Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
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 | Display Modes |
|
|||
|
|||
"usual suspect" > wrote in message >
> I didn't fail to do anything. I demonstrated that the AHA doesn't > recommend vegetarianism, which was the issue at hand. ----------- No, the issue at hand was whether or not the AHA says that a vegetarian diet is healthier than a non-vegetarian one, since "Beach Runner" originally stated: "The Heart Association and Cancer Association say that a vegetarian diet is healthier." He didn't say "The AHA recommends vegetarianism." Whether or not the AHA recommends vegetarianism is not the issue here, you are just assuming it is. (See my other post). -TW |
|
|||
|
|||
Scented Nectar wrote:
<...>>>>Why do you call her Skanky? >> >>It's a play on her self-given nickname of "Skunky," which is a no doubt >>reference to her drug abuse. > > It's not a play. It is, and an amusing one. > It's an intended insult. You insult yourself and the intelligence of others in this group with your posts. >>>It's kind of unflattering, don't you think? >> >>Her illogic and general stupidity is much more unflattering. > > Again, look how often you insult. It's not an insult; it's the truth. <...> >>That entire thread showed us that Skanky: >>1. Makes up and applies her own definitions to words (i.e., she doesn't >>know what vegan means or what veganism is), making any attempt to reach >>consensus with her about anything impossible; > > Made up DEFINITIONS. To existing words. > words like your > flexitarians and orthorexia? Those are words coined and used by professionals. You misdefine words and then get grumpy when others correct you. You then continue with your peculiar definitions instead of the common ones everyone else is using. You're a reckless twit. >>2. Makes bogus claims about farming techniques and about such things as >>the use of hormones (specifically, she said beef contained DES; DES has >>been banned in beef production since 1979), most likely from her >>reliance on activist literature; > > Has it been banned in other > countries? Yes, name one nation which allows its use. > Has it been banned > in other animals? YES. You twit. I gave you the links eight months ago. >>3. Gullibly believes and mindlessly repeats propaganda from AR groups, >>such as the claim that it takes umpteen pounds of feed to produce a >>pound of meat. She refused to give up this ridiculous claim despite >>being shown information to the contrary about a variety of species >>including poultry, rabbits, goats, hogs, and cattle; > > The numbers favour the vegan. No, they do not and this has been repeatedly proven to you. >>4. Gullibly believes that organic means pesticide-free, when it only >>means synthetic pesticide-free; > > You are a liar. I'm telling the truth. Rather than responding to my list of BANNED organic agents, you incessantly snipped them out of your replies. >>5. Naively adopts prattle from the vegan kook fringe about "veganics" >>and believes that such Luddite growing techniques will one day be the >>norm and she'll be able to buy "veganic" foods at the store; > > With every sentence, you can't > help but insult, can you? What part of that is insulting -- that you fantasize about agricultural methods employed in the poorest of nations but refuse to practice such methods yourself? >>6. Claimed to have studied nutrition, yet was unaware that the >>supplements she was promoting (i.e., hempseed oil) contained nutrients >>already contained in the average diet. She further stupidly tried to >>suggest those already prevalent nutrients were in some special >>"balance," but couldn't explain just what that meant; and > > I fully knew it had BOTH common > and uncommon nutrients. You didn't know jackshit. You were spouting off what you read in some hempoil brochure. > If a mix of Omega 3, 6, and 9 are so > bad for you, Omega-6 is already ubiquitous in the diet and people don't need to supplement it. Omega-9 is also readily available in a variety of sources. The one which most people are deficient is omega-3, especially in relation to their consumption of omega-6. > why do they sell > that particular mix Because GULLIBLE, NAIVE people like you will buy it. You'll buy anything. > as a > suppliment? Supplement. >>7. Assumes that because vegans don't eat foods containing cholesterol >>they're therefore immune from cholesterol-related disease. She was >>dumbfounded to learn that the body produces its own cholesterol and that >>such endogenous production had more to do with genetics and consumption >>of saturated fats (including transfats). > > I've never heard of a longterm > vegan having a cholesterol > problem. Because you've never researched the issue. > The bit The bit? Try the majority of serum cholesterol. To understand the effects of dietary cholesterol on cholesterol metabolism, it is important to consider that since dietary sources contribute *only 20%* to the total daily input of cholesterol in the body *with a physiological intake* of dietary cholesterol (less than 1000 mg/day) most individuals effectively compensate, because the body's ability to downregulate the endogenous cholesterol synthesis rate can match the increase in dietary cholesterol. This homeostatic regulation is very precise in most individuals; however, some individuals with less than precise compensatory mechanisms are sensitive to dietary cholesterol. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...28/ai_14236441 To some extent, the cholesterol level in blood depends on what you eat but it is *mainly dependent* on how the body makes cholesterol in the liver. http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/diseases/...sterolemia.htm > that the body > produces is fine. You have *NO* clue. > Have you > ever heard of any syndrome > where someone's body makes > too much even after they have > removed dietary sources? YES! You moron! See above. There are two sources of cholesterol: what you eat and what you make. The cholesterol from what you eat is trivial compared to the amount the body makes. There are *other* dietary factors that impact endogenous (what your body makes) serum cholesterol levels more than dietary cholesterol itself. That includes the kinds of fats you consume (saturated and transfats elevate LDL and suppress HDL), the kinds of sugars you consume, whether or not you exercise, etc. Vegans and vegetarians are not immune to serum cholesterol issues so long as they have livers (and the liver was still a vital organ last I heard). http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/e...cle/000392.htm http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/diseases/...sterolemia.htm http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/diseases/...terolaemia.htm http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic1072.htm You're a know-nothing, ignorant buffoon. >>I consider her contemptible because of her continued willful ignorance, >>her fantasies about "veganics" and other issues, and her insolence >>towards those who *kindly* offer suggestions on how she can practice >>what she preaches. > > Kindly!?!? Yes. Go back and see how I tried to reach an accord with you last December. >>>>That came later after I'd given her second, third, fourth, etc., chances >>>>to repent. I gave you the same offer of an olive branch. You've declined >>>>it. >>> >>>We've gone back and forth on this. >> >>No, *you*'ve gone back and forth. I've offered the branch, you've >>rejected it. It's okay because you've proven you're undeserving of a >>truce. > > You've offered no olive branches. ****ing liar. Go back and review the thread "my posts to you (attn: scented nectar)" in the archives. |
|
|||
|
|||
The **** wrote:
>>No. You didn't stick to the issue at hand, which was whether or not the >>AHA recommends vegetarian diets. They don't. > > ----------------- > What are you talking about? That's not the "issue at hand" at all. > Again, here's what "Beach Runner" originally stated: > > "The Heart Association and Cancer Association say > that a vegetarian diet is healthier," They categorically *don't* say vegetarian diets "are healthier." Even the bit that you pulled out of the link I added only said that vegetarians *SEEM* to have lower risks of various maladies, not that they do have lower risks (I showed you evidence to the contrary yesterday). The AHA site did NOT say that vegetarian diets are healthier. In fact, that part you quoted led to the part I pasted which offers only *qualified* support for vegetarian diets. > He did NOT say "The Heart Association and Cancer Association recommend a > vegetarian diet." I guess you haven't read him too closely. Here's what he added even after I showed him to be wrong yesterday: And of course the American Heart Association and American Dietary Association and American Cancer Society have all endorsed vegetarian diets. What do you not comprehend about the meaning of "endorsed"? Those groups do not advocate, endorse, or recommend vegetarianism. They recommend healthier eating habits, and the American Dietetics Association goes further and says that ANY food can be included in a healthful eating plan: It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that all foods can fit into a healthful eating style. The ADA strives to communicate healthful eating messages to the public that emphasize the total diet, or overall pattern of food eaten, rather than any one food or meal. If consumed in moderation with appropriate portion size and combined with regular physical activity, all foods can fit into a healthful diet. http://www.eatright.org/Member/Polic...ndex_21027.cfm Stop defending the indefensible positions of activists. <snip boring sophistry> |
|
|||
|
|||
The **** wrote:
>>I didn't fail to do anything. I demonstrated that the AHA doesn't >>recommend vegetarianism, which was the issue at hand. > > ----------- > No, Yes. > the issue at hand was whether or not the AHA says that a vegetarian diet > is healthier than a non-vegetarian one, since "Beach Runner" originally > stated: "The Heart Association and Cancer Association say that a vegetarian > diet is healthier." And they don't do that, either. They don't recommend, endorse, or advocate vegetarianism. They don't say vegetarianism is healthier. You're just spinning. Stop trying to defend indefensible flakes like the OP. |
|
|||
|
|||
usual suspect wrote: >> I was not always a vegetarian. I highly suggest all parents read the >> bone density diet. I'll just reply to this disparagy to Dr. Kessler, Professor of Medicine and leading expert on Osteoperosis. It's not pseudoscience. > > > It's based on pseudoscience. > >> The giving of soda and excess proteins to children should be outlawed, > > > I knew you were an authoritarian zealot. Thanks for proving it. We have an epedemic of osteoperosis in our society. I cited the leading authority in the field. Not a quack. The leader in the field. > >> if one understands how bones are developed > > > You don't. > >> and we have an epidemic of osteoporosis in our society. > > > Because of our longevity. People didn't live long enough for > malignancies to develop or for their bones to become brittle because > they normally died in their 30s, 40s, and 50s. > That's your opinon. Lots of people don't have osteoperosis or much less in earlier to later years. Of course longer lives make it a greater problem. >> Interestingly, > > > It's of no interest to informed persons. > >> in societies that don't drink dairy or soda, osteoporosis is >> virtually unknown. ( of course that's changing with globalization). > > > No, you bumbling twit, it's because they're starting to live longer > because they now have access to medical technology. That's why their > cancer rates are exploding and rivaling ours. That's why their aging > populations have similar diseases at similar rates as ours. > Actually it is based on comparative studies, normalizing factors. > <...> > >> I also have an agenda to protect habitat. The little bit of habitat >> is being destroyed, largely for meat production. > > > Ipse dixit and false. The "factory farms" you rail against mean that it > takes significantly LESS land to raise MORE animals than it did in the > past. > One can produce far more food if we use a vegetarian diet Ok, for some URLs, I go to the Union of Corncerned Scientists http://www.ucsusa.org/search.cfm?cri...&submit=Search Antibiotics: Animals that are fed antibiotics for most of their lives develop high levels of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in their guts. If these bacteria find their way to humans, they can cause diseases that are difficult to treat—especially since many antibiotics used on the farm are the same as those used in human medicine. While strict vegetarians need not worry about becoming infected by bacteria in uncooked or undercooked meat, the same bacteria can contaminate cutting boards, utensils, and kitchen counters during meat preparation. These same utensils and surfaces could then be used to prepare vegetarian meals—contaminated vegetables and water don't distinguish between vegetarians and meat eaters. In addition, farm waste and runoff can contaminate crops, ground water, surface water, and drinking water, all of which can result in human exposure to antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Workers in animal production operations who are routinely exposed to antibiotics and antibiotic-resistant bacteria have a high risk of contracting illnesses that do not respond to today's medicines. They can then pass these illnesses to other people. Finally, antibiotic resistance can spread from bacteria on the farm to unrelated bacteria, further increasing the number of pathways for disease transmission between animals and humans. http://www.gaia.be/nl/factsheet/adap1197.html National institute of health Position of The American Dietetic Association: Vegetarian diets Scientific data suggest positive relationships between a vegetarian diet and reduced risk for several chronic degenerative diseases and conditions, including obesity, coronary artery disease, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and some types of cancer. Vegetarian diets, like all diets, need to be planned appropriately to be nutritionally adequate. POSITION STATEMENT It is the position of The American Dietetic Association (ADA) that appropriately planned vegetarian diets are healthful, are nutritionally adequate, and provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Vegetarianism in Perspective The eating patterns of vegetarians vary considerably. The lacto-ovo-vegetarian eating pattern is based on grains, vegetables, fruits, legumes, seeds, nuts, dairy products, and eggs, and excludes meat, fish, and fowl. The vegan, or total vegetarian, eating pattern is similar to the lacto-ovo-vegetarian pattern except for the additional exclusion of eggs, dairy, and other animal products. Even within these patterns, considerable variation may exist in the extent to which animal products are avoided. Therefore, individual assessment is required to accurately evaluate the nutritional quality of a vegetarian’s dietary intake. Studies indicate that vegetarians often have lower morbidity (1) and mortality (2) rates from several chronic degenerative diseases than do nonvegetarians. Although nondietary factors, including physical activity and abstinence from smoking and alcohol, may play a role, diet is clearly a contributing factor. In addition to the health advantages, other considerations that may lead a person to adopt a vegetarian diet pattern include concern for the environment, ecology, and world hunger issues. Vegetarians also cite economic reasons, ethical considerations, and religious beliefs as their reasons for following this type of diet pattern. Consumer demand for vegetarian options has resulted in increasing numbers of foodservices that offer vegetarian options. Presently, most university foodservices offer vegetarian options. Health Implications of Vegetarianism Vegetarian diets low in fat or saturated fat have been used successfully as part of comprehensive health programs to reverse severe coronary artery disease (3,4). Vegetarian diets offer disease protection benefits because of their lower saturated fat, cholesterol, and animal protein content and often higher concentration of folate (which reduces serum homocysteine levels) (5), antioxidants such as vitamins C and E, carotenoids, and phytochemicals (6). Not only is mortality from coronary artery disease lower in vegetarians than in nonvegetarians (7), but vegetarian diets have also been successful in arresting coronary artery disease (8,9). Total serum cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels are usually lower in vegetarians, but high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglyceride levels vary depending on the type of vegetarian diet followed (10). Vegetarians tend to have a lower incidence of hypertension than nonvegetarians (11). This effect appears to be independent of both body weight and sodium intake. Type 2 diabetes mellitus is much less likely to be a cause of death in vegetarians than nonvegetarians, perhaps because of their higher intake of complex carbohydrates and lower body mass index (12). Incidence of lung and colorectal cancer is lower in vegetarians than in nonvegetarians (2,13). Reduced colorectal cancer risk is associated with increased consumption of fiber, vegetables, and fruit (14,15). The environment of the colon differs notably in vegetarians compared with nonvegetarians in ways that could favorably affect colon cancer risk (16,17). Lower breast cancer rates have not been observed in Western vegetarians, but cross-cultural data indicate that breast cancer rates are lower in populations that consume plant-based diets (18). The lower estrogen levels in vegetarian women may be protective (19). A well-planned vegetarian diet may be useful in the prevention and treatment of renal disease. Studies using human being and animal models suggest that some plant proteins may increase survival rates and decrease proteinuria, glomerular filtration rate, renal blood flow, and histologic renal damage compared with a nonvegetarian diet (20,21). Nutrition Considerations for Vegetarians Plant sources of protein alone can provide adequate amounts of essential amino acids if a variety of plant foods are consumed and energy needs are met. Research suggests that complementary proteins do not need to be consumed at the same time and that consumption of various sources of amino acids over the course of the day should ensure adequate nitrogen retention and use in healthy persons (22). Although vegetarian diets are lower in total protein and a vegetarian’s protein needs may be somewhat elevated because of the lower quality of some plant proteins, protein intake in both lacto-ovo-vegetarians and vegans appears to be adequate (16). Plant foods contain only nonheme iron, which is more sensitive than heme iron to both inhibitors and enhancers of iron absorption. Although vegetarian diets are higher in total iron content than nonvegetarian diets, iron stores are lower in vegetarians because the iron from plant foods is more poorly absorbed (23). The clinical importance of this, if any, is unclear because iron deficiency anemia rates are similar in vegetarians and nonvegetarians (23). The higher vitamin C content of vegetarian diets may improve iron absorption. Although plant foods can contain vitamin B-12 on their surface from soil residues, this is not a reliable source of B-12 for vegetarians. Much of the vitamin B-12 present in spirulina, sea vegetables, tempeh, and miso has been shown to be inactive B-12 analog rather than the active vitamin. Although dairy products and eggs contain vitamin B-12, research suggests that lacto-ovo-vegetarians have low blood levels of vitamin B-12. Supplementation or use of fortified foods is advised for vegetarians who avoid or limit animal foods (24). Because vitamin B-12 requirements are small, and it is both stored and recycled in the body, symptoms of deficiency may be delayed for years. Absorption of vitamin B-12 becomes less efficient as the body ages, so supplements may be advised for all older vegetarians. Lacto-ovo-vegetarians have calcium intakes that are comparable to or higher than those of nonvegetarians (25,26). Calcium intakes of vegans, however, are generally lower than those of both lacto-ovo-vegetarians and omnivores (26). It should be noted that vegans may have lower calcium needs than nonvegetarians because diets that are low in total protein and more alkaline have been shown to have a calcium-sparing effect (27). Furthermore, when a person’s diet is low in both protein and sodium and regular weight-bearing physical activity is engaged in, his or her calcium requirements may be lower than those