Vegetarian Discussion: Smart That We Are... ;)

Smart That We Are... ;)
Posts: 19

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page:  Previous  1 2   (First | Last)

Lamellae
2006-10-22 00:43:55 EST
pearl wrote:

> 'These critics, who are mischievously posing as qualified scientists,

> ..'
> http://www.vegsource.com/articles2/campbell_china_response.htm

Well that explains a lot.

Sally Fallon, President of the WAPF special interest group:
"Animal fats and cholesterol are not villains but vital factors in the
diet, necessary for normal growth, proper function of the brain and
nervous system, protection from disease and optimum energy levels."

The enigmatic JayY:
"I've never sat on a government advisory panel, never attended even a
single university lecture, and cannot yet boast of having the same
volume of published literature as Campbell, but I'm smart enough to know
most of the claims made in his book are utter rubbish."

And Masterjohn:
"I learned that Masterjohn was a 24 year old 'chapter leader' of WAPF in
Massachusetts. He claimed that he was a former vegetarian who nearly
lost his life (according to his account) because of his following the
earlier advice of John Robbins."

You think any pro-meat group would dispatch a troll to infiltrate a
vegetarian group? The mischievous former vegetarian Ditch sure does
resemble a couple of those characters. I bet JayY/Masterjohn/Ditch are
the same person.

Dutch
2006-10-22 02:50:13 EST

"Lamellae" <llae@gnatscape.net> wrote
> pearl wrote:
>
>> 'These critics, who are mischievously posing as qualified scientists,
>
>> ..'
>> http://www.vegsource.com/articles2/campbell_china_response.htm
>
> Well that explains a lot.

If you want a simple explanation it is that you are fundamentally blind and
rigidly impervious to reason due to vegetarian extremism, a borderline
mental disorder.

> Sally Fallon, President of the WAPF special interest group:
> "Animal fats and cholesterol are not villains but vital factors in the
> diet, necessary for normal growth, proper function of the brain and
> nervous system, protection from disease and optimum energy levels."
>
> The enigmatic JayY:
> "I've never sat on a government advisory panel, never attended even a
> single university lecture, and cannot yet boast of having the same volume
> of published literature as Campbell, but I'm smart enough to know most of
> the claims made in his book are utter rubbish."
>
> And Masterjohn:
> "I learned that Masterjohn was a 24 year old 'chapter leader' of WAPF in
> Massachusetts. He claimed that he was a former vegetarian who nearly lost
> his life (according to his account) because of his following the earlier
> advice of John Robbins."
>
> You think any pro-meat group would dispatch a troll to infiltrate a
> vegetarian group? The mischievous former vegetarian Ditch sure does
> resemble a couple of those characters. I bet JayY/Masterjohn/Ditch are the
> same person.

Your paranoia illustrates my point. They ARE out to get you you know, better
switch that alias again.



Pearl
2006-10-22 05:59:02 EST
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in message news:12jl0ia2f8grjce@news.supernews.com...
>
> "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
> news:ehd0lh$t8n$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
> > "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in message
> > news:12jjtosjksdu063@news.supernews.com...
> >>
> >> "Teddy Tractortips" <imaized@sessile.org> wrote in message
> >> news:ehclsb$hso$1@aioe.org...
> >> > Ditch:
> >> >> "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
> >> >> news:ehbo2v$cmh$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
> >> >>>"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in message
> >> >>>news:12jii81abvimn01@news.supernews.com...
> >> >>>>"Magrat_Garlick" <feishtica@gmail.com> wrote
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>>Vegetarianism... the intelligent choice!
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>Unless one is anemic or otherwise health-challenged and no longer
> >> >>>>well-served by a strict vegetarian diet, in which case it's the
> >> >>>>stupid
> >> >>>>choice.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Quoth the non-vegetarian pro-meat propagandist and proven liar.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>'Analyses of data from the China studies
> >> >>
> >> >> Quit pasting the same study over and over and over. It doesn't
> >> >> disprove
> >> >> the
> >> >> whole body of nutritional knowledge.
> >> >
> >> > Looks like they're plural, and they're vast. And you're trying to look
> >> > through a pinhole.
> >> >
> >> > "China Study I is now regarded as the most comprehensive study of
> >> > diet, lifestyle and disease ever completed. Data from the study was
> >> > first published in an 896-page monograph (1990) and resulted in more
> >> > than 50 scientific publications."
> >> >
> >> > "Planned since 1987, China Study II was designed to resurvey the same
> >> > mainland Chinese population as China Study I, in addition to a few new
> >> > sites in mainland China and a new population of 16 counties in Taiwan.
> >> > China Study II was directed by the three collaborators in the first
> >> > study and by Dr. Winharn Pan"
> >> >
> >> > "Both surveys afford an opportunity to investigate the effect of dietary
> >> > change from the typical plant-based diet of rural China to a
> >> > Western-style diet that includes more animal-based foods, as consumed in
> >> > urban China and in Taiwan. "Even small increases in the consumption of
> >> > animal-based foods was associated with increased disease risk," Campbell
> >> > told a symposium at the epidemiology congress, pointing to several
> >> > statistically significant correlations from the China studies:"
> >>
> > ...
> >> Limitations of the China Study
> >>
> >> Let us
> >
> > From 'beyondveg' again. NOT a credible source.
>
> A VERY credible source,

