usual suspect wrote:
> John Coleman wrote:
>
> >>> The "ill effects" of consuming animal products is well known
> >>
> >>No, it isn't. Once again, you are confusing mere
> >>polemical assertion with fact.
> >
> > You are out of touch Rudy,
>
> You were never in touch, Coleman.
>
> > the ill effects of consuming animal products are
> > the outcome of years of epidemiology, clinical research, and other
> > scientific work.
>
> Your sentence is so shoddy that it appears you're blaming scientific
> study for the ill effects of consuming animal products, you sissy.

Wasn't that pathetic?! He wrote,

the ill effects of consuming animal products are the outcome
of...research.

Nice.

>
> > They are therefore well known.
>
> Logical fallacy of appealing to popular knowledge. To date, studies
have
> shown that overconsumption of certain animal products, especially
fatty
> meat, can have deleterious health consequences. But conversely, some
> studies have shown consumption particularly of fish and poultry to
have
> very positive health benefits: reduced incidence of colorectal
cancers,
> significant improvements in LDL:HDL and triglycerides, etc.
>
> > Both heart disease and
> > cancer are major killers that have been associated with eating
animal
> > products.
>
> Ipse dixit, poor generalization. The latest red meat study which
you'll
> no doubt put on your pseudoscience website showed a significant
> reduction in colorectal cancer rates among those who ate more poultry

> and fish. As well, the studies upon which you rely seldom distinguish

> between lean meats and fatty meats, reduced-fat dairy products and
whole
> milk products, etc. IOW, you like to compare apples to oranges and
make
> wild claims accordingly.

Coleman and Larry Fruity and Peril and all the other
pseudo-science-spewing vegetarian extremists ALWAYS get this point
wrong. EVERY scientifically credible study indicates that *excessive*
meat consumption, particularly fat, is the problem, NOT meat
consumption per se.