wrote:
> I'd bet that all of your precious little "studies" were done
> by meat eaters.

So?

> On the same grounds, that makes them
> all suspect and therefore invalid.

Ipse dixit. You dismiss on minor formalities UNRELATED to the methodology and
findings.

> Give me a 17 year study done on a statistically significant
> number of people, with proper methods, not funded by any
> food industry, conducted by both meat and non-meat eaters.

Do you want one that finds the following?:
This study was initially set up to test the hypotheses that daily
consumption of wholemeal bread (as an indicator of a high fibre diet)
and vegetarian diet are associated with a reduction in mortality from
ischaemic heart disease; the reduction in mortality associated with both
of these dietary factors was NOT SIGNIFICANT.

We found that a vegetarian diet was associated with a 15% reduction in
mortality from ischaemic heart disease. This was NOT SIGNIFICANT and was
LESS THAN the roughly 30% reductions REPORTED IN EARLIER ANALYSES of
this cohort.... A vegetarian diet was also associated with a SIGNIFICANT
INCREASE in mortality from breast cancer. However, the confidence
interval was wide.... The numbers of deaths for individual cancer sites
were small and the mortality ratios have wide confidence intervals. The
41% reduction in mortality from lung cancer associated with daily
consumption of fresh fruit was NOT SIGNIFICANT....

> I don't want moldy axes in the ground, or old wives tales about
> old cutlures.

You didn't get those. Those indigenous cultures -- Aborigines and Inuit -- are
still around and flourishing, dipshit.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
> > I'd bet that all of your precious little "studies" were done
> > by meat eaters.
>
> So?
>
> > On the same grounds, that makes them
> > all suspect and therefore invalid.
>
> Ipse dixit. You dismiss on minor formalities UNRELATED to the methodology
and
> findings.
>
> > Give me a 17 year study done on a statistically significant
> > number of people, with proper methods, not funded by any
> > food industry, conducted by both meat and non-meat eaters.
>
> Do you want one that finds the following?:
> This study was initially set up to test the hypotheses that daily
> consumption of wholemeal bread (as an indicator of a high fibre diet)
> and vegetarian diet are associated with a reduction in mortality from
> ischaemic heart disease; the reduction in mortality associated with
both
> of these dietary factors was NOT SIGNIFICANT.
>
> We found that a vegetarian diet was associated with a 15% reduction
in
> mortality from ischaemic heart disease. This was NOT SIGNIFICANT and
was
> LESS THAN the roughly 30% reductions REPORTED IN EARLIER ANALYSES of
> this cohort.... A vegetarian diet was also associated with a
SIGNIFICANT
> INCREASE in mortality from breast cancer. However, the confidence
> interval was wide.... The numbers of deaths for individual cancer
sites
> were small and the mortality ratios have wide confidence intervals.
The
> 41% reduction in mortality from lung cancer associated with daily
> consumption of fresh fruit was NOT SIGNIFICANT....
=======================
Somehow he missed all that. He seems as good as lotus at finding a site,
then claiming it backs him up, and now he's being shown the door with it.

He must have missed this little revelation from the 'study' also...
"...A vegetarian diet was also associated with a significant increase in
mortality from breast cancer...."




>
> > I don't want moldy axes in the ground, or old wives tales about
> > old cutlures.
>
> You didn't get those. Those indigenous cultures -- Aborigines and Inuit --
are
> still around and flourishing, dipshit.
>

rick etter wrote:
>>>I'd bet that all of your precious little "studies" were done
>>>by meat eaters.
>>
>>So?
>>
>>
>>>On the same grounds, that makes them
>>>all suspect and therefore invalid.
>>
>>Ipse dixit. You dismiss on minor formalities UNRELATED to the methodology
>
> and
>
>>findings.
>>
>>
>>>Give me a 17 year study done on a statistically significant
>>>number of people, with proper methods, not funded by any
>>>food industry, conducted by both meat and non-meat eaters.
>>
>>Do you want one that finds the following?:
>> This study was initially set up to test the hypotheses that daily
>> consumption of wholemeal bread (as an indicator of a high fibre diet)
>> and vegetarian diet are associated with a reduction in mortality from
>> ischaemic heart disease; the reduction in mortality associated with
>
> both
>
>> of these dietary factors was NOT SIGNIFICANT.
>>
>> We found that a vegetarian diet was associated with a 15% reduction
>
> in
>
>> mortality from ischaemic heart disease. This was NOT SIGNIFICANT and
>
> was
>
>> LESS THAN the roughly 30% reductions REPORTED IN EARLIER ANALYSES of
>> this cohort.... A vegetarian diet was also associated with a
>
> SIGNIFICANT
>
>> INCREASE in mortality from breast cancer. However, the confidence
>> interval was wide.... The numbers of deaths for individual cancer
>
> sites
>
>> were small and the mortality ratios have wide confidence intervals.
>
> The
>
>> 41% reduction in mortality from lung cancer associated with daily
>> consumption of fresh fruit was NOT SIGNIFICANT....
>
> =======================
> Somehow he missed all that. He seems as good as lotus at finding a site,
> then claiming it backs him up, and now he's being shown the door with it.

