for those
who heavily consumed all four animal products. The results of this study
and others suggest that animal product consumption and obesity may be
risk factors for fatal prostate cancer.
http://aje.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/120/2/244
<*emphasis mine>

> You stupidly but conveniently ignored
> (a) that the group with the highest mortality rate were already overweight and

Show us where you read that.

> (b) that their consumption wasn't moderate or average.

That'd be correct.

> > then I showed you that meat eaters were
> > four times more likely to be obese.
>
> That wasn't a scientific survey.

Of course it was.

> > IDIOT.
>
> Whore.

Liar.

> >>>hahaha. BTW, thanks for this;
> >>>
> >>>'Suggestive positive associations were also seen between fatal
> >>>prostate cancer and the consumption of milk, cheese, eggs, and
> >>>meat. There was an orderly dose- response between each of
> >>>the four animal products and risk. The predicted relative risk of
> >>>fatal prostate cancer was 3.6 for those who heavily consumed
> >>>all four animal products.'
> >>
> >>Pay attention: those surveyed in that study were OBESE and they HEAVILY consumed
> >>those products. Both factors -- obesity and level of consumption -- are notable.
> >
> > Both factors in their own right, not together.
>
> Yes, together.

No, not together.

> > What a tired ploy.
>
> I know you don't comprehend science, which is why you rub feet for a living.
> Stop trying to play like you understand what you're posting; the only person
> you're fooling is yourself.

You wish. You aint got a clue- still.

> >>>Not so useless, after all. Rah.
> >>
> >>I'm not, but you sure are.
> >
> > You're beneath contempt,
>
> Just yours, moron.
>
> > murderous fool.
>
> I've never murdered anyone. As for the other part of your ad hominem, pot kettle
> black.

Idiot child- you support WAR.