John Coleman wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> > John Coleman wrote:
> >
> > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
> > > ink.net...
> > >
> > >>> 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, the ill effects of consuming animal
products
> > > are the outcome of years of epidemiology, clinical research, and
other
> > > scientific work.
> >
> > No, there is no such conclusion that comes out of any
> > of those fields.
>
> Science never produces "conclusions" as such

Then you were simply bullshitting above, not to mention constructing
truly wretched English sentences.

> However, currently there is
> plenty of information linking meat eating to serious degenerative
diseases,
> and no sign of this being wrong or even likely wrong.

No. You are wrong. There is information linking HIGH meat consumption
with degenerative diseases. There is no information linking meat
consumption _per se_ with degenerative diseases.

This is the fundamental point you, Larry Fruity, Peril, and all other
anti-meat orthorexics get fundamentally wrong.

>
> A few years ago the UK government were even considering a program to
> recommend meat intake be limited to less than 90g daily (which is a
lot)

That is NOT a large quantity.

> because that would lower cancers, but it was blown off by the meat
marketing
> lobby.

Perhaps; or, perhaps that's merely your extremist's paranoia at work.

>
> > Furthermore, YOU have no expertise in
> > any of the fields. That's why you are so prone to
> > misreading the conclusions they DO make.
>
> uh, unlike you the expert??
Unlike you, I don't pretend to expertise I don't have.