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 08-10-2011, 07:36 AM posted to soc.culture.indian,alt.bonehead.jai-maharaj,alt.religion.hindu,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 139
Default LIES Origin, History of Cow Slaughter and Beef Eatingin Bharat

On 10/7/2011 11:10 PM, P. Rajah wrote:
On 10/7/2011 6:36 PM, Laurie wrote:

On 10/6/2011 11:54 AM, wrote:

== Humans and our immediate hominid ancestors have always
== eaten meat - not in rational dispute.
Always?? That's quite a long time, way before historical records.
Humans are frugivorous apes, always have been.
http://www.gate.net/%7Erwms/primegendist.html

== Apes eat meat, without having to cook it.
This is a juvenile oversimplification of the facts that:
1 A -minor- fraction of adult males of -some- CHIMP tribes will hunt in
packs, kill, and eat small amounts,

2 and, more importantly, give the spoils of the hunt to females for
sexual favors.
So, it is clear that chimp flesh-eating is a SOCIAL function, NOT a
nutritional instinct which is programmed into CHIMPS DNA. Clearly, a
true nutritional need would be shown in ALL tribes to the same degree,
and that is simply not the case.

http://www.ecologos.org/chimphunt.htm
http://ecologos.org/pix/primatediets.gif
http://www.ecologos.org/meat-eating.htm
http://www.ecologos.org/fft.htm
http://ecologos.org/cbs.htm
http://ecologos.org/iangilby.htm
http://www.ecologos.org/anatomy.htm
http://www.ecologos.org/omni.htm
http://www.ecologos.org/addict.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

I have demonstrated your claims to be grossly in error; now, are you
honest enough to withdraw your falsehoods, and apologize to the public
for misleading them??

== If anything, humans have generally *devolved* the ability to consume
raw meat since they developed the ability to make fire, although some
societies even today consume certain types of raw meat.
Meaningless nonsense; the consumption of "meat" is THE cause of Western
degenerative diseases.
See The China Study by TCCampbell.

http://www.amazon.com/China-Study-Co.../dp/1932100385

Now; are you intellectually-honest enough to admit your beliefs are
nonsense and withdraw them, with a polite apology for trying to mislead
the public??

Laurie

scientifically-credible vegan information:
www.ecologos.org/ttdd.html
news:alt.food.vegan.science





  #17 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 09-10-2011, 08:47 PM posted to soc.culture.indian,alt.bonehead.jai-maharaj,alt.religion.hindu,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 21
Default LIES Origin, History of Cow Slaughter and Beef Eatingin Bharat

On 10/8/2011 2:36 AM, Laurie wrote:

On 10/7/2011 11:10 PM, P. Rajah wrote:
On 10/7/2011 6:36 PM, Laurie wrote:

On 10/6/2011 11:54 AM, wrote:

== Humans and our immediate hominid ancestors have always
== eaten meat - not in rational dispute.
Always?? That's quite a long time, way before historical records.
Humans are frugivorous apes, always have been.
http://www.gate.net/%7Erwms/primegendist.html


Wrong. "Always" is a wrong as wrong gets.

"Almost two million years ago, early humans began eating food such as
crocodiles, turtles and fish a diet that could have played an
important role in the evolution of human brains and our footsteps out of
Africa, according to new research."
http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news/20100206-21022.html

There is also the fact that the average life-span of ancient humans was
about 30 years, similar to what prevailed in largely vegetarian India at
the beginning of the 20th century. There are so many variables that an
agenda-specific mindset such as yours cannot, or simply refuses to,
comprehend. Ultimately, good health and long life are functions of
healthy habits and moderation, and avoidance of clearly unhealthy habits
such as smoking and sloth. There are good meats, and bad, just as there
are good grains and bad, for human consumption. People like you are at
one extreme, and refuse to acknowledge that "meat eaters" generally
incorporate a good portion of vegetables and greens in their diet. That
is, they actually tend to have a more balanced diet. As a matter of
fact, meat-eaters in the west eat their veggies and greens in a much
healthier fashion than vegetarians in India, who tend to boil and fry
much of the goodness out of their food. But I have yet to see a campaign
in India to get people to consume their vegetables in a healthier
fashion, to get the most nutrition our of them.


== Apes eat meat, without having to cook it.
This is a juvenile oversimplification of the facts that:
1 A -minor- fraction of adult males of -some- CHIMP tribes will hunt in
packs, kill, and eat small amounts,

2 and, more importantly, give the spoils of the hunt to females for
sexual favors.
So, it is clear that chimp flesh-eating is a SOCIAL function, NOT a
nutritional instinct which is programmed into CHIMPS DNA. Clearly, a
true nutritional need would be shown in ALL tribes to the same degree,
and that is simply not the case.


There are dogs in India raised on exclusively vegetarian diets, and
surviving reasonably well, which could be taken as demonstration that
there is "no true nutritional need" for meat in a dog's diet. Does this
indicate that dogs aren't carnivorous? On the flip side, dogs can just
as well be raised on a predominantly meat-based diet, which would prove
that there is "no true nutritional need" for grain or vegetables or
fruit in a dog's diet. The one guilty of oversimplification, Laurie, is
*you*.


http://www.ecologos.org/chimphunt.htm
http://ecologos.org/pix/primatediets.gif
http://www.ecologos.org/meat-eating.htm
http://www.ecologos.org/fft.htm
http://ecologos.org/cbs.htm
http://ecologos.org/iangilby.htm
http://www.ecologos.org/anatomy.htm
http://www.ecologos.org/omni.htm
http://www.ecologos.org/addict.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract


So you provide a bunch of links from *your own* vegan website, with its
clearly biased agenda, and claim that as "proof"!


I have demonstrated your claims to be grossly in error; now, are you
honest enough to withdraw your falsehoods, and apologize to the public
for misleading them??


You have demonstrated nothing. You have not debated articles showing the
consumption of meat among primates and humans that contradict your
claims. The ones doing the misleading are you vegans and vegetarians,
with your attempts to re-write history and promote misleading "science".

== If anything, humans have generally *devolved* the ability to consume
raw meat since they developed the ability to make fire, although some
societies even today consume certain types of raw meat.
Meaningless nonsense; the consumption of "meat" is THE cause of Western
degenerative diseases.


Nope, it is not meaningless, since clearly at some point humans did eat
raw meat. We no longer do that, although perhaps we still can, as some
survival stories have shown. Furthermore, is it "meaningless nonsense"
that some societies, such as the Apache and Wichita Indians, still eat
raw meat(and the Masai drink raw cattle blood)?

The cause of degenerative diseases is the lack of balance in diet and
lifestyle. It could be related to excessive sugars, excessive salt,
excessive fats, excessive starch, excessive meat, excessive torpidity
and obesity. Being that you are a vegan, you cannot see beyond your
primary target.

See The China Study by TCCampbell.

http://www.amazon.com/China-Study-Co.../dp/1932100385


Now; are you intellectually-honest enough to admit your beliefs are
nonsense and withdraw them, with a polite apology for trying to mislead
the public??

Laurie


What for, Laurie? If anyone needs to apologize, it is *you*, with your
truth-excluding propaganda. Chinese diets include meat and fish, but in
sensible quantities. It's like salt in your diet: too much of anything
is bad for you, whether it is sugar, salt, carbs, proteins, or fiber.
Balance is what is called for, and balance is determined by various
factors in the life of the subject.


scientifically-credible vegan information:
www.ecologos.org/ttdd.html
news:alt.food.vegan.science


Scientific sources are credible. Biased sources, whether owing
allegiance to veganism or meat-eating, are not. You, Laurie, are clearly
not credible.

Perhaps you would care to counter the arguments of ex-vegetarians and
others who are tired of the b.s. propaganda of people like you:
http://www.beyondveg.com

From your newsgroup handle, I always thought you were a woman. Never
heard of someone named Lawrence calling himself Laurie. Not apropos of
anything, just wondering....

--
Astrology: Fraud or Superstition?
http://www.seesharppress.com/astro.html

Ass-troll-ogers/jyotishitheads are the bane of humanity, and must be
cleansed or otherwise purified for the benefit of society.

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/vhp-terrorism
  #18 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 09-10-2011, 08:52 PM posted to soc.culture.indian,alt.fan.jai-maharaj,alt.religion.hindu,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 186
Default Origin, History of Cow Slaughter and Beef Eating in Bharat

Origin And History Of Cow Slaughter And Beef Eating In India

http://www.hitxp.com/articles/histor...spiracy-india/

I posted the following in 2003:

[Please use a fixed-width font to view the tables.]

HUMANS ARE NOT DESIGNED FOR EATING MEAT

"The human intestine has a very hard time handling the
putrefying bacteria, high levels of fat, and lack of fiber that
characterize meat, dairy products and eggs. There are other
animals, though, whose intestines seem designed for the task.

"The human intestine is anatomically very different from that
of natural carnivores, such as dogs and cats. Because of the
design of their intestines, these animals are virtually guaranteed
short transit times.

"Our bowel walls are deeply puckered; theirs are smooth. Ours
are full of pouches; theirs have none. Our colons are long,
complex pathways, like a winding mountain road full of hairpin
turns; theirs are short, straight chutes, like wide open freeways.
The toxins from putrefying flesh are not the problem for them that
they are for us because everything passes through them so much more
quickly. Dogs, cats and other natural carnivores do not get colon
cancer from high-fat, low-fiber, flesh-based diets. But we do.

"Researchers who analyze and test human feces can distinguish
the feces of meat-eaters from those of vegetarians by their smell.
[1] They report that the eliminations of meat-eaters smell far
stronger and more noxious than those of non-meat-eaters. There is
a serious reason. Putrefying animal products are far far more
toxic than rotting plant products, and meat-eaters' colons are
constantly subjected to these toxins."

"You see, the digestion of meat itself produces strong
carcinogenic substances in the colon and meat-eaters must produce
extensive bile acids in their intestines to deal with the meat they
eat, particularly deoxycholic acid. This is extremely significant,
because deoxycholic acid is converted by clostridia bacteria in our
intestines into powerful carcinogens. The fact that meat-eaters
invariably have far more deoxycholic acid in their intestines than
do vegetarians is one of the reasons they have so much higher rates
of colon cancer." [2]

SOURCES:

[1] Hoye, Dr. Martin, M.D., personal communication with author.

[2] Hepner, G., "Altered Bile Acid Metabolism in Vegetarians"
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF DIGESTIVE DISEASES, 20:935, 1972
Hill, M., "The Effect of Some Factors on the Fecal Concentration
of . . ."
JOURNAL OF PATHOLOGY, 104:239, 1971
Reddy, B., and Wynder, E., "Large Bowel Carcinogenesis: Fecal
Constituents of Populations with
Diverse Incidence of Colon Cancer"
JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 50:1437, 1973
Reddy, B., "Metabolic Epidemiology of Large Bowel Cancer"
CANCER, 42:2832, 1978
Reddy B., "Nutrition and its Relationship to Cancer"
ADVANCES IN CANCER RESEARCH, 32:237, 1980
Wynder, E., "Dietary Fat and Colon Cancer"
JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 54:7, 1975

All excerpts are from:

DIET FOR A NEW AMERICA by John Robbins; Stillpoint Publishing; 1987.

Also:

WHAT MIGHT BE THE "NATURAL" DIET FOR HUMAN BEINGS?

By Ted Altar

Now, we could begin by noting that many frugivorous (fruit eating)
primates, apes like gorillas, and other non-meat eating animals,
have long incisors for defensive reasons. Human incisors are
really quite pathetic and would not serve us at all in killing an
animal. Gorillas have much larger and more formidable incisors,
but they are completely vegetarian.

Does this answer what diet is maybe preferable for human beings.

Far from it. Instead of just looking at only one anatomical
detail, we need to consider at the very least our anatomy in
general and as a whole. Hence, the following facts taken together
are germane:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++
+ PHYSIOLOGICAL COMPARISONS +
+ -------------------------+---------------------+-------------------- +
+ MEAT EATER |HERBIVORE |MAN +
+ -------------------------+---------------------+-------------------- +
+ has claws |no claws |no claws +
+ -------------------------+---------------------+-------------------- +
+ no skin pores, perspires |perspires through |perspires through +
+ through tongue |skin pores |skin pores +
+ -------------------------+---------------------+-------------------- +
+ sharp front teeth for |no sharp front teeth |no sharp front teeth +
+ tearing, no flat molar |has flat rear molars |has flat rear molars +
+ teeth for grinding | | +
+ -------------------------+---------------------+-------------------- +
+ intestinal tract 3 times |intestinal tract |intestinal tract 12 +
+ body length so rapidly |10-12 time body |times body length +
+ decaying meat can pass |length | +
+ out quickly | | +
+ -------------------------+---------------------+-------------------- +
+ strong hydrochloric |stomach acid 20 |stomach acid 20 +
+ acid in stomach to |times less strong |times less strong +
+ digest meat |than meat-eaters |than meat eaters +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++
[This excerpt comes from the New York Times_ dated 12/13/90]

Now, does this mean that we are "herbivores"? Of course not. But
it does clearly indicate that we are far less like evolved and true
carnivores than we are like herbivores.

Critics point out that we are best described as "omnivores", but
what does that mean? It turns out that BOTH carnivores and
herbivores can eat meat. Squirrels can eat meat, chimpanzees can
eat meat, humans can eat meat. In fact, even cows can eat meat!
Indeed, cows are regularly fed rendered meat protein, some of which
is from slaughtered cows! It also turns out that BOTH carnivores
and herbivores can eat plants. Cats and dogs digest carbohydrates
and will do so even in the wild (by eating their the stomach
contents of their prey). Indeed, dogs which are clearly carnivores
are also described as "nutritionally omnivorous". The Merck
Veterinary Manual, 5th edition, says this about dogs:

Although classified as a carnivore, the dog utilizes a wild
variety of foodstuffs efficiently. This ability enables
the dog to meet his nutritional requirements from a
remarkable diversity of diets. . . . Some vegetable
proteins are . . . . satisfactory sources of amino acids
for dogs.

There is nothing special about meat protein as mammals do NOT use
protein as given, but break down all protein into its constituent
amino acids. Yes, both dogs, humans, squirrels or even cows can
digest both animal or plant protein. The term "omnivore" is not a
hard and fast scientific category but merely is used to indicate
what an animal usually eats. In our current social environment,
our culture's predominate dietary practices would permit it be said
that we are "omnivores", but that doesn't entail anything about
what we might be constitutionally best evolved to eat.

