Dave wrote:

> Beach Runner wrote:
>
>>Dave wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Beach Runner wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Dave wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I don't hate the man. It just seems rather convinient that his opinions
>>>>>on nutrition
>>>>>condemn exactly the same foods as his opinions on ethics.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Yet they are published in peer reviewed journals, subject to the highest
>>>>level of criticism.
>>>
>>>
>>>Be that as it may, his views on nutrition are not entirely mainstream
>>>and just happen to mesh perfectly with his ethics.
>>
>>He obviously is inspired. That doesn't negate the integrity of his
>>work, or make it not worth considering.
>
>
> His work may be worth considering if your career is in nutrition.
> As a layman it is harder for me to determine the quality of a study
> and it makes more sense to base my nutrition on a variety of sources
> that don't give a one-sided account in favour of a diet they believe
> people should follow on ethical, rather than health grounds.
>
> I have read various leaflets on nutrition published by AR organisations
> and they almost invariably leave the impression that they are more
> concerned with persuading people to go vegan than promoting good health
> for existing vegans. The UK vegan society website is the only exception
> I can think of.
>
That's reasonable.


>
>>Just as it has been published
>>with other world class authors and researchers. Yes, he also writes in
>>the free press.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>He also write to reach in the popular press.
>>>>
>>>>This is a vegan news group.
>>>
>>>
>>>Does that mean sceptics are unwelcome?
>>>
>>
>>Skepticism is always healthy and valuable.
>
>
> Most but not all of the food I eat is vegan and I am opposed to the
> way the majority of animals are farmed in the Western world. For people
> without special dietary needs I don't believe it is necessary to
> consume any animal produce but it seems to me that many vegans read
> AR propoganda rather uncritically.
>
That is because many became convinced, and the literature in support of
their hard felt beliefs becomes almost holy. They look for support for
what they feel is correct. We all need to examine everything we read,
and when basic questions become frightening, it's time to re-evaluate,
re-think one's concept. It may be strengthened, changed, or modified.


For example, the structural analysis arguments, versus evolutionary
development are really interesting. Their is no question that
structurally people developed from a frugarious descendent and much of
the development and adaptation to human were accompanied by both meat
eating, but also farming. If you are interested in history, those are
areas to explore.

Now, if you are interested in the high number of colon cancers, looking
at structural digestive system may provide clues and areas to examine
scientifically.

That does not answer the questions on diet related to health. It does
not answer questions of diet and caring about society. It clearly does
not address people's spiritual tie ins with vegetarianism.

In this case, this is a doctor that is well published in respected peer
reviewed journal. He is exploring some of these areas, he selects these
areas obviously because of his personality. But, clearly, he realizes
the need to build up a scientifically based research in areas of
interest. Would he not publish a paper that contradicted original
hypothesis?