of a sedentary person who eats a standard Western diet. These factors, and genetic influences, may help explain variations in bone health that are independent of calcium intake. Because calcium requirements of vegans have not been established and inadequate calcium intakes are linked to risk for osteoporosis in all women, vegans should meet the calcium requirements established for their age group by the Institute of Medicine (28). Calcium is well absorbed from many plant foods, and vegan diets can provide adequate calcium if the diet regularly includes foods rich in calcium (29). In addition, many new vegetarian foods are calcium-fortified. Dietary supplements are advised for vegans only if they do not meet calcium requirements from food. Vitamin D is poorly supplied in all diets unless vitamin D– fortified foods are consumed. Vegan diets may lack this nutrient because fortified cow’s milk is its most common dietary source. However, vegan foods supplemented with vitamin D, such as soymilk and some cereals, are available. Furthermore, findings indicate that sunlight exposure is a major factor affecting vitamin D status and that dietary intake is important only when sun exposure is inadequate (30). Sun exposure to hands, arms, and face for 5 to 15 minutes per day is believed to be adequate to provide sufficient amounts of vitamin D (31). People with dark skin or those who live at northern latitudes or in cloudy or smoggy areas may need increased exposure. Use of sunscreen interferes with vitamin D synthesis. If sun exposure is inadequate, vitamin D supplements are recommended for vegans. This is especially true for older persons who synthesize vitamin D less efficiently and who may have less sun exposure. Studies show zinc intake to be lower or comparable in vegetarians compared with nonvegetarians (16). Most studies show that zinc levels in hair, serum, and saliva are in the normal range in vegetarians (32). Compensatory mechanisms may help vegetarians adapt to diets that may be low in zinc (33). However, because of the low bioavailability of zinc from plant foods and because the effects of marginal zinc status are poorly understood, vegetarians should strive to meet or exceed the Recommended Dietary Allowances for zinc. Diets that do not include fish or eggs lack the long-chain n-3 fatty acid docosahexanoic acid (DHA). Vegetarians may have lower blood lipid levels of this fatty acid, although not all studies are in agreement with this finding (34,35). The essential fatty acid linolenic acid can be converted to DHA, although conversion rates appear to be inefficient and high intakes of linoleic acid interfere with conversion (36). The implications of low levels of DHA is not clear. However, it is recommended that vegetarians include good sources of linolenic acid in their diet. It's much easier to be heathier as a vegetarian, it's certainly environmentally sounder, and as the Union of Concerned Scientists back my statements on antibiotics. Interesting, because of research Denmark among other countries are banning the routine use of antibiotics in feed animals. >> Diversity of species is something I value. > > > Too bad you don't share the same value when it comes to diverse ideas. I don't share the value of being a nasty person. |
|
|||
|
|||
"usual suspect" > wrote in message
... > Scented Nectar wrote: > <...>>>>Why do you call her Skanky? > >> > >>It's a play on her self-given nickname of "Skunky," which is a no doubt > >>reference to her drug abuse. > > > > It's not a play. > > It is, and an amusing one. Interesting. But you should realize that when a joke is told over and over it starts to get old after the 100th time or so. > > It's an intended insult. > > You insult yourself and the intelligence of others in this group with > your posts. There's another insult. I think it's safe to conclude that you enjoy insulting. > >>>It's kind of unflattering, don't you think? > >> > >>Her illogic and general stupidity is much more unflattering. > > > > Again, look how often you insult. > > It's not an insult; it's the truth. You're transparent. Your insults show up for what they are. > <...> > >>That entire thread showed us that Skanky: > >>1. Makes up and applies her own definitions to words (i.e., she doesn't > >>know what vegan means or what veganism is), making any attempt to reach > >>consensus with her about anything impossible; > > > > Made up > > DEFINITIONS. To existing words. > > > words like your > > flexitarians and orthorexia? Words that are not in the dictionary. > Those are words coined and used by professionals. You misdefine words Not professional enough, I guess. Those words aren't in the dictionary. > and then get grumpy when others correct you. You then continue with your > peculiar definitions instead of the common ones everyone else is using. > You're a reckless twit. There's another insult. > >>2. Makes bogus claims about farming techniques and about such things as > >>the use of hormones (specifically, she said beef contained DES; DES has > >>been banned in beef production since 1979), most likely from her > >>reliance on activist literature; > > > > Has it been banned in other > > countries? > > Yes, name one nation which allows its use. Name some that don't. I don't trust that all farmers follow the rules, especially when it concerns substances that can bulk up their beef. Just like I don't trust all bodybuilders not to use steroids. > > Has it been banned > > in other animals? > > YES. You twit. I gave you the links eight months ago. There's another insult. Are you seeing yet how much more you insult me, than I insult you? > >>3. Gullibly believes and mindlessly repeats propaganda from AR groups, > >>such as the claim that it takes umpteen pounds of feed to produce a > >>pound of meat. She refused to give up this ridiculous claim despite > >>being shown information to the contrary about a variety of species > >>including poultry, rabbits, goats, hogs, and cattle; > > > > The numbers favour the vegan. > > No, they do not and this has been repeatedly proven to you. Even Rude Rudy agrees that the numbers favour the vegan. > >>4. Gullibly believes that organic means pesticide-free, when it only > >>means synthetic pesticide-free; > > > > You are a liar. > > I'm telling the truth. Rather than responding to my list of BANNED > organic agents, you incessantly snipped them out of your replies. What list of banned agents? As for snipping, you have above snipped out the paragraph to which you are replying to. I have never believed organic means ALL pesticide free. > >>5. Naively adopts prattle from the vegan kook fringe about "veganics" > >>and believes that such Luddite growing techniques will one day be the > >>norm and she'll be able to buy "veganic" foods at the store; > > > > With every sentence, you can't > > help but insult, can you? > > What part of that is insulting -- that you fantasize about agricultural > methods employed in the poorest of nations but refuse to practice such > methods yourself? Huh? You're getting weirder and weirder. What fantasies about poor nations? Are you mixing me up with someone else? > >>6. Claimed to have studied nutrition, yet was unaware that the > >>supplements she was promoting (i.e., hempseed oil) contained nutrients > >>already contained in the average diet. She further stupidly tried to > >>suggest those already prevalent nutrients were in some special > >>"balance," but couldn't explain just what that meant; and > > > > I fully knew it had BOTH common > > and uncommon nutrients. > > You didn't know jackshit. You were spouting off what you read in some > hempoil brochure. Why are you so against it? The seed doesn't even have any of the psychoactive THC in it. It's simply healthy. > > If a mix of Omega 3, 6, and 9 are so > > bad for you, > > Omega-6 is already ubiquitous in the diet and people don't need to > supplement it. Omega-9 is also readily available in a variety of > sources. The one which most people are deficient is omega-3, especially > in relation to their consumption of omega-6. > > > why do they sell > > that particular mix > > Because GULLIBLE, NAIVE people like you will buy it. You'll buy anything. More insults rather than logic. > > as a > > suppliment? > > Supplement. Does that kind of get to you like someone scratching a chalkboard? Payback time. Screw any spellcheckers. > >>7. Assumes that because vegans don't eat foods containing cholesterol > >>they're therefore immune from cholesterol-related disease. She was > >>dumbfounded to learn that the body produces its own cholesterol and that > >>such endogenous production had more to do with genetics and consumption > >>of saturated fats (including transfats). > > > > I've never heard of a longterm > > vegan having a cholesterol > > problem. > > Because you've never researched the issue. Have you? Is that what you're saying? > > The bit > > The bit? Try the majority of serum cholesterol. I've known a few people who reduced their cholesterol by a huge amount just by diet changes and exercise alone. > To understand the effects of dietary cholesterol on cholesterol > metabolism, it is important to consider that since dietary > sources contribute *only 20%* to the total daily input of > cholesterol in the body *with a physiological intake* of dietary > cholesterol (less than 1000 mg/day) most individuals effectively > compensate, because the body's ability to downregulate the > endogenous cholesterol synthesis rate can match the increase in > dietary cholesterol. This homeostatic regulation is very precise > in most individuals; however, some individuals with less than > precise compensatory mechanisms are sensitive to dietary > cholesterol. > http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...28/ai_14236441 > > To some extent, the cholesterol level in blood depends on what > you eat but it is *mainly dependent* on how the body makes > cholesterol in the liver. > http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/diseases/...sterolemia.htm > > > that the body > > produces is fine. > > You have *NO* clue Then eating tons of it in one's food won't barely change it? I disagree. > > > Have you > > ever heard of any syndrome > > where someone's body makes > > too much even after they have > > removed dietary sources? > > YES! You moron! See above. There are two sources of cholesterol: what > you eat and what you make. The cholesterol from what you eat is trivial > compared to the amount the body makes. There are *other* dietary factors > that impact endogenous (what your body makes) serum cholesterol levels > more than dietary cholesterol itself. That includes the kinds of fats > you consume (saturated and transfats elevate LDL and suppress HDL), the > kinds of sugars you consume, whether or not you exercise, etc. Vegans > and vegetarians are not immune to serum cholesterol issues so long as > they have livers (and the liver was still a vital organ last I heard). A whole lot of people out there have high cholesterol. Are you saying they are all sick with this disease? > http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/e...cle/000392.htm > http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/diseases/...sterolemia.htm > http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/diseases/...terolaemia.htm > http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic1072.htm > > You're a know-nothing, ignorant buffoon. There's the insults again. They are getting tiring. I might 'whiff off' soon. You're getting too predictable and boooorrring. > >>I consider her contemptible because of her continued willful ignorance, > >>her fantasies about "veganics" and other issues, and her insolence > >>towards those who *kindly* offer suggestions on how she can practice > >>what she preaches. > > > > Kindly!?!? > > Yes. Go back and see how I tried to reach an accord with you last December. I'm not going to google back through all of Dec posts just to know what you're talking about. Especially since I might not even see the alleged olive branch as such and I'd have to reread all that preceeded the insults. Don't you keep it on one of those lists of links to people's posts or something? > >>>>That came later after I'd given her second, third, fourth, etc., chances > >>>>to repent. I gave you the same offer of an olive branch. You've declined > >>>>it. > >>> > >>>We've gone back and forth on this. > >> > >>No, *you*'ve gone back and forth. I've offered the branch, you've > >>rejected it. It's okay because you've proven you're undeserving of a > >>truce. > > > > You've offered no olive branches. > > ****ing liar. Go back and review the thread "my posts to you (attn: > scented nectar)" in the archives. I actually went to find that thread and I'm not about to reread the whole thing. I went to the top of the (very long) page and see nothing I've done very wrong. I think you're being a crybaby. Also, that page doesn't show the stuff it's based on, the stuff that preceded it. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ |
|
|||
|
|||
Beach Runner wrote:
>>> I was not always a vegetarian. I highly suggest all parents read the >>> bone density diet. Stop snipping the part of my posts to which you're replying, dipshit. > I'll just reply to this disparagy to Dr. Kessler, Professor of Medicine Appealing to authority. http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/aa.htm Kessler is an OSTEOPATH, not a medical doctor. http://www.quackwatch.org/04Consumer.../QA/osteo.html > and leading expert on Osteoperosis. Appealing to authority. http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/aa.htm He's written a popular press book about the subject. He is not a researcher, he's not published in peer-reviewed journals, etc. The book you recommend people read is offered primarily on alternative medicine sites and vegetarian sites. > It's not pseudoscience. Ipse dixit. >> It's based on pseudoscience. >> >>> The giving of soda and excess proteins to children should be outlawed, > >> >> I knew you were an authoritarian zealot. Thanks for proving it. > > We have an epedemic of osteoperosis in our society. Epidemic? No. We have a large aging population. Certain people are more likely to develop osteoporosis than others. Factors that increase the likelihood of developing osteoporosis are called "risk factors." The following risk factors have been identified: Being female Thin and/or small frame *Advanced age* A family history of osteoporosis Postmenopause, including early or surgically induced menopause Abnormal absence of menstrual periods (amenorrhea) Anorexia nervosa or bulimia A diet low in calcium Use of certain medications, such as corticosteroids and anticonvulsants Low testosterone levels in men An inactive lifestyle Cigarette smoking Excessive use of alcohol Being Caucasian or Asian, although African Americans and Hispanic Americans are at significant risk as well http://www.osteo.org/osteofastfact.html > I cited the leading > authority in the field. Appealing to authority. He is NOT the leading authority in the field. He's popular among new agers, vegetarians, and the alternative quackery, I mean alternative medicine, crowds (or crowd since there is a lot of overlap between them). > Not a quack. Yes, a quack. An osteopath. > The leader in the field. Find me something that notes his research instead of his popular press book on the subject. Twit. >>> if one understands how bones are developed >> >> You don't. Established. >>> and we have an epidemic of osteoporosis in our society. >> >> Because of our longevity. People didn't live long enough for >> malignancies to develop or for their bones to become brittle because >> they normally died in their 30s, 40s, and 50s. > > That's your opinon. No, it's leading consensus of real osteoporosis experts. http://www-medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPa.../OSTEOPOR.html <...> >>> Interestingly, >> >> It's of no interest to informed persons. >> >>> in societies that don't drink dairy or soda, osteoporosis is >>> virtually unknown. ( of course that's changing with globalization). >> >> No, you bumbling twit, it's because they're starting to live longer >> because they now have access to medical technology. That's why their >> cancer rates are exploding and rivaling ours. That's why their aging >> populations have similar diseases at similar rates as ours. > > Actually it is based on comparative studies, normalizing factors. No, it isn't. >> <...> >> >>> I also have an agenda to protect habitat. The little bit of habitat >>> is being destroyed, largely for meat production. >> >> >> >> Ipse dixit and false. The "factory farms" you rail against mean that >> it takes significantly LESS land to raise MORE animals than it did in >> the past. > > One can produce far more food if we use a vegetarian diet Ipse dixit and who cares. People want meat. You want to forbid them from eating it. Why do you insist everyone adopt your peculiar diet for your peculiar, pseudoscience-driven reasons? > Ok, for some URLs, I go to the Union of Corncerned Scientists > > http://www.ucsusa.org/search.cfm?cri...&submit=Search > > Antibiotics: > Animals that are fed antibiotics for most of their lives develop high > levels of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in their guts. Not all animals are given antibiotics, and not all are given antibiotics for "most of their lives." > If these bacteria find their way to humans, Tell me an instance in which they have, particularly from eating meat. <...> > While strict vegetarians need not worry about becoming infected by > bacteria in uncooked or undercooked meat, Most people needn't worry. The risks are marginal. More people are infected from contaminated produce than from meat yet you never hear meat eaters telling vegetarians to avoid vegetables. <...> > http://www.gaia.be/nl/factsheet/adap1197.html The website for Groupe d'Action dans l'Intérêt des Animaux -- an AR activist site. Imagine that. <snip acivist propaganda> > It's much easier to be heathier as a vegetarian, Ipse dixit. The ADA, AHA, and other health-oriented organizations disagree with you. They only offer qualified support of vegetarianism because it's a diet which starts out with a list of deficiencies. > it's certainly environmentally sounder, Ipse dixit. Monoculture cropping is not environmentally sound. > and as the Union of Concerned Scientists back > my statements on antibiotics. No, they don't. And UCS is a primarily lay group (over 90% of their members are non-scientists), not a group of actual scientists. <...> |
|
|||
|
|||
Scented Nectar wrote:
>><...>>>>Why do you call her Skanky? >> >>>>It's a play on her self-given nickname of "Skunky," which is a no doubt >>>>reference to her drug abuse. >>> >>>It's not a play. >> >>It is, and an amusing one. > > Interesting. No, just amusing. >>>It's an intended insult. >> >>You insult yourself and the intelligence of others in this group with >>your posts. > > There's You really do. >>>>>It's kind of unflattering, don't you think? >>>> >>>>Her illogic and general stupidity is much more unflattering. >>> >>>Again, look how often you insult. >> >>It's not an insult; it's the truth. > > You're transparent. No, but you'd be transparent if you weren't so full of shit. >><...> >> >>>>That entire thread showed us that Skanky: >>>>1. Makes up and applies her own definitions to words (i.e., she doesn't >>>>know what vegan means or what veganism is), making any attempt to reach >>>>consensus with her about anything impossible; >>> >>>Made up >> >>DEFINITIONS. To existing words. >> >> >>>words like your >>>flexitarians and orthorexia? > > Words that are not in the > dictionary. FLEXITARIAN: The term flexitarian was voted the most useful word of 2003 by the American Dialect Society... http://www.macmillandictionary.com/N...lexitarian.htm See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexitarian http://vegetarian.about.com/b/a/114346.htm http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4541605/ Etc. ORTHOREXIA: Some psychologists also classify a syndrome called orthorexia as an eating disorder - the person is overly obsessed with the consumption of what they see as the 'right' foods for them (vegan, raw foods, etc), to the point where their nutrition and quality of life suffers. http://www.answers.com/topic/eating-disorder See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthorexia http://www.anred.com/defslesser.html Etc. >>Those are words coined and used by professionals. You misdefine words > > Not You incessantly misdefine words and then urge others to use your flawed and irrelevant definitions. >>and then get grumpy when others correct you. You then continue with your >>peculiar definitions instead of the common ones everyone else is using. >>You're a reckless twit. > > There's another insult. It's not an insult because it's true. You object only because the truth indeed hurts. >>>>2. Makes bogus claims about farming techniques and about such things as >>>>the use of hormones (specifically, she said beef contained DES; DES has >>>>been banned in beef production since 1979), most likely from her >>>>reliance on activist literature; >>> >>>Has it been banned in other >>>countries? >> >>Yes, name one nation which allows its use. > > Name some that don't. USA, Canada, Mexico, Argentina, Australia, New Zealand, the nations in the European Union. Is that enough for starters, you babbling dopehead? > I don't trust that all farmers > follow the rules, After the July 1999 report by the Swiss, FSIS and FDA redoubled their efforts to update their DES analytical capabilities. On February 10, 2000, FDA informed FSIS that it is now capable of detecting DES at levels as low as 20-30 parts per trillion (ppt), which is within the range allegedly detected by the Swiss. FSIS expects to be able to detect DES at 10 parts per trillion (ppt) by mid-April 2000. http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/background/des.htm > especially when it concerns substances > that can bulk up their beef. Considering the penalties involved -- which ultimately comes down to losing one's livelihood because DES-suspected beef will not be imported or sold for human consumption -- I don't think ranchers are willing to break the law. There are too many other ways they can fatten their cattle legally and cost-effectively without being forced out of business. > Just like I don't trust all > bodybuilders not to use > steroids. The penalties are remarkably different. Bodybuilders and other athletes are publicly stigmatized if they test positive, and often are banned from competition for a specified period of time. Farmers who use banned substances on their cattle face criminal charges, civil penalties, AND they lose their access to markets because the USDA and other agricultural agencies will deny them future inspections. >>>Has it been banned >>>in other animals? >> >>YES. You twit. I gave you the links eight months ago. > > There's another Another whiff. You cannot respond to the substance because you have nothing to offer. You only whine about the style because you've been proven to be wrong repeatedly. You raised the issue of DES and other hormones. You further said chickens and pork were given steroids. I showed you that DES has been banned in the US since 1979 and that steroid use in pork and poultry is also banned. Your scaremongering is utter and complete bullshit. That's all. >>>>3. Gullibly believes and mindlessly repeats propaganda from AR groups, >>>>such as the claim that it takes umpteen pounds of feed to produce a >>>>pound of meat. She refused to give up this ridiculous claim despite >>>>being shown information to the contrary about a variety of species >>>>including poultry, rabbits, goats, hogs, and cattle; >>> >>>The numbers favour the vegan. >> >>No, they do not and this has been repeatedly proven to you. > > Even You continue to insist that it takes significantly more feed to make meat than it's been demonstrated it takes -- only 3-5 pounds per pound of meat, which is 3-4x more efficient than fake meat products used by veg-ns. >>>>4. Gullibly believes that organic means pesticide-free, when it only >>>>means synthetic pesticide-free; >>> >>>You are a liar. >> >>I'm telling the truth. Rather than responding to my list of BANNED >>organic agents, you incessantly snipped them out of your replies. > > What list of banned agents? E.g., the following: Organic pesticides are as toxic as their synthetic counterparts, and many of them are banned under the Rotterdam Convention: The Convention has already been signed by 73 countries – including Brazil – and ratified by 18. It will come into effect once there are 50 signatory countries.The original products list included 22 organic pesticides considered to be *highly toxic*... http://www.nex.org.br/english/ denucias_envenenamento.htm [Highly toxic meaning those organic pesticides affect non-target species, including humans.] An organic pesticide called Dichlorodiphenyl trichloroethane is banned because of its pervasive toxicity. You probably have heard of it by its initials: DDT. http://www.epa.gov/history/pub lications/formative6.htm [DDT was linked to the death of bald eagles, a non-target species.] Organic pesticides kill fish: While some organic pesticides may be nontoxic or are only slightly toxic to people, they may be very toxic to other animals. For instance, *the organic pesticide ryania is very toxic to fish*. http://hgic.clemson.edu/factsh eets/HGIC2756.htm [Fish are a non-target species.] Organic pesticides kill a variety of *non-target species*, and foods grown organically are not labeled "pesticide free": Organic pesticides are used widely. Some are toxic. Rotenone *kills fish*. Copper sulphate *kills many creatures*. In California, an organic pesticide, sulphur, represents one-third of all pesticide use. For obvious reasons, organic farmers don’t call their produce "pesticide free." http://www.ontariocorn.org/ocp mag/pestruth.html See also: http://www.hudson.org/index.cf m?fuseaction=publication_detai ls&id=1677 Copper sulphate is more harmful to a variety of species than its conventional counterpart: Leake candidly criticized organic farmers for using nasty but "natural" pesticides. "The use of copper and sulphur fungicide sprays seems inconsistent with the claim that organic agriculture is pesticide-free. On examination, the *eco-toxicology of copper sulphate is undoubtedly more harmful and persistent than its conventional counterpart, Mancozeb*." Leake even provided a handy table, showing that the copper sulphate used by organic farmers is *toxic to humans, very toxic to earthworms and fish, moderately toxic to birds and harmful to small mammals*. http://www.cgfi.org/materials/ articles/2000/sep_8_00.htm Effects of copper sulphate -- an organic pesticide/fungicide -- on a variety of species including humans: There have been reports of *human suicide* resulting from the ingestion of gram quantities of this material.... Copper sulfate is very toxic to fish.... Copper sulfate is *toxic to aquatic invertebrates, such as crab, shrimp and oysters*. Based on data on the potential hazards posed by this material to the *slackwater darter, freshwater mussels, and Solano grass*, and in an effort to *minimize exposure of endangered species* to this material, applicators in some counties are required to consult EPA endangered species bulletins before applying copper sulfate. http://tinyurl.com/5y4hm Organic pesticides ARE toxins: Organic pesticide - not an oxymoron, because many organic farmers use pesticides. A pesticide is any compound that kills pests. So Rotenone is considered an organic pesticide even though it does a fantastic job of killing pests and has questionable safety. Rotenone is derived from the roots of various South American legumes. It is a nerve poison that paralyzes insects. Other organic pesticides include copper compounds that can be *tough on other organisms and the environment*. Pyrethrins are pesticides derived from the pyrethrum daisies. They are a nerve poison that is effective on a wide range of insects. *Pyrethrins are moderately toxic to mammals* and *highly toxic to fish*. It is *illegal to apply them around ponds or waterways*. So even though it says "organic", it can still *pack a nasty punch*. http://www.springledgefarm.com /glossary.htm ..... Leake candidly criticized *organic farmers* for using nasty but "natural" pesticides. "The use of copper and sulphur fungicide sprays seems inconsistent with the claim that organic agriculture is pesticide-free. On examination, the *eco-toxicology of copper sulphate is undoubtedly more harmful and persistent than its conventional counterpart, Mancozeb*." Leake even provided a handy table, showing that the copper sulphate *used by organic farmers* is *toxic to humans, very toxic to earthworms and fish, moderately toxic to birds and harmful to small mammals*. ------------- >>>>5. Naively adopts prattle from the vegan kook fringe about "veganics" >>>>and believes that such Luddite growing techniques will one day be the >>>>norm and she'll be able to buy "veganic" foods at the store; >>> >>>With every sentence, you can't >>>help but insult, can you? >> >>What part of that is insulting -- that you fantasize about agricultural >>methods employed in the poorest of nations but refuse to practice such >>methods yourself? > > Huh? How far did you get in school before you got pregnant and dropped out? >>>>6. Claimed to have studied nutrition, yet was unaware that the >>>>supplements she was promoting (i.e., hempseed oil) contained nutrients >>>>already contained in the average diet. She further stupidly tried to >>>>suggest those already prevalent nutrients were in some special >>>>"balance," but couldn't explain just what that meant; and >>> >>>I fully knew it had BOTH common >>>and uncommon nutrients. >> >>You didn't know jackshit. You were spouting off what you read in some >>hempoil brochure. > > Why are you so against it? Because it's unnecessary. > The seed doesn't even have > any of the psychoactive THC > in it. I didn't say it did. It provides scant nutritional benefit. You choose to believe the hype. I've corrected it so others as gullible as you are have a frame of reference to gauge the veracity of the claims you stupidly parrot. > It's simply healthy. Ipse dixit. Unproven. You've parroted salesmanship, not science. That became evident the moment you tauted the omega-6 FAs in it without knowing wtf omega-6 is or that most people don't ****ing need to supplement it because they already get too much. You flake. >>>If a mix of Omega 3, 6, and 9 are so >>>bad for you, >> >>Omega-6 is already ubiquitous in the diet and people don't need to >>supplement it. Omega-9 is also readily available in a variety of >>sources. The one which most people are deficient is omega-3, especially >>in relation to their consumption of omega-6. Why do you willfully ignore the fact that people don't need to supplement their omega-6-rich diets with even more omega-6, you quack? >>>why do they sell >>>that particular mix >> >>Because GULLIBLE, NAIVE people like you will buy it. You'll buy anything. > > More insults No, it's the truth, Skanky. You're gullible enough to repeat shit you don't even understand. You whined, "But it has omega-6." BFD!!! So does everything else you probably ate today. You don't need MORE of it, you either need LESS in relation to what little omega-3 you get or more omega-3. > rather than logic. I've used logic and facts throughout this ordeal of trying to communicate simple facts to a clueless Toronto urbanite. Now explain YOUR logic in recommending or using a supplement for something which is already EXCESSIVE in the average (including YOUR OWN) diet. >>>as a >>>suppliment? >> >>Supplement. > > Does that Your spelling and grammar are as unsatisfactory as your drug-addled memory. >>>>7. Assumes that because vegans don't eat foods containing cholesterol >>>>they're therefore immune from cholesterol-related disease. She was >>>>dumbfounded to learn that the body produces its own cholesterol and that >>>>such endogenous production had more to do with genetics and consumption >>>>of saturated fats (including transfats). >>> >>>I've never heard of a longterm >>>vegan having a cholesterol >>>problem. >> >>Because you've never researched the issue. > > Have you? Yes, you stupid cow. I've studied it in depth. >>>The bit >> >>The bit? Try the majority of serum cholesterol. > > I've known a few people Anecdotal, small sample. > who reduced their cholesterol by > a huge amount just by diet > changes and exercise alone. Those dietary changes probably included reducing saturated fats and increasing monounsaturated fats. That in itself is beneficial in reducing serum cholesterol. Exercise, too, is beneficial in increasing HDL (which in turn helps lower LDL). Simply reducing dietary cholesterol doesn't have a remarkable effect of lowering serum cholesterol levels. You can INCREASE dietary cholesterol and still LOWER serum cholesterol levels by adjusting fats and exercising more. >>To understand the effects of dietary cholesterol on cholesterol >>metabolism, it is important to consider that since dietary >>sources contribute *only 20%* to the total daily input of >>cholesterol in the body *with a physiological intake* of dietary >>cholesterol (less than 1000 mg/day) most individuals effectively >>compensate, because the body's ability to downregulate the >>endogenous cholesterol synthesis rate can match the increase in >>dietary cholesterol. This homeostatic regulation is very precise >>in most individuals; however, some individuals with less than >>precise compensatory mechanisms are sensitive to dietary >>cholesterol. >>http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...28/ai_14236441 >> >>To some extent, the cholesterol level in blood depends on what >>you eat but it is *mainly dependent* on how the body makes >>cholesterol in the liver. >>http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/diseases/...sterolemia.htm >> >> >>>that the body >>>produces is fine. >> >>You have *NO* clue > > Then eating tons of it in one's > food won't barely change it? It depends on too many other factors. Genetics is a primary one. Someone with a genetic disposition to make lots of cholesterol will make lots of cholesterol regardless of diet. Oily, cold-water fish are pretty high in cholesterol, but cardiologists still recommend their patients eat them. Why? Because the fatty acid profiles of those fish help elevate HDL and lower LDL. Someone who adds exercise will see a concomitant boost in HDL. Dittos for those who dump saturated fats and transfats and replace with olive oil, canola, etc. > I disagree. ON WHAT GROUNDS, YOU BUFFOON? >>>Have you >>>ever heard of any syndrome >>>where someone's body makes >>>too much even after they have >>>removed dietary sources? >> >>YES! You moron! See above. There are two sources of cholesterol: what >>you eat and what you make. The cholesterol from what you eat is trivial >>compared to the amount the body makes. There are *other* dietary factors >>that impact endogenous (what your body makes) serum cholesterol levels >>more than dietary cholesterol itself. That includes the kinds of fats >>you consume (saturated and transfats elevate LDL and suppress HDL), the >>kinds of sugars you consume, whether or not you exercise, etc. Vegans >>and vegetarians are not immune to serum cholesterol issues so long as >>they have livers (and the liver was still a vital organ last I heard). > > A whole lot of people out there > have high cholesterol. I know. > Are you saying they are all sick with > this disease? Most of them have a genetic disposition to make cholesterol like crazy. Altering their diets somewhat can be beneficial -- especially the changes noted above (exercise, reducing trans- and saturated fats and increasing monounsaturated fats, etc.). Just leaving out animal-based foods in and of itself will NOT make a difference. >>http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/e...cle/000392.htm >>http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/diseases/...sterolemia.htm >> > > http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/diseases/...terolaemia.htm > >>http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic1072.htm >> >>You're a know-nothing, ignorant buffoon. > > There's You know I'm right. >>>>I consider her contemptible because of her continued willful ignorance, >>>>her fantasies about "veganics" and other issues, and her insolence >>>>towards those who *kindly* offer suggestions on how she can practice >>>>what she preaches. >>> >>>Kindly!?!? >> >>Yes. Go back and see how I tried to reach an accord with you last >>December. > > I'm not going to google back I know you won't because you don't have the decency to admit I'm right. <...> >>>You've offered no olive branches. >> >>****ing liar. Go back and review the thread "my posts to you (attn: >>scented nectar)" in the archives. > > I actually went to find that thread > and I'm not about to reread the > whole thing. I know you won't because you don't have the decency to admit I'm right. You're contemptible, slovenly, and the shame of Toronto. |
|
|||
|
|||
"usual suspect" >
snipped a bunch of the stuff he was replying to, and said blah blah blah. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ |
|
|||
|
|||
"usual suspect" wrote:
> They categorically *don't* say vegetarian diets "are healthier." Even > the bit that you pulled out of the link I added only said that > vegetarians *SEEM* to have lower risks of various maladies, not that > they do have lower risks (I showed you evidence to the contrary > yesterday). The AHA site did NOT say that vegetarian diets are > healthier. In fact, that part you quoted led to the part I pasted which > offers only *qualified* support for vegetarian diets. --------------------- Exactly! But the part I quoted is the exact part which proved "Beach Runner's" statement to be false, unlike the part you quoted. And you still won't thank me for correcting your oversight..... > > He did NOT say "The Heart Association and Cancer Association recommend a > > vegetarian diet." > > I guess you haven't read him too closely. Here's what he added even > after I showed him to be wrong yesterday: > > And of course the American Heart Association and American > Dietary Association and American Cancer Society have all > endorsed vegetarian diets. > > What do you not comprehend about the meaning of "endorsed"? ----------------- What do you not comprehend about the fact that that wasn't the message I was responding to? > Stop defending the indefensible positions of activists. ------------------ Oops, you did it again! Falsely assuming something. I was of course actually doing you a favor to help you prove the "activist" wrong, since you were under the influence of another false assumption and failed to post the pertinent quote. So I posted it. And now you not only won't thank me, but you actually accuse me of defending the "activist" whom I in reality defeated! Is that any way to treat an ally? You delusions are growing by the day..... > <snip boring sophistry> ---------------------- Oh how entertaining it is watching you dance around the issue, attempting to deflect from the fact that you screwed up..... -TW |
|
|||
|
|||
"usual suspect" > wrote in message
> And they don't do that, either. They don't recommend, endorse, or > advocate vegetarianism. They don't say vegetarianism is healthier. > You're just spinning. ---------------- Hey, I'm just trying to get you to show me a little (well deserved) appreciation by thanking me for helping you out and posting the pertinent quote for proving "Beach Runner" wrong, which you failed to do because you were under your false assumption. But all you want to do is give me a hard time about it. Tsk, tsk.... >Stop trying to defend indefensible flakes like the OP. ------------ You seem to keep forgetting that I'm on your side of the issue. Tsk, tsk again... -TW |
|
|||
|
|||