The physiological stress of eating meat and the greater health
benefits of a vegetarian diet arguably do support the view that
maybe we are best evolved for a vegetarian diet. Certainly, with
respect to the anthropological evidence, we evolved as frugivorous
animals. Of course, like chimps, we can opportunistically eat meat
and insects, but it only constitutes a mere 5% of their calories,
but we have chosen for reasons that are no longer necessary or
essential to consume in the West some 40 - 50% of our calories come
from slaughtered animals or from animals products (4).

Yet, our bodies in the wild were best equipped not to catch prey
but to forage for fruits, roots, and insects. Proponents of the
notion that vitamin C requirements for humans are maybe being
larger than current RDA's have also argued their claims from what
we do know about our evolutionary history as being evolved from
frugivorous apes. Reference to that evolutionary history is not
completely irrelevant to what might be, given the choice, a
preferred diet for reasons of health. Just because we can
opportunistically eat meat doesn't mean that we are therefore
equally capable as evolved carnivores in thriving off a diet
largely of meat. Indeed, cats can be fed diets up to 60% fat by
calories with no apparent problems to their cardiovascular health.
This is certainly not the case with humans. Indeed, early
experiments with dogs being fed fatty diets with lots of
cholesterol were misleading in their implications for humans, and
were a hindrance in the final recognition that fatty diets high in
saturated fat and dietary cholesterol do pose serious health
problems for human beings.

Clearly, the anatomy of the human digestive system is well
engineered to digest plant-based foodstuffs high in fiber and
complex carbohydrates and only moderate in protein. Constipation
and indigestion is less of a problem when people's diets are free
of fiberless, fatty meat. The balance of key metallic elements,
sodium and potassium, is reversed between plant foods and animal
flesh (This greater proportion of sodium may explain why high blood
pressure is rare among vegans). The amounts and chemical kinds of
fats in animals (cholesterol and triglycerides) are very different
than those found in plants. Certainly, no cholesterol is found in
our plant foods. The greater concentration and unnecessary amounts
of protein consumption from meat makes for an excess protein load
that the body must attempt to deal with. Other biological, physical
and chemical properties of flesh foods, like its symptomatic
stimulation of inflammatory substances (prostaglandin 2E) induces

OBSERVABLE SIGNS OF METABOLIC STRESS.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++
+ AFTER A MEAL OF ANIMAL FLESH: +
+ a) white blood cell count increases +
+ +
+ b) Red blood cells become more `sticky' and `sludge' +
+ in small blood vessel. (1) +
+ +
+ c) levels of anti-inflammatory hormones (cortisol) +
+ and sex hormones (estrogen, prolactin) increase. (2) +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++

Employing the engine metaphor, then meat is actually an inferior
"fuel" for the body since it generates many acidic waste products
when metabolized. Hence, a high carbohydrate, low fat diet enables
athletes to be stronger and have more physical endurance.

To summarize the argument he the amount of flesh consumption,
especially with its current fatty quality, does not appear to be
anything like what might be the kind of diet we have evolved to
flourish on as evidenced by the immediate body reactions to meat,
the comparative differences between humans and true carnivores, and
our probable evolutionary history as being predominantly
vegetarians.

Yes, we can eat meat, but not without some costs. We can eat live
insects, but we normally don't. Indeed, we can eat an omnivorous
diet, but we can also be sustained on a vegetarian diet and the
health evidence certainly suggests that a vegetarian diet is more
conducive to better health.

But the inveterate critic will repetitively point out that fact
remains that we can and do eat meat, therefore we are omnivores.
For many people, this would misleadingly suggest that meat-eating
is desirable, or at least not harmful. After all, many people are
persuaded by the logic that if there is something that we have
evolved to do, then that is what we must do, or at least can do
with no harm. I do think that such an implication needs to be
challenged. The first point of challenge being to point out that
we are more accurately described as being evolved from frugivorous
apes. Chimps can eat meat, but we don't classify them as
omnivores. Remember, the term, "omnivores" only serves as a
description of what an animal would normally eat given the normal
opportunities for foods with its autochthonous ecological niche.

Returning to the argument of evolution, again I would stress:

(1) Only up to 5% of calories come from meat in the
chimp's diet, while aculturalized humans in the West are
consuming for non-essential reasons some 50% of their
calories from slaughtered animals. Also, not all great apes
have been observed to capture or hunt prey as have the
chimps.

(2) the bulk of the chimp diet is still predominantly
vegetarian and doesn't resemble in the slightest the kind of
excessive meat consumption that we in North America have
been persuaded by the meat industry to assume (that the meat
industry has been influential is indicated by the fact that
we are eating twice as much meat today as we did in the
1950's).

(3) more direct and reliable evidence is suggested by
observations of primitive human societies in which it has
been observed that gathering constitutes either the total or
the bulk of the diet for most primitive human groups. There
is no reason to think that such a pattern did not also occur
in our pre-historic past.

Any claim that our current meat-eating habit is " a natural
evolutionary trait" is simply too strong. That is, it is TOO
SPECIFIC a trait that is contradicted by our evolutionary history
and by the existence of largely vegetarian societies where hunting
is still viable. After all, the development of such specific
evolutionary traits depends upon a constancy of environmental
conditions and a consequent advantageous adaptation for specific
environmental niches. Humans are marked by a flexibility that has
permitted them a capability to live in a great range habitats.
With respect to diet, it would seem more accurate to say that for
the recent evolutionary history of humans, OPPORTUNISM OR
ADAPTABILITY IS THE HUMAN TRAIT IN QUESTION, ALTHOUGH A
PHYSIOLOGICAL NEED FOR VEGETARIAN FARE REMAINS. After all, there
are human groups that are total vegetarians and others in which
meat figures prominently (never totally and exclusively throughout
the year).

Again, I think that one of the most convincing facts to keep in
mind is that the scientific evidence is pretty clear that the best
diet for human beings in terms of health and longevity is
vegetarian! No other diet for a large, mixed population of people
has been able to achieve the kinds of health risk reductions of,
say, cancer and CHD, as has a vegetarian diet, particularly a vegan
diet.

"We tend to scoff at vegetarians, call them nuts among the
the berries, but the fact is, they're doing bettr than we
we are"
Dr. William Castelli, Director of the government's
Framingham Hearth Study in Massaschusetts (3)

Even when we factor out population differences in smoking (which
accounts for about 3 added years) lacto-ovovegetarians still live
longer (about 3 years) than even low-meat eaters. For instance,
the observed-to-expected coronary heart disease mortality among
total vegetarians is only 14%. Vegetarians, of course, do have
heart attacks but they occur approximately 20 years later in life
then for meat eaters. This is a huge difference, and vegetarians
live their lives feeling more fit and healthy and suffering from
fewer episodes of sickness (e.g., less colds). The reasons for
these gains, in part may have to do the many contaminants and
toxins found in meat, but it is known to be largely due to the fact
that meat is comprised of a too high a proportion of fats,
particularly the wrong kinds of fatty acids, which are now being
seen by health experts as causing significant health problems.

Even medical doctors, who have been slow to recognize the
importance of nutrition for health, some at least are beginning to
concede to the scientific evidence that has been accumulating for
about a hundred years. The "PHYSICIANS COMMITTEE FOR RESPONSIBLE
MEDICINE" recently put out their own 4 Basic Foods chart, much to
the chagrin of that powerful lobby, the meat and diary industry.
The "basic" foods include:

(1) Whole Grains
(2) Vegetables
(3) Legumes
(4) Fruits.

Unlike the old charts that were freely supplied by the meat and
diary industry to all our schools, there is no mention of meat or
dairy products as being essential food groups necessary for human
nutrition and health. Their position is that the less we eat of
this stuff the better. Many of these physicians have themselves
become vegetarian simply on the strength of the nutritional studies
performed on human beings.

All primates have, for the most part, evolved to be fruitarians or
herbivores. Yes, we can eat meat, as do chimpanzees in the wild,
but for chimps this is actually not a common event (except for
insects) and certainly meat does not constitute being a necessary
or significant component in diet. That humans can eat meat doesn't
mean that they must eat meat. That humans may opportunistically
eat red meat doesn't mean that they equally evolved or
physiologically as well adapted to subsist healthily on meat as
compared to a plant food diet.

In any case, the distinction between carnivores and herbivores is
not clear cut and precise. Again, let it be noted that "true"
carnivores like dogs, for instance, can live normal lives on a
vegetarian diet but this does not make them herbivores. In spite
of this fact, we do not call dogs omnivores. Similarly, we are
still biologically vegetarian creatures as given by the evidence of
physiological constitution, evolutionary history and by the facts
suggesting that our health fares best on a vegetarian diet.

Hope this helps. ted

References:

(1) Friedman, M. 1984. "Serum lipids and conjuctival
circulation after fat ingestion." CIRCULATION, 29:874.

(2) Armstrong, B. (1981). "Diet and reproductive hormones: A
study of vegetarian and non-vegetarian postmenopausal
women." JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE", 67:761.

(3) Liebman, B. (1983). "Are vegetarians healthier than the
rest of us?" NUTRITION ACTION, 10:8

(4) C Brusse EVOLUTION, 1977, 31:907

End of forwarded post

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti

o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.

Since newsgroup posts are being removed
by forgery by one or more net terrorists,
this post may be reposted several times.
  #19 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 09-10-2011, 09:13 PM posted to soc.culture.indian,alt.bonehead.jai-maharaj,alt.religion.hindu,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 21
Default Origin, History of Cow Slaughter and Beef Eating in Bharat

On 10/9/2011 3:52 PM, Jay Stevens Maharaj aka the jumpin' jackass
jyotihshithead aka the abominable ass-troll-oger wrote:

HUMANS ARE NOT DESIGNED FOR EATING MEAT


"Evolving to Eat Mush": How Meat Changed Our Bodies
Hillary Mayell
for National Geographic News
February 18, 2005

Meat-eating has impacted the evolution of the human body, scientists
reported today at the American Association for the Advancement of
Science's annual meeting in Washington, D.C.

Our fondness for a juicy steak triggered a number of adaptations over
countless generations. For instance, our jaws have gotten smaller, and
we have an improved ability to process cholesterol and fat.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...uman_diet.html

Meat eating is an old human habit
07 September 2003 by David Holzman

Humans evolved beyond their vegetarian roots and became meat-eaters at
the dawn of the genus Homo, around 2.5 million years ago, according to a
study of our ancestors' teeth.

In 1999, researchers found cut marks on animal bones dated at around 2.5
million years old. But no one could be sure that they were made by
meat-eating hominids, because none appeared to have suitable teeth.

Now an analysis by Peter Ungar of the University of Arkansas has
revealed that the first members of Homo had much sharper teeth than
their most likely immediate ancestor, Australopithecus afarensis, the
species that produced the famous fossil Lucy.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...man-habit.html



--
Astrology: Fraud or Superstition?
http://www.seesharppress.com/astro.html

Ass-troll-ogers/jyotishitheads are the bane of humanity, and must be
cleansed or otherwise purified for the benefit of society.

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/vhp-terrorism
  #20 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 09-10-2011, 09:30 PM posted to soc.culture.indian,alt.fan.jai-maharaj,alt.religion.hindu,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 186
Default Origin, History of Cow Slaughter and Beef Eating in Bharat

Vegan Children: Healthy and Happy

Most people have been taught that children must eat
animal flesh and dairy products to grow up strong and
healthy. The truth is that children raised as vegans, who
consume no animal products, including meat, eggs, and
dairy, can derive all the nutrients essential for optimum
growth from plant-based sources. Children not only don't
need animal products, they're much better off without
them.

Consider this: Many children raised on the "traditional"
American diet of cholesterol- and saturated fat-laden
hamburgers, hot dogs, and pizza are already showing
symptoms of heart disease -- the number one killer of
adults -- by the time they reach first grade. One
epidemiological study found significant levels of
cholesterol and fat in the arteries of most children
under the age of five.(1) Children raised as vegans can
be protected from this condition. They are less likely to
suffer from childhood illnesses such as asthma, iron-
deficiency anemia, and diabetes and will be less prone to
ear infections and colic.(2)

A vegan diet has other benefits, too. E. coli, the deadly
bacteria that killed four children and sickened more than
600 people in Washington state in 1993, was traced to
tainted meat in a fast food restaurant. According to the
Centers for Disease Control, there are more than 20,000
E. coli infections from meat every year in the United
States (3). A vegan diet protects children from the
pesticides, hormones, and antibiotics that are fed to
animals in huge amounts and concentrate in animals' fatty
tissue and milk.(4)

Nutrition in Vegan Diets

Nutritionists and physicians have learned that plant
products are good sources of protein, iron, calcium, and
vitamin D because they can be easily absorbed by the body
and don't contain artery-clogging fat.

o Protein -- Contrary to popular opinion, the real
concern about protein is that we will feed our children
too much, not too little. Nutritional biochemist Dr. T.
Colin Campbell, author of the ground-breaking China
Study, has shown that excess animal protein actually
promotes the growth of tumors -- and most people on a
meat-based diet consume three to 10 times more protein
than their bodies need!(5)

o Children can get all the protein their bodies need
from whole grains in the form of oats, brown rice, and
pasta; from nuts and seeds, including spreads such as
tahini and peanut butter; and legumes, including tofu,
lentils, and beans.(6)

o Iron -- Few parents know that some babies' intestines
bleed after drinking cow's milk. This increases their
risk of developing iron-deficiency anemia since the blood
they're losing contains iron.(7) Breast-fed infants under
the age of one year get sufficient iron from mother's
milk (and are less prone to Sudden Infant Death
Syndrome). Formula-fed babies should be fed a soy-based
formula with added iron to minimize the risk of
intestinal bleeding. Iron-rich foods such as raisins,
almonds, dried apricots, blackstrap molasses and
fortified grain cereals will meet the needs of toddlers
and children 12 months and older. Vitamin C helps the
body absorb iron, so foods rich in both, such as green,
leafy vegetables are particularly valuable.(8)

o Calcium -- Drinking cow's milk is one of the least
effective ways to strengthen bones. Too much protein,
such as the animal protein fed to children in dairy
products, actually causes the body to lose calcium.(9) In
countries where calcium intake is low but where protein
intake is also very low, osteoporosis is almost non-
existent.(10)

o Cornbread, broccoli, kale, tofu, dried figs, tahini,
great northern beans, and fortified orange juice and soy
milk are all excellent sources of calcium. As with iron,
vitamin C will help your child's system absorb calcium
efficiently. (11)

o Vitamin D -- This is not really a "vitamin" but a
hormone our bodies manufacture when our skin is exposed
to sunlight. Cow's milk does not naturally contain
vitamin D; it's added later. Vitamin D-enriched soy milk
provides this nutrient without the added animal fat. A
child who spends as little as 15 minutes a day playing in
the sunshine, with arms and face exposed, will get
sufficient vitamin D.(12)

o Vitamin B-12 -- This essential vitamin once occurred
naturally on the surfaces of potatoes, beets, and other
root vegetables, but the move away from natural
fertilizers has caused it to disappear from our soil. Any
commercially available multivitamin will assure adequate
B-12 for your child. B-12 is also found in nutritional
yeast (not to be confused with brewer's or active dry
yeast) and many fortified cereals. (13)

Dangers of Dairy Products

Children do not need dairy products to grow up strong and
healthy. The director of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins
University, Dr. Frank Oski, says, "There's no reason to
drink cow's milk at any time. It was designed for calves,
it was not designed for humans, and we should all stop
drinking it today, this afternoon."(14) Dr. Benjamin
Spock agrees that although milk is the ideal food for
baby cows, it can be dangerous for human infants: "I want
to pass the word to parents that cow's milk . . . has
definite faults for some babies. It causes allergies,
indigestion, and contributes to some cases of childhood
diabetes."(15)

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that
infants under one year of age not be fed whole cow's
milk. Dairy products are the leading cause of food
allergies. In addition, more than two-thirds of Native
Americans and people from Asian and Mexican ancestry and
as many as 15 percent of Caucasians are lactose
intolerant and suffer symptoms such as bloating, gas,
cramps, vomiting, headaches, rashes, or asthma.(16) Many
people become lactose intolerant after age four. For
these people, animal proteins seep into the immune system
and can result in chronic runny noses, sore throats,
hoarseness, bronchitis, and recurring ear infections.(17)

Milk is suspected of triggering juvenile diabetes, a
disease that causes blindness and other serious
effects.(18) Some children's bodies see cow's milk
protein as a foreign substance and produce high levels of
antibodies to fend off this "invader." These antibodies
also destroy the cells which produce insulin in the
pancreas, leading to diabetes.

