Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-05-2004, 06:26 PM
Wilson Woods
 
Posts: n/a
Default native americans and vegetarianism

John Coleman wrote:

There is no science, only a very obvious _post hoc_
fallacy: because you allege you haven't had colds or
flu since adopting a raw-foods diet 7 years ago, you
claim the diet caused it. That's classic _post hoc_
fallacious thinking.



It is not.


Yes, it most certainly is. You can point to NO
*VERIFIED* causative mechanism in a so-called "raw"
diet that would prevent illness.

I am an obsessive skeptic, and after a while I went back to
eating cooked and processed pseudo foods, I soon started to feel more
lethargic and congested.


Classic _post hoc_ fallacy AGAIN!

You *do* realize that no one believes you anyway, don't
you?

Obviously I hastily reversed course. Similarly when
going from vegetarian to vegan I noticed the number of "colds" decreased
from 4+ per year to onlt 1-2.


_Post hoc_ fallacy. You haven't demonstrated any
causation; you are merely inferring it, FALLACIOUSLY.

Of course there may have been other changes in
environment that helped, but I could not see anything other than diet that
coudl be so dramatic.


1. You are not a disinterested observer.
2. You did not follow any scientific method.
3. You are INCOMPETENT to conduct the necessary
investigation.

When I read other books and testimonies confirming the
finding,


....all of which ALSO commit the _post hoc_ fallacy...

then the hypothesis is sufficient strong to be acceptable as a
fact.


Absolutely wrong, and laughable. You are seeing what
you want to see. You are not a scientific observer.



You have no peer-reviewed
research to back up your assertion that following a
foods diet improves health.



I don't need to wait for it, I do my own research!


You have not conducted anything worthy of the name
"research", and what you did has not been
peer-reviewed. You are a polemicist, John.



It's not raw foods when it's a pill.



It consists of elemental substances which occur naturally the same way in
nature.


It's not raw foods, John.



intrinsically unhealthful.



Then why are there so many biological mechanisms to protect creatures from
some of the chemicals and pathogens in it?


That's highly unethical and dishonest of you to snip
out the context, John. Here's the *real* exchange,
before you deliberately and unethicaly mangled it:

Unethical John Coleman:
however B12 from a stack of meat isn't healthy

Woods:
Ipse dixit, and false. B12 is B12, and meat is not
intrinsically unhealthful.


First, why did you deliberately and dishonestly mangle
it, John?

Second, your question is actually begging the question,
and mischaracterizes these alleged "biological
mechanisms", and assumes as fact one of your
demonstrably WRONG beliefs, that humans are "naturally"
frugivores (or whatever you're calling them this week).
To the extent that these "mechanisms" exist, they
exist to deal with all kinds of pathogens and
chemicals, not just those found in or on meat.


  #17 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-05-2004, 06:28 PM
John Coleman
 
Posts: n/a
Default native americans and vegetarianism


If you die, can we assume that you died of your
"ignorance of how to heal and live healthily"?


If I died of a preventable illness yes.

Anecdotal evidence, not from a scientific study utilizing controls.


sometimes "anecdotes" are right

Ehret's writings touch on metaphysics, not science. And as someone has

already
kindly pointed out, he was a racist.


Even some scientists are racists, so what.

BTW, what was his educational background
and of what academic pursuit was he professor?


Do you actually imagine that only people with PhDs discover anything useful?
Some of the best discoveries of man did not come from academics.

You do not comprehend the scientific method. If you did, you would not

have
named Ehret as a source.


His simple "method" discovered a fact that anyone can validate for
themselves.

What makes B12 from meat or dairy less healthy or desirable than from

eating a
pile of bullshit, as you seem wont to do?


cholesterol, saturated fats, trans fats, heme iron, BSE, hyterocyclic
amines, numerous epidemiological studies etc.. and it stinks and nausiates
me

John


  #18 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-05-2004, 06:28 PM
Wilson Woods
 
Posts: n/a
Default native americans and vegetarianism

John Coleman wrote:

Arnold Ehret was no scientist, he was a racist quack,
who wrote, among other horseshit,


The white race is an unnatural, sick pathological
race. First, the colored skin pigment is lacking,
due to a lack of coloring mineral salts. Secondly,
the blood is continually overfilled by white
corpuscles, mucus, and waste with white color,
therefore the white appearance of his entire body...