usual suspect wrote: > Beach Runner wrote: > >>>> I was not always a vegetarian. I highly suggest all parents read the >>>> bone density diet. > > > Stop snipping the part of my posts to which you're replying, dipshit. > >> I'll just reply to this disparagy to Dr. Kessler, Professor of Medicine > > > Appealing to authority. > http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/aa.htm > > Kessler is an OSTEOPATH, not a medical doctor. His choice because he believes in holistic science. The fact is Dr. Kessler teaches an Albert Einstein institute of Medicine, voted the best professor. He has taught at other Medical colleges as well. He believes in a wider range of medicine than drugs. He discusses his choice to get the wider range of medical science offered as an Osteopath. Osteopath's are fully recognized in the US. > > http://www.quackwatch.org/04Consumer.../QA/osteo.html > >> and leading expert on Osteoperosis. > > > Appealing to authority. > http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/aa.htm > > He's written a popular press book about the subject. He is not a > researcher, he's not published in peer-reviewed journals, etc. The book > you recommend people read is offered primarily on alternative medicine > sites and vegetarian sites. Like Amazon.com But also recommended by many endocrinologists. And as the NY Times has pointed out, it is not just a woman's disease. Both my brother (a non vegetarian patent attorney and I both have it. Hardly female. Our calcium levels are high. By the way to be a Patent Attorney, it is the only field of law that requires a degree in science. He was a a scientist prior to being an attorney. He did a lot of research. > >> It's not pseudoscience. > > > Ipse dixit. > >>> It's based on pseudoscience. >>> >>>> The giving of soda and excess proteins to children should be outlawed, >> It is well cited. George Kessler is considered an expert and leading researcher in the field. >>> >>> I knew you were an authoritarian zealot. Thanks for proving it. >> >> >> We have an epedemic of osteoperosis in our society. > > > Epidemic? No. We have a large aging population. Actually it is an epidemic. And not only among the aging. And it is increasing in societies adopting western food. Dexa scans of course find many cases previously unrecognized. > > Certain people are more likely to develop osteoporosis than > others. Factors that increase the likelihood of developing > osteoporosis are called "risk factors." The following risk > factors have been identified: > > Being female > Thin and/or small frame > *Advanced age* > A family history of osteoporosis > Postmenopause, including early or surgically induced menopause > Abnormal absence of menstrual periods (amenorrhea) > Anorexia nervosa or bulimia > A diet low in calcium > Use of certain medications, such as corticosteroids and > anticonvulsants > Low testosterone levels in men > An inactive lifestyle > Cigarette smoking > Excessive use of alcohol > Being Caucasian or Asian, although African Americans and > Hispanic Americans are at significant risk as well > http://www.osteo.org/osteofastfact.html > >> I cited the leading authority in the field. > > > Appealing to authority. He is NOT the leading authority in the field. > He's popular among new agers, vegetarians, and the alternative quackery, > I mean alternative medicine, crowds (or crowd since there is a lot of > overlap between them). > >> Not a quack. Is Albert Einstein a quack institute? You called a highly credentialed, recognized doctor a quack. > > > Yes, a quack. An osteopath. > >> The leader in the field. > > > Find me something that notes his research instead of his popular press > book on the subject. Twit. > >>>> if one understands how bones are developed >>> >>> >>> You don't. > > > Established. > >>>> and we have an epidemic of osteoporosis in our society. >>> >>> >>> Because of our longevity. People didn't live long enough for >>> malignancies to develop or for their bones to become brittle because >>> they normally died in their 30s, 40s, and 50s. >> >> >> That's your opinon. > > > No, it's leading consensus of real osteoporosis experts. > > http://www-medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPa.../OSTEOPOR.html > > <...> > >>>> Interestingly, >>> >>> >>> It's of no interest to informed persons. >>> >>>> in societies that don't drink dairy or soda, osteoporosis is >>>> virtually unknown. ( of course that's changing with globalization). >>> >>> >>> No, you bumbling twit, it's because they're starting to live longer >>> because they now have access to medical technology. That's why their >>> cancer rates are exploding and rivaling ours. That's why their aging >>> populations have similar diseases at similar rates as ours. >> >> >> Actually it is based on comparative studies, normalizing factors. > > > No, it isn't. > >>> <...> >>> >>>> I also have an agenda to protect habitat. The little bit of habitat >>>> is being destroyed, largely for meat production. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Ipse dixit and false. The "factory farms" you rail against mean that >>> it takes significantly LESS land to raise MORE animals than it did in >>> the past. >> >> >> One can produce far more food if we use a vegetarian diet > > > Ipse dixit and who cares. People want meat. You want to forbid them from > eating it. Why do you insist everyone adopt your peculiar diet for your > peculiar, pseudoscience-driven reasons? > >> Ok, for some URLs, I go to the Union of Corncerned Scientists >> >> http://www.ucsusa.org/search.cfm?cri...&submit=Search >> >> Antibiotics: >> Animals that are fed antibiotics for most of their lives develop high >> levels of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in their guts. > > > Not all animals are given antibiotics, and not all are given antibiotics > for "most of their lives." > >> If these bacteria find their way to humans, > > > Tell me an instance in which they have, particularly from eating meat. > > <...> > >> While strict vegetarians need not worry about becoming infected by >> bacteria in uncooked or undercooked meat, > > > Most people needn't worry. The risks are marginal. More people are > infected from contaminated produce than from meat yet you never hear > meat eaters telling vegetarians to avoid vegetables. > > <...> > >> http://www.gaia.be/nl/factsheet/adap1197.html > > > The website for Groupe d'Action dans l'Intérêt des Animaux -- an AR > activist site. Imagine that. > > <snip acivist propaganda> > >> It's much easier to be heathier as a vegetarian, > > > Ipse dixit. The ADA, AHA, and other health-oriented organizations > disagree with you. They only offer qualified support of vegetarianism > because it's a diet which starts out with a list of deficiencies. > >> it's certainly environmentally sounder, > > > Ipse dixit. Monoculture cropping is not environmentally sound. > >> and as the Union of Concerned Scientists back my statements on >> antibiotics. > > > No, they don't. And UCS is a primarily lay group (over 90% of their > members are non-scientists), not a group of actual scientists. > > <...> And of course Kessler institute was rated one of the 6th best institutes in the nation. But wha do his peers say > Kessler Institute again named top rehabilitation hospital in East > July, 2004 > > STATE’S LARGEST MEDICAL REHABILITATION PROVIDER RECOGNIZED AS 4TH BEST IN AMERICA > > WEST ORANGE, NJ -- Kessler Institute for Rehabilitation has been recognized as the leading rehabilitation facility in the East and the fourth best in the nation in an annual National Opinion Research Center survey. This marks the 13th consecutive year that Kessler has been listed among the nation’s leaders in the survey of physicians published by U.S.News & World Report. |
|
|||
|
|||
I want to add a pointer describing were Dr. Kessler was voted the top
professor. http://www.aecom.yu.edu/home/admissions/Default.htm "We are very proud of both our clinical and research departments. In fact, this year the Albert Einstein College of Medicine ranks number four in the country, and number one in New York State, in National Institutes of Health funding to medical school basic science departments." As far as not quoting everything in your posts, they are long, insulting and rambling. I focused on several issues you point out. You called George Kessler a quack. The number 1 medical school in NY disagrees with your findings. And he was voted the best professor at a Medical School. I also focused on your dismissal of antibiotics in factory farming. Your dismissal of this practice is more than controversial, and other countries, and even my own doctor agrees with it. He is unusual as being both a Medical Doctor and having a degree in nutrition. Here is an article about Denmark, one of the first countries where scientific studies banned the use of antibiotics in Meat. http://www.guardian.co.uk/antibiotic...202005,00.html Even the high highly biased Dairyman's Association wrote. > WHO: Farmers Should Cut Antibiotic Use > > Farmers worldwide should take a lesson from Danish bacon producers and reduce the use of antibiotics on their livestock to help stem the growth of drug-resistant bacteria in humans, the U.N. health agency said Wednesday. Or the Washington Post > Gains From Antibiotic Ban Noted; Benefits to Danish Farm Animals Come at 'Marginal' Cost > (Posted: 09-Apr-02) > > Washington Post | March 27, 2002 | David Brown | > > ATLANTA, March 26 -- A recent ban in Denmark on the use of antibiotics to promote the growth of farm animals has markedly decreased the prevalence of drug-resistant bacteria but has not affected the health of the animals or the price of meat, a Danish scientist told infectious disease researchers and public health officials here. > > Farmers now spend somewhat more to feed their animals, but that is offset by what they save from not spending on tons of antibiotics for entire herds and flocks, said Henrik C. Wegener of the Danish Veterinary Institute in Copenhagen. > > "If the effects are so marginal, why on earth continue using them?" he asked rhetorically. > > Wegener was speaking at the International Conference on Emerging Infectious Diseases being held here this week. Emerging infections are ones that are rapidly becoming more prevalent, appearing in new places or being transmitted through new routes. They also include the much smaller group of illnesses caused by newly discovered organisms. > > Antibiotic-resistant bacteria are a class of especially worrisome emerging pathogens because they can make infections in people expensive, difficult or, on very rare occasions, impossible to treat. While the indiscriminate use of antibiotics in the treatment of human illness is by far the most important cause of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in people, evidence has shown that resistant microbes originating in farm animals occasionally spill over into the human population. > > Putting antibiotics into the feed or water of poultry and livestock causes the animals to grow faster. The drugs prevent or treat infections in the extremely crowded environments where the animals are raised, but they may also work through other, less clear mechanisms. Some experts favor banning the use of antibiotics for growth promotion, while meat producers generally favor more selective restrictions. > > In 1998, Danish broiler chicken farmers and cattle ranchers voluntarily stopped using antibiotics as growth promoters. The next year, Denmark's 25,000 pig farmers -- the country has the largest per capita swine production in Europe -- followed suit. > > The use of growth-promoting antibiotics, which peaked in 1994 at 128 tons, fell to zero. Current use of antimicrobials in food animals -- all now for therapeutic purposes -- is about half of what it was in the mid-1990s, Wegener said. > > Chicken mortality hasn't changed, although on average 16 grams more feed is needed to produce each thousand grams of weight in a chicken, he said. About 11 percent of pig farmers report problems in the growth of their animals. > > The higher costs appear to be balanced by the savings, and retail prices for meat hasn't been affected. The prevalence of important forms of drug-resistant bacteria has fallen dramatically, however. > > Specifically, vancomycin-resistant enterococcus, previously carried by 80 percent of chickens, is now carried by 10 percent. In pigs, it has fallen from 65 percent to 25 percent. Resistance to a second class of antibiotics, the streptogramins class, has dropped from 65 percent to 25 percent in chickens, and has dropped commensurately in pigs, Wegener said. > > That farm-raised, drug-resistant bacteria could end up in the human water supply was suggested by another study presented this week. > > Researchers from the University of North Carolina sampled 48 wells in the vicinity of farms where pigs were raised or where pig manure was spread on fields. About a quarter of the wells had intestinal bacteria in the water (with about a third of the positive samples containing the species examined in the Danish study). Many of the samples were resistant to several antibiotics. And of the samples of the most common microbe, Escherichia coli, a majority were resistant to at least three drugs. > > © 2002 The Washington Post Company > So the subject is still very obviously in the scientific community. Or are you also one of the people who call Global Warming Junk Science? As far as you not being clever, the subject of this post, you are obviously highly intelligent and clever. I clearly point out my agenda. Your attitude however ruins discussions on the issues of a vegan diets in society. That's what this group is about, but you use it in a bizarre way. You have also stated you don't care about the suffering of animals. Why are you here then? usual suspect wrote: > Beach Runner wrote: > >>>> I was not always a vegetarian. I highly suggest all parents read the >>>> bone density diet. > > > Stop snipping the part of my posts to which you're replying, dipshit. > >> I'll just reply to this disparagy to Dr. Kessler, Professor of Medicine > > > Appealing to authority. > http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/aa.htm > > Kessler is an OSTEOPATH, not a medical doctor. > > http://www.quackwatch.org/04Consumer.../QA/osteo.html > >> and leading expert on Osteoperosis. > > > Appealing to authority. > http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/aa.htm > > He's written a popular press book about the subject. He is not a > researcher, he's not published in peer-reviewed journals, etc. The book > you recommend people read is offered primarily on alternative medicine > sites and vegetarian sites. > >> It's not pseudoscience. > > > Ipse dixit. > >>> It's based on pseudoscience. >>> >>>> The giving of soda and excess proteins to children should be outlawed, >> >> >>> >>> I knew you were an authoritarian zealot. Thanks for proving it. >> >> >> We have an epedemic of osteoperosis in our society. > > > Epidemic? No. We have a large aging population. > > Certain people are more likely to develop osteoporosis than > others. Factors that increase the likelihood of developing > osteoporosis are called "risk factors." The following risk > factors have been identified: > > Being female > Thin and/or small frame > *Advanced age* > A family history of osteoporosis > Postmenopause, including early or surgically induced menopause > Abnormal absence of menstrual periods (amenorrhea) > Anorexia nervosa or bulimia > A diet low in calcium > Use of certain medications, such as corticosteroids and > anticonvulsants > Low testosterone levels in men > An inactive lifestyle > Cigarette smoking > Excessive use of alcohol > Being Caucasian or Asian, although African Americans and > Hispanic Americans are at significant risk as well > http://www.osteo.org/osteofastfact.html > >> I cited the leading authority in the field. > > > Appealing to authority. He is NOT the leading authority in the field. > He's popular among new agers, vegetarians, and the alternative quackery, > I mean alternative medicine, crowds (or crowd since there is a lot of > overlap between them). > >> Not a quack. > > > Yes, a quack. An osteopath. > >> The leader in the field. > > > Find me something that notes his research instead of his popular press > book on the subject. Twit. > >>>> if one understands how bones are developed >>> >>> >>> You don't. > > > Established. > >>>> and we have an epidemic of osteoporosis in our society. >>> >>> >>> Because of our longevity. People didn't live long enough for >>> malignancies to develop or for their bones to become brittle because >>> they normally died in their 30s, 40s, and 50s. >> >> >> That's your opinon. > > > No, it's leading consensus of real osteoporosis experts. > > http://www-medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPa.../OSTEOPOR.html > > <...> > >>>> Interestingly, >>> >>> >>> It's of no interest to informed persons. >>> >>>> in societies that don't drink dairy or soda, osteoporosis is >>>> virtually unknown. ( of course that's changing with globalization). >>> >>> >>> No, you bumbling twit, it's because they're starting to live longer >>> because they now have access to medical technology. That's why their >>> cancer rates are exploding and rivaling ours. That's why their aging >>> populations have similar diseases at similar rates as ours. >> >> >> Actually it is based on comparative studies, normalizing factors. > > > No, it isn't. > >>> <...> >>> >>>> I also have an agenda to protect habitat. The little bit of habitat >>>> is being destroyed, largely for meat production. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Ipse dixit and false. The "factory farms" you rail against mean that >>> it takes significantly LESS land to raise MORE animals than it did in >>> the past. >> >> >> One can produce far more food if we use a vegetarian diet > > > Ipse dixit and who cares. People want meat. You want to forbid them from > eating it. Why do you insist everyone adopt your peculiar diet for your > peculiar, pseudoscience-driven reasons? > >> Ok, for some URLs, I go to the Union of Corncerned Scientists >> >> http://www.ucsusa.org/search.cfm?cri...&submit=Search >> >> Antibiotics: >> Animals that are fed antibiotics for most of their lives develop high >> levels of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in their guts. > > > Not all animals are given antibiotics, and not all are given antibiotics > for "most of their lives." > >> If these bacteria find their way to humans, > > > Tell me an instance in which they have, particularly from eating meat. > > <...> > >> While strict vegetarians need not worry about becoming infected by >> bacteria in uncooked or undercooked meat, > > > Most people needn't worry. The risks are marginal. More people are > infected from contaminated produce than from meat yet you never hear > meat eaters telling vegetarians to avoid vegetables. > > <...> > >> http://www.gaia.be/nl/factsheet/adap1197.html > > > The website for Groupe d'Action dans l'Intérêt des Animaux -- an AR > activist site. Imagine that. > > <snip acivist propaganda> > >> It's much easier to be heathier as a vegetarian, > > > Ipse dixit. The ADA, AHA, and other health-oriented organizations > disagree with you. They only offer qualified support of vegetarianism > because it's a diet which starts out with a list of deficiencies. > >> it's certainly environmentally sounder, > > > Ipse dixit. Monoculture cropping is not environmentally sound. > >> and as the Union of Concerned Scientists back my statements on >> antibiotics. > > > No, they don't. And UCS is a primarily lay group (over 90% of their > members are non-scientists), not a group of actual scientists. > > <...> |
|
|||
|
|||
Beach Runner wrote:
> I want to add a pointer describing were Dr. Kessler was voted the top > professor. Appealing to authority and entirely irrelevant to the matter at hand. > http://www.aecom.yu.edu/home/admissions/Default.htm You'll learn that Kessler's not listed if you search the medical college's faculty directory. No Records Found with Last Name containing "KESSLER" http://tinyurl.com/79hwr <...> > As far as not quoting everything in your posts, It's not the not quoting, it's the deliberate snipping. > they are long, Which should make it NO PROBLEM for you to leave everything in instead of snipping everything out. > insulting Not at all. You just don't want to be challenged to prove your peculiar points. > and rambling. This is the first time anyone has accused me of rambling. Ironically, it's from the twit who can't stick to proving his issues and instead tries to swear for the _bona fides_ of the people he considers "experts." > I focused on several issues you point out. No, you didn't focus and you didn't address the issues. > You called George Kessler a quack. Yes, and with good reason. He's not a medical doctor, he's an osteopath. He's not a professor at AE College of Medicine at Yeshiva University in NY. > The number 1 medical school in NY That "number 1" medical school doesn't show him to be in their employ. > disagrees with your findings. How do they disagree with my "findings"? They're not vouching for him, YOU are. > And he was voted the best professor at a Medical > School. Was he really? And just who voted for him -- esteemed fellow faculty members (of which he's currently not one) or students? The only information I can find linking him to AE is that he's been a clinical instructor there (dittos for Cornell). Not a professor. > I also focused You're incapable of focusing. > on your dismissal of antibiotics in factory farming. I didn't dismiss it, you ****. I've addressed it several times. You used a UCS statement on the subject to imply that all livestock are given antibiotics for their entire lives. I responded: Not all animals are given antibiotics, and not all are given antibiotics for "most of their lives." Accordingly, I don't understand why those who desire to consume meat should take your non-issue and use it as a reason. After all, there are plenty of producers who use NO antibiotics prophylactically (only when animals are acutely ill) and some who refuse to use them at all. UCS acknowledges this fact by lauding fastfood chains for getting their meat supplies from such "sustainable" producers. They do NOT tell everyone to avoid all meat because some meat is from animals given antibiotics. You're too stupid to comprehend the difference. BTW, I'm convinced that Phil Hendrie bases his "News Even Football Players Can Understand" on you. > Your dismissal of this practice I don't dismiss the practice. I disagree that the problem is as pervasive as you claim it is, and I disagree that the Chicken Littles of the world should determine what other people do, think, eat, or drink. > is more than controversial, No, it is not. > and other countries, Appealing to authority or popularity, take your pick. Either way, I don't give a shit what other countries do. I don't live in them. > and even my own doctor agrees with it. Appealing to authority. I'm not impressed by your doctor, much less that he would agree with you on the basis of junk science. I've conceded previous to this thread that antibiotic use in livestock should be reduced -- and it is being reduced. Producers understand the issue quite well, and certainly better than a half-baked twit like you who claims to have a graduate degree from an Ivy League university (but who cannot write a coherent sentence to save his life). > He is unusual as being > both a Medical Doctor and having a degree in nutrition. That is NOT unusual. <...> > So the subject is still very obviously in the scientific community. Very obviously what? Many things are "in the scientific community," including cold fusion. That doesn't make it valid, particularly when the most vocal people about certain issues are activists. And don't lose sight of the fact that UCS is an ACTIVIST group -- with over 90% of their membership being non-scientists -- not a science group. > Or are you also one of the people who call Global Warming Junk Science? I think a lot of the hysteria about global warming is *based* on junk science. > As far as you not being clever, the subject of this post, you are > obviously highly intelligent and clever. For once, you are correct. > I clearly point out my agenda. No, you bumble and stumble and raise irrelevant issues, rely on logical fallacies, etc. > Your attitude however ruins discussions on the issues of a vegan diets > in society. No, be honest about your real complaint: you object to scrutiny of your beliefs. You don't want to be challenged. > That's what this group is about, but you use it in a bizarre > way. I want people to spread the truth instead of lies and distortions and fantasies. Imagine that. > You have also stated you don't care about the suffering of animals. Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the nature of this newsgroup. Regardless, I care a lot more about the suffering of people than I do about animals (and I do like animals). > Why are you here then? In the pursuit of truth and knowledge, which is foreign to vegan activists like you. <...> |