An estimated 20 percent of U.S. dairy cows are infected
with leukemia viruses that are resistant to killing by
pasteurization.(19) These viruses have been found in
supermarket supplies of milk and dairy products. It may
not be merely coincidence that the highest rates of
leukemia are found in children ages 3-13, who consume the
most dairy products.(20)

Resources

o Pregnancy, Children, and the Vegan Diet by Michael
Klaper, M.D. (Gentle World, Inc., P.O. Box U, Paia, Maui,
HI 96779, 1994)

o The Vegetarian Mother and Baby Book by Ross Elliot
(Pantheon Books, 1986)

o Vegetarian Baby (McBooks Press, 1984) and Vegetarian
Children (McBooks Press, 1987) by Sharon Yntema

o The Compassionate Cook by PETA and Ingrid Newkirk
(Warner, 1993)

o Vegetarian Times magazine (4 High Ridge Park,
Stamford, CT 06905)

o Vegetarian Journal (P.O. Box 1463, Baltimore, MD
21204)

o Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM),
5100 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Suite 404, Washington, DC 20015;
202-686-2210

o La Leche League, 1-800-LA LECHE

References

1. Akman, D., et al. "Heart Disease in a Total Population
of Children: The Bogalusa Heart Study," Southern Medical
Journal, Oct. 1982, 75(10), pp. 1177-81, and G.S.
Berenson, et al., "Cardiovascular Risk Factors in
Children. Should They Concern the Pediatrician?" American
Journal of Diseases of Children, Sep. 1982, 136(9), pp.
855-62.

2. Klaper, Michael, M.D., Pregnancy, Children, and the
Vegan Diet, 1994 edition, pp. 2-3, 36, and Physicians
Committee for Responsible Medicine, news release: "Top
Doctors Warn: Milk Can Cause Health Problems," September
29, 1992.

3. "A Disease That's a Bite Away," Washington Post,
February 13, 1994.

4. Klaper, Michael, M.D., Pregnancy, Children, and the
Vegan Diet, 1994 edition, p. 2.

5. "Want Long Life? Lay Off Meat," Tucson Citizen,
October 4, 1991.

6. Klaper, op.cit., pp. 12-14.

7. "Doctor Spock Adds Clout to Warnings About Cow's
Milk," Wall Street Journal, September 30, 1992.

8. Klaper, op.cit., pp. 17-18.

9. Ibid., pp. 15-16.

10. "Don't Believe Everything Dairy Industry Tells You,"
San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, February 10, 1993.

11. Klaper, op.cit., pp. 15-16.

12. Klaper, ibid., p. 58.

13. Klaper, ibid.

14. "Dr. Spock Joins Milk's Detractors," Washington Post,
September 30, 1992.

15. Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, news
release: "Top Doctors Warn: Milk Can Cause Health
Problems," September 29, 1992.

16. "Don't Believe Everything Dairy Industry Tells You,"
op. cit.

17. Ibid.

18. "Don't Drink Milk?," Washington Post, February 9,
1993.

19. Klaper, op.cit., p. 42.

20. "Vegan From the Cradle: A Medical Doctor Explains Why
an Animal-Free Diet for Babies Is His First Choice,"
Vegetarian Times, Sept. 1987.

Source - http://goveg.com/r-fact6.html

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti

Origin And History Of Cow Slaughter And Beef Eating In India

http://www.hitxp.com/articles/histor...spiracy-india/

I posted the following in 2003:

[Please use a fixed-width font to view the tables.]

HUMANS ARE NOT DESIGNED FOR EATING MEAT

"The human intestine has a very hard time handling the
putrefying bacteria, high levels of fat, and lack of fiber that
characterize meat, dairy products and eggs. There are other
animals, though, whose intestines seem designed for the task.

"The human intestine is anatomically very different from that
of natural carnivores, such as dogs and cats. Because of the
design of their intestines, these animals are virtually guaranteed
short transit times.

"Our bowel walls are deeply puckered; theirs are smooth. Ours
are full of pouches; theirs have none. Our colons are long,
complex pathways, like a winding mountain road full of hairpin
turns; theirs are short, straight chutes, like wide open freeways.
The toxins from putrefying flesh are not the problem for them that
they are for us because everything passes through them so much more
quickly. Dogs, cats and other natural carnivores do not get colon
cancer from high-fat, low-fiber, flesh-based diets. But we do.

"Researchers who analyze and test human feces can distinguish
the feces of meat-eaters from those of vegetarians by their smell.
[1] They report that the eliminations of meat-eaters smell far
stronger and more noxious than those of non-meat-eaters. There is
a serious reason. Putrefying animal products are far far more
toxic than rotting plant products, and meat-eaters' colons are
constantly subjected to these toxins."

"You see, the digestion of meat itself produces strong
carcinogenic substances in the colon and meat-eaters must produce
extensive bile acids in their intestines to deal with the meat they
eat, particularly deoxycholic acid. This is extremely significant,
because deoxycholic acid is converted by clostridia bacteria in our
intestines into powerful carcinogens. The fact that meat-eaters
invariably have far more deoxycholic acid in their intestines than
do vegetarians is one of the reasons they have so much higher rates
of colon cancer." [2]

SOURCES:

[1] Hoye, Dr. Martin, M.D., personal communication with author.

[2] Hepner, G., "Altered Bile Acid Metabolism in Vegetarians"
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF DIGESTIVE DISEASES, 20:935, 1972
Hill, M., "The Effect of Some Factors on the Fecal Concentration
of . . ."
JOURNAL OF PATHOLOGY, 104:239, 1971
Reddy, B., and Wynder, E., "Large Bowel Carcinogenesis: Fecal
Constituents of Populations with
Diverse Incidence of Colon Cancer"
JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 50:1437, 1973
Reddy, B., "Metabolic Epidemiology of Large Bowel Cancer"
CANCER, 42:2832, 1978
Reddy B., "Nutrition and its Relationship to Cancer"
ADVANCES IN CANCER RESEARCH, 32:237, 1980
Wynder, E., "Dietary Fat and Colon Cancer"
JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 54:7, 1975

All excerpts are from:

DIET FOR A NEW AMERICA by John Robbins; Stillpoint Publishing; 1987.

Also:

WHAT MIGHT BE THE "NATURAL" DIET FOR HUMAN BEINGS?

By Ted Altar

Now, we could begin by noting that many frugivorous (fruit eating)
primates, apes like gorillas, and other non-meat eating animals,
have long incisors for defensive reasons. Human incisors are
really quite pathetic and would not serve us at all in killing an
animal. Gorillas have much larger and more formidable incisors,
but they are completely vegetarian.

Does this answer what diet is maybe preferable for human beings.

Far from it. Instead of just looking at only one anatomical
detail, we need to consider at the very least our anatomy in
general and as a whole. Hence, the following facts taken together
are germane:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++
+ PHYSIOLOGICAL COMPARISONS +
+ -------------------------+---------------------+-------------------- +
+ MEAT EATER |HERBIVORE |MAN +
+ -------------------------+---------------------+-------------------- +
+ has claws |no claws |no claws +
+ -------------------------+---------------------+-------------------- +
+ no skin pores, perspires |perspires through |perspires through +
+ through tongue |skin pores |skin pores +
+ -------------------------+---------------------+-------------------- +
+ sharp front teeth for |no sharp front teeth |no sharp front teeth +
+ tearing, no flat molar |has flat rear molars |has flat rear molars +
+ teeth for grinding | | +
+ -------------------------+---------------------+-------------------- +
+ intestinal tract 3 times |intestinal tract |intestinal tract 12 +
+ body length so rapidly |10-12 time body |times body length +
+ decaying meat can pass |length | +
+ out quickly | | +
+ -------------------------+---------------------+-------------------- +
+ strong hydrochloric |stomach acid 20 |stomach acid 20 +
+ acid in stomach to |times less strong |times less strong +
+ digest meat |than meat-eaters |than meat eaters +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++
[This excerpt comes from the New York Times_ dated 12/13/90]

Now, does this mean that we are "herbivores"? Of course not. But
it does clearly indicate that we are far less like evolved and true
carnivores than we are like herbivores.

Critics point out that we are best described as "omnivores", but
what does that mean? It turns out that BOTH carnivores and
herbivores can eat meat. Squirrels can eat meat, chimpanzees can
eat meat, humans can eat meat. In fact, even cows can eat meat!
Indeed, cows are regularly fed rendered meat protein, some of which
is from slaughtered cows! It also turns out that BOTH carnivores
and herbivores can eat plants. Cats and dogs digest carbohydrates
and will do so even in the wild (by eating their the stomach
contents of their prey). Indeed, dogs which are clearly carnivores
are also described as "nutritionally omnivorous". The Merck
Veterinary Manual, 5th edition, says this about dogs:

Although classified as a carnivore, the dog utilizes a wild
variety of foodstuffs efficiently. This ability enables
the dog to meet his nutritional requirements from a
remarkable diversity of diets. . . . Some vegetable
proteins are . . . . satisfactory sources of amino acids
for dogs.

There is nothing special about meat protein as mammals do NOT use
protein as given, but break down all protein into its constituent
amino acids. Yes, both dogs, humans, squirrels or even cows can
digest both animal or plant protein. The term "omnivore" is not a
hard and fast scientific category but merely is used to indicate
what an animal usually eats. In our current social environment,
our culture's predominate dietary practices would permit it be said
that we are "omnivores", but that doesn't entail anything about
what we might be constitutionally best evolved to eat.

The physiological stress of eating meat and the greater health
benefits of a vegetarian diet arguably do support the view that
maybe we are best evolved for a vegetarian diet. Certainly, with
respect to the anthropological evidence, we evolved as frugivorous
animals. Of course, like chimps, we can opportunistically eat meat
and insects, but it only constitutes a mere 5% of their calories,
but we have chosen for reasons that are no longer necessary or
essential to consume in the West some 40 - 50% of our calories come
from slaughtered animals or from animals products (4).

Yet, our bodies in the wild were best equipped not to catch prey
but to forage for fruits, roots, and insects. Proponents of the
notion that vitamin C requirements for humans are maybe being
larger than current RDA's have also argued their claims from what
we do know about our evolutionary history as being evolved from
frugivorous apes. Reference to that evolutionary history is not
completely irrelevant to what might be, given the choice, a
preferred diet for reasons of health. Just because we can
opportunistically eat meat doesn't mean that we are therefore
equally capable as evolved carnivores in thriving off a diet
largely of meat. Indeed, cats can be fed diets up to 60% fat by
calories with no apparent problems to their cardiovascular health.
This is certainly not the case with humans. Indeed, early
experiments with dogs being fed fatty diets with lots of
cholesterol were misleading in their implications for humans, and
were a hindrance in the final recognition that fatty diets high in
saturated fat and dietary cholesterol do pose serious health
problems for human beings.

Clearly, the anatomy of the human digestive system is well
engineered to digest plant-based foodstuffs high in fiber and
complex carbohydrates and only moderate in protein. Constipation
and indigestion is less of a problem when people's diets are free
of fiberless, fatty meat. The balance of key metallic elements,
sodium and potassium, is reversed between plant foods and animal
flesh (This greater proportion of sodium may explain why high blood
pressure is rare among vegans). The amounts and chemical kinds of
fats in animals (cholesterol and triglycerides) are very different
than those found in plants. Certainly, no cholesterol is found in
our plant foods. The greater concentration and unnecessary amounts
of protein consumption from meat makes for an excess protein load
that the body must attempt to deal with. Other biological, physical
and chemical properties of flesh foods, like its symptomatic
stimulation of inflammatory substances (prostaglandin 2E) induces

OBSERVABLE SIGNS OF METABOLIC STRESS.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++
+ AFTER A MEAL OF ANIMAL FLESH: +
+ a) white blood cell count increases +
+ +
+ b) Red blood cells become more `sticky' and `sludge' +
+ in small blood vessel. (1) +
+ +
+ c) levels of anti-inflammatory hormones (cortisol) +
+ and sex hormones (estrogen, prolactin) increase. (2) +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++

Employing the engine metaphor, then meat is actually an inferior
"fuel" for the body since it generates many acidic waste products
when metabolized. Hence, a high carbohydrate, low fat diet enables
athletes to be stronger and have more physical endurance.

To summarize the argument he the amount of flesh consumption,
especially with its current fatty quality, does not appear to be
anything like what might be the kind of diet we have evolved to
flourish on as evidenced by the immediate body reactions to meat,
the comparative differences between humans and true carnivores, and
our probable evolutionary history as being predominantly
vegetarians.