The skin pores of the white man are constipated by
white, dry mucus...his entire system is filled up
and filled out with it. It's no wonder that he looks
white, pale and anemic. Everybody knows that an
extreme case of paleness is a bad sign.

LEAVE the horseshit in, John. There was no legitimate
rhetorical purpose served in cutting it out; you cut it
out because you're embarrassed to be a slavish follower
of a crackpot.



You are right, he was no scientist.


Then you should be highly skeptical of everything he
writes that pretends to be a scientific finding.

But even if a "racist quack" does a good
experiment and reports it correctly,


....which he didn't do...

he is still right. Similarly one can
make some valid observations but create a hypothesis for them based on false
assumptions.

The white does man often looks a bit of a mess, it's been spotted by quite a
few other so called "races".


It's all racist quackery and pseudo-scientific
gibberish. Sane people don't believe any of it.

  #19 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-05-2004, 10:34 PM
John Coleman
 
Posts: n/a
Default native americans and vegetarianism

Yes, it most certainly is. You can point to NO
*VERIFIED* causative mechanism in a so-called "raw"
diet that would prevent illness.


You have pointed to no data that indicates we inherently get ill. Once you
stop making yourself sick with the cultural dietary error, the body simply
gets well and stays like that, as it does in all other species most of the
time.

Classic _post hoc_ fallacy AGAIN!


simple cause and effect - I did not believe myself ill

You *do* realize that no one believes you anyway, don't
you?


I didn't know you read everyones mind.

_Post hoc_ fallacy. You haven't demonstrated any
causation; you are merely inferring it, FALLACIOUSLY.


All "causations" are "inferred".

1. You are not a disinterested observer.


true, what scientist is?

2. You did not follow any scientific method.


I removed the suspected causative element, then returned it and observed the
results. That is a basic form of science. Now, as for some well controlled
confirmation from some academics, I admit we don't have that. But since most
of them work for the chemical industry, I double we shall have that. But who
cares, it is an accepted foundation of evolutionary biology that we are
adapted to the environments of our ancestors.

3. You are INCOMPETENT to conduct the necessary
investigation.


rubbish, I am the ideal observer - only I experience my daily reality every
day, anyone else only gets a sample

Absolutely wrong, and laughable. You are seeing what
you want to see. You are not a scientific observer.


I have a good understanding of scientific principles.

You have not conducted anything worthy of the name
"research", and what you did has not been
peer-reviewed. You are a polemicist, John.


Irrespective, I am correct. People like you have damned all sorts of correct
hypothesis and then were proven wrong later. You are so skeptical that you
have become incapable of entertaining a new hypothesis - that excludes you
from any real scientific credibility.

John


  #20 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-05-2004, 10:44 PM
John Coleman
 
Posts: n/a
Default native americans and vegetarianism

LEAVE the horseshit in, John. There was no legitimate
rhetorical purpose served in cutting it out; you cut it
out because you're embarrassed to be a slavish follower
of a crackpot.


Perhaps you really do think you can read everyones mind and pretend they are
as shallow and obnoxious as you.

Ehret was somewhat ignorant, fine. I don't follow his ways at all. And I
have never even read his damn book, a friend told me about it, so how did
you have me figured as a "follower". You just had to jerk off before you
knew any facts because you are so prejudiced. Your volume of prejudice
precludes you from useful reasonsing. Professor Ehret allegedly received his
degrees at the age of 21, I bet that makes him smarter than you.

Ehret was a white German anyway, so you cannot possibly call him racist with
credibility - perhaps you could call him an "inverted racist"?
http://www.rawfood.com/ehret.html

Learn the facts before you insult someone unjustly like that.

John




  #21 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-05-2004, 10:57 PM
Wilson Woods
 
Posts: n/a
Default native americans and vegetarianism

John Coleman wrote:

Yes, it most certainly is. You can point to NO
*VERIFIED* causative mechanism in a so-called "raw"
diet that would prevent illness.



You have pointed to no data that indicates we inherently get ill.


I wasn't asked to do so, and it's not my burden anyway.
What's wrong with you?

Once you stop making yourself sick with the cultural dietary error,


Ipse dixit.

the body simply
gets well and stays like that, as it does in all other species most of the
time.


Ipse dixit.



Classic _post hoc_ fallacy AGAIN!



simple cause and effect


No. You have not shown any cause. You couldn't if you
tried.

- I did not believe myself ill


You *do* realize that no one believes you anyway, don't
you?



I didn't know you read everyones mind.


I don't, and don't need to do.