Snip discredited nonsense..

> > 'These critics, who are mischievously posing as qualified scientists,
> > have committed errors that expose either their ignorance of basic
> > research principles and/or their passionate following of an unstated
> > agenda. By superficially citing uncorrected crude correlations from
> > the China Project monograph, they show a serious lack of
> > understanding not only of the fundamentals of scientific research
> > but also of the principles of statistics, epidemiology and nutrition.
> > To make matters worse, they have selected correlations that reflect an
> > alternative agenda or bias that has nothing to do with objective science.
> > ....
> > My present views on diet and health are based on the consistency of
> > the vast majority of evidence produced by a wide variety of studies.
> > I see three types of evidence that has most influenced my present
> > views. First, there is the research data from our own studies that are
> > summarized in our book. Second, there is the evidence obtained by
> > many other laboratories, a sample of which is summarized in our book.
> > Third, there is, perhaps, the most important evidence of all, the clinical
> > experiences of the practicing physicians who I had come to know,
> > especially those of Drs. John McDougall, Caldwell Esselstyn, Jr.,
> > Terry Shintani, Joel Fuhrman and Alan Goldhamer. For me, these
> > medical practitioners, entirely on their own initiative and knowledge,
> > were advising, with impressive success, their patients with the same
> > information that I had come to know from the scientific literature
> > and laboratory.
> > ..'
> > http://www.vegsource.com/articles2/campbell_china_response.htm
>
> I like this paragraph of Campbell's.
>
> As my own research experience so well illustrated for me, no one study can
> define an emerging whole truth, or worldview. When most researchers do
> experiments in an area as biologically complex as diet and health, they
> almost always focus on very specific hypotheses, investigating how single
> agents cause specific effects, often by so-called single mechanisms (I also
> followed such a path). But these kinds of experiments have limitations both
> in their design and in their underlying hypotheses. The combination of a
> limited design and a narrowly focused hypothesis for individual experiments
> can only give impressions of a larger truth, even though each experiment may
> be well done. It is only after doing varied experiments is it possible to
> begin constructing a network of evidence and articulating a larger truth.
>
> In other words, stop jumping to conclusions.

I don't. I have spent many years researching this, besides personal experience.

Read the above paragraph starting "My present views on diet and health.."..





Pearl
2006-10-22 06:08:03 EST
"Lamellae" <llae@gnatscape.net> wrote in message news:fGC_g.17222$UG4.3678@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> pearl wrote:
>
> > 'These critics, who are mischievously posing as qualified scientists,
>
> > ..'
> > http://www.vegsource.com/articles2/campbell_china_response.htm
>
> Well that explains a lot.

Aye.

> Sally Fallon, President of the WAPF special interest group:
> "Animal fats and cholesterol are not villains but vital factors in the
> diet, necessary for normal growth, proper function of the brain and
> nervous system, protection from disease and optimum energy levels."
>
> The enigmatic JayY:
> "I've never sat on a government advisory panel, never attended even a
> single university lecture, and cannot yet boast of having the same
> volume of published literature as Campbell, but I'm smart enough to know
> most of the claims made in his book are utter rubbish."
>
> And Masterjohn:
> "I learned that Masterjohn was a 24 year old 'chapter leader' of WAPF in
> Massachusetts. He claimed that he was a former vegetarian who nearly
> lost his life (according to his account) because of his following the
> earlier advice of John Robbins."
>
> You think any pro-meat group would dispatch a troll to infiltrate a
> vegetarian group? The mischievous former vegetarian Ditch sure does
> resemble a couple of those characters. I bet JayY/Masterjohn/Ditch are
> the same person.