Yes, we can eat meat, but not without some costs. We can eat live
insects, but we normally don't. Indeed, we can eat an omnivorous
diet, but we can also be sustained on a vegetarian diet and the
health evidence certainly suggests that a vegetarian diet is more
conducive to better health.

But the inveterate critic will repetitively point out that fact
remains that we can and do eat meat, therefore we are omnivores.
For many people, this would misleadingly suggest that meat-eating
is desirable, or at least not harmful. After all, many people are
persuaded by the logic that if there is something that we have
evolved to do, then that is what we must do, or at least can do
with no harm. I do think that such an implication needs to be
challenged. The first point of challenge being to point out that
we are more accurately described as being evolved from frugivorous
apes. Chimps can eat meat, but we don't classify them as
omnivores. Remember, the term, "omnivores" only serves as a
description of what an animal would normally eat given the normal
opportunities for foods with its autochthonous ecological niche.

Returning to the argument of evolution, again I would stress:

(1) Only up to 5% of calories come from meat in the
chimp's diet, while aculturalized humans in the West are
consuming for non-essential reasons some 50% of their
calories from slaughtered animals. Also, not all great apes
have been observed to capture or hunt prey as have the
chimps.

(2) the bulk of the chimp diet is still predominantly
vegetarian and doesn't resemble in the slightest the kind of
excessive meat consumption that we in North America have
been persuaded by the meat industry to assume (that the meat
industry has been influential is indicated by the fact that
we are eating twice as much meat today as we did in the
1950's).

(3) more direct and reliable evidence is suggested by
observations of primitive human societies in which it has
been observed that gathering constitutes either the total or
the bulk of the diet for most primitive human groups. There
is no reason to think that such a pattern did not also occur
in our pre-historic past.

Any claim that our current meat-eating habit is " a natural
evolutionary trait" is simply too strong. That is, it is TOO
SPECIFIC a trait that is contradicted by our evolutionary history
and by the existence of largely vegetarian societies where hunting
is still viable. After all, the development of such specific
evolutionary traits depends upon a constancy of environmental
conditions and a consequent advantageous adaptation for specific
environmental niches. Humans are marked by a flexibility that has
permitted them a capability to live in a great range habitats.
With respect to diet, it would seem more accurate to say that for
the recent evolutionary history of humans, OPPORTUNISM OR
ADAPTABILITY IS THE HUMAN TRAIT IN QUESTION, ALTHOUGH A
PHYSIOLOGICAL NEED FOR VEGETARIAN FARE REMAINS. After all, there
are human groups that are total vegetarians and others in which
meat figures prominently (never totally and exclusively throughout
the year).

Again, I think that one of the most convincing facts to keep in
mind is that the scientific evidence is pretty clear that the best
diet for human beings in terms of health and longevity is
vegetarian! No other diet for a large, mixed population of people
has been able to achieve the kinds of health risk reductions of,
say, cancer and CHD, as has a vegetarian diet, particularly a vegan
diet.

"We tend to scoff at vegetarians, call them nuts among the
the berries, but the fact is, they're doing bettr than we
we are"
Dr. William Castelli, Director of the government's
Framingham Hearth Study in Massaschusetts (3)

Even when we factor out population differences in smoking (which
accounts for about 3 added years) lacto-ovovegetarians still live
longer (about 3 years) than even low-meat eaters. For instance,
the observed-to-expected coronary heart disease mortality among
total vegetarians is only 14%. Vegetarians, of course, do have
heart attacks but they occur approximately 20 years later in life
then for meat eaters. This is a huge difference, and vegetarians
live their lives feeling more fit and healthy and suffering from
fewer episodes of sickness (e.g., less colds). The reasons for
these gains, in part may have to do the many contaminants and
toxins found in meat, but it is known to be largely due to the fact
that meat is comprised of a too high a proportion of fats,
particularly the wrong kinds of fatty acids, which are now being
seen by health experts as causing significant health problems.

Even medical doctors, who have been slow to recognize the
importance of nutrition for health, some at least are beginning to
concede to the scientific evidence that has been accumulating for
about a hundred years. The "PHYSICIANS COMMITTEE FOR RESPONSIBLE
MEDICINE" recently put out their own 4 Basic Foods chart, much to
the chagrin of that powerful lobby, the meat and diary industry.
The "basic" foods include:

(1) Whole Grains
(2) Vegetables
(3) Legumes
(4) Fruits.

Unlike the old charts that were freely supplied by the meat and
diary industry to all our schools, there is no mention of meat or
dairy products as being essential food groups necessary for human
nutrition and health. Their position is that the less we eat of
this stuff the better. Many of these physicians have themselves
become vegetarian simply on the strength of the nutritional studies
performed on human beings.

All primates have, for the most part, evolved to be fruitarians or
herbivores. Yes, we can eat meat, as do chimpanzees in the wild,
but for chimps this is actually not a common event (except for
insects) and certainly meat does not constitute being a necessary
or significant component in diet. That humans can eat meat doesn't
mean that they must eat meat. That humans may opportunistically
eat red meat doesn't mean that they equally evolved or
physiologically as well adapted to subsist healthily on meat as
compared to a plant food diet.

In any case, the distinction between carnivores and herbivores is
not clear cut and precise. Again, let it be noted that "true"
carnivores like dogs, for instance, can live normal lives on a
vegetarian diet but this does not make them herbivores. In spite
of this fact, we do not call dogs omnivores. Similarly, we are
still biologically vegetarian creatures as given by the evidence of
physiological constitution, evolutionary history and by the facts
suggesting that our health fares best on a vegetarian diet.

Hope this helps. ted

References:

(1) Friedman, M. 1984. "Serum lipids and conjuctival
circulation after fat ingestion." CIRCULATION, 29:874.

(2) Armstrong, B. (1981). "Diet and reproductive hormones: A
study of vegetarian and non-vegetarian postmenopausal
women." JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE", 67:761.

(3) Liebman, B. (1983). "Are vegetarians healthier than the
rest of us?" NUTRITION ACTION, 10:8

(4) C Brusse EVOLUTION, 1977, 31:907

End of forwarded post

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti

o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.

Since newsgroup posts are being removed
by forgery by one or more net terrorists,
this post may be reposted several times.



  #21 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 10-10-2011, 01:09 AM posted to soc.culture.indian,alt.bonehead.jai-maharaj,alt.religion.hindu,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 139
Default Origin, History of Cow Slaughter and Beef Eating in Bharat

On 10/9/2011 4:13 PM, P. Rajah wrote:
On 10/9/2011 3:52 PM, Jay Stevens Maharaj aka the jumpin' jackass
jyotihshithead aka the abominable ass-troll-oger wrote:

== ... and we have an improved ability to process cholesterol and fat.
SCIENCE please!

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...uman_diet.html
HINT: national geographic is NOT science, it is a picture book for
curious teen-age boys.

== Meat eating is an old human habit ...
But, not old enough for our species to have "adapted" to it.
There are NO mechanisms for adapting to volitional behavior. Try
reading a REAL science book.

==
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...man-habit.html

newscientist is not a scientific journal, it is a popular magazine for
ignorant lay people like Internet Trolls, and people like you.

NONE of this refutes that understanding that there is NO mechanism to
"evolve" to volitional behavior, especially when it causes widespread
death and disease, as current epidemiological evidence so clearly indicates.
http://www.ecologos.org/meat-heart-death.htm
http://www.ecologos.org/ttdd.html#meat

Laurie

scientifically-credible vegan information:
www.ecologos.org/ttdd.html
news:alt.food.vegan.science
  #22 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 10-10-2011, 02:05 AM posted to soc.culture.indian,alt.fan.jai-maharaj,alt.religion.hindu,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 186
Default Origin, History of Cow Slaughter and Beef Eating in Bharat

Why Vegan?

http://www.veganoutreach.org/whyvegan

Visit also:

http://www.pcrm.org

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti

Vegan Children: Healthy and Happy

Most people have been taught that children must eat
animal flesh and dairy products to grow up strong and
healthy. The truth is that children raised as vegans, who
consume no animal products, including meat, eggs, and
dairy, can derive all the nutrients essential for optimum
growth from plant-based sources. Children not only don't
need animal products, they're much better off without
them.

Consider this: Many children raised on the "traditional"
American diet of cholesterol- and saturated fat-laden
hamburgers, hot dogs, and pizza are already showing
symptoms of heart disease -- the number one killer of
adults -- by the time they reach first grade. One
epidemiological study found significant levels of
cholesterol and fat in the arteries of most children
under the age of five.(1) Children raised as vegans can
be protected from this condition. They are less likely to
suffer from childhood illnesses such as asthma, iron-
deficiency anemia, and diabetes and will be less prone to
ear infections and colic.(2)

A vegan diet has other benefits, too. E. coli, the deadly
bacteria that killed four children and sickened more than
600 people in Washington state in 1993, was traced to
tainted meat in a fast food restaurant. According to the
Centers for Disease Control, there are more than 20,000
E. coli infections from meat every year in the United
States (3). A vegan diet protects children from the
pesticides, hormones, and antibiotics that are fed to
animals in huge amounts and concentrate in animals' fatty
tissue and milk.(4)

Nutrition in Vegan Diets

Nutritionists and physicians have learned that plant
products are good sources of protein, iron, calcium, and
vitamin D because they can be easily absorbed by the body
and don't contain artery-clogging fat.

o Protein -- Contrary to popular opinion, the real
concern about protein is that we will feed our children
too much, not too little. Nutritional biochemist Dr. T.
Colin Campbell, author of the ground-breaking China
Study, has shown that excess animal protein actually
promotes the growth of tumors -- and most people on a
meat-based diet consume three to 10 times more protein
than their bodies need!(5)

o Children can get all the protein their bodies need
from whole grains in the form of oats, brown rice, and
pasta; from nuts and seeds, including spreads such as
tahini and peanut butter; and legumes, including tofu,
lentils, and beans.(6)

o Iron -- Few parents know that some babies' intestines
bleed after drinking cow's milk. This increases their
risk of developing iron-deficiency anemia since the blood
they're losing contains iron.(7) Breast-fed infants under
the age of one year get sufficient iron from mother's
milk (and are less prone to Sudden Infant Death
Syndrome). Formula-fed babies should be fed a soy-based
formula with added iron to minimize the risk of
intestinal bleeding. Iron-rich foods such as raisins,
almonds, dried apricots, blackstrap molasses and
fortified grain cereals will meet the needs of toddlers
and children 12 months and older. Vitamin C helps the
body absorb iron, so foods rich in both, such as green,
leafy vegetables are particularly valuable.(8)

o Calcium -- Drinking cow's milk is one of the least
effective ways to strengthen bones. Too much protein,
such as the animal protein fed to children in dairy
products, actually causes the body to lose calcium.(9) In
countries where calcium intake is low but where protein
intake is also very low, osteoporosis is almost non-
existent.(10)

o Cornbread, broccoli, kale, tofu, dried figs, tahini,
great northern beans, and fortified orange juice and soy
milk are all excellent sources of calcium. As with iron,
vitamin C will help your child's system absorb calcium
efficiently. (11)

o Vitamin D -- This is not really a "vitamin" but a
hormone our bodies manufacture when our skin is exposed
to sunlight. Cow's milk does not naturally contain
vitamin D; it's added later. Vitamin D-enriched soy milk
provides this nutrient without the added animal fat. A
child who spends as little as 15 minutes a day playing in
the sunshine, with arms and face exposed, will get
sufficient vitamin D.(12)

o Vitamin B-12 -- This essential vitamin once occurred
naturally on the surfaces of potatoes, beets, and other
root vegetables, but the move away from natural
fertilizers has caused it to disappear from our soil. Any
commercially available multivitamin will assure adequate
B-12 for your child. B-12 is also found in nutritional
yeast (not to be confused with brewer's or active dry
yeast) and many fortified cereals. (13)

Dangers of Dairy Products

Children do not need dairy products to grow up strong and
healthy. The director of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins
University, Dr. Frank Oski, says, "There's no reason to
drink cow's milk at any time. It was designed for calves,
it was not designed for humans, and we should all stop
drinking it today, this afternoon."(14) Dr. Benjamin
Spock agrees that although milk is the ideal food for
baby cows, it can be dangerous for human infants: "I want
to pass the word to parents that cow's milk . . . has
definite faults for some babies. It causes allergies,
indigestion, and contributes to some cases of childhood
diabetes."(15)

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that
infants under one year of age not be fed whole cow's
milk. Dairy products are the leading cause of food
allergies. In addition, more than two-thirds of Native
Americans and people from Asian and Mexican ancestry and
as many as 15 percent of Caucasians are lactose
intolerant and suffer symptoms such as bloating, gas,
cramps, vomiting, headaches, rashes, or asthma.(16) Many
people become lactose intolerant after age four. For
these people, animal proteins seep into the immune system
and can result in chronic runny noses, sore throats,
hoarseness, bronchitis, and recurring ear infections.(17)

Milk is suspected of triggering juvenile diabetes, a
disease that causes blindness and other serious
effects.(18) Some children's bodies see cow's milk
protein as a foreign substance and produce high levels of
antibodies to fend off this "invader." These antibodies
also destroy the cells which produce insulin in the
pancreas, leading to diabetes.

An estimated 20 percent of U.S. dairy cows are infected
with leukemia viruses that are resistant to killing by
pasteurization.(19) These viruses have been found in
supermarket supplies of milk and dairy products. It may
not be merely coincidence that the highest rates of
leukemia are found in children ages 3-13, who consume the
most dairy products.(20)

Resources

o Pregnancy, Children, and the Vegan Diet by Michael
Klaper, M.D. (Gentle World, Inc., P.O. Box U, Paia, Maui,
HI 96779, 1994)

o The Vegetarian Mother and Baby Book by Ross Elliot
(Pantheon Books, 1986)

o Vegetarian Baby (McBooks Press, 1984) and Vegetarian
Children (McBooks Press, 1987) by Sharon Yntema

o The Compassionate Cook by PETA and Ingrid Newkirk
(Warner, 1993)

o Vegetarian Times magazine (4 High Ridge Park,
Stamford, CT 06905)

o Vegetarian Journal (P.O. Box 1463, Baltimore, MD
21204)

o Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM),
5100 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Suite 404, Washington, DC 20015;
202-686-2210

o La Leche League, 1-800-LA LECHE

References

1. Akman, D., et al. "Heart Disease in a Total Population
of Children: The Bogalusa Heart Study," Southern Medical
Journal, Oct. 1982, 75(10), pp. 1177-81, and G.S.
Berenson, et al., "Cardiovascular Risk Factors in
Children. Should They Concern the Pediatrician?" American
Journal of Diseases of Children, Sep. 1982, 136(9), pp.
855-62.