_Post hoc_ fallacy. You haven't demonstrated any
causation; you are merely inferring it, FALLACIOUSLY.



All "causations" are "inferred".


Your inference is fallacious, and you can't elaborate
on any mechanism. You are committing *classic* _post
hoc_ fallacious reasoning.



1. You are not a disinterested observer.



true, what scientist is?


You don't even try to be.



2. You did not follow any scientific method.



I removed the suspected causative element,


No. You haven't shown how or why it might be
causative. You are driven by ideology: you have an
ideological need to claim that what humans have done
since before they first emerged as a species is
"unnatural", thus "bad". You are passing NORMATIVE
judgments about "nature", without even having properly
identified what nature is.

then returned it and observed the
results. That is a basic form of science. Now, as for some well controlled
confirmation from some academics, I admit we don't have that. But since most
of them work for the chemical industry, I double we shall have that. But who
cares, it is an accepted foundation of evolutionary biology that we are
adapted to the environments of our ancestors.


3. You are INCOMPETENT to conduct the necessary
investigation.



rubbish, I am the ideal observer


You have no competence WHATEVER in any of the relevant
sciences.



Absolutely wrong, and laughable. You are seeing what
you want to see. You are not a scientific observer.



I have a good understanding of scientific principles.


I doubt that. You have no training in any formal science.



You have not conducted anything worthy of the name
"research", and what you did has not been
peer-reviewed. You are a polemicist, John.



Irrespective, I am correct.


Ipse dixit. False, too.

  #22 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-05-2004, 05:37 PM
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default native americans and vegetarianism

John Coleman wrote:
If you die, can we assume that you died of your
"ignorance of how to heal and live healthily"?


If I died of a preventable illness yes.


Cholera is preventable. So is salmonella and E coli. All three with great
frequency infect those who eat raw produce.

Anecdotal evidence, not from a scientific study utilizing controls.


sometimes "anecdotes" are right


But they are *not* science.

Ehret's writings touch on metaphysics, not science. And as someone has

already
kindly pointed out, he was a racist.


Even some scientists are racists, so what.


Ehret was not a scientist. If I were you, I'd be more concerned about the fact
that Ehret's works touched on metaphysics rather than science. His racism,
though, did permeate his metaphysical views which you've adopted as "science."

BTW, what was his educational background
and of what academic pursuit was he professor?


Do you actually imagine that only people with PhDs discover anything useful?
Some of the best discoveries of man did not come from academics.


That isn't the issue. I just want everyone who reads our little exchanges to
understand whom Arnold Ehret was and what he taught. Answer my question.

You do not comprehend the scientific method. If you did, you would not

have
named Ehret as a source.


His simple "method"


Was not scientific.

discovered a fact


No, it's not a fact.

that anyone can validate for
themselves.


Ipse dixit.

What makes B12 from meat or dairy less healthy or desirable than from

eating a
pile of bullshit, as you seem wont to do?


cholesterol,


Serum cholesterol is overwhelmingly a factor of endogenous factors, not diet.
Some dietary cholesterol, such as that from cold water fish, is healthful and
helps reduce LDL.

saturated fats,


Not all meat is high in saturated fats. What is wrong with getting B12 from lean
meats?

trans fats,


Not found in meat or dairy, dumb ass. Transfats are found in hydrogenated
VEGETABLE oils. You ****ing DOPE.

heme iron,


More easily absorbed than non-heme.
Dietary factors that can reduce non-heme iron absorption
include phytates (found in grains, legumes, and rice); soy
protein and soy fiber; oxalates (found in spinach); and tannic
acid (found in teas and coffee). Calcium (found in dairy
products) can reduce the absorption of both non-heme and heme
iron (1).
http://nutrition.ucdavis.edu/InfoSheets/iron.htm

And before you make claims about vitamin C and non-heme absorption:

Effect of ascorbic acid intake on nonheme-iron absorption from a
complete diet....

CONCLUSIONS: The facilitating effect of vitamin C on iron
absorption from a complete diet is far less pronounced than that
from single meals. These findings may explain why several prior
studies did not show a significant effect on iron status of
prolonged supplementation with vitamin C.
http://tinyurl.com/wwpr

What benefits absorption of non-heme? Try meat. In one study, non-heme iron was
absorbed more easily in the presence of heme iron from meat. The study showed
that just eating 50 or 75 grams (about an eighth of a pound) of pork increased
nonheme absorption by 44% to 57% (respectively on 50g and 75g trials).

http://tinyurl.com/x8b2


BSE,


Very rare, and even more rare when one doesn't eat mince or other ground products.

hyterocyclic amines,


Heterocyclic, you moron. And you still have no clue about HCAs. You throw the
phrase around as a catch-all, when the issue is quite minor.

numerous epidemiological studies etc..


