usual suspect wrote:
> J.C. Scott wrote:
> <...>
> >>>>What "ill effects"?
> >>>
> >>>http://www.drgreger.org/talks.html
> >>
> >>The whole list or individual ones?
> >>
> >>- Cancer: The studies most often cited deal with multiple issues,
not
> >>merely meat consumption. Some misuse the data to suggest that ALL
> >>meat should be avoided, when the correlations have a lot more to do
with
> >> the
> > ---snipped---
>
> ****, two can play --snipped--

Well, at least you're not good and riled, spewing ad hominems, like I'd
hoped you would be.

> > Yes, I mean we've all heard the stories in the news of those who
> > consume way too many fruits and vegetables to the detriment of
their
> > health and develop cancer, raise their cholesterol, develop heart
> > disease or die prematurely as a result.
>
> I realize science is beyond your grasp, but stop with the strawman.

It's not enough that you use them, now you want to project, too.

> > I mean, who hasn't?
>
> Who hasn't heard of the tendency for people to say that if too much
of
> something is bad, then zero is even better; or even its twin slothful

> induction that if a little is good, then a lot is better. You twit,
the
> research shows that TOO MUCH is bad, and that TOO LITTLE can also be
> bad. You've no concept of moderation.

> Overconsumption is not the same as "consumption."

Yes, you're right. Nevermind the info. I quoted from Northern Illinois
University which stated:

Risk of death from heart attack by average American man: 50%
Risk of death from heart attack by average American vegetarian man: 15%
Risk of death from heart attack by average American purely vegetarian
man: 4%

I would never ask anyone to let the facts contort their expectations of
reality, however.


> > What a crazy scare tactic that would
> > be to suggest that there are potential health risks associated with
> > eating meat.
>
> There are also potential health risks associated with eating produce:
> ...[F]ederal health surveillance of food-borne diseases from
> 1993 to 1997 found 2,751 outbreaks. Those outbreaks totaled
> 12,537 individual cases involving fruits and vegetables,
> compared with 6,709 cases involving meat.
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...od-cover_x.htm
>
> > Nevermind that the meat industry is a multibillion dollar
> > a year industry,
>
> So is the "vegetable industry." So is the "fruit industry." So is the

> "soy industry." So is the "grain industry." So is the "water
industry."
> What kind of industry are you employed? Guess what. It's probably a
> multibillion dollar a year industry. You sloppy dunce.

Yes, of course. I can see the line of Forbes 500 fruit and vegetable
suppliers for miles.


> >>There's also no evidence whatsoever that CWD affects humans. Not
all
> >>TSEs cross species. Scrapie, the oldest known TSE, affects sheep
but
> >>it doesn't affect humans who eat them.
> >
> > You're right, there's none, except this:
>
> That's anecdote, not evidence.

Nice assertion, now if you'll just identify which part of the evidence
you're referring to as anecdotal we can move this little discussion
right along, that is if you actually watched it. It's apparent you
have, hence this should be easy.