2. Klaper, Michael, M.D., Pregnancy, Children, and the
Vegan Diet, 1994 edition, pp. 2-3, 36, and Physicians
Committee for Responsible Medicine, news release: "Top
Doctors Warn: Milk Can Cause Health Problems," September
29, 1992.

3. "A Disease That's a Bite Away," Washington Post,
February 13, 1994.

4. Klaper, Michael, M.D., Pregnancy, Children, and the
Vegan Diet, 1994 edition, p. 2.

5. "Want Long Life? Lay Off Meat," Tucson Citizen,
October 4, 1991.

6. Klaper, op.cit., pp. 12-14.

7. "Doctor Spock Adds Clout to Warnings About Cow's
Milk," Wall Street Journal, September 30, 1992.

8. Klaper, op.cit., pp. 17-18.

9. Ibid., pp. 15-16.

10. "Don't Believe Everything Dairy Industry Tells You,"
San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, February 10, 1993.

11. Klaper, op.cit., pp. 15-16.

12. Klaper, ibid., p. 58.

13. Klaper, ibid.

14. "Dr. Spock Joins Milk's Detractors," Washington Post,
September 30, 1992.

15. Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, news
release: "Top Doctors Warn: Milk Can Cause Health
Problems," September 29, 1992.

16. "Don't Believe Everything Dairy Industry Tells You,"
op. cit.

17. Ibid.

18. "Don't Drink Milk?," Washington Post, February 9,
1993.

19. Klaper, op.cit., p. 42.

20. "Vegan From the Cradle: A Medical Doctor Explains Why
an Animal-Free Diet for Babies Is His First Choice,"
Vegetarian Times, Sept. 1987.

Source - http://goveg.com/r-fact6.html

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti

Origin And History Of Cow Slaughter And Beef Eating In India


http://www.hitxp.com/articles/histor...aughterhouse-b
eef-conspiracy-india/

I posted the following in 2003:

[Please use a fixed-width font to view the tables.]

HUMANS ARE NOT DESIGNED FOR EATING MEAT

"The human intestine has a very hard time handling the
putrefying bacteria, high levels of fat, and lack of fiber that
characterize meat, dairy products and eggs. There are other
animals, though, whose intestines seem designed for the task.

"The human intestine is anatomically very different from that
of natural carnivores, such as dogs and cats. Because of the
design of their intestines, these animals are virtually guaranteed
short transit times.

"Our bowel walls are deeply puckered; theirs are smooth. Ours
are full of pouches; theirs have none. Our colons are long,
complex pathways, like a winding mountain road full of hairpin
turns; theirs are short, straight chutes, like wide open freeways.
The toxins from putrefying flesh are not the problem for them that
they are for us because everything passes through them so much more
quickly. Dogs, cats and other natural carnivores do not get colon
cancer from high-fat, low-fiber, flesh-based diets. But we do.

"Researchers who analyze and test human feces can distinguish
the feces of meat-eaters from those of vegetarians by their smell.
[1] They report that the eliminations of meat-eaters smell far
stronger and more noxious than those of non-meat-eaters. There is
a serious reason. Putrefying animal products are far far more
toxic than rotting plant products, and meat-eaters' colons are
constantly subjected to these toxins."

"You see, the digestion of meat itself produces strong
carcinogenic substances in the colon and meat-eaters must produce
extensive bile acids in their intestines to deal with the meat they
eat, particularly deoxycholic acid. This is extremely significant,
because deoxycholic acid is converted by clostridia bacteria in our
intestines into powerful carcinogens. The fact that meat-eaters
invariably have far more deoxycholic acid in their intestines than
do vegetarians is one of the reasons they have so much higher rates
of colon cancer." [2]

SOURCES:

[1] Hoye, Dr. Martin, M.D., personal communication with author.

[2] Hepner, G., "Altered Bile Acid Metabolism in Vegetarians"
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF DIGESTIVE DISEASES, 20:935, 1972
Hill, M., "The Effect of Some Factors on the Fecal Concentration
of . . ."
JOURNAL OF PATHOLOGY, 104:239, 1971
Reddy, B., and Wynder, E., "Large Bowel Carcinogenesis: Fecal
Constituents of Populations with
Diverse Incidence of Colon Cancer"
JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 50:1437, 1973
Reddy, B., "Metabolic Epidemiology of Large Bowel Cancer"
CANCER, 42:2832, 1978
Reddy B., "Nutrition and its Relationship to Cancer"
ADVANCES IN CANCER RESEARCH, 32:237, 1980
Wynder, E., "Dietary Fat and Colon Cancer"
JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 54:7, 1975

All excerpts are from:

DIET FOR A NEW AMERICA by John Robbins; Stillpoint Publishing; 1987.

Also:

WHAT MIGHT BE THE "NATURAL" DIET FOR HUMAN BEINGS?

By Ted Altar

Now, we could begin by noting that many frugivorous (fruit eating)
primates, apes like gorillas, and other non-meat eating animals,
have long incisors for defensive reasons. Human incisors are
really quite pathetic and would not serve us at all in killing an
animal. Gorillas have much larger and more formidable incisors,
but they are completely vegetarian.

Does this answer what diet is maybe preferable for human beings.

Far from it. Instead of just looking at only one anatomical
detail, we need to consider at the very least our anatomy in
general and as a whole. Hence, the following facts taken together
are germane:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++
+ PHYSIOLOGICAL COMPARISONS +
+ -------------------------+---------------------+-------------------- +
+ MEAT EATER |HERBIVORE |MAN +
+ -------------------------+---------------------+-------------------- +
+ has claws |no claws |no claws +
+ -------------------------+---------------------+-------------------- +
+ no skin pores, perspires |perspires through |perspires through +
+ through tongue |skin pores |skin pores +
+ -------------------------+---------------------+-------------------- +
+ sharp front teeth for |no sharp front teeth |no sharp front teeth +
+ tearing, no flat molar |has flat rear molars |has flat rear molars +
+ teeth for grinding | | +
+ -------------------------+---------------------+-------------------- +
+ intestinal tract 3 times |intestinal tract |intestinal tract 12 +
+ body length so rapidly |10-12 time body |times body length +
+ decaying meat can pass |length | +
+ out quickly | | +
+ -------------------------+---------------------+-------------------- +
+ strong hydrochloric |stomach acid 20 |stomach acid 20 +
+ acid in stomach to |times less strong |times less strong +
+ digest meat |than meat-eaters |than meat eaters +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++
[This excerpt comes from the New York Times_ dated 12/13/90]

Now, does this mean that we are "herbivores"? Of course not. But
it does clearly indicate that we are far less like evolved and true
carnivores than we are like herbivores.

Critics point out that we are best described as "omnivores", but
what does that mean? It turns out that BOTH carnivores and
herbivores can eat meat. Squirrels can eat meat, chimpanzees can
eat meat, humans can eat meat. In fact, even cows can eat meat!
Indeed, cows are regularly fed rendered meat protein, some of which
is from slaughtered cows! It also turns out that BOTH carnivores
and herbivores can eat plants. Cats and dogs digest carbohydrates
and will do so even in the wild (by eating their the stomach
contents of their prey). Indeed, dogs which are clearly carnivores
are also described as "nutritionally omnivorous". The Merck
Veterinary Manual, 5th edition, says this about dogs:

Although classified as a carnivore, the dog utilizes a wild
variety of foodstuffs efficiently. This ability enables
the dog to meet his nutritional requirements from a
remarkable diversity of diets. . . . Some vegetable
proteins are . . . . satisfactory sources of amino acids
for dogs.

There is nothing special about meat protein as mammals do NOT use
protein as given, but break down all protein into its constituent
amino acids. Yes, both dogs, humans, squirrels or even cows can
digest both animal or plant protein. The term "omnivore" is not a
hard and fast scientific category but merely is used to indicate
what an animal usually eats. In our current social environment,
our culture's predominate dietary practices would permit it be said
that we are "omnivores", but that doesn't entail anything about
what we might be constitutionally best evolved to eat.

The physiological stress of eating meat and the greater health
benefits of a vegetarian diet arguably do support the view that
maybe we are best evolved for a vegetarian diet. Certainly, with
respect to the anthropological evidence, we evolved as frugivorous
animals. Of course, like chimps, we can opportunistically eat meat
and insects, but it only constitutes a mere 5% of their calories,
but we have chosen for reasons that are no longer necessary or
essential to consume in the West some 40 - 50% of our calories come
from slaughtered animals or from animals products (4).

Yet, our bodies in the wild were best equipped not to catch prey
but to forage for fruits, roots, and insects. Proponents of the
notion that vitamin C requirements for humans are maybe being
larger than current RDA's have also argued their claims from what
we do know about our evolutionary history as being evolved from
frugivorous apes. Reference to that evolutionary history is not
completely irrelevant to what might be, given the choice, a
preferred diet for reasons of health. Just because we can
opportunistically eat meat doesn't mean that we are therefore
equally capable as evolved carnivores in thriving off a diet
largely of meat. Indeed, cats can be fed diets up to 60% fat by
calories with no apparent problems to their cardiovascular health.
This is certainly not the case with humans. Indeed, early
experiments with dogs being fed fatty diets with lots of
cholesterol were misleading in their implications for humans, and
were a hindrance in the final recognition that fatty diets high in
saturated fat and dietary cholesterol do pose serious health
problems for human beings.

Clearly, the anatomy of the human digestive system is well
engineered to digest plant-based foodstuffs high in fiber and
complex carbohydrates and only moderate in protein. Constipation
and indigestion is less of a problem when people's diets are free
of fiberless, fatty meat. The balance of key metallic elements,
sodium and potassium, is reversed between plant foods and animal
flesh (This greater proportion of sodium may explain why high blood
pressure is rare among vegans). The amounts and chemical kinds of
fats in animals (cholesterol and triglycerides) are very different
than those found in plants. Certainly, no cholesterol is found in
our plant foods. The greater concentration and unnecessary amounts
of protein consumption from meat makes for an excess protein load
that the body must attempt to deal with. Other biological, physical
and chemical properties of flesh foods, like its symptomatic
stimulation of inflammatory substances (prostaglandin 2E) induces

OBSERVABLE SIGNS OF METABOLIC STRESS.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++
+ AFTER A MEAL OF ANIMAL FLESH: +
+ a) white blood cell count increases +
+ +
+ b) Red blood cells become more `sticky' and `sludge' +
+ in small blood vessel. (1) +
+ +
+ c) levels of anti-inflammatory hormones (cortisol) +
+ and sex hormones (estrogen, prolactin) increase. (2) +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++

Employing the engine metaphor, then meat is actually an inferior
"fuel" for the body since it generates many acidic waste products
when metabolized. Hence, a high carbohydrate, low fat diet enables
athletes to be stronger and have more physical endurance.

To summarize the argument he the amount of flesh consumption,
especially with its current fatty quality, does not appear to be
anything like what might be the kind of diet we have evolved to
flourish on as evidenced by the immediate body reactions to meat,
the comparative differences between humans and true carnivores, and
our probable evolutionary history as being predominantly
vegetarians.

Yes, we can eat meat, but not without some costs. We can eat live
insects, but we normally don't. Indeed, we can eat an omnivorous
diet, but we can also be sustained on a vegetarian diet and the
health evidence certainly suggests that a vegetarian diet is more
conducive to better health.

But the inveterate critic will repetitively point out that fact
remains that we can and do eat meat, therefore we are omnivores.
For many people, this would misleadingly suggest that meat-eating
is desirable, or at least not harmful. After all, many people are
persuaded by the logic that if there is something that we have
evolved to do, then that is what we must do, or at least can do
with no harm. I do think that such an implication needs to be
challenged. The first point of challenge being to point out that
we are more accurately described as being evolved from frugivorous
apes. Chimps can eat meat, but we don't classify them as
omnivores. Remember, the term, "omnivores" only serves as a
description of what an animal would normally eat given the normal
opportunities for foods with its autochthonous ecological niche.

Returning to the argument of evolution, again I would stress:

(1) Only up to 5% of calories come from meat in the
chimp's diet, while aculturalized humans in the West are
consuming for non-essential reasons some 50% of their
calories from slaughtered animals. Also, not all great apes
have been observed to capture or hunt prey as have the
chimps.

(2) the bulk of the chimp diet is still predominantly
vegetarian and doesn't resemble in the slightest the kind of
excessive meat consumption that we in North America have
been persuaded by the meat industry to assume (that the meat
industry has been influential is indicated by the fact that
we are eating twice as much meat today as we did in the
1950's).

(3) more direct and reliable evidence is suggested by
observations of primitive human societies in which it has
been observed that gathering constitutes either the total or
the bulk of the diet for most primitive human groups. There
is no reason to think that such a pattern did not also occur
in our pre-historic past.

Any claim that our current meat-eating habit is " a natural
evolutionary trait" is simply too strong. That is, it is TOO
SPECIFIC a trait that is contradicted by our evolutionary history
and by the existence of largely vegetarian societies where hunting
is still viable. After all, the development of such specific
evolutionary traits depends upon a constancy of environmental
conditions and a consequent advantageous adaptation for specific
environmental niches. Humans are marked by a flexibility that has
permitted them a capability to live in a great range habitats.
With respect to diet, it would seem more accurate to say that for
the recent evolutionary history of humans, OPPORTUNISM OR
ADAPTABILITY IS THE HUMAN TRAIT IN QUESTION, ALTHOUGH A
PHYSIOLOGICAL NEED FOR VEGETARIAN FARE REMAINS. After all, there
are human groups that are total vegetarians and others in which
meat figures prominently (never totally and exclusively throughout
the year).

Again, I think that one of the most convincing facts to keep in
mind is that the scientific evidence is pretty clear that the best
diet for human beings in terms of health and longevity is
vegetarian! No other diet for a large, mixed population of people
has been able to achieve the kinds of health risk reductions of,
say, cancer and CHD, as has a vegetarian diet, particularly a vegan
diet.