Oh, perhaps you should consider the epidemiological data about raw,
unpasteurized produce and juices. Those make more people sick each year than
meat and dairy do.

and it stinks


Fresh meat does not stink.

and nausiates me


Psychosomatic (heavy emphasis on PSYCHO).

  #23 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-05-2004, 07:12 PM
Wilson Woods
 
Posts: n/a
Default native americans and vegetarianism

The orthorexic John Coleman wrote:

LEAVE the horseshit in, John. There was no legitimate
rhetorical purpose served in cutting it out; you cut it
out because you're embarrassed to be a slavish follower
of a crackpot.



Perhaps you really do think you can read everyones mind and pretend they are
as shallow and obnoxious as you.


I just want you to stop with the unethical editing,
Orthorexic John, and also stop removing the name of the
person to whom you're replying. It shouldn't be so
hard for you to be more ethical.


Ehret was somewhat ignorant, fine. I don't follow his ways at all. And I
have never even read his damn book, a friend told me about it, so how did
you have me figured as a "follower".


Because you cited him, and because you follow a
so-called "raw diet" regime, and he was one of the
first to advocate it. You may have begun your descent
into orthorexia ignorant of Ehret, but you learned of
him and cited him.

You just had to jerk off before you
knew any facts because you are so prejudiced.


Oh, now the thin veneer of civility slides right off
you. Nice.

Your volume of prejudice
precludes you from useful reasonsing. Professor Ehret


I thought you admitted he was no scientist?! Why are
you now emphasizing his academic credentials, when they
undoubtedly are not related to his blathering about diet?

allegedly received his
degrees at the age of 21, I bet that makes him smarter than you.


Allegedly, it might. It's also irrelevant. Lots of
very smart people get things very wrong because of
fundamental flaws in their reasoning ability. He was one.


Ehret was a white German anyway, so you cannot possibly call him racist with
credibility - perhaps you could call him an "inverted racist"?


That's not unknown. Read Tom Wolfe's outstanding book,
"Radical Chic / Mau-mauing the Flack-Catchers".

  #24 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-05-2004, 01:11 AM
John Coleman
 
Posts: n/a
Default native americans and vegetarianism

No. You have not shown any cause. You couldn't if you
tried.


The cause of the common cold is consumption of processed, refined, or
otherwise concentrated foods - or as Ehret put it "mucus forming foods".

I don't, and don't need to do.


this contradicts your prior false claim that "no one" believes me.

Your inference is fallacious, and you can't elaborate
on any mechanism. You are committing *classic* _post
hoc_ fallacious reasoning.


Darwin could not elaborate on any mechanism for inheritance, his theory was
still good enough. All scientific theories go through stages of development.
None are born perfect, go study some real science. However, I do have an
idea of how certain foods may promote the mucus syndrome that leads to a
"common cold". It may have to do with undigested particles in certain foods
passing eventually into the lymphatic system, and then onto some surfaces of
the body where they cause reactions leading to inflammation and thus mucus
formation. In other words, mechanical irritation.

You don't even try to be.


Now how do you know that? You don't have access to my private thoughts. I
could have been trying for years to think of alternative explanations, or
reasons I may get my observations wrong. Nowadays I only have to eat more
than a few nuts, or a some dried flax crackers and I get some mucus within a
few minutes. It happens that fast now.

No. You haven't shown how or why it might be
causative.


This is quite irrelivant. One can postulate a valid cause/effect theory
without knowing a mechanism, or anything about science. I don't need to know
the many phsyical laws relating to electronics to figure out that hitting
the "on" button makes the damn thing work.

You are driven by ideology:


I have no interest in any ideology of any sort what so ever, and detest
ideology of any kind. I gave up doing dogma before I was 25, and approached
life with an experimental method 7 years ago. That is how I managed to get
this far out from the crowd.

ideological need to claim that what humans have done
since before they first emerged as a species is


A "species" is a taxanomic category created by humans - it is a fixed and
abstract form with no basis in reality. Humans did not "emerge as a
species", we (still) evolve through gradual change like anything else.