Out of the same vat no doubt, but they skimped on ditch's programming.
He still hasn't a clue about nutrition and health, despite years trolling here.





Dutch
2006-10-22 06:17:14 EST
"pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote
> "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote

>> As my own research experience so well illustrated for me, no one study
>> can
>> define an emerging whole truth, or worldview. When most researchers do
>> experiments in an area as biologically complex as diet and health, they
>> almost always focus on very specific hypotheses, investigating how single
>> agents cause specific effects, often by so-called single mechanisms (I
>> also
>> followed such a path). But these kinds of experiments have limitations
>> both
>> in their design and in their underlying hypotheses. The combination of a
>> limited design and a narrowly focused hypothesis for individual
>> experiments
>> can only give impressions of a larger truth, even though each experiment
>> may
>> be well done. It is only after doing varied experiments is it possible to
>> begin constructing a network of evidence and articulating a larger truth.
>>
>> In other words, stop jumping to conclusions.
>
> I don't.

You clearly do when you represent studies such as the China Study as *proof*
that meat is bad for you, when it clearly does no such thing. Campbell even
admits this. He may believe it is bad for us, but he is ethical enough not
to pretend that this study proves it.

> I have spent many years researching this, besides personal experience.

You have spent years looking for and saving bits of data and quotations that
defends a point of view which you hold for emotional (call them "spiritual"
if you prefer) reasons. That is not research.



Pearl
2006-10-22 07:22:40 EST
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in message news:12jmh9d4t517gb2@news.supernews.com...
> "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote
> > "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote
>
> >> As my own research experience so well illustrated for me, no one study can
> >> define an emerging whole truth, or worldview. When most researchers do
> >> experiments in an area as biologically complex as diet and health, they
> >> almost always focus on very specific hypotheses, investigating how single
> >> agents cause specific effects, often by so-called single mechanisms (I also
> >> followed such a path). But these kinds of experiments have limitations both
> >> in their design and in their underlying hypotheses. The combination of a
> >> limited design and a narrowly focused hypothesis for individual experiments
> >> can only give impressions of a larger truth, even though each experiment
> >> may be well done. It is only after doing varied experiments is it possible to
> >> begin constructing a network of evidence and articulating a larger truth.
> >>
> >> In other words, stop jumping to conclusions.
> >
> > I don't.
>
> You clearly do when you represent studies such as the China Study as *proof*
> that meat is bad for you, when it clearly does no such thing. Campbell even
> admits this. He may believe it is bad for us, but he is ethical enough not
> to pretend that this study proves it.

I post the abstract and many others as they are. The reader can decide.

'My present views on diet and health are based on the consistency of
the vast majority of evidence produced by a wide variety of studies.
I see three types of evidence that has most influenced my present
views. First, there is the research data from our own studies that are
summarized in our book. Second, there is the evidence obtained by
many other laboratories, a sample of which is summarized in our book.
Third, there is, perhaps, the most important evidence of all, the clinical
experiences of the practicing physicians who I had come to know,
especially those of Drs. John McDougall, Caldwell Esselstyn, Jr.,
Terry Shintani, Joel Fuhrman and Alan Goldhamer. For me, these
medical practitioners, entirely on their own initiative and knowledge,
were advising, with impressive success, their patients with the same
information that I had come to know from the scientific literature
and laboratory.
..'
http://www.vegsource.com/articles2/campbell_china_response.htm

> > I have spent many years researching this, besides personal experience.
>
> You have spent years looking for and saving bits of data and quotations that
> defends a point of view which you hold for emotional (call them "spiritual"
> if you prefer) reasons. That is not research.

Lots of assumptions, ditch, and you get everything wrong.