|
|||
|
|||
usual suspect wrote: > Beach Runner wrote: > >> I want to add a pointer describing were Dr. Kessler was voted the top >> professor. He's not listed this year. I see that. > > > Appealing to authority and entirely irrelevant to the matter at hand. > >> http://www.aecom.yu.edu/home/admissions/Default.htm > > > You'll learn that Kessler's not listed if you search the medical > college's faculty directory. > > No Records Found with Last Name containing "KESSLER" > http://tinyurl.com/79hwr > > <...> > >> As far as not quoting everything in your posts, > > > It's not the not quoting, it's the deliberate snipping. > >> they are long, > > > Which should make it NO PROBLEM for you to leave everything in instead > of snipping everything out. > >> insulting > > > Not at all. You just don't want to be challenged to prove your peculiar > points. > >> and rambling. > > > This is the first time anyone has accused me of rambling. Ironically, > it's from the twit who can't stick to proving his issues and instead > tries to swear for the _bona fides_ of the people he considers "experts." > >> I focused on several issues you point out. > > > No, you didn't focus and you didn't address the issues. > >> You called George Kessler a quack. > > > Yes, and with good reason. He's not a medical doctor, he's an osteopath. > He's not a professor at AE College of Medicine at Yeshiva University in NY. > He has been, there and other places. >> The number 1 medical school in NY > > > That "number 1" medical school doesn't show him to be in their employ. > >> disagrees with your findings. > > > How do they disagree with my "findings"? They're not vouching for him, > YOU are. > >> And he was voted the best professor at a Medical School. > > > Was he really? And just who voted for him -- esteemed fellow faculty > members (of which he's currently not one) or students? The only > information I can find linking him to AE is that he's been a clinical > instructor there (dittos for Cornell). Not a professor. The students voted for him. Apparently he's not there now. You're right his been at Cornell as well. Do they hire quacks? Obviously he's more concerned these days with his Foundation. I don't follow his personal life. You'll find in the osteoperosis group many people go to his center. It also makes no difference, if you read the book it is well cited. > >> I also focused > > > You're incapable of focusing. > That's just a plain insult. It demonstrates that you are "mean spirited" >> on your dismissal of antibiotics in factory farming. > > > I didn't dismiss it, you ****. I've addressed it several times. You used > a UCS statement on the subject to imply that all livestock are given > antibiotics for their entire lives. I responded: > > Not all animals are given antibiotics, and not all are given > antibiotics for "most of their lives." > In general, American livestock are still given antibiotics their whole lives. That actually offers an opportunity for "fram raised meat". > Accordingly, I don't understand why those who desire to consume meat > should take your non-issue and use it as a reason. After all, there are > plenty of producers who use NO antibiotics prophylactically (only when > animals are acutely ill) and some who refuse to use them at all. UCS > acknowledges this fact by lauding fastfood chains for getting their meat > supplies from such "sustainable" producers. They do NOT tell everyone to > avoid all meat because some meat is from animals given antibiotics. > You're too stupid to comprehend the difference. > > BTW, I'm convinced that Phil Hendrie bases his "News Even Football > Players Can Understand" on you. > >> Your dismissal of this practice > > > I don't dismiss the practice. I disagree that the problem is as > pervasive as you claim it is, and I disagree that the Chicken Littles of > the world should determine what other people do, think, eat, or drink. > >> is more than controversial, > > > No, it is not. > >> and other countries, > > > Appealing to authority or popularity, take your pick. Either way, I > don't give a shit what other countries do. I don't live in them. > You snipped out the research the references to Denmark. >> and even my own doctor agrees with it. > > > Appealing to authority. I'm not impressed by your doctor, much less that > he would agree with you on the basis of junk science. I've conceded > previous to this thread that antibiotic use in livestock should be > reduced -- and it is being reduced. Producers understand the issue quite > well, and certainly better than a half-baked twit like you who claims to > have a graduate degree from an Ivy League university (but who cannot > write a coherent sentence to save his life). > Another insult. And yes I have a MA from Columbia. >> He is unusual as being both a Medical Doctor and having a degree in >> nutrition. > > > That is NOT unusual. > He has spoken about many arguments he had at med school over the lack of nutrition. > <...> > >> So the subject is still very obviously in the scientific community. > Antiobiotics in meat producing deadly germs. > > Very obviously what? Many things are "in the scientific community," > including cold fusion. That doesn't make it valid, particularly when the > most vocal people about certain issues are activists. And don't lose > sight of the fact that UCS is an ACTIVIST group -- with over 90% of > their membership being non-scientists -- not a science group. > >> Or are you also one of the people who call Global Warming Junk Science? > > > I think a lot of the hysteria about global warming is *based* on junk > science. > Global warming is a real danger we are facing. >> As far as you not being clever, the subject of this post, you are >> obviously highly intelligent and clever. > > > For once, you are correct. > >> I clearly point out my agenda. > > > No, you bumble and stumble and raise irrelevant issues, rely on logical > fallacies, etc. > >> Your attitude however ruins discussions on the issues of a vegan diets >> in society. > > > No, be honest about your real complaint: you object to scrutiny of your > beliefs. You don't want to be challenged. > >> That's what this group is about, but you use it in a bizarre way. > > > I want people to spread the truth instead of lies and distortions and > fantasies. Imagine that. No you don't. If you go to a VEGAN group you would discuss how to make a VEGAN diet healthy and the problems of vegans, such as B12. Your agenda is strange. > >> You have also stated you don't care about the suffering of animals. > > > Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the nature of this newsgroup. > Regardless, I care a lot more about the suffering of people than I do > about animals (and I do like animals). > >> Why are you here then? > > > In the pursuit of truth and knowledge, which is foreign to vegan > activists like you. > > <...> Another personal attack. |
|
|||
|
|||
Scented Nectar snipped *everything* and wrote *nothing* meaningful, as
usual. |
|
|||
|
|||
The **** wrote:
>>They categorically *don't* say vegetarian diets "are healthier." Even >>the bit that you pulled out of the link I added only said that >>vegetarians *SEEM* to have lower risks of various maladies, not that >>they do have lower risks (I showed you evidence to the contrary >>yesterday). The AHA site did NOT say that vegetarian diets are >>healthier. In fact, that part you quoted led to the part I pasted which >>offers only *qualified* support for vegetarian diets. > > --------------------- > > Exactly! IOW, you agree I'm correct. End of discussion. |
|
|||
|
|||
Beach Runner wrote:
>>>>> I was not always a vegetarian. I highly suggest all parents read >>>>> the bone density diet. >> >> Stop snipping the part of my posts to which you're replying, dipshit. >> >>> I'll just reply to this disparagy to Dr. Kessler, Professor of Medicine >> >> Appealing to authority. >> http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/aa.htm >> >> Kessler is an OSTEOPATH, not a medical doctor. > > His choice because he believes in holistic science. Osteopaths are NOT medical doctors. They do not practice medical science. They practice some accepted modalities for treating patients, and they also practice some quackery. I've yet to meet a medical doctor who doesn't treat the whole person rather than symptoms or disease and I think it's highly arrogant for osteopaths to suggest they're the only ones who do that. It doesn't surprise me that such arrogance would appeal to you because vegans are guilty of the same kind of arrogance when they suggest their diet is more humane than any other. > The fact is Dr. > Kessler teaches an Albert Einstein institute of Medicine, No, he does not. He was a clinical instructor. You claimed he was a professor. His only professorship has been at a college of OSTEOPATHY, not a college of MEDICINE. <...> > Osteopath's are fully recognized in the US. No apostrophe; that shows possession, not plurality. Osteopaths. And their recognition isn't national, it's state by state like other professional licensing. State "recognition" doesn't lend legitimacy to their practice. After all, many states also "recognize" and license Oriental medicine, massage therapy, reflexology, chiropractic, and a number of other alternative therapies. >> http://www.quackwatch.org/04Consumer.../QA/osteo.html >> >>> and leading expert on Osteoperosis. >> >> >> >> Appealing to authority. >> http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/aa.htm >> >> He's written a popular press book about the subject. He is not a >> researcher, he's not published in peer-reviewed journals, etc. The >> book you recommend people read is offered primarily on alternative >> medicine sites and vegetarian sites. > > Like Amazon.com Amazon carries EVERYTHING. That doesn't make Kessler's book special. > But also recommended by many endocrinologists. *Some* endocrinologists. > Both my brother (a non > vegetarian patent attorney and I both have it. Didn't the list of risk factors I posted yesterday say that genetics plays a role? > Hardly female. You're girlish. > Our calcium levels are high. By the way to be a Patent Attorney, it is > the only field of law that requires a degree in science. *NO*. The USPTO requirements include scientific training, but they don't require a science degree. The requirements include degrees in areas pertaining to computers and technology. See page six of the following link. http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dco...grb17feb05.pdf > He was a a scientist prior to being an attorney. He did a lot of research. Too bad you haven't. >>> It's not pseudoscience. >> >> Ipse dixit. >> >>>> It's based on pseudoscience. >>>> >>>>> The giving of soda and excess proteins to children should be outlawed, >>> > > It is well cited. So what? Citations are only as meaningful as the inferences drawn from the data from the sources cited. It's not how many citations one has in his book, it's how apropos they are. > George Kessler is considered an expert and leading > researcher in the field. Then name ONE study he authored or co-authored on the subject. Go on. Get with it. I spent over half an hour sorting through searches to see if he had. I couldn't find any. >>>> I knew you were an authoritarian zealot. Thanks for proving it. >>> >>> >>> >>> We have an epedemic of osteoperosis in our society. >> >> Epidemic? No. We have a large aging population. > > Actually it is an epidemic. Ipse dixit. > And not only among the aging. Strawman. I never wrote "only among the aging." I've quoted sources, though, which say it's PRIMARILY among the aging. > And it is increasing in societies adopting western food. You mean in societies adopting modern medical technology and thereby increasing longevity. > Dexa scans of course find many cases previously unrecognized. You're overstating the use of DEXA. DEXA only gives a relative risk of fracture for a given area of bone. >> Certain people are more likely to develop osteoporosis than >> others. Factors that increase the likelihood of developing >> osteoporosis are called "risk factors." The following risk >> factors have been identified: >> >> Being female >> Thin and/or small frame >> *Advanced age* >> A family history of osteoporosis >> Postmenopause, including early or surgically induced menopause >> Abnormal absence of menstrual periods (amenorrhea) >> Anorexia nervosa or bulimia >> A diet low in calcium >> Use of certain medications, such as corticosteroids and >> anticonvulsants >> Low testosterone levels in men That's probably true for you. How much soy do you eat, numbnuts? >> An inactive lifestyle >> Cigarette smoking >> Excessive use of alcohol >> Being Caucasian or Asian, although African Americans and >> Hispanic Americans are at significant risk as well >> http://www.osteo.org/osteofastfact.html >> >>> I cited the leading authority in the field. >> >> Appealing to authority. He is NOT the leading authority in the field. >> He's popular among new agers, vegetarians, and the alternative >> quackery, I mean alternative medicine, crowds (or crowd since there is >> a lot of overlap between them). >> >>> Not a quack. > > Is Albert Einstein a quack institute? He's not tenured there. Never has been. > You called a highly credentialed, I question his credentials. > recognized I don't recognize him as an expert. He's written a pop book, and I've been unable to find one instance in which he's listed as an author for any research. > doctor a quack. An osteopathic quack. >> Yes, a quack. An osteopath. >> >>> The leader in the field. >> >> Find me something that notes his research instead of his popular press >> book on the subject. Twit. Waiting... >>>>> if one understands how bones are developed >>>> >>>> You don't. >> >> Established. >> >>>>> and we have an epidemic of osteoporosis in our society. >>>> >>>> Because of our longevity. People didn't live long enough for >>>> malignancies to develop or for their bones to become brittle because >>>> they normally died in their 30s, 40s, and 50s. >>> >>> That's your opinon. >> >> No, it's leading consensus of real osteoporosis experts. >> >> http://www-medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPa.../OSTEOPOR.html HELLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO?! >> <...> >> >>>>> Interestingly, >>>> >>>> It's of no interest to informed persons. >>>> >>>>> in societies that don't drink dairy or soda, osteoporosis is >>>>> virtually unknown. ( of course that's changing with globalization). >>>> >>>> No, you bumbling twit, it's because they're starting to live longer >>>> because they now have access to medical technology. That's why their >>>> cancer rates are exploding and rivaling ours. That's why their aging >>>> populations have similar diseases at similar rates as ours. >>> >>> Actually it is based on comparative studies, normalizing factors. >> >> No, it isn't. Established. >>>> <...> >>>> >>>>> I also have an agenda to protect habitat. The little bit of >>>>> habitat is being destroyed, largely for meat production. >>>> >>>> Ipse dixit and false. The "factory farms" you rail against mean that >>>> it takes significantly LESS land to raise MORE animals than it did >>>> in the past. >>> >>> One can produce far more food if we use a vegetarian diet >> >> Ipse dixit and who cares. People want meat. You want to forbid them >> from eating it. Why do you insist everyone adopt your peculiar diet >> for your peculiar, pseudoscience-driven reasons? Answer this. >>> Ok, for some URLs, I go to the Union of Corncerned Scientists >>> >>> http://www.ucsusa.org/search.cfm?cri...&submit=Search >>> >>> Antibiotics: >>> Animals that are fed antibiotics for most of their lives develop high >>> levels of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in their guts. >> >> Not all animals are given antibiotics, and not all are given >> antibiotics for "most of their lives." http://beef-mag.com/mag/beef_prudent_antibiotics/ http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20030628/food.asp Etc. >>> If these bacteria find their way to humans, >> >> Tell me an instance in which they have, particularly from eating meat. Waiting... >> <...> >> >>> While strict vegetarians need not worry about becoming infected by >>> bacteria in uncooked or undercooked meat, >> >> Most people needn't worry. The risks are marginal. More people are >> infected from contaminated produce than from meat yet you never hear >> meat eaters telling vegetarians to avoid vegetables. >> >> <...> >> >>> http://www.gaia.be/nl/factsheet/adap1197.html >> >> The website for Groupe d'Action dans l'Intérêt des Animaux -- an AR >> activist site. Imagine that. >> >> <snip acivist propaganda> >> >>> It's much easier to be heathier as a vegetarian, >> >> Ipse dixit. The ADA, AHA, and other health-oriented organizations >> disagree with you. They only offer qualified support of vegetarianism >> because it's a diet which starts out with a list of deficiencies. >> >>> it's certainly environmentally sounder, >> >> Ipse dixit. Monoculture cropping is not environmentally sound. >> >>> and as the Union of Concerned Scientists back my statements on >>> antibiotics. >> >> No, they don't. And UCS is a primarily lay group (over 90% of their >> members are non-scientists), not a group of actual scientists. >> >> <...> > > And of course Kessler institute is a private corporation which has nothing to do with the issue at hand. |
|
|||
|
|||
Beach Runner wrote:
>>> I want to add a pointer describing were Dr. Kessler was voted the top >>> professor. > > He's not listed this year. I see that. He's only been a CLINICAL INSTRUCTOR, not a professor there as you falsely claimed. A clinical instructor is nothing like a professor. I found a job description at another medical college (Missouri). Provide classroom instruction to medical students, resident physicians, faculty and staff in department-specific Medical Informatics, conduct related research, and provide support in Medical Informatics to faculty and staff. Requires Master’s degree in Medical Informatics or equivalent Master’s level degree. http://radiology.muhealth.org/new_Ra...ruct_posit.htm Note that the qualifications to teach are as they would be for teaching in any general undergraduate college course: a Master's degree. >> Appealing to authority and entirely irrelevant to the matter at hand. >> >>> http://www.aecom.yu.edu/home/admissions/Default.htm >> >> You'll learn that Kessler's not listed if you search the medical >> college's faculty directory. >> >> No Records Found with Last Name containing "KESSLER" >> http://tinyurl.com/79hwr BTW, I double-checked to see if George Kessler was mentioned in that Kessler Institute link you had in the other post I just replied: it doesn't. Apparently your Dr Kessler is not even affiliated with that organization. You fool. >> <...> >> >>> As far as not quoting everything in your posts, >> >> It's not the not quoting, it's the deliberate snipping. >> >>> they are long, >> >> Which should make it NO PROBLEM for you to leave everything in instead >> of snipping everything out. >> >>> insulting >> >> Not at all. You just don't want to be challenged to prove your >> peculiar points. >> >>> and rambling. >> >> This is the first time anyone has accused me of rambling. Ironically, >> it's from the twit who can't stick to proving his issues and instead >> tries to swear for the _bona fides_ of the people he considers "experts." >> >>> I focused on several issues you point out. >> >> No, you didn't focus and you didn't address the issues. >> >>> You called George Kessler a quack. >> >> Yes, and with good reason. He's not a medical doctor, he's an >> osteopath. He's not a professor at AE College of Medicine at Yeshiva >> University in NY. > > He has been, there and other places. His ONLY listed professorship has been at an OSTEOPATHIC college, not at a REAL medical school. >>> The number 1 medical school in NY >> >> That "number 1" medical school doesn't show him to be in their employ. >> >>> disagrees with your findings. >> >> How do they disagree with my "findings"? They're not vouching for him, >> YOU are. >> >>> And he was voted the best professor at a Medical School. >> >> Was he really? And just who voted for him -- esteemed fellow faculty >> members (of which he's currently not one) or students? The only >> information I can find linking him to AE is that he's been a clinical >> instructor there (dittos for Cornell). Not a professor. > > The students voted for him. Of course. Teacher of the semester. That tells us about his popularity among students (perhaps he's an easy grader), not about his credentials. Stop padding the guy's resume because you're only weakening your case each time you do. > Apparently he's not there now. No shit. He never was a professor there. You were wrong. > You're right As usual. > his been at Cornell as well. AS A CLINICAL INSTRUCTOR. NOT AS A PROFESSOR. > Do they hire quacks? Apparently, they do. > Obviously he's more concerned these days with his Foundation. Which one is that? > I don't follow his personal life. I'm not interested in his PERSONAL life. I want to know his PROFESSIONAL qualifications. Thus far, you've repeatedly lied about them. > You'll find in the osteoperosis group many > people go to his center. The one in NYC where he practices? > It also makes no difference, if you read the book it is well cited. I don't give a shit if it has two-million citations, I want to know how credible they are. You don't care about their credibility, you just care that it has footnotes. >>> I also focused >> >> >> You're incapable of focusing. > > That's just a plain insult. No, it's true. >>> on your dismissal of antibiotics in factory farming. >> >> I didn't dismiss it, you ****. I've addressed it several times. You >> used a UCS statement on the subject to imply that all livestock are >> given antibiotics for their entire lives. I responded: >> >> Not all animals are given antibiotics, and not all are given >> antibiotics for "most of their lives." > > In general, > American livestock are still given antibiotics their whole lives. Bullshit. So what's the bottom-line? Scanning back over the 13 guides, you'll note that prudent drug use equates to good animal husbandry, sound business practices and using drugs legally. This is nothing new for responsible cattlemen. http://beef-mag.com/mag/beef_prudent_antibiotics/ See also: http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20030628/food.asp > That actually offers an opportunity for "fram raised meat". I think you need a gibberish interpreter. WTF is that supposed to mean? >> Accordingly, I don't understand why those who desire to consume meat >> should take your non-issue and use it as a reason. After all, there >> are plenty of producers who use NO antibiotics prophylactically (only >> when animals are acutely ill) and some who refuse to use them at all. >> UCS acknowledges this fact by lauding fastfood chains for getting >> their meat supplies from such "sustainable" producers. They do NOT >> tell everyone to avoid all meat because some meat is from animals >> given antibiotics. You're too stupid to comprehend the difference. >> >> BTW, I'm convinced that Phil Hendrie bases his "News Even Football >> Players Can Understand" on you. That or you're the one voice he's not impersonating. >>> Your dismissal of this practice >> >> I don't dismiss the practice. I disagree that the problem is as >> pervasive as you claim it is, and I disagree that the Chicken Littles >> of the world should determine what other people do, think, eat, or drink. >> >>> is more than controversial, >> >> No, it is not. >> >>> and other countries, >> >> Appealing to authority or popularity, take your pick. Either way, I >> don't give a shit what other countries do. I don't live in them. > > You snipped out the research the references to Denmark. It wasn't research. >>> and even my own doctor agrees with it. >> >> Appealing to authority. I'm not impressed by your doctor, much less >> that he would agree with you on the basis of junk science. I've >> conceded previous to this thread that antibiotic use in livestock >> should be reduced -- and it is being reduced. Producers understand the >> issue quite well, and certainly better than a half-baked twit like you >> who claims to have a graduate degree from an Ivy League university >> (but who cannot write a coherent sentence to save his life). >> > Another insult. And yes I have a MA from Columbia. No, you do not. >>> He is unusual as being both a Medical Doctor and having a degree in >>> nutrition. >> >> That is NOT unusual. > > He has spoken It is NOT unusual. >> <...> >> >>> So the subject is still very obviously in the scientific community. > > Antiobiotics in meat producing deadly germs. No, antibiotics kill deadly germs. You twit. A substance, such as penicillin or streptomycin, produced by or derived from certain fungi, bacteria, and other organisms, that can destroy or inhibit the growth of other microorganisms. Antibiotics are widely used in the prevention and treatment of infectious diseases. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/antibiotic >> Very obviously what? Many things are "in the scientific community," >> including cold fusion. That doesn't make it valid, particularly when >> the most vocal people about certain issues are activists. And don't >> lose sight of the fact that UCS is an ACTIVIST group -- with over 90% >> of their membership being non-scientists -- not a science group. >> >>> Or are you also one of the people who call Global Warming Junk Science? >> >> I think a lot of the hysteria about global warming is *based* on junk >> science. > > Global warming is a real danger we are facing. No, it's the latest spin by former advocates of global COOLING. Their only consistency has been their opposition to free markets and their advocacy of high taxation and collectivization. There is no science supporting the hypotheses that the earth is overheating. http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3400 http://www.canadafreepress.com/2003/inter061603.htm http://www.sitewave.net/news/ Etc. >>> As far as you not being clever, the subject of this post, you are >>> obviously highly intelligent and clever. >> >> For once, you are correct. >> >>> I clearly point out my agenda. >> >> No, you bumble and stumble and raise irrelevant issues, rely on >> logical fallacies, etc. >> >>> Your attitude however ruins discussions on the issues of a vegan >>> diets in society. >> >> No, be honest about your real complaint: you object to scrutiny of >> your beliefs. You don't want to be challenged. >> >>> That's what this group is about, but you use it in a bizarre way. >> >> I want people to spread the truth instead of lies and distortions and >> fantasies. Imagine that. > > No you don't. Yes, I do. That's why I tirelessly correct your rampant errors. > If you go to a VEGAN group you would discuss veganism. That's what I'm doing now. >>> You have also stated you don't care about the suffering of animals. >> >> Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the nature of this newsgroup. >> Regardless, I care a lot more about the suffering of people than I do >> about animals (and I do like animals). >> >>> Why are you here then? >> >> In the pursuit of truth and knowledge, which is foreign to vegan >> activists like you. >> >> <...> > > Another personal attack. No, I'm just repeating the truth and it happens to hurt you. |
|
|||
|
|||
usual suspect wrote: > Beach Runner wrote: > >>>>>> I was not always a vegetarian. I highly suggest all parents read >>>>>> the bone density diet. >>> >>> >>> Stop snipping the part of my posts to which you're replying, dipshit. >>> >>>> I'll just reply to this disparagy to Dr. Kessler, Professor of Medicine >>> >>> >>> Appealing to authority. >>> http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/aa.htm >>> >>> Kessler is an OSTEOPATH, not a medical doctor. >> >> >> His choice because he believes in holistic science. > > > Osteopaths are NOT medical doctors. They do not practice medical > science. They practice some accepted modalities for treating patients, > and they also practice some quackery. I've yet to meet a medical doctor > who doesn't treat the whole person rather than symptoms or disease and I > think it's highly arrogant for osteopaths to suggest they're the only > ones who do that. It doesn't surprise me that such arrogance would > appeal to you because vegans are guilty of the same kind of arrogance > when they suggest their diet is more humane than any other. > >> The fact is Dr. Kessler teaches an Albert Einstein institute of Medicine, > > > No, he does not. He was a clinical instructor. You claimed he was a > professor. His only professorship has been at a college of OSTEOPATHY, > not a college of MEDICINE. > > <...> > >> Osteopath's are fully recognized in the US. > > > No apostrophe; that shows possession, not plurality. Osteopaths. And > their recognition isn't national, it's state by state like other > professional licensing. State "recognition" doesn't lend legitimacy to > their practice. After all, many states also "recognize" and license > Oriental medicine, massage therapy, reflexology, chiropractic, and a > number of other alternative therapies. > >>> http://www.quackwatch.org/04Consumer.../QA/osteo.html >>> >>>> and leading expert on Osteoperosis. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Appealing to authority. >>> http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/aa.htm >>> >>> He's written a popular press book about the subject. He is not a >>> researcher, he's not published in peer-reviewed journals, etc. The >>> book you recommend people read is offered primarily on alternative >>> medicine sites and vegetarian sites. >> >> >> Like Amazon.com > > > Amazon carries EVERYTHING. That doesn't make Kessler's book special. > >> But also recommended by many endocrinologists. > > > *Some* endocrinologists. > >> Both my brother (a non vegetarian patent attorney and I both have it. > > > Didn't the list of risk factors I posted yesterday say that genetics > plays a role? > >> Hardly female. > > > You're girlish. > And you're not mean spirited? You're simply an asshole who deserves to get his ass kicked. CAn you do 15 pull-ups and run a 10 K at 7 minute miles at age 70 while NOT being thin? Would you be willing to prove it? >> Our calcium levels are high. By the way to be a Patent Attorney, it >> is the only field of law that requires a degree in science. > > > *NO*. The USPTO requirements include scientific training, but they don't > require a science degree. The requirements include degrees in areas > pertaining to computers and technology. See page six of the following link. > > http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dco...grb17feb05.pdf > >> He was a a scientist prior to being an attorney. He did a lot of >> research. > > > Too bad you haven't. **** you. I was a science teacher, prior to being in the computer industry for the last 20 years. > >>>> It's not pseudoscience. >>> >>> >>> Ipse dixit. >>> >>>>> It's based on pseudoscience. >>>>> >>>>>> The giving of soda and excess proteins to children should be >>>>>> outlawed, >>>> >>>> >> >> It is well cited. > > > So what? Citations are only as meaningful as the inferences drawn from > the data from the sources cited. It's not how many citations one has in > his book, it's how apropos they are. > >> George Kessler is considered an expert and leading researcher in the >> field. > > > Then name ONE study he authored or co-authored on the subject. Go on. > Get with it. I spent over half an hour sorting through searches to see > if he had. I couldn't find any. > >>>>> I knew you were an authoritarian zealot. Thanks for proving it. >>>> >>>> You have proven to be nothing more than an asshole with a vocabulary. Read about the Kessler institute you fool. >>>> >>>> >>>> We have an epedemic of osteoperosis in our society. >>> >>> >>> Epidemic? No. We have a large aging population. >> >> >> Actually it is an epidemic. > > > Ipse dixit. > >> And not only among the aging. > > > Strawman. I never wrote "only among the aging." I've quoted sources, > though, which say it's PRIMARILY among the aging. > >> And it is increasing in societies adopting western food. > > > You mean in societies adopting modern medical technology and thereby > increasing longevity. > >> Dexa scans of course find many cases previously unrecognized. > > > You're overstating the use of DEXA. DEXA only gives a relative risk of > fracture for a given area of bone. > >>> Certain people are more likely to develop osteoporosis than >>> others. Factors that increase the likelihood of developing >>> osteoporosis are called "risk factors." The following risk >>> factors have been identified: >>> >>> Being female >>> Thin and/or small frame >>> *Advanced age* >>> A family history of osteoporosis >>> Postmenopause, including early or surgically induced menopause >>> Abnormal absence of menstrual periods (amenorrhea) >>> Anorexia nervosa or bulimia >>> A diet low in calcium >>> Use of certain medications, such as corticosteroids and >>> anticonvulsants >>> Low testosterone levels in men > > > That's probably true for you. How much soy do you eat, numbnuts? > >>> An inactive lifestyle >>> Cigarette smoking >>> Excessive use of alcohol >>> Being Caucasian or Asian, although African Americans and >>> Hispanic Americans are at significant risk as well >>> http://www.osteo.org/osteofastfact.html >>> >>>> I cited the leading authority in the field. >>> >>> >>> Appealing to authority. He is NOT the leading authority in the field. >>> He's popular among new agers, vegetarians, and the alternative >>> quackery, I mean alternative medicine, crowds (or crowd since there >>> is a lot of overlap between them). >>> >>>> Not a quack. >> >> >> Is Albert Einstein a quack institute? > > > He's not tenured there. Never has been. > >> You called a highly credentialed, > > > I question his credentials. > >> recognized > > > I don't recognize him as an expert. He's written a pop book, and I've > been unable to find one instance in which he's listed as an author for > any research. > >> doctor a quack. > > > An osteopathic quack. > >>> Yes, a quack. An osteopath. >>> >>>> The leader in the field. >>> >>> >>> Find me something that notes his research instead of his popular >>> press book on the subject. Twit. > > > Waiting... > >>>>>> if one understands how bones are developed >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You don't. >>> >>> >>> Established. >>> >>>>>> and we have an epidemic of osteoporosis in our society. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Because of our longevity. People didn't live long enough for >>>>> malignancies to develop or for their bones to become brittle >>>>> because they normally died in their 30s, 40s, and 50s. >>>> >>>> >>>> That's your opinon. >>> >>> >>> No, it's leading consensus of real osteoporosis experts. >>> >>> http://www-medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPa.../OSTEOPOR.html > > > HELLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO?! > >>> <...> >>> >>>>>> Interestingly, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It's of no interest to informed persons. >>>>> >>>>>> in societies that don't drink dairy or soda, osteoporosis is >>>>>> virtually unknown. ( of course that's changing with globalization). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> No, you bumbling twit, it's because they're starting to live longer >>>>> because they now have access to medical technology. That's why >>>>> their cancer rates are exploding and rivaling ours. That's why >>>>> their aging populations have similar diseases at similar rates as >>>>> ours. >>>> >>>> >>>> Actually it is based on comparative studies, normalizing factors. >>> >>> >>> No, it isn't. > > > Established. > >>>>> <...> >>>>> >>>>>> I also have an agenda to protect habitat. The little bit of >>>>>> habitat is being destroyed, largely for meat production. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Ipse dixit and false. The "factory farms" you rail against mean >>>>> that it takes significantly LESS land to raise MORE animals than it >>>>> did in the past. >>>> >>>> >>>> One can produce far more food if we use a vegetarian diet >>> >>> >>> Ipse dixit and who cares. People want meat. You want to forbid them >>> from eating it. Why do you insist everyone adopt your peculiar diet >>> for your peculiar, pseudoscience-driven reasons? > > > Answer this. > >>>> Ok, for some URLs, I go to the Union of Corncerned Scientists >>>> >>>> http://www.ucsusa.org/search.cfm?cri...&submit=Search >>>> >>>> Antibiotics: >>>> Animals that are fed antibiotics for most of their lives develop >>>> high levels of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in their guts. >>> >>> >>> Not all animals are given antibiotics, and not all are given >>> antibiotics for "most of their lives." > > > http://beef-mag.com/mag/beef_prudent_antibiotics/ > http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20030628/food.asp > Etc. > >>>> If these bacteria find their way to humans, >>> >>> >>> Tell me an instance in which they have, particularly from eating meat. > > > Waiting... > >>> <...> >>> >>>> While strict vegetarians need not worry about becoming infected by >>>> bacteria in uncooked or undercooked meat, >>> >>> >>> Most people needn't worry. The risks are marginal. More people are >>> infected from contaminated produce than from meat yet you never hear >>> meat eaters telling vegetarians to avoid vegetables. >>> >>> <...> >>> >>>> http://www.gaia.be/nl/factsheet/adap1197.html >>> >>> >>> The website for Groupe d'Action dans l'Intérêt des Animaux -- an AR >>> activist site. Imagine that. >>> >>> <snip acivist propaganda> >>> >>>> It's much easier to be heathier as a vegetarian, >>> >>> >>> Ipse dixit. The ADA, AHA, and other health-oriented organizations >>> disagree with you. They only offer qualified support of vegetarianism >>> because it's a diet which starts out with a list of deficiencies. >>> >>>> it's certainly environmentally sounder, >>> >>> >>> Ipse dixit. Monoculture cropping is not environmentally sound. >>> >>>> and as the Union of Concerned Scientists back my statements on >>>> antibiotics. >>> >>> >>> No, they don't. And UCS is a primarily lay group (over 90% of their >>> members are non-scientists), not a group of actual scientists. >>> >>> <...> >> >> >> And of course Kessler institute > > > is a private corporation which has nothing to do with the issue at hand. |
|
|||
|
|||