"unnatural", thus "bad". You are passing NORMATIVE
judgments about "nature", without even having properly
identified what nature is.


We evolved naturally until we first had a state of mind where we began to
experiment in such a way as to alter our environment in ways that are not in
the interest of our survival. Most creatures, the "natural" ones, perform
behaviour that is in the interest of their welfare and survival. Cultural
humans are doing precisely the opposite. Humans evolve mind instead, and
that sets its own, independant of survival, destructive path of progress.

You have no competence WHATEVER in any of the relevant
sciences.


Now how do you know that? There are just so many mind readers on this list.

I doubt that. You have no training in any formal science.


You truly are a mind reader - do you also read palms? You are some kind of
psychic? One thing a good scientist never does is presume to know.

John


  #25 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-05-2004, 01:26 AM
John Coleman
 
Posts: n/a
Default native americans and vegetarianism

It is. Your testimony doesn't diminish the fact, it only confirms it.

If we were just talking about my testimony, I would agree, but we are not.
We are talking about the testimonies of many people. Ehret also did crude
trials of his system on others and got the same effect. That diet is a
factor in common cold causation is not disputed by scientific medicine BTW,
although there are many other factors that are part of the overall picture.

You are the former but not the latter. You are quite gullible.


ahah, another mind reading expert, throw away your chrystal ball

Since you failed to account for anything else, why base it upon diet? We

already
have your answer:


Tell us why you don't think crummy diets contribute to the common cold.

You're a drama queen, no doubt, but this was hardly a scientific

experiment AND
you failed to weed out extraneous variables which may have been fully or
partially responsible for any changes.


Of course you are right, there are many variables involved, I did not just
change diet alone. There was a feature on the common cold on TV recently,
the Dr. mentioned a list of over 8 contributing factors. They even had a guy
on who never had a cold in over 8 years. He was not a raw foodist either.

Exogenous sources do not confirm intuitive findings. That is NOT the

scientific
method, Coleman -- it's the opposite.


It depends by what you mean by scientific method. You are talking about a
very thorough method, that is good science, but even simple methods applied
systematically can pick out causation.

By you, but not by educated people familiar with the scientific method.


yes, most people can fairly remain doubtful

No, you do not. It's not research. Your expermentation on yourself has

nothing
to do with the scientific method, as noted above.


again, depends on what you call method

It's unnatural. See other thread for my response about why your use of

pills is
medicinal.


raw food is unnatural?? well I'll take a look at that thread...

John





  #26 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-05-2004, 01:46 AM
John Coleman
 
Posts: n/a
Default native americans and vegetarianism

I don't follow his ways at all.

YOU cited him, numbnuts.


so what, I could cite Adolf Hitler and not eat his diet

OOOOOOOOOOH... I see. So this is all third-hand sourcing of yours. Very
interesting that you throw out sources without actually knowing a damn

thing
about it or the author.


Only what I have read from various abstracts and discussions.

Maybe it's your admission that you throw out (any!!!!!!) sources

supportive of
your view without any actual familiarity with them.


without any actual familiarity??? I am familiar with his concepts, and their
flaws.

Face it, you're on a faddish
bandwagon


No sir, raw food eating is what ALL other species do - there is no "fad".
Culture is the fad, the failure - the "cult".

now we have an admission that you rely on Ehret through hearsay. THAT, and

that
ALONE, makes you a follower. What a ****ing joke!


To follow suggests blind faith. To suggest a person is a follower is to
intimate you read their private thoughts. Put away your crystal ball.

Are you sure your biases, based on following the hearsay of others, isn't
leading you to that state yourself?


Ehret's ideas are reproduced all over the web in bits and pieces, however
that is not my original source.

J




  #27 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-05-2004, 01:56 AM
John Coleman
 
Posts: n/a
Default native americans and vegetarianism

The orthorexic John Coleman wrote:

"Orthorexia Nervosa", is that a scientific concept, or a dumb name for
people unfortunate to be ignorant enough to starve themselves? Anyway, why
should I "name" someone who insults and characatures me? And I thought on a
ng people can follow this thread back if they want the pain.

Allegedly, it might. It's also irrelevant. Lots of
very smart people get things very wrong because of
fundamental flaws in their reasoning ability. He was one.


and you another

That's not unknown. Read Tom Wolfe's outstanding book,
"Radical Chic / Mau-mauing the Flack-Catchers".


