IFAW - Saving Harp Seals

"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/tran...df/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/entre...&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

"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=...=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.

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=...=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/~meatsc...anredmeat.html
http://news.uns.purdue.edu/html4ever...ins.paleo.html

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.

"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!

"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.

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=...=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 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/conte...ract/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.

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.

...

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