Hehe. You're right. What a cruel and unflattering thing to say about someone,
but you're *absolutely* right.

> He must have missed this little revelation from the 'study' also...
> "...A vegetarian diet was also associated with a significant increase in
> mortality from breast cancer...."

He doesn't care about truth, just his agenda. He's wedded to bad dogma.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> rick etter wrote:
> >>>I'd bet that all of your precious little "studies" were done
> >>>by meat eaters.
> >>
> >>So?
> >>
> >>
> >>>On the same grounds, that makes them
> >>>all suspect and therefore invalid.
> >>
> >>Ipse dixit. You dismiss on minor formalities UNRELATED to the
methodology
> >
> > and
> >
> >>findings.
> >>
> >>
> >>>Give me a 17 year study done on a statistically significant
> >>>number of people, with proper methods, not funded by any
> >>>food industry, conducted by both meat and non-meat eaters.
> >>
> >>Do you want one that finds the following?:
> >> This study was initially set up to test the hypotheses that daily
> >> consumption of wholemeal bread (as an indicator of a high fibre
diet)
> >> and vegetarian diet are associated with a reduction in mortality
from
> >> ischaemic heart disease; the reduction in mortality associated with
> >
> > both
> >
> >> of these dietary factors was NOT SIGNIFICANT.
> >>
> >> We found that a vegetarian diet was associated with a 15% reduction
> >
> > in
> >
> >> mortality from ischaemic heart disease. This was NOT SIGNIFICANT
and
> >
> > was
> >
> >> LESS THAN the roughly 30% reductions REPORTED IN EARLIER ANALYSES
of
> >> this cohort.... A vegetarian diet was also associated with a
> >
> > SIGNIFICANT
> >
> >> INCREASE in mortality from breast cancer. However, the confidence
> >> interval was wide.... The numbers of deaths for individual cancer
> >
> > sites
> >
> >> were small and the mortality ratios have wide confidence intervals.
> >
> > The
> >
> >> 41% reduction in mortality from lung cancer associated with daily
> >> consumption of fresh fruit was NOT SIGNIFICANT....
> >
> > =======================
> > Somehow he missed all that. He seems as good as lotus at finding a
site,
> > then claiming it backs him up, and now he's being shown the door with
it.
>
> Hehe. You're right. What a cruel and unflattering thing to say about
someone,
> but you're *absolutely* right.
>
> > He must have missed this little revelation from the 'study' also...
> > "...A vegetarian diet was also associated with a significant increase in
> > mortality from breast cancer...."
>
> He doesn't care about truth, just his agenda. He's wedded to bad dogma.
====================
maybe we could get him a formal introduction to pearly-baby....

think of the lys and delusions they could make-up together!!


>

I'd bet that all of your precious little "studies" were done
by meat eaters. On the same grounds, that makes them
all suspect and therefore invalid.

Give me a 17 year study done on a statistically significant
number of people, with proper methods, not funded by any
food industry, conducted by both meat and non-meat eaters.

I don't want moldy axes in the ground, or old wives tales about
old cutlures.

by how

And furthermore, only two of the researchers in the bmj tudy were
vegetarian. The other two are not, and so this study qualifies as
valid in respect to having both meat eaters and non meat eaters
conducting it.

The really big conflcit of interest would have been in the funding,
and in terms of funding it is above reproach. You don't seem
to know about this, so you might want to get a clue.

by how.

ps learn about the straw man argument.