"We tend to scoff at vegetarians, call them nuts among the
the berries, but the fact is, they're doing bettr than we
we are"
Dr. William Castelli, Director of the government's
Framingham Hearth Study in Massaschusetts (3)

Even when we factor out population differences in smoking (which
accounts for about 3 added years) lacto-ovovegetarians still live
longer (about 3 years) than even low-meat eaters. For instance,
the observed-to-expected coronary heart disease mortality among
total vegetarians is only 14%. Vegetarians, of course, do have
heart attacks but they occur approximately 20 years later in life
then for meat eaters. This is a huge difference, and vegetarians
live their lives feeling more fit and healthy and suffering from
fewer episodes of sickness (e.g., less colds). The reasons for
these gains, in part may have to do the many contaminants and
toxins found in meat, but it is known to be largely due to the fact
that meat is comprised of a too high a proportion of fats,
particularly the wrong kinds of fatty acids, which are now being
seen by health experts as causing significant health problems.

Even medical doctors, who have been slow to recognize the
importance of nutrition for health, some at least are beginning to
concede to the scientific evidence that has been accumulating for
about a hundred years. The "PHYSICIANS COMMITTEE FOR RESPONSIBLE
MEDICINE" recently put out their own 4 Basic Foods chart, much to
the chagrin of that powerful lobby, the meat and diary industry.
The "basic" foods include:

(1) Whole Grains
(2) Vegetables
(3) Legumes
(4) Fruits.

Unlike the old charts that were freely supplied by the meat and
diary industry to all our schools, there is no mention of meat or
dairy products as being essential food groups necessary for human
nutrition and health. Their position is that the less we eat of
this stuff the better. Many of these physicians have themselves
become vegetarian simply on the strength of the nutritional studies
performed on human beings.

All primates have, for the most part, evolved to be fruitarians or
herbivores. Yes, we can eat meat, as do chimpanzees in the wild,
but for chimps this is actually not a common event (except for
insects) and certainly meat does not constitute being a necessary
or significant component in diet. That humans can eat meat doesn't
mean that they must eat meat. That humans may opportunistically
eat red meat doesn't mean that they equally evolved or
physiologically as well adapted to subsist healthily on meat as
compared to a plant food diet.

In any case, the distinction between carnivores and herbivores is
not clear cut and precise. Again, let it be noted that "true"
carnivores like dogs, for instance, can live normal lives on a
vegetarian diet but this does not make them herbivores. In spite
of this fact, we do not call dogs omnivores. Similarly, we are
still biologically vegetarian creatures as given by the evidence of
physiological constitution, evolutionary history and by the facts
suggesting that our health fares best on a vegetarian diet.

Hope this helps. ted

References:

(1) Friedman, M. 1984. "Serum lipids and conjuctival
circulation after fat ingestion." CIRCULATION, 29:874.

(2) Armstrong, B. (1981). "Diet and reproductive hormones: A
study of vegetarian and non-vegetarian postmenopausal
women." JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE", 67:761.

(3) Liebman, B. (1983). "Are vegetarians healthier than the
rest of us?" NUTRITION ACTION, 10:8

(4) C Brusse EVOLUTION, 1977, 31:907

End of forwarded post

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti


o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.

Since newsgroup posts are being removed
by forgery by one or more net terrorists,
this post may be reposted several times.
  #23 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 10-10-2011, 03:49 AM posted to soc.culture.indian,alt.bonehead.jai-maharaj,alt.religion.hindu,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 21
Default Origin, History of Cow Slaughter and Beef Eating in Bharat

On 10/9/2011 8:09 PM, Laurie wrote:


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...uman_diet.html
HINT: national geographic is NOT science, it is a picture book for
curious teen-age boys.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...man-habit.html

newscientist is not a scientific journal, it is a popular magazine for
ignorant lay people like Internet Trolls, and people like you.


You're a lunatic. The word veggienazi was created for people like you.


--
Astrology: Fraud or Superstition?
http://www.seesharppress.com/astro.html

Ass-troll-ogers/jyotishitheads are the bane of humanity, and must be
cleansed or otherwise purified for the benefit of society.

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/vhp-terrorism
  #24 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 10-10-2011, 03:58 AM posted to soc.culture.indian,alt.fan.jai-maharaj,alt.religion.hindu,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 186
Default Origin, History of Cow Slaughter and Beef Eating in Bharat

MEAT INDUSTRY'S FAT LIES

Excerpt

Meat Industry's Fat Lies

By John Robbins

The meat and dairy industries have spent many millions of dollars to
promote the belief that carbohydrates, such as potatoes, bread and
pasta are the real culprits that cause excess weight gain. But
literally thousands of impartial studies have shown this to have no
basis in fact. Due to their high fat content, meats are far indeed
from "calorie conscious."

The renowned Harvard nutritionist, Dr. Jean Mayer, explained the
matter this way:

'In becoming a vegetarian, you will eat a greater percentage of your
calories from cereal grains, dried beans and peas, potatoes and pasta
-- the very foods most dieters avoid with zeal. And you will lose
weight.'

Because people eating the standard American diet eat such a very high
percentage of their calories as fat, most of them fight a never-
ending "battle of the bulge." But obesity is not merely an aesthetic
issue. It has been found to be a significant co-factor in all the
degenerative diseases that cripple and kill modern man.

The obese, and to a lesser but still significant extent the
overweight, have higher rates of heart disease, diabetes, liver
disorders, gallbladder disease, cancer, arthritis, and virtually
every other degenerative disease. Infant mortality rates are far
higher for babies born to obese mothers. Obese teenagers have a life
expectancy that is 15 years shorter than normal.

Clinically, the term "obesity" refers to excessive levels of body-
fat. It is, quite literally, a case of being fat.

From a clinical standpoint, the body weight most of us think as
"normal" is anything but healthy. As one authority wrote:

'A teenager who remains 20% under the normal weight enjoys a 15-year
increase over and above normal life expectancy. Lower than normal
weight is also associated with marked reductions in the incidence of
cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and other degenerative
diseases. In a very real sense, then, U.S. and European weight
standards are excessive, and the overwhelming majority of Americans
and Europeans are detrimentally overweight . . . The U.S. Public
Health Service estimates 60 million Americans are overweight. In
reality, the number of Americans who are above optimal weight may be
three times the government estimate. [That is 3 out of 4 Americans.]'

When we realize that so-called "normal" weights are actually too high
for optimum health, and a very high percentage of Americans are above
even these weights, a picture emerges that is neither flattering nor
healthy. What is considered "normal" in our culture is actually a
moderate form of obesity.

So, if you are concerned about your health and our environment,
eliminate meat from your diet.

- Mayer, J. and Goldberg, J., 'Nutrition' (a syndicated column)
Washington Post, July 26, 1981

- Tartter, P., 'Cholesterol and Obesity as Prognostic Factors...'
Cancer, 47:2222, 1981

- Donegan, W., 'The Association of Body Weight with Recurrent
Cancer...,' Cancer, 41:1590, 1978 Editorial, 'Obesity -- The Cancer
Connection,' Lancet, 1:1223, 1982

- Hur, R., 'Foor Reform: Our Desperate Need' Neidelburg Publishers,
1975, pg 74

End of excerpt

- Robbins, John, DIET FOR A NEW AMERICA Stillpoint Publishing,
Walpole, N.H., 1987, pgs. 289-290. All text and citations.

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti

Why Vegan?

http://www.veganoutreach.org/whyvegan

Visit also:

http://www.pcrm.org

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti

Vegan Children: Healthy and Happy

Most people have been taught that children must eat
animal flesh and dairy products to grow up strong and
healthy. The truth is that children raised as vegans, who
consume no animal products, including meat, eggs, and
dairy, can derive all the nutrients essential for optimum
growth from plant-based sources. Children not only don't
need animal products, they're much better off without
them.

Consider this: Many children raised on the "traditional"
American diet of cholesterol- and saturated fat-laden
hamburgers, hot dogs, and pizza are already showing
symptoms of heart disease -- the number one killer of
adults -- by the time they reach first grade. One
epidemiological study found significant levels of
cholesterol and fat in the arteries of most children
under the age of five.(1) Children raised as vegans can
be protected from this condition. They are less likely to
suffer from childhood illnesses such as asthma, iron-
deficiency anemia, and diabetes and will be less prone to
ear infections and colic.(2)

A vegan diet has other benefits, too. E. coli, the deadly
bacteria that killed four children and sickened more than
600 people in Washington state in 1993, was traced to
tainted meat in a fast food restaurant. According to the
Centers for Disease Control, there are more than 20,000
E. coli infections from meat every year in the United
States (3). A vegan diet protects children from the
pesticides, hormones, and antibiotics that are fed to
animals in huge amounts and concentrate in animals' fatty
tissue and milk.(4)

Nutrition in Vegan Diets

Nutritionists and physicians have learned that plant
products are good sources of protein, iron, calcium, and
vitamin D because they can be easily absorbed by the body
and don't contain artery-clogging fat.

o Protein -- Contrary to popular opinion, the real
concern about protein is that we will feed our children
too much, not too little. Nutritional biochemist Dr. T.
Colin Campbell, author of the ground-breaking China
Study, has shown that excess animal protein actually
promotes the growth of tumors -- and most people on a
meat-based diet consume three to 10 times more protein
than their bodies need!(5)

o Children can get all the protein their bodies need
from whole grains in the form of oats, brown rice, and
pasta; from nuts and seeds, including spreads such as
tahini and peanut butter; and legumes, including tofu,
lentils, and beans.(6)

o Iron -- Few parents know that some babies' intestines
bleed after drinking cow's milk. This increases their
risk of developing iron-deficiency anemia since the blood
they're losing contains iron.(7) Breast-fed infants under
the age of one year get sufficient iron from mother's
milk (and are less prone to Sudden Infant Death
Syndrome). Formula-fed babies should be fed a soy-based
formula with added iron to minimize the risk of
intestinal bleeding. Iron-rich foods such as raisins,
almonds, dried apricots, blackstrap molasses and
fortified grain cereals will meet the needs of toddlers
and children 12 months and older. Vitamin C helps the
body absorb iron, so foods rich in both, such as green,
leafy vegetables are particularly valuable.(8)

o Calcium -- Drinking cow's milk is one of the least
effective ways to strengthen bones. Too much protein,
such as the animal protein fed to children in dairy
products, actually causes the body to lose calcium.(9) In
countries where calcium intake is low but where protein
intake is also very low, osteoporosis is almost non-
existent.(10)

o Cornbread, broccoli, kale, tofu, dried figs, tahini,
great northern beans, and fortified orange juice and soy
milk are all excellent sources of calcium. As with iron,
vitamin C will help your child's system absorb calcium
efficiently. (11)

o Vitamin D -- This is not really a "vitamin" but a
hormone our bodies manufacture when our skin is exposed
to sunlight. Cow's milk does not naturally contain
vitamin D; it's added later. Vitamin D-enriched soy milk
provides this nutrient without the added animal fat. A
child who spends as little as 15 minutes a day playing in
the sunshine, with arms and face exposed, will get
sufficient vitamin D.(12)

o Vitamin B-12 -- This essential vitamin once occurred
naturally on the surfaces of potatoes, beets, and other
root vegetables, but the move away from natural
fertilizers has caused it to disappear from our soil. Any
commercially available multivitamin will assure adequate
B-12 for your child. B-12 is also found in nutritional
yeast (not to be confused with brewer's or active dry
yeast) and many fortified cereals. (13)

Dangers of Dairy Products

Children do not need dairy products to grow up strong and
healthy. The director of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins
University, Dr. Frank Oski, says, "There's no reason to
drink cow's milk at any time. It was designed for calves,
it was not designed for humans, and we should all stop
drinking it today, this afternoon."(14) Dr. Benjamin
Spock agrees that although milk is the ideal food for
baby cows, it can be dangerous for human infants: "I want
to pass the word to parents that cow's milk . . . has
definite faults for some babies. It causes allergies,
indigestion, and contributes to some cases of childhood
diabetes."(15)

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that
infants under one year of age not be fed whole cow's
milk. Dairy products are the leading cause of food
allergies. In addition, more than two-thirds of Native
Americans and people from Asian and Mexican ancestry and
as many as 15 percent of Caucasians are lactose
intolerant and suffer symptoms such as bloating, gas,
cramps, vomiting, headaches, rashes, or asthma.(16) Many
people become lactose intolerant after age four. For
these people, animal proteins seep into the immune system
and can result in chronic runny noses, sore throats,
hoarseness, bronchitis, and recurring ear infections.(17)

Milk is suspected of triggering juvenile diabetes, a
disease that causes blindness and other serious
effects.(18) Some children's bodies see cow's milk
protein as a foreign substance and produce high levels of
antibodies to fend off this "invader." These antibodies
also destroy the cells which produce insulin in the
pancreas, leading to diabetes.

An estimated 20 percent of U.S. dairy cows are infected
with leukemia viruses that are resistant to killing by
pasteurization.(19) These viruses have been found in
supermarket supplies of milk and dairy products. It may
not be merely coincidence that the highest rates of
leukemia are found in children ages 3-13, who consume the
most dairy products.(20)

Resources

o Pregnancy, Children, and the Vegan Diet by Michael
Klaper, M.D. (Gentle World, Inc., P.O. Box U, Paia, Maui,
HI 96779, 1994)

o The Vegetarian Mother and Baby Book by Ross Elliot
(Pantheon Books, 1986)

o Vegetarian Baby (McBooks Press, 1984) and Vegetarian
Children (McBooks Press, 1987) by Sharon Yntema

o The Compassionate Cook by PETA and Ingrid Newkirk
(Warner, 1993)

o Vegetarian Times magazine (4 High Ridge Park,
Stamford, CT 06905)

o Vegetarian Journal (P.O. Box 1463, Baltimore, MD
21204)

o Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM),
5100 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Suite 404, Washington, DC 20015;
202-686-2210

o La Leche League, 1-800-LA LECHE

References

1. Akman, D., et al. "Heart Disease in a Total Population
of Children: The Bogalusa Heart Study," Southern Medical
Journal, Oct. 1982, 75(10), pp. 1177-81, and G.S.
Berenson, et al., "Cardiovascular Risk Factors in
Children. Should They Concern the Pediatrician?" American
Journal of Diseases of Children, Sep. 1982, 136(9), pp.
855-62.

2. Klaper, Michael, M.D., Pregnancy, Children, and the
Vegan Diet, 1994 edition, pp. 2-3, 36, and Physicians
Committee for Responsible Medicine, news release: "Top
Doctors Warn: Milk Can Cause Health Problems," September
29, 1992.

3. "A Disease That's a Bite Away," Washington Post,
February 13, 1994.

4. Klaper, Michael, M.D., Pregnancy, Children, and the
Vegan Diet, 1994 edition, p. 2.

5. "Want Long Life? Lay Off Meat," Tucson Citizen,
October 4, 1991.