usual suspect wrote: >>> No, because vegans aren't useful. This is the vegan newsgroups, you so haunt. >>> >> Of course it would be useful for vegans. And of course the American >> Heart Association and American Dietary Association and American Cancer >> Society have all endorsed vegetarian diets. > They've endorsed them, of course there are qualifications. > > No, they have not. You started these lies with UCS back in December. I > showed you that UCS supports sustainable meat production. Nowhere on > their site to they advocate vegetarianism. > They are not lies. The meat production industry is full of lies. If the British had stopped giving their cows outlawed feed, there'd be no new cases of Mad Cow disease. How did we get a recent example of Mad Cow disease? Feeding the animals the source of the disease was against the law. > The ADA and AHA do NOT recommend vegetarian diets. They both offer > qualified support for well-planned vegetarian diets. Both organizations > recommend healthier eating choices whether one eats meat and/or dairy or > not. > Nothing is unqualified. You could eat potato chips, candy and soda and call it a vegan diet. How much is too much meat? How much risk is mad cow disease? Do you thin the ADA isn't covering it u for financial reasons. Why wouldn't they let a large farm do their own testing of each animal to conform to Japanese laws so they could export? Doesn't that raise your suspicions? They had all the testing equipment to satisfy exporting to Japan but the UDA wouldn't let them. Why? You're constant insults have reached their end. You have destroyed this group. It's a vegan group. Why don't you start a group about arguing? > It is the position of the American Dietetic Association and > Dietitians of Canada that *appropriately planned* vegetarian > diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and provide health > benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. > http://www.eatright.org/Public/Gover...airs/17084.cfm > > That's not a generalized recommendation. Their general recommendation is > that **ANY** food can be incorporated into a healthful plan. > > It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that all > foods can fit into a healthful eating style. The ADA strives to > communicate healthful eating messages to the public that > emphasize the total diet, or overall pattern of food eaten, > rather than any one food or meal. If consumed in moderation with > appropriate portion size and combined with regular physical > activity, all foods can fit into a healthful diet. > http://www.eatright.org/Member/Polic...ndex_21027.cfm > > I've already shown you that the AHA does NOT recommend vegetarianism. > They offer the same qualified support as the ADA and have the same > position that ALL foods can be incorporated into a healthy plan. Look at > their plan at the following link. Read the Eating Plan Tips as well as > the parts about Meat..., Eggs, and Milk Products. > > http://www.americanheart.org/present...dentifier=1088 > >>>> For what it's worth, It's much easier to eat a vegan centered healthy diet than a typical American diet. Yes, I agree, a meat eating diet could be made much healthier. >>> >>> >>> About zero-cents. To be honest, YOU should have to pay everyone who >>> has to read through your semi-literate posts for their time. So it's >>> worth less than zero-cents. >> >> >> No comment, I have an ivy league graduate degree. > > > I don't believe you. Well I do. >>>> I've been a vegan for 30 years, have sons that have gone through >>>> college as lifelong vegetarians. >>> >>> >>> Yes, you've told us all about the one who nearly died in a car crash >>> with his young manfriend. >> >> >> No, he was in a crash with a group of cousins. Get your facts straight. > > > Get yours straight. > >> He never recovered. He was hurt horribly. > > > Veganism didn't help him much then, did it. > I doubt being thrown from the window after being hit by a truck that ran a stop sign really made that much of a difference. His younger non vegetarian cousin died. >>>> One was a Georgia top 5 wrestler, >>> >>> >>> Wrestling is homo-erotic. Those who enjoy watching oiled young men >>> rolling on the floor with each other are closet homosexuals. Did you >>> watch your boy roll on the floor with handsome, fit lads? >> >> >> High school and college wrestling is a sport. > > > Two pubescent sweaty boys rolling on the floor in tights, holding each > other tightly, is not sport. Especially when one spreads his legs and > wraps them around the other lad. Did you enjoy watching your boy spread > his legs and hold another male in them tightly? > >> He has a girlfriend. > > > As I said, in the closet. > He's not in the closet. You're making false personal accusations. You deserve a punch in the face for that personal false accusation. >> He was recruited to wrestle because he was the best athlete in his >> school and was very successful. It's an Olympic sport. > > > Popularized by the Greeks, who also popularized anal sex and man-boy love. > Wrestling is older than the Greeks, just is was an Olympic sport. They also did javelin throwing, is that homo erotic? >> And even if he was, all you do is spread bias. > > > You think I spread bias, but at least I don't spread my LEGS for anyone > like your son did. > >>>> American Legion Pitcher, and a State Cup Soccer Player. >>> >>> >>> So are many more youngsters who have the nerve to eat meat. Go figure. >> True. Most youth are obese and candidates for future diseases. >> >> True. But they also have higher incidences of cancer and heart disease >> later in life. > > > Ipse dixit. ALL groups, regardless of race, diet, or any other factor, > develop malignancies and heart disease as they age. That includes > vegetarians. You are not immortal. > They have lower incidences of card vascular diseases all things being equal. A healthy low meat, scientifically conceived diet that includes exercise is healthier than a junk food vegan diet. >> All it shows is that a healthy vegan diet can promote a longer diet, >> but can produce great athletes. Like Carl Young. > > > Do you mean Carl *LEWIS*? You're right, and I made a mistake. Thank you What about Lance Armstrong? He consumes meat. He's amazing. He actually believes that lack of upper body development has given him an advantage. He also has a huge technological advantage. The man is a true hero. I think we can share our admiration for his incredible testimony to the human spirit. > It hasn't affected his ability to overcome testicular cancer (meat > played NO role in that) and win six (seven!) consecutive Tours de > France. Healthy diets can include meat. The ADA, AHA, and other > health-oriented organizations ALL agree on that point. > >> Then there is the very real issue that the meat industry is pumping >> animals with antibiotics, creating antibiotic germs. > > > You did NOT attend an Ivy League university. There are > antibiotic-resistant bacteria, but "antibiotic germs" is oxymoronic. > Anti-biotic means "against life," specifically against bacteria. > I think germs refers to bacteria as well as viruses. Of course antibiotics affects only bacteria and the misuse of antibiotics every time a child had a cold has a virus. I have a Masters from Columbia University and advanced studies elsewhere. >> This is a very dangerous situation. > > > Ignorance is a more dangerous situation and you have more than your fair > share of it. You should tend to that first. > >> And the use and growth of factory farmed animals wastes huge amounts >> of water, a valuable resource. > > > Where did you acquire this bit of misinformation? It's in many sources. Here's one > According to a paper published in Bioscience, an estimated 12,000 gallons of water are required to return just one pound of beef, but merely 250 gallons of water are required to produce a pound of soy. The humble potato requires just 62.5 gallons of water per pound of crop. That makes beef 50 times more costly than soy and 200 times more costly than potatoes in water use.[5] and > Intensive factory farms and concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) often use manure lagoons and “deep pit” manure handling systems that result in massive storage systems that impact ground water supplies. Nitrates, pathogens and salts from manure contaminate ground water as lagoons and pits leach their content into formerly pristine water sources used for municipal water supplies, wells, crop irrigation and by producers of bottled water. In 2001, the EPA ordered Seaboard Farms, a major pork producer, to supply safe drinking water to families near five hog factories in Oklahoma, concluding that leaking waste from the intensive operations created dangerously high nitrate levels in ground water tapped for area wells.[14] > 5. Pimentel, D. and others “Water Resources: Agriculture, the Environment and Society” Bioscience 42: 97-106, 1997 and Compassion in World Farming Trust, Factory Farming and the Environment, October, 1999, http://www.ciwf.co.uk/Pubs/Reports/ff_and_envir.pdf 10. Washington Post, U.S. Warns Of Parasite In Tap Water, June 16, 19 Easily found with a google search. You could go to http://www.all-creatures.org/mhvs/nl...sp-theenv.html Oh but wait, going to a vegan resource page is somehow against your principals in a vegan group? |
|
|||
|
|||
"Beach Runner" > wrote in message . .. > > > usual suspect wrote: snippage... >>> And the use and growth of factory farmed animals wastes huge >>> amounts of water, a valuable resource. >> >> > > >> Where did you acquire this bit of misinformation? > > It's in many sources. > > Here's one > >> According to a paper published in Bioscience, an estimated >> 12,000 gallons of water are required to return just one pound >> of beef, but merely 250 gallons of water are required to >> produce a pound of soy. The humble potato requires just 62.5 >> gallons of water per pound of crop. That makes beef 50 times >> more costly than soy and 200 times more costly than potatoes >> in water use.[5] =============== potatoes kill.. http://www.pmac.net/fishkill.htm http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html Here, put your masters degree to use. According to the USGS there is a total of 408,000 Mgal/day of water withdrawals from all sources, fresh and salt, 35% of which is used for irrigation and livestock production. Task one, figure total water used for all uses per year. http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/totpie95.html In 2002, there was 27,000,000,000 pounds of beef produced. http://www.ers.usda.gov/news/BSECoverage.htm At 12,000 gallons of water per pound... task two, what's the total. Task three, where's all the water come from? Manna from heaven to beef to producers only? > and >> Intensive factory farms and concentrated animal feeding >> operations (CAFOs) often use manure lagoons and “deep pit” >> manure handling systems that result in massive storage systems >> that impact ground water supplies. Nitrates, pathogens and >> salts from manure contaminate ground water as lagoons and pits >> leach their content into formerly pristine water sources used >> for municipal water supplies, wells, crop irrigation and by >> producers of bottled water. In 2001, the EPA ordered Seaboard >> Farms, a major pork producer, to supply safe drinking water to >> families near five hog factories in Oklahoma, concluding that >> leaking waste from the intensive operations created >> dangerously high nitrate levels in ground water tapped for >> area wells.[14] >> 5. Pimentel, D. and others “Water Resources: Agriculture, the >> Environment and Society” Bioscience 42: 97-106, 1997 and >> Compassion in World Farming Trust, Factory Farming and the >> Environment, October, 1999, >> http://www.ciwf.co.uk/Pubs/Reports/ff_and_envir.pdf > 10. Washington Post, U.S. Warns Of Parasite In Tap Water, June > 16, 19 > > Easily found with a google search. > > > You could go to > http://www.all-creatures.org/mhvs/nl...sp-theenv.html > > Oh but wait, going to a vegan resource page is somehow against > your principals in a vegan group? > > > > > > |
|
|||
|
|||
Beach Runner wrote: > > > usual suspect wrote: > >> Beach Runner wrote: >> >>>>>>> I was not always a vegetarian. I highly suggest all parents read >>>>>>> the bone density diet. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Stop snipping the part of my posts to which you're replying, dipshit. >>>> >>>>> I'll just reply to this disparagy to Dr. Kessler, Professor of >>>>> Medicine >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Appealing to authority. >>>> http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/aa.htm >>>> >>>> Kessler is an OSTEOPATH, not a medical doctor. >>> >>> >>> >>> His choice because he believes in holistic science. >> >> >> >> Osteopaths are NOT medical doctors. They do not practice medical >> science. They practice some accepted modalities for treating patients, >> and they also practice some quackery. I've yet to meet a medical >> doctor who doesn't treat the whole person rather than symptoms or >> disease and I think it's highly arrogant for osteopaths to suggest >> they're the only ones who do that. It doesn't surprise me that such >> arrogance would appeal to you because vegans are guilty of the same >> kind of arrogance when they suggest their diet is more humane than any >> other. >> >>> The fact is Dr. Kessler teaches an Albert Einstein institute of >>> Medicine, >> >> >> >> No, he does not. He was a clinical instructor. You claimed he was a >> professor. His only professorship has been at a college of OSTEOPATHY, >> not a college of MEDICINE. >> >> <...> >> >>> Osteopath's are fully recognized in the US. >> >> Thank you for that correction. >> >> No apostrophe; that shows possession, not plurality. Osteopaths. And >> their recognition isn't national, it's state by state like other >> professional licensing. State "recognition" doesn't lend legitimacy to >> their practice. After all, many states also "recognize" and license >> Oriental medicine, massage therapy, reflexology, chiropractic, and a >> number of other alternative therapies. You're right. Each state offers their own licenses. >> >>>> http://www.quackwatch.org/04Consumer.../QA/osteo.html >>>> >>>>> and leading expert on Osteoperosis. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Appealing to authority. >>>> http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/aa.htm >>>> >>>> He's written a popular press book about the subject. He is not a >>>> researcher, he's not published in peer-reviewed journals, etc. The >>>> book you recommend people read is offered primarily on alternative >>>> medicine sites and vegetarian sites. >>> >>> >>> >>> Like Amazon.com >> >> >> >> Amazon carries EVERYTHING. That doesn't make Kessler's book special. >> >>> But also recommended by many endocrinologists. >> >> >> >> *Some* endocrinologists. >> >>> Both my brother (a non vegetarian patent attorney and I both have it. >> >> >> >> Didn't the list of risk factors I posted yesterday say that genetics >> plays a role? >> >>> Hardly female. >> >> >> >> You're girlish. >> > And you're not mean spirited? You're simply an asshole who deserves to > get his ass kicked. CAn you do 15 pull-ups and run a 10 K at 7 minute > miles at age 70 while NOT being thin? Would you be willing to prove it? > Excuse me that was age 50 >>> Our calcium levels are high. By the way to be a Patent Attorney, it >>> is the only field of law that requires a degree in science. >> >> >> >> *NO*. The USPTO requirements include scientific training, but they >> don't require a science degree. The requirements include degrees in >> areas pertaining to computers and technology. See page six of the >> following link. >> >> http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dco...grb17feb05.pdf >> >>> He was a a scientist prior to being an attorney. He did a lot of >>> research. >> >> >> >> Too bad you haven't. > > > **** you. I was a science teacher, prior to being in the computer > industry for the last 20 years. > >> >>>>> It's not pseudoscience. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Ipse dixit. >>>> >>>>>> It's based on pseudoscience. >>>>>> >>>>>>> The giving of soda and excess proteins to children should be >>>>>>> outlawed, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> It is well cited. >> >> >> >> So what? Citations are only as meaningful as the inferences drawn from >> the data from the sources cited. It's not how many citations one has >> in his book, it's how apropos they are. >> >>> George Kessler is considered an expert and leading researcher in the >>> field. >> >> >> >> Then name ONE study he authored or co-authored on the subject. Go on. >> Get with it. I spent over half an hour sorting through searches to see >> if he had. I couldn't find any. I'll try and find ne later. Still his books are highly recommended by osteoporosis doctors. >> >>>>>> I knew you were an authoritarian zealot. Thanks for proving it. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> > > You have proven to be nothing more than an asshole with a vocabulary. > Read about the Kessler institute you fool. > > >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> We have an epedemic of osteoperosis in our society. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Epidemic? No. We have a large aging population. >>> >>> >>> >>> Actually it is an epidemic. >> >> >> >> Ipse dixit. >> >>> And not only among the aging. >> >> >> >> Strawman. I never wrote "only among the aging." I've quoted sources, >> though, which say it's PRIMARILY among the aging. >> According to the NY Times male osteoporosis is much more common than previously thought. >>> And it is increasing in societies adopting western food. >> >> >> >> You mean in societies adopting modern medical technology and thereby >> increasing longevity. Yes, along with obesity, diabetes at ages not seen before >> >>> Dexa scans of course find many cases previously unrecognized. >> >> >> >> You're overstating the use of DEXA. DEXA only gives a relative risk of >> fracture for a given area of bone. It provides a bone density and a Z score. Can you recommend a better test? >> >>>> Certain people are more likely to develop osteoporosis than >>>> others. Factors that increase the likelihood of developing >>>> osteoporosis are called "risk factors." The following risk >>>> factors have been identified: >>>> >>>> Being female >>>> Thin and/or small frame >>>> *Advanced age* >>>> A family history of osteoporosis >>>> Postmenopause, including early or surgically induced menopause >>>> Abnormal absence of menstrual periods (amenorrhea) >>>> Anorexia nervosa or bulimia >>>> A diet low in calcium >>>> Use of certain medications, such as corticosteroids and >>>> anticonvulsants >>>> Low testosterone levels in men >> >> >> >> That's probably true for you. How much soy do you eat, numbnuts? I use a lot of soy products. My calcium levels are very high, but that is a straw man as calcium is so necessary, your body will steal calcium levels from your bones. They do 24 urine test, to determine if you eat enough calcium. I do. >> >>>> An inactive lifestyle >>>> Cigarette smoking >>>> Excessive use of alcohol >>>> Being Caucasian or Asian, although African Americans and >>>> Hispanic Americans are at significant risk as well >>>> http://www.osteo.org/osteofastfact.html >>>> >>>>> I cited the leading authority in the field. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Appealing to authority. He is NOT the leading authority in the >>>> field. He's popular among new agers, vegetarians, and the >>>> alternative quackery, I mean alternative medicine, crowds (or crowd >>>> since there is a lot of overlap between them). >>>> >>>>> Not a quack. >>> >>> >>> >>> Is Albert Einstein a quack institute? >> >> >> >> He's not tenured there. Never has been. >> >>> You called a highly credentialed, >> >> >> >> I question his credentials. >> That's your prejudice. In both NY State where he practices and Florida he is fully qualified, including having hospital rights. >>> recognized >> >> >> >> I don't recognize him as an expert. He's written a pop book, and I've >> been unable to find one instance in which he's listed as an author for >> any research. >> >>> doctor a quack. >> >> >> >> An osteopathic quack. >> >>>> Yes, a quack. An osteopath. >>>> >>>>> The leader in the field. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Find me something that notes his research instead of his popular >>>> press book on the subject. Twit. >> >> >> >> Waiting... >> >>>>>>> if one understands how bones are developed >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> You don't. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Established. >>>> How would you know? >>>>>>> and we have an epidemic of osteoporosis in our society. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Because of our longevity. People didn't live long enough for >>>>>> malignancies to develop or for their bones to become brittle >>>>>> because they normally died in their 30s, 40s, and 50s. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> That's your opinon. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> No, it's leading consensus of real osteoporosis experts. >>>> >>>> http://www-medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPa.../OSTEOPOR.html >> >> >> >> HELLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO?! >> >>>> <...