Plenty of folk mock their own race, usually they are not considered racist,
some even make a career of it. This is just another of your pointless
distractions

J


  #28 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-05-2004, 01:57 AM
John Coleman
 
Posts: n/a
Default native americans and vegetarianism

Gullible people like you may buy into Ehret's pseudoscience and even adopt
a
subtle form of Ehret's racist views, but his works lack any scientific

merit.

yes, they lack any merit by modern standards, and were poor even by his own
time - but he was still on the right tracks

John


  #29 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-05-2004, 02:17 AM
John Coleman
 
Posts: n/a
Default native americans and vegetarianism

usual suspect
Cholera is preventable. So is salmonella and E coli. All three with great
frequency infect those who eat raw produce.


raw meat maybe

No, it's not a fact.


not a _widely accepted_ fact

Serum cholesterol is overwhelmingly a factor of endogenous factors, not

diet.

So how come my cholesterol dropped over 50% on a raw diet? How come vegans
have lower cholesterol than "omnivores". Obviously diet is a big factor.

"Although saturated fat is the main dietary culprit that raises LDL, trans
fat and dietary cholesterol also contribute significantly."
http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2003/503_fats.html


Some dietary cholesterol, such as that from cold water fish, is healthful

and
helps reduce LDL.


My LDL is 1, what is the LDL of a fish eater?

Not all meat is high in saturated fats. What is wrong with getting B12

from lean
meats?


heme iron , HCAs, the waste, it tastes and smells gross

Not found in meat or dairy, dumb ass. Transfats are found in hydrogenated
VEGETABLE oils. You ****ing DOPE.


nope, found in meat and dairy as well
http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2003/503_fats.html

please don't lecture on food science, or indeed science

More easily absorbed than non-heme.


yes and a pro oxidant implicated in many degenerative diseases
http://www.askbillsardi.com/sdm.asp?pg=iron

from single meals. These findings may explain why several prior
studies did not show a significant effect on iron status of
prolonged supplementation with vitamin C.


adding vitamin C to the diet is part of many national programs to increase
iron uptake and is effective in vegetarian diets

What benefits absorption of non-heme? Try meat.


You don't need heme iron, no one does.

Heterocyclic, you moron. And you still have no clue about HCAs. You throw

the
phrase around as a catch-all, when the issue is quite minor.


HCAs are implicated in cancer, not very minor.

Fresh meat does not stink.


true, the cooking makes it gross, but then you need that to make it less of
a health risk

Psychosomatic (heavy emphasis on PSYCHO).


Look you've posted serious factual errors in this one. Why don't you find
somewhere else where it is easier for you to maintain cred?

Your consistent posting of factual errors, propaganda and insults means I am
blocking your address.

J


  #30 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-05-2004, 03:56 AM
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default what's the matter john? isn't b12, b12 anymore?


"John Coleman" wrote in message
...
Ipse dixit. BTW, are you immortal?


this thread is about health and illness, not mortality

Post hoc fallacy.


no a result confirmed by many raw foodists and documented by Ehret -

science
is about theories that can be confirmed by observation

Taking vitamin pills to make up for your dietary deficiencies is NOT

natural.

the biochemistry cares not one hoot if the B12 is from a pill or a bug or

a
piece of faeces - it is all B12,

======================
That wasn't the point. If you consider it unnatural for man to kill and eat
meat, then it's far more unnatural to pump oil out of the ground, ship it
around the world enhancing the profits of the petro-chemical industry, so
that the pharmaceutical industry then can make big batches of pills and
containers to then re-ship around the world. It's not the B12 in question,
it's the processes whereby you get enough of it. The 'vegan' process of
getting b12 is not natural.



and our nature requires that stuff -
however B12 from a stack of meat isn't healthy
========================

But wait, b12 is b12 is b12. How can the b12 from meat be unhealthy?
Now, make up your mind, either all b12 is the same, or somehow some of it
isn't.


John






Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
vegie/native balancing David Dalton Vegan 0 27-07-2011 01:00 AM
A Few Native American Recipes [email protected] Recipes (moderated) 0 03-12-2007 09:22 PM
Native Cuisine Coming To PBS Todd Tamanend Clark General Cooking 4 30-10-2003 03:16 AM
Native Cuisine Coming To PBS Todd Tamanend Clark Historic 4 30-10-2003 03:16 AM
Native Cuisine Coming To PBS Todd Tamanend Clark Mexican Cooking 1 28-10-2003 06:01 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:03 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017