6. Klaper, op.cit., pp. 12-14.

7. "Doctor Spock Adds Clout to Warnings About Cow's
Milk," Wall Street Journal, September 30, 1992.

8. Klaper, op.cit., pp. 17-18.

9. Ibid., pp. 15-16.

10. "Don't Believe Everything Dairy Industry Tells You,"
San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, February 10, 1993.

11. Klaper, op.cit., pp. 15-16.

12. Klaper, ibid., p. 58.

13. Klaper, ibid.

14. "Dr. Spock Joins Milk's Detractors," Washington Post,
September 30, 1992.

15. Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, news
release: "Top Doctors Warn: Milk Can Cause Health
Problems," September 29, 1992.

16. "Don't Believe Everything Dairy Industry Tells You,"
op. cit.

17. Ibid.

18. "Don't Drink Milk?," Washington Post, February 9,
1993.

19. Klaper, op.cit., p. 42.

20. "Vegan From the Cradle: A Medical Doctor Explains Why
an Animal-Free Diet for Babies Is His First Choice,"
Vegetarian Times, Sept. 1987.

Source - http://goveg.com/r-fact6.html

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti

Origin And History Of Cow Slaughter And Beef Eating In India



http://www.hitxp.com/articles/histor...aughterhouse-b
eef-conspiracy-india/

I posted the following in 2003:

[Please use a fixed-width font to view the tables.]

HUMANS ARE NOT DESIGNED FOR EATING MEAT

"The human intestine has a very hard time handling the
putrefying bacteria, high levels of fat, and lack of fiber that
characterize meat, dairy products and eggs. There are other
animals, though, whose intestines seem designed for the task.

"The human intestine is anatomically very different from that
of natural carnivores, such as dogs and cats. Because of the
design of their intestines, these animals are virtually guaranteed
short transit times.

"Our bowel walls are deeply puckered; theirs are smooth. Ours
are full of pouches; theirs have none. Our colons are long,
complex pathways, like a winding mountain road full of hairpin
turns; theirs are short, straight chutes, like wide open freeways.
The toxins from putrefying flesh are not the problem for them that
they are for us because everything passes through them so much more
quickly. Dogs, cats and other natural carnivores do not get colon
cancer from high-fat, low-fiber, flesh-based diets. But we do.

"Researchers who analyze and test human feces can distinguish
the feces of meat-eaters from those of vegetarians by their smell.
[1] They report that the eliminations of meat-eaters smell far
stronger and more noxious than those of non-meat-eaters. There is
a serious reason. Putrefying animal products are far far more
toxic than rotting plant products, and meat-eaters' colons are
constantly subjected to these toxins."

"You see, the digestion of meat itself produces strong
carcinogenic substances in the colon and meat-eaters must produce
extensive bile acids in their intestines to deal with the meat they
eat, particularly deoxycholic acid. This is extremely significant,
because deoxycholic acid is converted by clostridia bacteria in our
intestines into powerful carcinogens. The fact that meat-eaters
invariably have far more deoxycholic acid in their intestines than
do vegetarians is one of the reasons they have so much higher rates
of colon cancer." [2]

SOURCES:

[1] Hoye, Dr. Martin, M.D., personal communication with author.

[2] Hepner, G., "Altered Bile Acid Metabolism in Vegetarians"
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF DIGESTIVE DISEASES, 20:935, 1972
Hill, M., "The Effect of Some Factors on the Fecal Concentration
of . . ."
JOURNAL OF PATHOLOGY, 104:239, 1971
Reddy, B., and Wynder, E., "Large Bowel Carcinogenesis: Fecal
Constituents of Populations with
Diverse Incidence of Colon Cancer"
JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 50:1437, 1973
Reddy, B., "Metabolic Epidemiology of Large Bowel Cancer"
CANCER, 42:2832, 1978
Reddy B., "Nutrition and its Relationship to Cancer"
ADVANCES IN CANCER RESEARCH, 32:237, 1980
Wynder, E., "Dietary Fat and Colon Cancer"
JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 54:7, 1975

All excerpts are from:

DIET FOR A NEW AMERICA by John Robbins; Stillpoint Publishing; 1987.

Also:

WHAT MIGHT BE THE "NATURAL" DIET FOR HUMAN BEINGS?

By Ted Altar

Now, we could begin by noting that many frugivorous (fruit eating)
primates, apes like gorillas, and other non-meat eating animals,
have long incisors for defensive reasons. Human incisors are
really quite pathetic and would not serve us at all in killing an
animal. Gorillas have much larger and more formidable incisors,
but they are completely vegetarian.

Does this answer what diet is maybe preferable for human beings.

Far from it. Instead of just looking at only one anatomical
detail, we need to consider at the very least our anatomy in
general and as a whole. Hence, the following facts taken together
are germane:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++
+ PHYSIOLOGICAL COMPARISONS +
+ -------------------------+---------------------+-------------------- +
+ MEAT EATER |HERBIVORE |MAN +
+ -------------------------+---------------------+-------------------- +
+ has claws |no claws |no claws +
+ -------------------------+---------------------+-------------------- +
+ no skin pores, perspires |perspires through |perspires through +
+ through tongue |skin pores |skin pores +
+ -------------------------+---------------------+-------------------- +
+ sharp front teeth for |no sharp front teeth |no sharp front teeth +
+ tearing, no flat molar |has flat rear molars |has flat rear molars +
+ teeth for grinding | | +
+ -------------------------+---------------------+-------------------- +
+ intestinal tract 3 times |intestinal tract |intestinal tract 12 +
+ body length so rapidly |10-12 time body |times body length +
+ decaying meat can pass |length | +
+ out quickly | | +
+ -------------------------+---------------------+-------------------- +
+ strong hydrochloric |stomach acid 20 |stomach acid 20 +
+ acid in stomach to |times less strong |times less strong +
+ digest meat |than meat-eaters |than meat eaters +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++
[This excerpt comes from the New York Times_ dated 12/13/90]

Now, does this mean that we are "herbivores"? Of course not. But
it does clearly indicate that we are far less like evolved and true
carnivores than we are like herbivores.

Critics point out that we are best described as "omnivores", but
what does that mean? It turns out that BOTH carnivores and
herbivores can eat meat. Squirrels can eat meat, chimpanzees can
eat meat, humans can eat meat. In fact, even cows can eat meat!
Indeed, cows are regularly fed rendered meat protein, some of which
is from slaughtered cows! It also turns out that BOTH carnivores
and herbivores can eat plants. Cats and dogs digest carbohydrates
and will do so even in the wild (by eating their the stomach
contents of their prey). Indeed, dogs which are clearly carnivores
are also described as "nutritionally omnivorous". The Merck
Veterinary Manual, 5th edition, says this about dogs:

Although classified as a carnivore, the dog utilizes a wild
variety of foodstuffs efficiently. This ability enables
the dog to meet his nutritional requirements from a
remarkable diversity of diets. . . . Some vegetable
proteins are . . . . satisfactory sources of amino acids
for dogs.

There is nothing special about meat protein as mammals do NOT use
protein as given, but break down all protein into its constituent
amino acids. Yes, both dogs, humans, squirrels or even cows can
digest both animal or plant protein. The term "omnivore" is not a
hard and fast scientific category but merely is used to indicate
what an animal usually eats. In our current social environment,
our culture's predominate dietary practices would permit it be said
that we are "omnivores", but that doesn't entail anything about
what we might be constitutionally best evolved to eat.

The physiological stress of eating meat and the greater health
benefits of a vegetarian diet arguably do support the view that
maybe we are best evolved for a vegetarian diet. Certainly, with
respect to the anthropological evidence, we evolved as frugivorous
animals. Of course, like chimps, we can opportunistically eat meat
and insects, but it only constitutes a mere 5% of their calories,
but we have chosen for reasons that are no longer necessary or
essential to consume in the West some 40 - 50% of our calories come
from slaughtered animals or from animals products (4).

Yet, our bodies in the wild were best equipped not to catch prey
but to forage for fruits, roots, and insects. Proponents of the
notion that vitamin C requirements for humans are maybe being
larger than current RDA's have also argued their claims from what
we do know about our evolutionary history as being evolved from
frugivorous apes. Reference to that evolutionary history is not
completely irrelevant to what might be, given the choice, a
preferred diet for reasons of health. Just because we can
opportunistically eat meat doesn't mean that we are therefore
equally capable as evolved carnivores in thriving off a diet
largely of meat. Indeed, cats can be fed diets up to 60% fat by
calories with no apparent problems to their cardiovascular health.
This is certainly not the case with humans. Indeed, early
experiments with dogs being fed fatty diets with lots of
cholesterol were misleading in their implications for humans, and
were a hindrance in the final recognition that fatty diets high in
saturated fat and dietary cholesterol do pose serious health
problems for human beings.

Clearly, the anatomy of the human digestive system is well
engineered to digest plant-based foodstuffs high in fiber and
complex carbohydrates and only moderate in protein. Constipation
and indigestion is less of a problem when people's diets are free
of fiberless, fatty meat. The balance of key metallic elements,
sodium and potassium, is reversed between plant foods and animal
flesh (This greater proportion of sodium may explain why high blood
pressure is rare among vegans). The amounts and chemical kinds of
fats in animals (cholesterol and triglycerides) are very different
than those found in plants. Certainly, no cholesterol is found in
our plant foods. The greater concentration and unnecessary amounts
of protein consumption from meat makes for an excess protein load
that the body must attempt to deal with. Other biological, physical
and chemical properties of flesh foods, like its symptomatic
stimulation of inflammatory substances (prostaglandin 2E) induces

OBSERVABLE SIGNS OF METABOLIC STRESS.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++
+ AFTER A MEAL OF ANIMAL FLESH: +
+ a) white blood cell count increases +
+ +
+ b) Red blood cells become more `sticky' and `sludge' +
+ in small blood vessel. (1) +
+ +
+ c) levels of anti-inflammatory hormones (cortisol) +
+ and sex hormones (estrogen, prolactin) increase. (2) +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++

Employing the engine metaphor, then meat is actually an inferior
"fuel" for the body since it generates many acidic waste products
when metabolized. Hence, a high carbohydrate, low fat diet enables
athletes to be stronger and have more physical endurance.

To summarize the argument he the amount of flesh consumption,
especially with its current fatty quality, does not appear to be
anything like what might be the kind of diet we have evolved to
flourish on as evidenced by the immediate body reactions to meat,
the comparative differences between humans and true carnivores, and
our probable evolutionary history as being predominantly
vegetarians.

Yes, we can eat meat, but not without some costs. We can eat live
insects, but we normally don't. Indeed, we can eat an omnivorous
diet, but we can also be sustained on a vegetarian diet and the
health evidence certainly suggests that a vegetarian diet is more
conducive to better health.

But the inveterate critic will repetitively point out that fact
remains that we can and do eat meat, therefore we are omnivores.
For many people, this would misleadingly suggest that meat-eating
is desirable, or at least not harmful. After all, many people are
persuaded by the logic that if there is something that we have
evolved to do, then that is what we must do, or at least can do
with no harm. I do think that such an implication needs to be
challenged. The first point of challenge being to point out that
we are more accurately described as being evolved from frugivorous
apes. Chimps can eat meat, but we don't classify them as
omnivores. Remember, the term, "omnivores" only serves as a
description of what an animal would normally eat given the normal
opportunities for foods with its autochthonous ecological niche.

Returning to the argument of evolution, again I would stress:

(1) Only up to 5% of calories come from meat in the
chimp's diet, while aculturalized humans in the West are
consuming for non-essential reasons some 50% of their
calories from slaughtered animals. Also, not all great apes
have been observed to capture or hunt prey as have the
chimps.

(2) the bulk of the chimp diet is still predominantly
vegetarian and doesn't resemble in the slightest the kind of
excessive meat consumption that we in North America have
been persuaded by the meat industry to assume (that the meat
industry has been influential is indicated by the fact that
we are eating twice as much meat today as we did in the
1950's).

(3) more direct and reliable evidence is suggested by
observations of primitive human societies in which it has
been observed that gathering constitutes either the total or
the bulk of the diet for most primitive human groups. There
is no reason to think that such a pattern did not also occur
in our pre-historic past.

Any claim that our current meat-eating habit is " a natural
evolutionary trait" is simply too strong. That is, it is TOO
SPECIFIC a trait that is contradicted by our evolutionary history
and by the existence of largely vegetarian societies where hunting
is still viable. After all, the development of such specific
evolutionary traits depends upon a constancy of environmental
conditions and a consequent advantageous adaptation for specific
environmental niches. Humans are marked by a flexibility that has
permitted them a capability to live in a great range habitats.
With respect to diet, it would seem more accurate to say that for
the recent evolutionary history of humans, OPPORTUNISM OR
ADAPTABILITY IS THE HUMAN TRAIT IN QUESTION, ALTHOUGH A
PHYSIOLOGICAL NEED FOR VEGETARIAN FARE REMAINS. After all, there
are human groups that are total vegetarians and others in which
meat figures prominently (never totally and exclusively throughout
the year).

Again, I think that one of the most convincing facts to keep in
mind is that the scientific evidence is pretty clear that the best
diet for human beings in terms of health and longevity is
vegetarian! No other diet for a large, mixed population of people
has been able to achieve the kinds of health risk reductions of,
say, cancer and CHD, as has a vegetarian diet, particularly a vegan
diet.

"We tend to scoff at vegetarians, call them nuts among the
the berries, but the fact is, they're doing bettr than we
we are"
Dr. William Castelli, Director of the government's
Framingham Hearth Study in Massaschusetts (3)

Even when we factor out population differences in smoking (which
accounts for about 3 added years) lacto-ovovegetarians still live
longer (about 3 years) than even low-meat eaters. For instance,
the observed-to-expected coronary heart disease mortality among
total vegetarians is only 14%. Vegetarians, of course, do have
heart attacks but they occur approximately 20 years later in life
then for meat eaters. This is a huge difference, and vegetarians
live their lives feeling more fit and healthy and suffering from
fewer episodes of sickness (e.g., less colds). The reasons for
these gains, in part may have to do the many contaminants and
toxins found in meat, but it is known to be largely due to the fact
that meat is comprised of a too high a proportion of fats,
particularly the wrong kinds of fatty acids, which are now being
seen by health experts as causing significant health problems.