> >>>> >>>>>>> Interestingly, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It's of no interest to informed persons. >>>>>> >>>>>>> in societies that don't drink dairy or soda, osteoporosis is >>>>>>> virtually unknown. ( of course that's changing with globalization). >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> No, you bumbling twit, it's because they're starting to live >>>>>> longer because they now have access to medical technology. That's >>>>>> why their cancer rates are exploding and rivaling ours. That's why >>>>>> their aging populations have similar diseases at similar rates as >>>>>> ours. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Actually it is based on comparative studies, normalizing factors. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> No, it isn't. >> >> >> >> Established. >> >>>>>> <...> >>>>>> >>>>>>> I also have an agenda to protect habitat. The little bit of >>>>>>> habitat is being destroyed, largely for meat production. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Ipse dixit and false. The "factory farms" you rail against mean >>>>>> that it takes significantly LESS land to raise MORE animals than >>>>>> it did in the past. >>>>> McDonalds, building vertical monopolies often is a leader in the destruction of rain forests. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> One can produce far more food if we use a vegetarian diet >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Ipse dixit and who cares. People want meat. You want to forbid them >>>> from eating it. Why do you insist everyone adopt your peculiar diet >>>> for your peculiar, pseudoscience-driven reasons? >> This is a vegan news group. Obviously we are vegan for many reasons. If you object to vegan, leave. >> >> >> Answer this. >> >>>>> Ok, for some URLs, I go to the Union of Corncerned Scientists >>>>> >>>>> http://www.ucsusa.org/search.cfm?cri...&submit=Search >>>>> >>>>> Antibiotics: >>>>> Animals that are fed antibiotics for most of their lives develop >>>>> high levels of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in their guts. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Not all animals are given antibiotics, and not all are given >>>> antibiotics for "most of their lives." >> >> >> >> http://beef-mag.com/mag/beef_prudent_antibiotics/ >> http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20030628/food.asp >> Etc. >> >>>>> If these bacteria find their way to humans, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Tell me an instance in which they have, particularly from eating meat. >> >> >> >> Waiting... >> >>>> <...> >>>> >>>>> While strict vegetarians need not worry about becoming infected by >>>>> bacteria in uncooked or undercooked meat, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Most people needn't worry. The risks are marginal. More people are >>>> infected from contaminated produce than from meat yet you never hear >>>> meat eaters telling vegetarians to avoid vegetables. >>>> >>>> <...> >>>> >>>>> http://www.gaia.be/nl/factsheet/adap1197.html >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The website for Groupe d'Action dans l'Intérêt des Animaux -- an AR >>>> activist site. Imagine that. >>>> >>>> <snip acivist propaganda> >>>> >>>>> It's much easier to be heathier as a vegetarian, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Ipse dixit. The ADA, AHA, and other health-oriented organizations >>>> disagree with you. They only offer qualified support of >>>> vegetarianism because it's a diet which starts out with a list of >>>> deficiencies. >>>> >>>>> it's certainly environmentally sounder, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Ipse dixit. Monoculture cropping is not environmentally sound. >>>> >>>>> and as the Union of Concerned Scientists back my statements on >>>>> antibiotics. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> No, they don't. And UCS is a primarily lay group (over 90% of their >>>> members are non-scientists), not a group of actual scientists. >>>> >>>> <...> >>> >>> >>> >>> And of course Kessler institute >> >> >> >> is a private corporation which has nothing to do with the issue at hand. In another note the dangers of antibiotics are still documented. And the fact that mad cow is still appearing proves that meat growers are not obeying the law. Giving antibiotics improves growth rates and margins. |
|
|||
|
|||
"usual suspect" > wrote in message:
> > IOW, you agree I'm correct. End of discussion. -------------------- End of discussion? You wish.... Nevertheless, it is good to see that you now accept that we actually agree with each other. That certainly wasn't the case earlier, when I first posted that AHA quote and you viscously attacked me for it. You were obviously under yet another of your false assumptions then, when you somehow wrongly assumed I was supporting "Beach Runner". Doh! Clearly, you must now realize that I actually posted that very pertinent AHA quote in support of your argument (since you neglected to do so because of another of your false assumptions). So will you now do the right thing and admit you were wrong for savagely attacking me earlier, and offer me your heart-felt apology for doing so? Then thank me for posting the relevant quote thereby correcting your oversight. You know you should.... Pertinent quote from American Heart Association website: "Many studies have shown that vegetarians seem to have a lower risk of obesity, coronary heart disease (which causes heart attack), high blood pressure, diabetes mellitus and some forms of cancer." -TW |
|
|||
|
|||
"Beach Runner" wrote (to "usual suspect"):
> > As far as you not being clever, the subject of this post, you are > > obviously highly intelligent and clever. --------------- Not to mention "modest"..... "usual suspect" wrote: > For once, you are correct. ------------- OOPS! -TW |
|
|||
|
|||
Beach Runner threatened:
<...> > You're simply an asshole who deserves to > get his ass kicked. You're not even man enough to try it. <...> |
|
|||
|
|||
Beach Runner threatened:
<...> > You deserve a punch in the face You don't have the 'nads to try it yourself. |
|
|||
|
|||
The **** wrote:
>>IOW, you agree I'm correct. End of discussion. > > -------------------- > End of discussion? Yes. |
|
|||
|
|||
"rick" > wrote in message ink.net... > > "Beach Runner" > wrote in message > . .. >> >> >> usual suspect wrote: > > > snippage... > > > >>>> And the use and growth of factory farmed animals wastes huge >>>> amounts of water, a valuable resource. >>> >>> >> >> >>> Where did you acquire this bit of misinformation? >> >> It's in many sources. >> >> Here's one >> >>> According to a paper published in Bioscience, an estimated >>> 12,000 gallons of water are required to return just one pound >>> of beef, but merely 250 gallons of water are required to >>> produce a pound of soy. The humble potato requires just 62.5 >>> gallons of water per pound of crop. That makes beef 50 times >>> more costly than soy and 200 times more costly than potatoes >>> in water use.[5] > =============== > potatoes kill.. > http://www.pmac.net/fishkill.htm > http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html > > > > > > > > Here, put your masters degree to use. > > According to the USGS there is a total of 408,000 Mgal/day of > water withdrawals from all sources, fresh and salt, 35% of > which is used for irrigation and livestock production. Task > one, figure total water used for all uses per year. > http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/totpie95.html > > > In 2002, there was 27,000,000,000 pounds of beef produced. > http://www.ers.usda.gov/news/BSECoverage.htm > > At 12,000 gallons of water per pound... task two, what's the > total. > > > Task three, where's all the water come from? Manna from > heaven to beef to producers only? > > What's the matter with those so-called advanced degrees, or your supposed science experience? They didn't teach you to be critical of data that you spew forth? Oh, wait, an agenda takes over to 2 brainells you have operating, right? > > > snips... |
|
|||
|
|||
"usual suspect" wrote:
> The **** wrote: ----------------- I'm a non-vegan minded person who has stood up for your side of the argument and corrected your mistakes on this NG, and all you can do is continue to insult after viscously attacking me, when you should be apologizing and thanking me. Shame on you! > > End of discussion? > > Yes. ------------- You're wrong again, it's continuing on (obviously). Go ahead and keep posting. Every time you post, you again prove yourself wrong. I love it! Please do carry on... -TW |
|
|||
|
|||
usual suspect wrote: > Beach Runner wrote: > >>>>> I was not always a vegetarian. I highly suggest all parents read > >>>>> the bone density diet. > >> > >> Stop snipping the part of my posts to which you're replying, dipshit. > >> > >>> I'll just reply to this disparagy to Dr. Kessler, Professor of Medici= ne > >> > >> Appealing to authority. > >> http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/aa.htm > >> > >> Kessler is an OSTEOPATH, not a medical doctor. > > > > His choice because he believes in holistic science. > > Osteopaths are NOT medical doctors. They do not practice medical > science. They practice some accepted modalities for treating patients, > and they also practice some quackery. I've yet to meet a medical doctor > who doesn't treat the whole person rather than symptoms or disease and I > think it's highly arrogant for osteopaths to suggest they're the only > ones who do that. It doesn't surprise me that such arrogance would > appeal to you because vegans are guilty of the same kind of arrogance > when they suggest their diet is more humane than any other. > > > The fact is Dr. > > Kessler teaches an Albert Einstein institute of Medicine, > > No, he does not. He was a clinical instructor. You claimed he was a > professor. His only professorship has been at a college of OSTEOPATHY, > not a college of MEDICINE. > > <...> > > > Osteopath's are fully recognized in the US. > > No apostrophe; that shows possession, not plurality. Osteopaths. And > their recognition isn't national, it's state by state like other > professional licensing. State "recognition" doesn't lend legitimacy to > their practice. After all, many states also "recognize" and license > Oriental medicine, massage therapy, reflexology, chiropractic, and a > number of other alternative therapies. > > >> http://www.quackwatch.org/04Consumer.../QA/osteo.html > >> > >>> and leading expert on Osteoperosis. > >> > >> > >> > >> Appealing to authority. > >> http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/aa.htm > >> > >> He's written a popular press book about the subject. He is not a > >> researcher, he's not published in peer-reviewed journals, etc. The > >> book you recommend people read is offered primarily on alternative > >> medicine sites and vegetarian sites. > > > > Like Amazon.com > > Amazon carries EVERYTHING. That doesn't make Kessler's book special. > > > But also recommended by many endocrinologists. > > *Some* endocrinologists. > > > Both my brother (a non > > vegetarian patent attorney and I both have it. > > Didn't the list of risk factors I posted yesterday say that genetics > plays a role? > > > Hardly female. > > You're girlish. > > > Our calcium levels are high. By the way to be a Patent Attorney, it is > > the only field of law that requires a degree in science. > > *NO*. The USPTO requirements include scientific training, but they don't > require a science degree. The requirements include degrees in areas > pertaining to computers and technology. See page six of the following lin= k=2E > > http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dco...grb17feb05.pdf > > > He was a a scientist prior to being an attorney. He did a lot of resear= ch. > > Too bad you haven't. > > >>> It's not pseudoscience. > >> > >> Ipse dixit. > >> > >>>> It's based on pseudoscience. > >>>> > >>>>> The giving of soda and excess proteins to children should be outlaw= ed, > >>> > > > > It is well cited. > > So what? Citations are only as meaningful as the inferences drawn from > the data from the sources cited. It's not how many citations one has in > his book, it's how apropos they are. > > > George Kessler is considered an expert and leading > > researcher in the field. > > Then name ONE study he authored or co-authored on the subject. Go on. > Get with it. I spent over half an hour sorting through searches to see > if he had. I couldn't find any. > > >>>> I knew you were an authoritarian zealot. Thanks for proving it. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> We have an epedemic of osteoperosis in our society. > >> > >> Epidemic? No. We have a large aging population. > > > > Actually it is an epidemic. > > Ipse dixit. > > > And not only among the aging. > > Strawman. I never wrote "only among the aging." I've quoted sources, > though, which say it's PRIMARILY among the aging. > > > And it is increasing in societies adopting western food. > > You mean in societies adopting modern medical technology and thereby > increasing longevity. > > > Dexa scans of course find many cases previously unrecognized. > > You're overstating the use of DEXA. DEXA only gives a relative risk of > fracture for a given area of bone. > > >> Certain people are more likely to develop osteoporosis than > >> others. Factors that increase the likelihood of developing > >> osteoporosis are called "risk factors." The following risk > >> factors have been identified: > >> > >> Being female > >> Thin and/or small frame > >> *Advanced age* > >> A family history of osteoporosis > >> Postmenopause, including early or surgically induced menopause > >> Abnormal absence of menstrual periods (amenorrhea) > >> Anorexia nervosa or bulimia > >> A diet low in calcium > >> Use of certain medications, such as corticosteroids and > >> anticonvulsants > >> Low testosterone levels in men > > That's probably true for you. How much soy do you eat, numbnuts? > > >> An inactive lifestyle > >> Cigarette smoking > >> Excessive use of alcohol > >> Being Caucasian or Asian, although African Americans and > >> Hispanic Americans are at significant risk as well > >> http://www.osteo.org/osteofastfact.html > >> > >>> I cited the leading authority in the field. > >> > >> Appealing to authority. He is NOT the leading authority in the field. > >> He's popular among new agers, vegetarians, and the alternative > >> quackery, I mean alternative medicine, crowds (or crowd since there is > >> a lot of overlap between them). > >> > >>> Not a quack. > > > > Is Albert Einstein a quack institute? > > He's not tenured there. Never has been. > > > You called a highly credentialed, > > I question his credentials. > > > recognized > > I don't recognize him as an expert. He's written a pop book, and I've > been unable to find one instance in which he's listed as an author for > any research. > > > doctor a quack. > > An osteopathic quack. > > >> Yes, a quack. An osteopath. > >> > >>> The leader in the field. > >> > >> Find me something that notes his research instead of his popular press > >> book on the subject. Twit. > > Waiting... > > >>>>> if one understands how bones are developed > >>>> > >>>> You don't. > >> > >> Established. > >> > >>>>> and we have an epidemic of osteoporosis in our society. > >>>> > >>>> Because of our longevity. People didn't live long enough for > >>>> malignancies to develop or for their bones to become brittle because > >>>> they normally died in their 30s, 40s, and 50s. > >>> > >>> That's your opinon. > >> > >> No, it's leading consensus of real osteoporosis experts. > >> > >> http://www-medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPa.../OSTEOPOR.html > > HELLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO?! > > >> <...> > >> > >>>>> Interestingly, > >>>> > >>>> It's of no interest to informed persons. > >>>> > >>>>> in societies that don't drink dairy or soda, osteoporosis is > >>>>> virtually unknown. ( of course that's changing with globalization). > >>>> > >>>> No, you bumbling twit, it's because they're starting to live longer > >>>> because they now have access to medical technology. That's why their > >>>> cancer rates are exploding and rivaling ours. That's why their aging > >>>> populations have similar diseases at similar rates as ours. > >>> > >>> Actually it is based on comparative studies, normalizing factors. > >> > >> No, it isn't. > > Established. > > >>>> <...> > >>>> > >>>>> I also have an agenda to protect habitat. The little bit of > >>>>> habitat is being destroyed, largely for meat production. > >>>> > >>>> Ipse dixit and false. The "factory farms" you rail against mean that > >>>> it takes significantly LESS land to raise MORE animals than it did > >>>> in the past. > >>> > >>> One can produce far more food if we use a vegetarian diet > >> > >> Ipse dixit and who cares. People want meat. You want to forbid them > >> from eating it. Why do you insist everyone adopt your peculiar diet > >> for your peculiar, pseudoscience-driven reasons? > > Answer this. > > >>> Ok, for some URLs, I go to the Union of Corncerned Scientists > >>> > >>> http://www.ucsusa.org/search.cfm?cri...ubmit=3DSearch > >>> > >>> Antibiotics: > >>> Animals that are fed antibiotics for most of their lives develop high > >>> levels of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in their guts. > >> > >> Not all animals are given antibiotics, and not all are given > >> antibiotics for "most of their lives." > > http://beef-mag.com/mag/beef_prudent_antibiotics/ > http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20030628/food.asp > Etc. > > >>> If these bacteria find their way to humans, > >> > >> Tell me an instance in which they have, particularly from eating meat. > > Waiting... > > >> <...> > >> > >>> While strict vegetarians need not worry about becoming infected by > >>> bacteria in uncooked or undercooked meat, > >> > >> Most people needn't worry. The risks are marginal. More people are > >> infected from contaminated produce than from meat yet you never hear > >> meat eaters telling vegetarians to avoid vegetables. > >> > >> <...> > >> > >>> http://www.gaia.be/nl/factsheet/adap1197.html > >> > >> The website for Groupe d'Action dans l'Int=E9r=EAt des Animaux -- an AR > >> activist site. Imagine that. > >> > >> <snip acivist propaganda> > >> > >>> It's much easier to be heathier as a vegetarian, > >> > >> Ipse dixit. The ADA, AHA, and other health-oriented organizations > >> disagree with you. They only offer qualified support of vegetarianism > >> because it's a diet which starts out with a list of deficiencies. > >> > >>> it's certainly environmentally sounder, > >> > >> Ipse dixit. Monoculture cropping is not environmentally sound. > >> > >>> and as the Union of Concerned Scientists back my statements on > >>> antibiotics. > >> > >> No, they don't. And UCS is a primarily lay group (over 90% of their > >> members are non-scientists), not a group of actual scientists. > >> > >> <...> > > > > And of course Kessler institute > > is a private corporation which has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Again "Usual Suspect" is 100@ wrong...MDS and DOS have an identical license to practice medicine in all 50 states of the Union. The license for the unlimited practice of medicine and surgery is granted only to those holding the MD and DO degree and is uniform through out this country. For furthur much needed education Usual suspect may refer to my post from 07/24/05 in this newsgroup and learn the benifit of reading before talking (or posting). |
|
|||
|
|||
"usual suspect" > wrote in message ... > The only difference is you see your own "candor" (which, to be honest, is > often much more vitriolic than mine; yours also [sic] lacks any measure of > substance ... Glad you are finally admitting that you both, as in "also", lack any measure of substance. Turn toward the Light Brother: start to honor the Truth, for It shall set even YOU free!! Laurie |
|
|||
|
|||
"usual suspect" > wrote in message ... > I needn't go around provoking others like you have, dickhead. Self-contradiction and vulgarity, the keys to getting respect? Laurie |
|
|||
|
|||
This discussion is so ... ridiculous. Get a life.
|
|
|||
|
|||
usual suspect > wrote:
> I have enough of one already that I needn't go around provoking others > like you have, dickhead. That's why you're writing in this newsgroup, behaving like an asshole. Yeah. Of course. ROTFLMAO. Guess it's time to killfile you again. (spares you the idiotic reply to me, too) |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
usual suspect must be the Gonad | Vegan | |||
usual suspect must be the Gonad | Vegan | |||
at least keep up, usual suspect | Vegan | |||
regarding fruitarians to usual suspect | Vegan | |||
Attn: usual suspect | Vegan |