Dutch
2006-10-22 17:59:13 EST

"pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
news:ehfk6i$upj$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
> "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in message
> news:12jmh9d4t517gb2@news.supernews.com...
>> "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote
>> > "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote
>>
>> >> As my own research experience so well illustrated for me, no one study
>> >> can
>> >> define an emerging whole truth, or worldview. When most researchers do
>> >> experiments in an area as biologically complex as diet and health,
>> >> they
>> >> almost always focus on very specific hypotheses, investigating how
>> >> single
>> >> agents cause specific effects, often by so-called single mechanisms (I
>> >> also
>> >> followed such a path). But these kinds of experiments have limitations
>> >> both
>> >> in their design and in their underlying hypotheses. The combination of
>> >> a
>> >> limited design and a narrowly focused hypothesis for individual
>> >> experiments
>> >> can only give impressions of a larger truth, even though each
>> >> experiment
>> >> may be well done. It is only after doing varied experiments is it
>> >> possible to
>> >> begin constructing a network of evidence and articulating a larger
>> >> truth.
>> >>
>> >> In other words, stop jumping to conclusions.
>> >
>> > I don't.
>>
>> You clearly do when you represent studies such as the China Study as
>> *proof*
>> that meat is bad for you, when it clearly does no such thing. Campbell
>> even
>> admits this. He may believe it is bad for us, but he is ethical enough
>> not
>> to pretend that this study proves it.
>
> I post the abstract and many others as they are. The reader can decide.

Quit lying, you claim that the China study PROVES that meat is deadly.

> 'My present views on diet and health are based on the consistency of
> the vast majority of evidence produced by a wide variety of studies.
> I see three types of evidence that has most influenced my present
> views. First, there is the research data from our own studies that are
> summarized in our book. Second, there is the evidence obtained by
> many other laboratories, a sample of which is summarized in our book.
> Third, there is, perhaps, the most important evidence of all, the clinical
> experiences of the practicing physicians who I had come to know,
> especially those of Drs. John McDougall, Caldwell Esselstyn, Jr.,
> Terry Shintani, Joel Fuhrman and Alan Goldhamer. For me, these
> medical practitioners, entirely on their own initiative and knowledge,
> were advising, with impressive success, their patients with the same
> information that I had come to know from the scientific literature
> and laboratory.
> ..'
> http://www.vegsource.com/articles2/campbell_china_response.htm
>
>> > I have spent many years researching this, besides personal experience.
>>
>> You have spent years looking for and saving bits of data and quotations
>> that
>> defends a point of view which you hold for emotional (call them
>> "spiritual"
>> if you prefer) reasons. That is not research.
>
> Lots of assumptions

Accurate observations, you have a collection of data and quotes you use to
reinforce something you believe religiously. It's not substantially
different than Derek's collection of quotes he assembles to mount ad hominem
assaults.




Pearl
2006-10-23 07:19:55 EST
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in message news:12jnqdjoqnoqe8b@news.supernews.com...
>
> "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
> news:ehfk6i$upj$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
<..>
> > I post the abstract and many others as they are. The reader can decide.
>
> Quit lying, you claim that the China study PROVES that meat is deadly.

Cite?

> > 'My present views on diet and health are based on the consistency of
> > the vast majority of evidence produced by a wide variety of studies.
> > I see three types of evidence that has most influenced my present
> > views. First, there is the research data from our own studies that are
> > summarized in our book. Second, there is the evidence obtained by
> > many other laboratories, a sample of which is summarized in our book.
> > Third, there is, perhaps, the most important evidence of all, the clinical
> > experiences of the practicing physicians who I had come to know,
> > especially those of Drs. John McDougall, Caldwell Esselstyn, Jr.,
> > Terry Shintani, Joel Fuhrman and Alan Goldhamer. For me, these
> > medical practitioners, entirely on their own initiative and knowledge,
> > were advising, with impressive success, their patients with the same
> > information that I had come to know from the scientific literature
> > and laboratory.
> > ..'
> > http://www.vegsource.com/articles2/campbell_china_response.htm