Even medical doctors, who have been slow to recognize the
importance of nutrition for health, some at least are beginning to
concede to the scientific evidence that has been accumulating for
about a hundred years. The "PHYSICIANS COMMITTEE FOR RESPONSIBLE
MEDICINE" recently put out their own 4 Basic Foods chart, much to
the chagrin of that powerful lobby, the meat and diary industry.
The "basic" foods include:

(1) Whole Grains
(2) Vegetables
(3) Legumes
(4) Fruits.

Unlike the old charts that were freely supplied by the meat and
diary industry to all our schools, there is no mention of meat or
dairy products as being essential food groups necessary for human
nutrition and health. Their position is that the less we eat of
this stuff the better. Many of these physicians have themselves
become vegetarian simply on the strength of the nutritional studies
performed on human beings.

All primates have, for the most part, evolved to be fruitarians or
herbivores. Yes, we can eat meat, as do chimpanzees in the wild,
but for chimps this is actually not a common event (except for
insects) and certainly meat does not constitute being a necessary
or significant component in diet. That humans can eat meat doesn't
mean that they must eat meat. That humans may opportunistically
eat red meat doesn't mean that they equally evolved or
physiologically as well adapted to subsist healthily on meat as
compared to a plant food diet.

In any case, the distinction between carnivores and herbivores is
not clear cut and precise. Again, let it be noted that "true"
carnivores like dogs, for instance, can live normal lives on a
vegetarian diet but this does not make them herbivores. In spite
of this fact, we do not call dogs omnivores. Similarly, we are
still biologically vegetarian creatures as given by the evidence of
physiological constitution, evolutionary history and by the facts
suggesting that our health fares best on a vegetarian diet.

Hope this helps. ted

References:

(1) Friedman, M. 1984. "Serum lipids and conjuctival
circulation after fat ingestion." CIRCULATION, 29:874.

(2) Armstrong, B. (1981). "Diet and reproductive hormones: A
study of vegetarian and non-vegetarian postmenopausal
women." JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE", 67:761.

(3) Liebman, B. (1983). "Are vegetarians healthier than the
rest of us?" NUTRITION ACTION, 10:8

(4) C Brusse EVOLUTION, 1977, 31:907

End of forwarded post

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti


o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.

Since newsgroup posts are being removed
by forgery by one or more net terrorists,
this post may be reposted several times.

  #25 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 10-10-2011, 12:54 PM posted to soc.culture.indian,alt.fan.jai-maharaj,alt.religion.hindu,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 2
Default Origin, History of Cow Slaughter and Beef Eating in Bharat

On Oct 6, 7:14*am, and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr.
Jai Maharaj) wrote:
Origin And History Of Cow Slaughter And Beef Eating In India

http://www.hitxp.com/articles/histor...y-cow-slaughte...

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti


For once, a really useful reference from the jBm.
The article says that all the Great Mughals (as opposed to the earlier
Turko-Afghan barbarians) had banned cow slaughter all over India.
Wow.
Wish the evil and stupid Jinnah had known this.
Then he would not have wanted Pakistan on the basis that the Muslims
could only remain strong if they ate beef. It was partly on the basis
of such meat-eating habits (to eat beef a separate Muslim nation was
required, as Hindus would ban cow killing) that India was partitioned,
with disastrous consequences.
A Bangladeshi gentleman and a staunch Muslim too, once lamented to me
about beef eating habits in Bangladesh. By eating beef, we have
become stupid and have made many mistakes.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee


  #26 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 10-10-2011, 03:32 PM posted to soc.culture.indian,alt.fan.jai-maharaj,alt.religion.hindu,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1
Default Origin, History of Cow Slaughter and Beef Eating in Bharat

o Vitamin B-12 -- This essential vitamin once occurred
naturally on the surfaces of potatoes, beets, and other
root vegetables, but the move away from natural
fertilizers has caused it to disappear from our soil. Any
commercially available multivitamin will assure adequate
B-12 for your child. B-12 is also found in nutritional
yeast (not to be confused with brewer's or active dry
yeast) and many fortified cereals. (13)


What was on the surface was animal dung. It is not produced by any
plant, or yeast for that matter. Vitamin b12
is produced by bacteria in the large gut of animals, passed in feces
and returned to be absorbed in the small gut. This cycle is the only
source of it.

Some indians coming to america started to have vitimin b12 problems. It
was discovered that the laws which control how many animal parts and
feces allowed in grain etc. was much larger in india then america.

Those indians in india were getting it from animals. Supplementation in
america cures the problem.
  #27 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 10-10-2011, 03:33 PM posted to soc.culture.indian,alt.bonehead.jai-maharaj,alt.religion.hindu,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 21
Default Origin, History of Cow Slaughter and Beef Eating in Bharat

On 10/10/2011 7:54 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

A Bangladeshi gentleman and a staunch Muslim too, once lamented to me
about beef eating habits in Bangladesh. By eating beef, we have
become stupid and have made many mistakes.


Australians are among the biggest per capita consumers of beef. Do you
find them to be among the most stupid people you have encountered?

Beef consumption in Bangladesh is considerably lower than in South
Korea, Japan and China, which no doubt accounts for the stupidity of the
Koreans, Japanese and Chinese.

http://www.ioa.uwa.edu.au/__data/ass...tein-Keogh.pdf

--
Astrology: Fraud or Superstition?
http://www.seesharppress.com/astro.html

Ass-troll-ogers/jyotishitheads are the bane of humanity, and must be
cleansed or otherwise purified for the benefit of society.

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/vhp-terrorism
  #28 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 11-10-2011, 12:15 AM posted to soc.culture.indian,soc.culture.australian,alt.religion.hindu,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 2
Default Origin, History of Cow Slaughter and Beef Eating in Bharat

On Oct 11, 1:33*am, "P. Rajah" wrote:
On 10/10/2011 7:54 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

A Bangladeshi gentleman and a staunch Muslim too, once lamented to me
about beef eating habits in Bangladesh. *By eating beef, we have
become stupid and have made many mistakes.


Australians are among the biggest per capita consumers of beef. Do you
find them to be among the most stupid people you have encountered?


Australians do not seem to have a very high opinion of their own
intelligence. They routinely refer to their political leaders as
*******s, their religious leaders as frauds, their academics as
******s, their sporting people as high medical risks, their
entertainers as depraved, their elderly as old bags, etc etc. When I
came here in 1989, feminism was really hot, and the top intellectuals
such as Ms Greer wrote that all men were rapists, having children
spoilt the fun of women, marriage was a silly and outdated concept
etc. and divorce was upped as the way of escape from the drudgery of
family life. Their greatest philosophers are those jokers who appear
on TV.

The intelligent people among them are a minority no doubt, and I am
happy to have worked among the best of them in the Telstra Research
Labs. None among them was an ardent beefeater, and the more
intelligent and conscientious ones were vegetarians or vegans.
Unfortunately, our Labs was abolished by the Liberal party, who hired
some execs from the US to do that dirty job, as they do not like tall
poppies among them - especially when they are socialistic.

If you become what you eat, then of course beefeaters should be like
cows. Don't cows have a happy life here before they are slaughtered?
Oh yes. A few days ago I was going on a road, which our visitor from
US labelled the Great Bovine Road. Entire hills had been denuded of
vegetation in the Otways for miles and miles, and replaced with green
grass, upon which cows fed. They looked happy, that way very
Australian indeed! So what is overall bad about being a cow for
slaughter, if you live well for a few months, do no work, only eat and
think and herd together - and then suffer agonies for a few days when
your time is up? Death comes to us all! How can the intelligent ever
comprehend the joys and satisfactions of the stupid? And really who
is stupid - the hardworking humans who herd and kill and eat cows, or
the cows who do nothing at all, just enjoy their brief existences? I
don't know!

One problem is, that will all the tree felling, Australia nearly
became a desert state with the 12 year drought which broke only this
year. But that is a different story. For the moment I rejoice that
the lands here will not be a Sahara, nor the wasteland that is the
Snowy Mountains (around Cooma) which was denuded of vegetation for
hundreds of kilometers, and never recovered.

Beef consumption in Bangladesh is considerably lower than in South
Korea, Japan and China, which no doubt accounts for the stupidity of the
Koreans, Japanese and Chinese.


I have heard that the Koreans and Japanese eat more fish than beef, as
the latter is a luxury. I don't think Chinese eat as much beef as
Australians do, they eat pigs and ducks as Vietnamese do. In any
case, poor people everywhere cannot eat much meat, and they have to
live on grains and vegetables just as in India.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
  #29 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 11-10-2011, 12:24 AM posted to soc.culture.indian,alt.fan.jai-maharaj,alt.religion.hindu,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,soc.culture.australian
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 186
Default Origin, History of Cow Slaughter and Beef Eating in Bharat

A 1998 post:

THE BEEF DIET: Prescription for Disaster

By Neal D. Barnard
President, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine
Washington, DC, USA

Imagine if two jumbo jets collided over a major city and, in the
resulting fireball, 4,000 people died -- it would be a national
tragedy -- one of the worst accidents ever. People would demand that
airlines and the government made sure nothing like that could ever
happen again.

A tragedy of this proportion happened the day before yesterday. It
happened yesterday, too. It will happen again today and tomorrow.
Every single day in the United States, 4,000 lives are taken by heart
attacks and almost nothing is being done about it.

For years now, we have known of the role diet plays in health, yet
unhealthy diets are still promoted by the government, livestock
industries, advertisers, and even doctors. Healthy diets must be
presented and encouraged by these groups if America's health care
crisis is going to be solved.

Dietary changes are worth making. Two of the three leading killers of
Americans are heart disease and stroke. Both are linked to "hardening
of the arteries" -- arteriosclerosis -- which, in turn, is largely
caused by high-fat, cholesterol-laden diets. As we all know, animal
flesh, and beef in particular, is a major source of cholesterol and
saturated fat.

The enormous toll of these diseases is taken one patient at a time,
as doctors finally give up trying to resuscitate yet another heart
that is damaged beyond hope. The toll is also felt in the national
pocketbook. Coronary bypasses and expensive diagnostic tests are now
the budget-breaking routine in every city in America.

Many other diseases also have their roots in our daily meals. Breast
cancer, which has reached epidemic proportions, killing one woman
every twelve minutes, is clearly related to diet. The same
connections have been drawn between diet and cancers of the colon and
prostate. In fact, according to the National Cancer Institute, some
80 percent of cancer deaths are attributable to smoking, diet, and
other identifiable and controllable factors. Foods rich in fat and
oils increase our cancer risk. About 40 percent of all the calories
we eat comes from the fat in meats, poultry, fish, dairy products,
fried foods and vegetable oils. These fats stimulate the over-
production of hormones which encourage cancer and promote the
development of carcinogens in the digestive tract.

Not only are beef and other meats high in cholesterol and saturated
fats, but they are also low in some vital vitamins and minerals, and
they contain zero fiber. Recently there has been enormous scientific
attention given to the role beta-carotene and other vitamins and
minerals play in blocking cancer growth. Whole grains, fruits,
legumes, and vegetables are full of vitamins and minerals. And plant
foods have fiber -- a substance completely lacking in beef and other
meats. We have long known that fiber helps eliminate many common
gastrointestinal problems such as constipation; however, evidence
shows that it also is protective against a wide variety of diseases
ranging from colon cancer to diabetes, and from gallstones to
appendicitis. It also binds with carcinogenic substances, bile, and
excess hormones which would otherwise rest in the digestive tract,
and moves them out of the body.

As one studies the diets of people around the world, one thing
becomes clear: as people give up traditional diets that are low in
fats, high in fiber, and predominantly plant-based in favor of beef
and other meats, the incidence of diseases such as cancer, heart
disease, diabetes, and kidney disease rises. At the same time, life
expectancy and quality of life decline. In recent years, Japan has
been the target of American beef and tobacco promotional campaigns
that seem to be some sort of Pearl Harbor revenge program. Members of
the higher socioeconomic strata, who are adopting Westernized diets,
have much higher rates of breast, colon, and prostate cancer and
heart disease than their counterparts who eat less (or no) meat.

The Beyond Beef campaign is encouraging people to make this simple
change -- to step away from beef. It is a move that is good for you,
for others, for animals, and for the environment. So live a little;
try some new cuisine; experiment with traditional and ethnic foods.
It could well help you live a lot healthier longer.

================================================== ================
Dr. Neal Barnard is President of The Physicians Committee For
Responsible Medicine, a nationwide group of physicians that
promotes preventive medicine and addresses controversies in modern
medicine. In April 1991, he and three other doctors unveiled a
proposal to replace the old Four Food Groups concept initiated in
1956.

In his book, "The Power of Your Plate," Dr. Barnard documents
the scientific evidence supporting a low-fat, vegetarian diet as
the most potent regimen to reduce risk of heart disease, cancer,
weight problems and food-borne illness. Aside from serving as a
practicing physician on the faculty of the George Washington School
of Medicine, he is also an Associate Director for Behavioral

Studies at the Institute for Disease Prevention.
Dr. Barnard is a director of Behavioral Studies at the
Institute for Disease Prevention at George Washington University.
================================================== ================

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti

o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.

Since newsgroup posts are being removed
by forgery by one or more net terrorists,
this post may be reposted several times.
  #30 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 11-10-2011, 02:45 AM posted to soc.culture.indian,alt.fan.jai-maharaj,alt.religion.hindu,alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default LIES Origin, History of Cow Slaughter and Beef Eating in Bharat

On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 18:36:32 -0400, Laurie wrote:

There id NO credible evidence that humans successfully "evolved" the
ability to digest flesh.


There is at least one significant bit of evidence, which is our existence.
None of us reading this would exist if humans had never begun to eat meat. In
fact, it's very likely that no humans on this planet today would exist if humans
had never begun to eat meat. Quite possibly not even one person alive today
would exist if humans had never begun to eat meat. Though you may want to say
that existence is not evolutionarily significant like the goos want to say it's
not a benefit, it is none the less both evolutionarily significant and a benefit
regardless of dishonest denials to the contrary.


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
FS: A HISTORY OF THE WORLD in 6 GLASSES History About the GreatBeverages incl. TEA by TOM STANDAGE 29%off [email protected] Tea 0 26-08-2016 09:31 AM
Eating Beef is Acceptable in Hinduism. Who said otherwise? P. Rajah[_2_] Vegan 0 08-07-2011 10:01 PM
I think my beef eating days are about over notbob General Cooking 13 10-08-2006 03:46 PM
Blue plate specials: phrase origin, history? Richard Kaszeta Restaurants 10 04-01-2005 07:10 AM
Origin/Meaning of "Pepper Beef"? Monroe, of course... Asian Cooking 4 28-03-2004 07:44 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:02 PM.

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