S*@yahoo.com
2006-10-23 15:02:55 EST

pearl wrote:
> "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in message news:12jmh9d4t517gb2@news.supernews.com...
> > "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote
> > > "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote
> >
> > >> As my own research experience so well illustrated for me, no one study can
> > >> define an emerging whole truth, or worldview. When most researchers do
> > >> experiments in an area as biologically complex as diet and health, they
> > >> almost always focus on very specific hypotheses, investigating how single
> > >> agents cause specific effects, often by so-called single mechanisms (I also
> > >> followed such a path). But these kinds of experiments have limitations both
> > >> in their design and in their underlying hypotheses. The combination of a
> > >> limited design and a narrowly focused hypothesis for individual experiments
> > >> can only give impressions of a larger truth, even though each experiment
> > >> may be well done. It is only after doing varied experiments is it possible to
> > >> begin constructing a network of evidence and articulating a larger truth.
> > >>
> > >> In other words, stop jumping to conclusions.
> > >
> > > I don't.
> >
> > You clearly do when you represent studies such as the China Study as *proof*
> > that meat is bad for you, when it clearly does no such thing. Campbell even
> > admits this. He may believe it is bad for us, but he is ethical enough not
> > to pretend that this study proves it.
>
> I post the abstract and many others as they are. The reader can decide.
>
> 'My present views on diet and health are based on the consistency of
> the vast majority of evidence produced by a wide variety of studies.
> I see three types of evidence that has most influenced my present
> views. First, there is the research data from our own studies that are
> summarized in our book. Second, there is the evidence obtained by
> many other laboratories, a sample of which is summarized in our book.
> Third, there is, perhaps, the most important evidence of all, the clinical
> experiences of the practicing physicians who I had come to know,
> especially those of Drs. John McDougall, Caldwell Esselstyn, Jr.,
> Terry Shintani, Joel Fuhrman and Alan Goldhamer. For me, these
> medical practitioners, entirely on their own initiative and knowledge,
> were advising, with impressive success, their patients with the same
> information that I had come to know from the scientific literature
> and laboratory.
> ..'
> http://www.vegsource.com/articles2/campbell_china_response.htm
>
> > > I have spent many years researching this, besides personal experience.
> >
> > You have spent years looking for and saving bits of data and quotations that
> > defends a point of view which you hold for emotional (call them "spiritual"
> > if you prefer) reasons. That is not research.
>
> Lots of assumptions, ditch, and you get everything wrong.

Well I finally got myself a copy of the book.

A few thoughts here for those who'd care to comment.

One thing I noticed, was that the title was not appropriate. Most of
the interesting research came from his work in the US and in the
Phillipenes. Perhaps most important to his credibility is that he set
out to prove animal protein consumption was a good thing.. his family
was in the dairy business in upstate NY.

The china study itself didn't in my mind add much. We've all seen that
per capita cancer rates and animal protein consumption rates are
correlated on a country by country basis. There's a reason why cancer
is called a "disease of affluence". Not a big surprise that this also
applies province to province in china. Also not a big surprise that it
applies to the residents of the Phillipenes with regards to liver
cancer, though this was a surprise to the author as he set out to prove
the opposite.

What I didn't know was that this is an expermental as well as an
epidemiological result. The author ran experiments with mice (now
here's another ethics bag of worms) by giving them carcinogens such as
aflotoxin. He then changed their diets, having them consume certain
percentages of their diets in animal protien. They found that the
animals eating less than 5% of animal protein in their diet didn't grow
tumors, and tumor growth rate increased with more animal protein in the
diet.

While it's nice to see something verified in the laboratory, this is
still really an epidemiological result, from a small population of lab
rats. Many questions remain. Where was the casein from that he was
feeding the mice? What if he had used more natural sources, e.g.
grass-fed beef that is often promoted in this forum? What about other
kinds of carcinogens? Surely he must have been able to grow tumors
even in vegan mice by giving them large doses of strong carcinongens..
but it looks like he didn't try hard enough.

The usual questions remain. Why?
Did the mice (and the people) get cancer because they weren't absorbing
the minerals they need from animal protein diets? Or was it because of
other toxins present in the animal proteins? Or do animal proteins
lend themselves to tumor growth due to their shape and genetic
similarities to our own? Or is it a Ghandian karma problem? Until
these questions are answered it's hard to be more clear about the
correlation.

And correlation is not causation.

To be fair, I haven't finished the book. Let me know if I've missed
the punch line.

Cheers - shevek

Page:  Previous  1 2   (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron