"Evidence suggests remedies offer placebo effect, but
no real benefits"

Reuters

LONDON - The world may be beating a path to the doors
of homeopathic practitioners as an alternative to
conventional medicines, but according to a new study
they may just as well be taking nothing.

The study, published in Friday's edition of the
respected Lancet medical journal, is likely to anger
the growing numbers of devoted practitioners of and
adherents to alternative therapies that include homeopathy.

more at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9078909/


Just like "reflexology", better known as foot massage.
These therapies are quackery. They have appeal for
uneducated, credulous dummies.

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> "Evidence suggests remedies offer placebo effect, but
> no real benefits"
>
> Reuters
>
> LONDON - The world may be beating a path to the doors
> of homeopathic practitioners as an alternative to
> conventional medicines, but according to a new study
> they may just as well be taking nothing.
>
> The study, published in Friday's edition of the
> respected Lancet medical journal, is likely to anger
> the growing numbers of devoted practitioners of and
> adherents to alternative therapies that include homeopathy.
>
> more at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9078909/
>
>
> Just like "reflexology", better known as foot massage.
> These therapies are quackery. They have appeal for
> uneducated, credulous dummies.

This study is not true--who did it..probably some medical group...I had a
serious problem not able to pass water and traditional medicines drugs did
not work--this homeopathic remedy had me passing water like Niagara
falls...it worked -while the traditional medicine did not ..
Michael

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> "Evidence suggests remedies offer placebo effect, but
> no real benefits"
>
> Reuters
>
> LONDON - The world may be beating a path to the doors
> of homeopathic practitioners as an alternative to
> conventional medicines, but according to a new study
> they may just as well be taking nothing.
>
> The study, published in Friday's edition of the
> respected Lancet medical journal, is likely to anger
> the growing numbers of devoted practitioners of and
> adherents to alternative therapies that include homeopathy.
>
> more at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9078909/
>
>
> Just like "reflexology", better known as foot massage.
> These therapies are quackery. They have appeal for
> uneducated, credulous dummies.





"Study Says Rudy Cucumber's Brain Don't Work"

"Ron" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
> > "Evidence suggests remedies offer placebo effect, but
> > no real benefits"
> >
> > Reuters
> >
> > LONDON - The world may be beating a path to the doors
> > of homeopathic practitioners as an alternative to
> > conventional medicines, but according to a new study
> > they may just as well be taking nothing.
> >
> > The study, published in Friday's edition of the
> > respected Lancet medical journal, is likely to anger
> > the growing numbers of devoted practitioners of and
> > adherents to alternative therapies that include homeopathy.
> >
> > more at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9078909/
> >
> >
> > Just like "reflexology", better known as foot massage.
> > These therapies are quackery. They have appeal for
> > uneducated, credulous dummies.
>
>
>
>
>
> "Study Says Rudy Cucumber's Brain Don't Work"

That's because it's really a sour
pickle and he stores it up his ass!!!


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/

Scented Nectar wrote:
> "Ron" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Rudy Canoza wrote:
> > > "Evidence suggests remedies offer placebo effect, but
> > > no real benefits"
> > >
> > > Reuters
> > >
> > > LONDON - The world may be beating a path to the doors
> > > of homeopathic practitioners as an alternative to
> > > conventional medicines, but according to a new study
> > > they may just as well be taking nothing.
> > >
> > > The study, published in Friday's edition of the
> > > respected Lancet medical journal, is likely to anger
> > > the growing numbers of devoted practitioners of and
> > > adherents to alternative therapies that include homeopathy.
> > >
> > > more at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9078909/
> > >
> > >
> > > Just like "reflexology", better known as foot massage.
> > > These therapies are quackery. They have appeal for
> > > uneducated, credulous dummies.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Study Says Rudy Cucumber's Brain Don't Work"
>
> That's because it's really a sour
> pickle and he stores it up his ass!!!
>


LOL!!;o)



>
> --
> SN
> http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/

Nothing works better than allopathy.
This means: try nothing.

Jerry Story wrote:
> Nothing works better than allopathy.

How can "nothing" work better than "nothing"?


> This means: try nothing.

Michael Balarama wrote:

> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>>"Evidence suggests remedies offer placebo effect, but
>>no real benefits"
>>
>>Reuters
>>
>>LONDON - The world may be beating a path to the doors
>>of homeopathic practitioners as an alternative to
>>conventional medicines, but according to a new study
>>they may just as well be taking nothing.
>>
>>The study, published in Friday's edition of the
>>respected Lancet medical journal, is likely to anger
>>the growing numbers of devoted practitioners of and
>>adherents to alternative therapies that include homeopathy.
>>
>>more at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9078909/
>>
>>
>>Just like "reflexology", better known as foot massage.
>> These therapies are quackery. They have appeal for
>>uneducated, credulous dummies.
>
>
> This study is not true

You're a moron, Mikie. The study is *legitimate*
(studies aren't "true", you dope), and its conclusion
is probably correct.

You can't question its methodology, Mikie, because you
don't know a thing about science. You like
"homeopathy" for some non-scientific reason, and now
you feel that your non-scientific beliefs are being
attacked by the study's conclusion.

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> Michael Balarama wrote:
>
> > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> >
> >>"Evidence suggests remedies offer placebo effect, but
> >>no real benefits"
> >>
> >>Reuters
> >>
> >>LONDON - The world may be beating a path to the doors
> >>of homeopathic practitioners as an alternative to
> >>conventional medicines, but according to a new study
> >>they may just as well be taking nothing.
> >>
> >>The study, published in Friday's edition of the
> >>respected Lancet medical journal, is likely to anger
> >>the growing numbers of devoted practitioners of and
> >>adherents to alternative therapies that include homeopathy.
> >>
> >>more at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9078909/
> >>
> >>
> >>Just like "reflexology", better known as foot massage.
> >> These therapies are quackery. They have appeal for
> >>uneducated, credulous dummies.
> >
> >
> > This study is not true
>
> You're a moron, Mikie. The study is *legitimate*
> (studies aren't "true", you dope), and its conclusion
> is probably correct.
>
> You can't question its methodology, Mikie, because you
> don't know a thing about science. You like
> "homeopathy" for some non-scientific reason, and now
> you feel that your non-scientific beliefs are being
> attacked by the study's conclusion.



Why is there noise coming out of my head when I didn't say anything!?

Someone please shoot me!

Jerry Story wrote:

> Nothing works better than allopathy.
> This means: try nothing.

Have you ever seen L.I.A.R., the Lexicon of
Inconspicuously Ambiguous Recommendations?

http://www-personal.monash.edu.au/~nate/humor/liar.html


You're called upon for an opinion of a friend who is
extremely lazy. You don't want to lie --- but you also
don't want to risk losing even a lazy friend.

Try this line: "In my opinion," you say as sincerely as
you can manage, "you will be very fortunate to get this
person to work for you."

This gem of double meaning is the creation of Robert
Thornton, a professor of economics at Lehigh University
in Bethlehem, PA.

Thornton was frustrated about an occupational hazard
for teachers, having to write letters of recommendation
for people with dubious qualifications, so he put
together an arsenal of statements that can be read two
ways.

He calls his collection the Lexicon of Inconspicuously
Ambiguous Recommendations. Or LIAR, for short.

LIAR may be used to offer a negative opinion of the
personal qualities, work habits or motivation of the
candidate while allowing the candidate to believe that
it is high praise, Thornton explained last week.
Some examples from LIAR

To describe a person who is totally inept: I most
enthusiastically recommend this candidate with no
qualifications whatsoever.

To describe an ex-employee who had problems getting
along with fellow workers: I am pleased to say that
this candidate is a former colleague of mine.

To describe a candidate who is so unproductive that the
job would be better left unfilled: I can assure you
that no person would be better for the job.

To describe a job applicant who is not worth further
consideration: I would urge you to waste no time in
making this candidate an offer of employment.

To describe a person with lackluster credentials: All
in all, I cannot say enough good things about this
candidate or recommend him too highly.

Thornton pointed out that LIAR is not only useful in
preserving friendships, but it also can help avoid
serious legal trouble in a time when laws have eroded
the confidentiality of letters of recommendation.

In most states, he noted, job applicants have the right
to read the letters of recommendations and can even
file suit against the writer if the contents are negative.

When the writer uses LIAR, however, whether perceived
correctly or not by the candidate, the phrases are
virtually litigation-proof, Thornton said.

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Michael Balarama wrote:
>
> > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> >
> >>"Evidence suggests remedies offer placebo effect, but
> >>no real benefits"
> >>
> >>Reuters
> >>
> >>LONDON - The world may be beating a path to the doors
> >>of homeopathic practitioners as an alternative to
> >>conventional medicines, but according to a new study
> >>they may just as well be taking nothing.
> >>
> >>The study, published in Friday's edition of the
> >>respected Lancet medical journal, is likely to anger
> >>the growing numbers of devoted practitioners of and
> >>adherents to alternative therapies that include homeopathy.
> >>
> >>more at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9078909/
> >>
> >>
> >>Just like "reflexology", better known as foot massage.
> >> These therapies are quackery. They have appeal for
> >>uneducated, credulous dummies.
> >
> >
> > This study is not true
>
> You're a moron, Mikie. The study is *legitimate*
> (studies aren't "true", you dope), and its conclusion
> is probably correct.
>
> You can't question its methodology, Mikie, because you
> don't know a thing about science. You like
> "homeopathy" for some non-scientific reason, and now
> you feel that your non-scientific beliefs are being
> attacked by the study's conclusion.

Whatever whatever-Homeopathic medicine worked-
traditional medicine did not..I was the happy patient..
it also cost a fraction of the cost of Trad medicine..
Michael

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> "Evidence suggests remedies offer placebo effect, but no real benefits"
>
> Reuters
>
> LONDON - The world may be beating a path to the doors of homeopathic
> practitioners as an alternative to conventional medicines, but according
> to a new study they may just as well be taking nothing.
>
> The study, published in Friday's edition of the respected Lancet medical
> journal, is likely to anger the growing numbers of devoted practitioners
> of and adherents to alternative therapies that include homeopathy.
>
> more at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9078909/
>
>
> Just like "reflexology", better known as foot massage. These therapies
> are quackery. They have appeal for uneducated, credulous dummies.

More bad news for Lesley. Have you seen this article?

The giant orb of iron and nickel that anchors Earth's center is spinning
faster than the planet's surface, according to a new study that confirms
scientists' expectations.

The finding is based on analyses of earthquake pairs that occur at
roughly the same spot on Earth but at different times. On seismic
recoding instruments, the earthquake signatures from waveform doublets,
as they are called, look nearly identical.

When earthquakes strike, their seismic waves can travel through the
planet and surface all over the globe.

The researchers analyzed 18 sets of waveform doublets -- some separated
in time by up to 35 years -- from earthquakes occurring off the coast of
South America but which were recorded at seismic stations near Alaska.

Earth's core is made of a solid inner part and a fluid outer part, all
of it mostly iron.

The solid inner core has an uneven consistency, with some parts denser
than others, and this can either speed up or slow down shock waves from
earthquakes as they pass through.

http://www.livescience.com/forcesofn...earthcore.html

Michael Balarama wrote:
>>"Evidence suggests remedies offer placebo effect, but
>>no real benefits"
>>
>>Reuters
>>
>>LONDON - The world may be beating a path to the doors
>>of homeopathic practitioners as an alternative to
>>conventional medicines, but according to a new study
>>they may just as well be taking nothing.
>>
>>The study, published in Friday's edition of the
>>respected Lancet medical journal, is likely to anger
>>the growing numbers of devoted practitioners of and
>>adherents to alternative therapies that include homeopathy.
>>
>>more at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9078909/
>>
>>
>>Just like "reflexology", better known as foot massage.
>> These therapies are quackery. They have appeal for
>>uneducated, credulous dummies.
>
>
> This study is not true--

The findings are true.

> who did it..probably some medical group...

It's published in Lancet.

> I had a
> serious problem not able to pass water and traditional medicines drugs did
> not work--

Was this in relation to your prostate problem? If so, there are many
factors which may have affected your ability or inability to urinate at
any given time.

> this homeopathic remedy had me passing water like Niagara
> falls...

Which can be attributed to placebo effect.

> it worked -while the traditional medicine did not ..

Homeopathy is quackery. The goal is to get the "spirit" of a substance
into the preparation by diluting into ridiculously small fractions. The
link below shows how ridiculous this is.

Read about it sometime and you'll find out that homeopathic "remedies"
are *literally* sugar pills -- powdered lactose to be precise, making
them unsuitable for vegans (if that even matters). While on the subject,
there's a little more that vegans should be concerned about with respect
to homeopathic "remedies":

Oscillococcinum, a 200C product "for the relief of colds and
flu-like symptoms," involves "dilutions" that are even more
far-fetched. Its "active ingredient" is prepared by incubating
small amounts of a freshly killed duck's liver and heart for 40
days. The resultant solution is then filtered, freeze-dried,
rehydrated, repeatedly diluted, and impregnated into sugar
granules. If a single molecule of the duck's heart or liver were
to survive the dilution, its concentration would be 1 in
100^200. This huge number, which has 400 zeroes, is vastly
greater than the estimated number of molecules in the universe
(about one googol, which is a 1 followed by 100 zeroes). In its
February 17, 1997, issue, U.S. News & World Report noted that
only one duck per year is needed to manufacture the product,
which had total sales of $20 million in 1996. The magazine
dubbed that unlucky bird "the $20-million duck."

http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...ics/homeo.html

Michael Balarama wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>>Michael Balarama wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
thlink.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Evidence suggests remedies offer placebo effect, but
>>>>no real benefits"
>>>>
>>>>Reuters
>>>>
>>>>LONDON - The world may be beating a path to the doors
>>>>of homeopathic practitioners as an alternative to
>>>>conventional medicines, but according to a new study
>>>>they may just as well be taking nothing.
>>>>
>>>>The study, published in Friday's edition of the
>>>>respected Lancet medical journal, is likely to anger
>>>>the growing numbers of devoted practitioners of and
>>>>adherents to alternative therapies that include homeopathy.
>>>>
>>>>more at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9078909/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Just like "reflexology", better known as foot massage.
>>>> These therapies are quackery. They have appeal for
>>>>uneducated, credulous dummies.
>>>
>>>
>>>This study is not true
>>
>>You're a moron, Mikie. The study is *legitimate*
>>(studies aren't "true", you dope), and its conclusion
>>is probably correct.
>>
>>You can't question its methodology, Mikie, because you
>>don't know a thing about science. You like
>>"homeopathy" for some non-scientific reason, and now
>>you feel that your non-scientific beliefs are being
>>attacked by the study's conclusion.
>
>
> Whatever whatever-Homeopathic medicine worked-

Placebo effect.

> traditional medicine did not..I was the happy patient..
> it also cost a fraction of the cost of Trad medicine..

Hard to justify paying for sugar pills.

Michael Balarama wrote:

> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>>Michael Balarama wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
thlink.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Evidence suggests remedies offer placebo effect, but
>>>>no real benefits"
>>>>
>>>>Reuters
>>>>
>>>>LONDON - The world may be beating a path to the doors
>>>>of homeopathic practitioners as an alternative to
>>>>conventional medicines, but according to a new study
>>>>they may just as well be taking nothing.
>>>>
>>>>The study, published in Friday's edition of the
>>>>respected Lancet medical journal, is likely to anger
>>>>the growing numbers of devoted practitioners of and
>>>>adherents to alternative therapies that include homeopathy.
>>>>
>>>>more at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9078909/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Just like "reflexology", better known as foot massage.
>>>> These therapies are quackery. They have appeal for
>>>>uneducated, credulous dummies.
>>>
>>>
>>>This study is not true
>>
>>You're a moron, Mikie. The study is *legitimate*
>>(studies aren't "true", you dope), and its conclusion
>>is probably correct.
>>
>>You can't question its methodology, Mikie, because you
>>don't know a thing about science. You like
>>"homeopathy" for some non-scientific reason, and now
>>you feel that your non-scientific beliefs are being
>>attacked by the study's conclusion.
>
>
> Whatever whatever

No, you stpuid uneducated ****. A valid scientific
study didn't find "whatever"; it found that
"homeopathic" medicine works no better than placebos.
And you are INCOMPETENT to dispute their finding. You
just don't *like* their finding because you enjoy
wallowing in pseudo-scientific ignorance, but you can't
rationally dispute it.


> -Homeopathic medicine worked-

You would have had the same results taking sugar cubes
that some lied to you about and said they contained
"medicine".

How can you be sure that you wouldn't have recovered in just the same
way if
you hadn't received the homeopathic remedy? Is it not possible that the
remedy
worked purely because of its placebo effect? Did you take enough to
make
a significant impact on your fluid intake?

Usual suspect writes: "Homeopathy is quackery. The goal is to get the
"spirit" of a substance
into the preparation by diluting into ridiculously small fractions. The

link below shows how ridiculous this is."

The theory behind homeopathy does indeed seem ridiculous but some
studies into its
efficiacy have suggested positive results for the technique. The study
sighted by Rudy
may have concluded that the effect is no greater than a placebo but
this conclusion
is not consistent with all meta-analyses on the subject. As far as I
know the jury
is still out.

Pesco-vegan wrote:

First of all, there is no such thing as a pesco-vegan. You may be
pesco-vegetarian, but not -vegan.

> Usual suspect writes: "Homeopathy is quackery. The goal is to get the
> "spirit" of a substance
> into the preparation by diluting into ridiculously small fractions. The
> link below shows how ridiculous this is."

Geez. Learn how to use your browser. It's not difficult at all.

> The theory behind homeopathy does indeed seem ridiculous

That's because it IS ridiculous.

> but some studies into its efficiacy have suggested positive
> results for the technique.

The link I offered discusses some of those "studies." Scroll down to the
heading of "Unimpressive 'Research.'"

http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...ics/homeo.html

> The study sighted

CITED

> by Rudy may have concluded that the effect is no greater than
> a placebo

Which is consistent with what others have found when reviewing so-called
homeopathy studies like those in the above link:

Placebo effects can be powerful, of course, but the potential
benefit of relieving symptoms with placebos should be weighed
against the harm that can result from relying upon -- and
wasting money on -- ineffective products. Spontaneous remission
is also a factor in homeopathy's popularity. I believe that most
people who credit a homeopathic product for their recovery would
have fared equally well without it.

> but this conclusion is not consistent with all meta-analyses
> on the subject.

The hell it isn't. Find me one metanalysis which shows homeopathy's
efficacy beyond placebo effect. You will not find one.

> As far as I know the jury is still out.

Now you know better: the jury has declared homeopathy to be
pseudoscience quackery which peddles expensive sugar pills off to
gullible people.

usual suspect wrote:

> Pesco-vegan wrote:
>
> First of all, there is no such thing as a pesco-vegan. You may be
> pesco-vegetarian, but not -vegan.

Pesco-vegan is a term I coined to describe my unusual dietary choice.
Do you have a problem with it?

> > Usual suspect writes: "Homeopathy is quackery. The goal is to get the
> > "spirit" of a substance
> > into the preparation by diluting into ridiculously small fractions. The
> > link below shows how ridiculous this is."
>
> Geez. Learn how to use your browser. It's not difficult at all.
>
> > The theory behind homeopathy does indeed seem ridiculous
>
> That's because it IS ridiculous.
>
> > but some studies into its efficiacy have suggested positive
> > results for the technique.
>
> The link I offered discusses some of those "studies." Scroll down to the
> heading of "Unimpressive 'Research.'"
>
> http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...ics/homeo.html
>
> > The study sighted
>
> CITED
>
> > by Rudy may have concluded that the effect is no greater than
> > a placebo
>
> Which is consistent with what others have found when reviewing so-called
> homeopathy studies like those in the above link:
>
> Placebo effects can be powerful, of course, but the potential
> benefit of relieving symptoms with placebos should be weighed
> against the harm that can result from relying upon -- and
> wasting money on -- ineffective products. Spontaneous remission
> is also a factor in homeopathy's popularity. I believe that most
> people who credit a homeopathic product for their recovery would
> have fared equally well without it.
>
> > but this conclusion is not consistent with all meta-analyses
> > on the subject.
>
> The hell it isn't. Find me one metanalysis which shows homeopathy's
> efficacy beyond placebo effect. You will not find one.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

"CONCLUSIONS--At the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive
but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials
are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of
publication bias. This indicates that there is a legitimate case for
further evaluation of homoeopathy, but only by means of well performed
trials."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

"INTERPRETATION: The results of our meta-analysis are not compatible
with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homeopathy are
completely due to placebo. However, we found insufficient evidence from
these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single
clinical condition. Further research on homeopathy is warranted
provided it is rigorous and systematic."

> > As far as I know the jury is still out.
>
> Now you know better: the jury has declared homeopathy to be
> pseudoscience quackery which peddles expensive sugar pills off to
> gullible people.

Pesco-vegan wrote:
>>First of all, there is no such thing as a pesco-vegan. You may be
>>pesco-vegetarian, but not -vegan.
>
> Pesco-vegan is a term I coined to describe my unusual dietary choice.

It's oxymoronic. You're either pescetarian or pesco-vegetarian (which
some would likewise argue is oxymoronic).

> Do you have a problem with it?

It only shows you're not bright. That's your problem, not mine.

>>>Usual suspect writes: "Homeopathy is quackery. The goal is to get the
>>>"spirit" of a substance
>>>into the preparation by diluting into ridiculously small fractions. The
>>>link below shows how ridiculous this is."
>>
>>Geez. Learn how to use your browser. It's not difficult at all.
>>
>>
>>>The theory behind homeopathy does indeed seem ridiculous
>>
>>That's because it IS ridiculous.
>>
>>
>>>but some studies into its efficiacy have suggested positive
>>>results for the technique.
>>
>>The link I offered discusses some of those "studies." Scroll down to the
>>heading of "Unimpressive 'Research.'"
>>
>>http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...ics/homeo.html
>>
>>
>>>The study sighted
>>
>>CITED
>>
>>
>>>by Rudy may have concluded that the effect is no greater than
>>>a placebo
>>
>>Which is consistent with what others have found when reviewing so-called
>>homeopathy studies like those in the above link:
>>
>> Placebo effects can be powerful, of course, but the potential
>> benefit of relieving symptoms with placebos should be weighed
>> against the harm that can result from relying upon -- and
>> wasting money on -- ineffective products. Spontaneous remission
>> is also a factor in homeopathy's popularity. I believe that most
>> people who credit a homeopathic product for their recovery would
>> have fared equally well without it.
>>
>>
>>>but this conclusion is not consistent with all meta-analyses
>>>on the subject.
>>
>>The hell it isn't. Find me one metanalysis which shows homeopathy's
>>efficacy beyond placebo effect. You will not find one.
>
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract
>
> "CONCLUSIONS--At the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive
> but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials
> are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of
> publication bias. This indicates that there is a legitimate case for
> further evaluation of homoeopathy, but only by means of well performed
> trials."

From that link:
Most trials seemed to be of very low quality....The results of
the review may be complicated by publication bias, especially in
such a controversial subject as homoeopathy....not sufficient to
draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low
methodological quality and because of the unknown role of
publication bias.

> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract
>
> "INTERPRETATION: The results of our meta-analysis are not compatible
> with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homeopathy are
> completely due to placebo. However, we found insufficient evidence from
> these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single
> clinical condition. Further research on homeopathy is warranted
> provided it is rigorous and systematic."

From that link:
Homeopathy seems scientifically implausible....we found
insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is
clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition.

>>>As far as I know the jury is still out.
>>
>>Now you know better: the jury has declared homeopathy to be
>>pseudoscience quackery which peddles expensive sugar pills off to
>>gullible people.

I remain unconvinced that homeopathic SUGAR PILLS offer any benefit
beyond a placebo effect.

Pesco-vegan wrote:

> usual suspect wrote:
>
>
>>Pesco-vegan wrote:
>>
>>First of all, there is no such thing as a pesco-vegan. You may be
>>pesco-vegetarian, but not -vegan.
>
>
> Pesco-vegan is a term I coined to describe my unusual dietary choice.
> Do you have a problem with it?

It's bullshit. "vegan" means consumes NO
animal-derived products at all, and not just limited to
food, either: no leather, no wool, no lanolin in hand
lotion, no products that were tested on animals, no
standard refined sugar.

If you eat fish, you are not "vegan": PERIOD.

But more to the point, if you eat fish, you are
engaging in some kind of stupid *rationalization* and
sophistry in how you justify the deviation from "veganism".

Rudy Canoza wrote:

> Pesco-vegan wrote:
>
> > usual suspect wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Pesco-vegan wrote:
> >>
> >>First of all, there is no such thing as a pesco-vegan. You may be
> >>pesco-vegetarian, but not -vegan.
> >
> >
> > Pesco-vegan is a term I coined to describe my unusual dietary choice.
> > Do you have a problem with it?
>
> It's bullshit. "vegan" means consumes NO
> animal-derived products at all, and not just limited to
> food, either: no leather, no wool, no lanolin in hand
> lotion, no products that were tested on animals, no
> standard refined sugar.
>
> If you eat fish, you are not "vegan": PERIOD.

If you eat fish, you are not "vegetarian": PERIOD.
Yet the term "Pesco-vegetarian" is in common usage.

> But more to the point, if you eat fish, you are
> engaging in some kind of stupid *rationalization* and
> sophistry in how you justify the deviation from "veganism".

Unlike birds and mammals, fish lack the brain structures
that are associated with the processing of emotions in
humans. If I am to be honest I don't believe that fish
are really devoid of emotions but there is certainly more
room for debate and the level of consciousness is likely
to be lower for fish than for birds and mammmals. Other
considerations: Consumption of fish is recommended by
nutrition experts who don't have a vegetarian agenda.
In general it takes more land and more energy to grow meat
than it does to grow vegetables. This argument is widely
used to justify vegetarian diets but doesn't apply to fish.

The male calves born as a direct result of the dairy
industry are either raised for meat or killed shortly
after birth. If you drink milk, you are therefore
necessarily responsible for the slaughter of cattle,
regardless of whether or not you eat the meat. The same
argument also applies to chickens. It is my contention
that ethical justifications for ovo-lacto-vegetarian diets
require far more sophistry than do pesco-vegan diets.

Pesco-vegan wrote:
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
> > Pesco-vegan wrote:
> >
> > > usual suspect wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>Pesco-vegan wrote:
> > >>
> > >>First of all, there is no such thing as a pesco-vegan. You may be
> > >>pesco-vegetarian, but not -vegan.
> > >
> > >
> > > Pesco-vegan is a term I coined to describe my unusual dietary choice.
> > > Do you have a problem with it?
> >
> > It's bullshit. "vegan" means consumes NO
> > animal-derived products at all, and not just limited to
> > food, either: no leather, no wool, no lanolin in hand
> > lotion, no products that were tested on animals, no
> > standard refined sugar.
> >
> > If you eat fish, you are not "vegan": PERIOD.
>
> If you eat fish, you are not "vegetarian": PERIOD.
> Yet the term "Pesco-vegetarian" is in common usage.

I wouldn't call it "common" at all. As far as its use by
pseudo-vegetarians who eat some fish, they're simply trying to wrap
themselves in what they see as the glorious mantle of vegetarianism
while cheating. Fish is not even in the *spirit* of any kind of
vegetarianism, let alone actually being vegetarian. Fish are animals.
If you consume *any* animal-based product, you aren't vegetarian.


>
> > But more to the point, if you eat fish, you are
> > engaging in some kind of stupid *rationalization* and
> > sophistry in how you justify the deviation from "veganism".
>
> Unlike birds and mammals, fish lack the brain structures
> that are associated with the processing of emotions in
> humans.

Fish are animals, no matter how you want to rationalize it away. They
attempt to escape if you try to catch them. They have an experiential
welfare.

> If I am to be honest I don't believe that fish
> are really devoid of emotions

They are all BUT devoid of emotions; but that isn't the point.

> but there is certainly more
> room for debate and the level of consciousness is likely
> to be lower for fish than for birds and mammmals.

You are not competent to get into a discussion of animal
mental/emotional ability, and you know it. Fish are sentient animals.
Your attempt to rationalize eating them, while trying to wrap yourself
in glory as some kind of not-quite "vegan", is reprehensible.


> Other considerations: Consumption of fish is recommended by
> nutrition experts who don't have a vegetarian agenda.

So is the consumption of limited amounts of lean meat, and dairy
products. But they aren't vegetarian, and sure as hell aren't "vegan".


> In general it takes more land and more energy to grow meat
> than it does to grow vegetables.

That's an utterly irrelevant point.


> This argument is widely
> used to justify vegetarian diets but doesn't apply to fish.

Of course it applies to fish, you dummy. Most fish are "farm raised".
There is environmental damage (perhaps worth the result; it depends)
from any kind of farming. Those fish that aren't farm raised are being
*seriously* depleted through overfishing.

Goddamn, you are wriggling around like crazy trying to justify your
consumption of sentient animals, aren't you?


> The male calves born as a direct result of the dairy
> industry are either raised for meat or killed shortly
> after birth. If you drink milk, you are therefore
> necessarily responsible for the slaughter of cattle,
> regardless of whether or not you eat the meat. The same
> argument also applies to chickens. It is my contention
> that ethical justifications for ovo-lacto-vegetarian diets
> require far more sophistry than do pesco-vegan diets.

You're up to your earlobes in sophistry trying to justify your fish
eating.

"Pesco-vegan" > wrote

> If you eat fish, you are not "vegetarian": PERIOD.
> Yet the term "Pesco-vegetarian" is in common usage.

I took the phrase as a tongue-in-cheek joke.

Personally, I'm a lacto-ovo-pesco-beefo-pollo-swino-vegetarian.

Dutch wrote:
> "Pesco-vegan" > wrote
>
> > If you eat fish, you are not "vegetarian": PERIOD.
> > Yet the term "Pesco-vegetarian" is in common usage.
>
> I took the phrase as a tongue-in-cheek joke.
>
> Personally, I'm a lacto-ovo-pesco-beefo-pollo-swino-vegetarian.


No. You're just the resident nutjob.

That msn link has some links that make me chuckle, Mr.Canoza.
Personally, I know the nay-sayers on echinacea have got it all wrong.
It's a product in popular demand for a reason. It makes me wonder if
these researchers aren't the 'quacks'! My last major cold was 5 years
ago, I then tried echinacea [in vial form] resulting in a rapid
conclusion of the cold. Since then, annually, at the beginning of
Winter and start of Spring, I take a daily dose for week. At the most
I get 'maybe' once a year; sniffles for half a day and a headache or
two lasting a few hours. Most of the time I recommend echinacea to
others to at least try it, I get the same dullard reaction--- 'but the
scientists say it doesn't work' and that ends that.
So if you want to bring up 'quacky' research links when others are
living proof of alternative / non-over the counter remedies to better
living that's your loss in my opinion- and for others who want to
remain in the dark religiously always going by what drug companies and
their 'researchers' ALWAYS advise.
No... no other factors are involved.... echinacea used 5 years and no
colds- my vegetarian / healthy lifestyle for last 3 years.

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 04:09:24 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:

>"Evidence suggests remedies offer placebo effect, but
>no real benefits"
>
>Reuters
>
>LONDON - The world may be beating a path to the doors
>of homeopathic practitioners as an alternative to
>conventional medicines, but according to a new study
>they may just as well be taking nothing.
>
>The study, published in Friday's edition of the
>respected Lancet medical journal, is likely to anger
>the growing numbers of devoted practitioners of and
>adherents to alternative therapies that include homeopathy.
>
>more at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9078909/
>
>
>Just like "reflexology", better known as foot massage.
> These therapies are quackery. They have appeal for
>uneducated, credulous dummies.

Pesco-vegan wrote:
....
> Unlike birds and mammals, fish lack the brain structures
> that are associated with the processing of emotions in
> humans. If I am to be honest

I doubt you are.

> I don't believe that fish
> are really devoid of emotions but there is certainly more
> room for debate and the level of consciousness is likely
> to be lower for fish than for birds and mammmals.

You can also debate the level of consciousness of infants, people in
comas, and the profoundly retarded. You'd still be a cannibal if you
accordingly ate them regardless of how intent you are on calling
yourself a (qualified) vegan.

> Other considerations: Consumption of fish is recommended by
> nutrition experts who don't have a vegetarian agenda.

Veganism has nothing to do with diet. It's purely about animal rights.

There is no such thing as a "dietary vegan." A "total
vegetarian" may eat a diet free of animals products for health
reasons, such as avoiding cholesterol, and not out of compassion
for animals. However, popular vegan author Joanne Stepaniak
writes that the term "dietary vegan" is inappropriate because
veganism is by definition about helping animals, and a term such
as "total vegetarian" should be used for people who avoid eating
animal products for health reasons but, for example, buy leather
shoes.
http://www.websters-online-dictionar...finition/vegan

> In general it takes more land and more energy to grow meat

Specious and irrelevant.

> The male calves born as a direct result of the dairy
> industry are either raised for meat or killed shortly
> after birth.

This, too, is specious. You're directly responsible for the deaths of a
variety of species through commercial agricultural activities. Why do
you object to the slaughter of one bull which provides hundreds or
thousands of meals but not to the thousands of dead animals which die
from planting, irrigating, harvesting, transporting, storing, or
fumigating crops?

<snip bullshit sophistry>

Joe wrote:
> That msn link has some links that make me chuckle, Mr.Canoza.
> Personally, I know the nay-sayers on echinacea have got it all wrong.

You mean how it's been shown to be ineffective in double blind studies?

> It's a product in popular demand for a reason.

Appeal to popularity. Just because people buy into hype about echinacea,
zinc, or pet rocks doesn't mean anything. Especially when science shows
otherwise.

<snip of anecdote -- the last refuge of a true believer>

Like I said it works for me and apparently many others, and if others
prefer not to even try it out and instead religiously have 1 or 2
colds a year, I'll slap a 'rolls eyes emoticon' sticker on their nose.
Perhaps the research is misconducted or not taking into account how
the methods of usage by those who have success with it. btw, I like
your latest links, Suspect.

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 16:58:52 GMT, usual suspect >
wrote:

>Joe wrote:
>> That msn link has some links that make me chuckle, Mr.Canoza.
>> Personally, I know the nay-sayers on echinacea have got it all wrong.
>
>You mean how it's been shown to be ineffective in double blind studies?
>
>> It's a product in popular demand for a reason.
>
>Appeal to popularity. Just because people buy into hype about echinacea,
>zinc, or pet rocks doesn't mean anything. Especially when science shows
>otherwise.
>
><snip of anecdote -- the last refuge of a true believer>

Joe wrote:
> Like I said it works for me

Anecdotal. Last refuge of a true believer.

> and apparently many others,

Anecdotal. Last refuge of a true believer.

> and if others
> prefer not to even try it out and instead religiously have 1 or 2
> colds a year,

There's nothing "religious" about having a cold, but there IS something
devoutly religious about the *blind faith* that pseudoscientific
bullshit remedies like echinacea or homeopathy are beneficial.

Colds are caused by a group of bugs known as rhinoviruses. There
are 101 strains, and every time a rhinovirus infects you, your
immune system produces protective antibodies. From then on,
you’re immune to that strain.

The problem is that there are 100 other rhinos (as researchers
call them) waiting to leap into your nasal passages. So even if
you get two colds a year, it would take more than half a century
to run through all the strains.

“It’s hard to find something that will effectively kill the
virus,” says Purdue University chemist Carol Post, who studies
anti-cold compounds. “There are so many different types.”

And rhinos are only part of the story. Two other types of bug,
the coxsackievirus and adenovirus, also cause coldlike symptoms.
There are about 10 each of these, which adds up to a lot more
sniffles before you’re immune....

Humans don’t like being told there’s no cure for their coughs
and sore throats.

So they’ve turned to a variety of alternative treatments, such
as echinacea, zinc and vitamin C. Americans bought more than
$150 million worth of echinacea last year, according to the
“Nutrition Business Journal.”

The problem is that none of these treatments works – at least
not if you believe in scientific studies.

The latest echinacea study, in the New England Journal of
Medicine, examined 399 adults who had been exposed to cold
viruses. The patients were broken into four groups. Three got
different echinacea preparations and one group got a placebo.
About 90 percent of the subjects came down with colds, and the
echinacea takers did *no better* than those on the placebo.

“We don’t think echinacea is an effective drug,” said University
of Michigan epidemiologist Arnold Monto. He was not involved in
this study but did one two years ago that came to a similar
conclusion.
full article: http://tinyurl.com/cgw4q

> I'll slap a 'rolls eyes emoticon' sticker on their nose.

And that's probably just as convincing to them as your anecdotes are to me.

> Perhaps the research is misconducted

Repeated studies have shown no -- ZERO, ZIP, NADA -- benefit of
echinacea. Dittos for homeopathy. Your anecdotes are not evidence to the
contrary.

<snip>

Rudy Canoza wrote:

> Pesco-vegan wrote:
> > Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >
> > > Pesco-vegan wrote:
> > >
> > > > usual suspect wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>Pesco-vegan wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>First of all, there is no such thing as a pesco-vegan. You may be
> > > >>pesco-vegetarian, but not -vegan.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Pesco-vegan is a term I coined to describe my unusual dietary choice.
> > > > Do you have a problem with it?
> > >
> > > It's bullshit. "vegan" means consumes NO
> > > animal-derived products at all, and not just limited to
> > > food, either: no leather, no wool, no lanolin in hand
> > > lotion, no products that were tested on animals, no
> > > standard refined sugar.
> > >
> > > If you eat fish, you are not "vegan": PERIOD.
> >
> > If you eat fish, you are not "vegetarian": PERIOD.
> > Yet the term "Pesco-vegetarian" is in common usage.
>
> I wouldn't call it "common" at all. As far as its use by
> pseudo-vegetarians who eat some fish, they're simply trying to wrap
> themselves in what they see as the glorious mantle of vegetarianism
> while cheating. Fish is not even in the *spirit* of any kind of
> vegetarianism, let alone actually being vegetarian. Fish are animals.
> If you consume *any* animal-based product, you aren't vegetarian.
>
> > > But more to the point, if you eat fish, you are
> > > engaging in some kind of stupid *rationalization* and
> > > sophistry in how you justify the deviation from "veganism".
> >
> > Unlike birds and mammals, fish lack the brain structures
> > that are associated with the processing of emotions in
> > humans.
>
> Fish are animals, no matter how you want to rationalize it away.

Your point being?

> They
> attempt to escape if you try to catch them. They have an experiential
> welfare.
>
> > If I am to be honest I don't believe that fish
> > are really devoid of emotions
>
> They are all BUT devoid of emotions; but that isn't the point.

You can not be serious! The whole rationale behind animal
rights is built upon the premise of animals being emotional
entities.

> > but there is certainly more
> > room for debate and the level of consciousness is likely
> > to be lower for fish than for birds and mammmals.
>
> You are not competent to get into a discussion of animal
> mental/emotional ability, and you know it. Fish are sentient animals.
> Your attempt to rationalize eating them, while trying to wrap yourself
> in glory as some kind of not-quite "vegan", is reprehensible.

Thank you for your input.

> > Other considerations: Consumption of fish is recommended by
> > nutrition experts who don't have a vegetarian agenda.
>
> So is the consumption of limited amounts of lean meat, and dairy
> products. But they aren't vegetarian, and sure as hell aren't "vegan".

Lean meat is often presented as having a place in a healthy balanced
diet and some sources advise against red meat without noting
exceptions.
It is not generally specifically recommended in the same way that
fish is. Dairy products are rather controversial, recommended by some,
frowned upon by others.

> > In general it takes more land and more energy to grow meat
> > than it does to grow vegetables.
>
> That's an utterly irrelevant point.

It is a standard argument used by vegetarians and it is hard
to argue against the idea that more efficient use of the
planet's limited resources is desirable.

> > This argument is widely
> > used to justify vegetarian diets but doesn't apply to fish.
>
> Of course it applies to fish, you dummy.

Is it possible to have a conversation on this newsgroup
without insults being thrown around like confetti?

> Most fish are "farm raised".

Not the fish I eat!

> There is environmental damage (perhaps worth the result; it depends)
> from any kind of farming. Those fish that aren't farm raised are being
> *seriously* depleted through overfishing.

Again, not the fish I eat!

> Goddamn, you are wriggling around like crazy trying to justify your
> consumption of sentient animals, aren't you?

Doesn't feel that way to me.

> > The male calves born as a direct result of the dairy
> > industry are either raised for meat or killed shortly
> > after birth. If you drink milk, you are therefore
> > necessarily responsible for the slaughter of cattle,
> > regardless of whether or not you eat the meat. The same
> > argument also applies to chickens. It is my contention
> > that ethical justifications for ovo-lacto-vegetarian diets
> > require far more sophistry than do pesco-vegan diets.
>
> You're up to your earlobes in sophistry trying to justify your fish
> eating.

Are you arguing from the perspective of an omnivore, vegetarian or
vegan?

Obviously noone can ever accuse you of not being thorough,Usual. I saw
those latest studies findings before. But I won't argue with my own
cessation of colds following the regime I outlined. At the risk of
getting a whiplash reply , out of curiosity where does this
scrutinising varied knowledge base of yours come from...
professional/hobby/or....?

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 13:13:47 GMT, usual suspect >
wrote:

>Joe wrote:
>> Like I said it works for me
>
>Anecdotal. Last refuge of a true believer.
>
>> and apparently many others,
>
>Anecdotal. Last refuge of a true believer.
>
>> and if others
>> prefer not to even try it out and instead religiously have 1 or 2
>> colds a year,
>
>There's nothing "religious" about having a cold, but there IS something
>devoutly religious about the *blind faith* that pseudoscientific
>bullshit remedies like echinacea or homeopathy are beneficial.
>
> Colds are caused by a group of bugs known as rhinoviruses. There
> are 101 strains, and every time a rhinovirus infects you, your
> immune system produces protective antibodies. From then on,
> youre immune to that strain.
>
> The problem is that there are 100 other rhinos (as researchers
> call them) waiting to leap into your nasal passages. So even if
> you get two colds a year, it would take more than half a century
> to run through all the strains.
>
> €œIts hard to find something that will effectively kill the
> virus,€� says Purdue University chemist Carol Post, who studies
> anti-cold compounds. €œThere are so many different types.€�
>
> And rhinos are only part of the story. Two other types of bug,
> the coxsackievirus and adenovirus, also cause coldlike symptoms.
> There are about 10 each of these, which adds up to a lot more
> sniffles before youre immune....
>
> Humans dont like being told theres no cure for their coughs
> and sore throats.
>
> So theyve turned to a variety of alternative treatments, such
> as echinacea, zinc and vitamin C. Americans bought more than
> $150 million worth of echinacea last year, according to the
> €œNutrition Business Journal.€�
>
> The problem is that none of these treatments works €“ at least
> not if you believe in scientific studies.
>
> The latest echinacea study, in the New England Journal of
> Medicine, examined 399 adults who had been exposed to cold
> viruses. The patients were broken into four groups. Three got
> different echinacea preparations and one group got a placebo.
> About 90 percent of the subjects came down with colds, and the
> echinacea takers did *no better* than those on the placebo.
>
> €œWe dont think echinacea is an effective drug,€� said University
> of Michigan epidemiologist Arnold Monto. He was not involved in
> this study but did one two years ago that came to a similar
> conclusion.
> full article: http://tinyurl.com/cgw4q
>
>> I'll slap a 'rolls eyes emoticon' sticker on their nose.
>
>And that's probably just as convincing to them as your anecdotes are to me.
>
>> Perhaps the research is misconducted
>
>Repeated studies have shown no -- ZERO, ZIP, NADA -- benefit of
>echinacea. Dittos for homeopathy. Your anecdotes are not evidence to the
>contrary.
>
><snip>

Pesco-vegan wrote:
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
> > Pesco-vegan wrote:
> > > Rudy Canoza wrote:
> > >
> > > > Pesco-vegan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > usual suspect wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >>Pesco-vegan wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>First of all, there is no such thing as a pesco-vegan. You may be
> > > > >>pesco-vegetarian, but not -vegan.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Pesco-vegan is a term I coined to describe my unusual dietary choice.
> > > > > Do you have a problem with it?
> > > >
> > > > It's bullshit. "vegan" means consumes NO
> > > > animal-derived products at all, and not just limited to
> > > > food, either: no leather, no wool, no lanolin in hand
> > > > lotion, no products that were tested on animals, no
> > > > standard refined sugar.
> > > >
> > > > If you eat fish, you are not "vegan": PERIOD.
> > >
> > > If you eat fish, you are not "vegetarian": PERIOD.
> > > Yet the term "Pesco-vegetarian" is in common usage.
> >
> > I wouldn't call it "common" at all. As far as its use by
> > pseudo-vegetarians who eat some fish, they're simply trying to wrap
> > themselves in what they see as the glorious mantle of vegetarianism
> > while cheating. Fish is not even in the *spirit* of any kind of
> > vegetarianism, let alone actually being vegetarian. Fish are animals.
> > If you consume *any* animal-based product, you aren't vegetarian.
> >
> > > > But more to the point, if you eat fish, you are
> > > > engaging in some kind of stupid *rationalization* and
> > > > sophistry in how you justify the deviation from "veganism".
> > >
> > > Unlike birds and mammals, fish lack the brain structures
> > > that are associated with the processing of emotions in
> > > humans.
> >
> > Fish are animals, no matter how you want to rationalize it away.
>
> Your point being?

You aren't a "vegan" if you eat them, *and* your attempt to rationalize
why you eat them is crap.


> > They
> > attempt to escape if you try to catch them. They have an experiential
> > welfare.
> >
> > > If I am to be honest I don't believe that fish
> > > are really devoid of emotions
> >
> > They are all BUT devoid of emotions; but that isn't the point.
>
> You can not be serious! The whole rationale behind animal
> rights is built upon the premise of animals being emotional
> entities.

No, and your having said that demonstrates conclusively that you don't
know your ass from your face about "animal rights". It is NOT about
their emotional capacity AT ALL. You are simply, and utterly, wrong.


> > > but there is certainly more
> > > room for debate and the level of consciousness is likely
> > > to be lower for fish than for birds and mammmals.
> >
> > You are not competent to get into a discussion of animal
> > mental/emotional ability, and you know it. Fish are sentient animals.
> > Your attempt to rationalize eating them, while trying to wrap yourself
> > in glory as some kind of not-quite "vegan", is reprehensible.
>
> Thank you for your input.

I'm always glad to help.


>
> > > Other considerations: Consumption of fish is recommended by
> > > nutrition experts who don't have a vegetarian agenda.
> >
> > So is the consumption of limited amounts of lean meat, and dairy
> > products. But they aren't vegetarian, and sure as hell aren't "vegan".
>
> Lean meat is often presented as having a place in a healthy balanced
> diet

It has one.


> and some sources advise against red meat without noting
> exceptions.

They're wrong.


> It is not generally specifically recommended in the same way that
> fish is. Dairy products are rather controversial, recommended by some,
> frowned upon by others.

*None* of them are "vegan", including fish.


> > > In general it takes more land and more energy to grow meat
> > > than it does to grow vegetables.
> >
> > That's an utterly irrelevant point.
>
> It is a standard argument used by vegetarians

It is utterly irrelevant.


> and it is hard
> to argue against the idea that more efficient use of the
> planet's limited resources is desirable.

It's a total misrepresentation of what "efficiency" is. There is
NOTHING "inefficient" about using land and other resources to produce
meat.


> > > This argument is widely
> > > used to justify vegetarian diets but doesn't apply to fish.
> >
> > Of course it applies to fish, you dummy.
>
> Is it possible to have a conversation on this newsgroup
> without insults being thrown around like confetti?

Stop saying absolutely and unequivocally silly and stupid things, and
then check to see if it's possible.


> > Most fish are "farm raised".
>
> Not the fish I eat!

Baloney. If you ever eat salmon or catfish, you're most likely eating
farm-raised fish. But your earlier boyishly enthusiastic endorsement
of fish didn't specify wild or line-caught fish; it was just "fish".


> > There is environmental damage (perhaps worth the result; it depends)
> > from any kind of farming. Those fish that aren't farm raised are being
> > *seriously* depleted through overfishing.
>
> Again, not the fish I eat!

Yes.


> > Goddamn, you are wriggling around like crazy trying to justify your
> > consumption of sentient animals, aren't you?
>
> Doesn't feel that way to me.

Oh, of course it doesn't! Sophistry *never* feels or sounds like
sophistry to the sophists who spew it. They fabricate and dissemble
entirely naturally.


> > > The male calves born as a direct result of the dairy
> > > industry are either raised for meat or killed shortly
> > > after birth. If you drink milk, you are therefore
> > > necessarily responsible for the slaughter of cattle,
> > > regardless of whether or not you eat the meat. The same
> > > argument also applies to chickens. It is my contention
> > > that ethical justifications for ovo-lacto-vegetarian diets
> > > require far more sophistry than do pesco-vegan diets.
> >
> > You're up to your earlobes in sophistry trying to justify your fish
> > eating.
>
> Are you arguing from the perspective of an omnivore, vegetarian or
> vegan?

What difference does it make? The truth of what I say doesn't depend
on my "perspective"; either it's true, or it isn't.

"Pesco-vegan" > wrote

> You can not be serious! The whole rationale behind animal
> rights is built upon the premise of animals being emotional
> entities.

"Animal Rights" is based upon the premise that animals have the same
fundamental interests as humans, such as survival and freedom to pursue
basic instincts, and that humans do *not* have the moral right to exploit
animals in contradiction of those interests. Whether or not animals
experience "emotions", however you define it, is a peripheral issue.

Rudy Canoza wrote:

> > > Fish are animals, no matter how you want to rationalize it away.
> >
> > Your point being?
>
> You aren't a "vegan" if you eat them,

I don't claim to be a vegan.

>*and* your attempt to rationalize
> why you eat them is crap.

Whatever.

[snip]

> > > > Other considerations: Consumption of fish is recommended by
> > > > nutrition experts who don't have a vegetarian agenda.
> > >
> > > So is the consumption of limited amounts of lean meat, and dairy
> > > products. But they aren't vegetarian, and sure as hell aren't "vegan".
> >
> > Lean meat is often presented as having a place in a healthy balanced
> > diet
>
> It has one.
>
>
> > and some sources advise against red meat without noting
> > exceptions.
>
> They're wrong.

If you say so.

> > It is not generally specifically recommended in the same way that
> > fish is. Dairy products are rather controversial, recommended by some,
> > frowned upon by others.
>
> *None* of them are "vegan", including fish.

Oh, aren't you a clever boy.

> > > > In general it takes more land and more energy to grow meat
> > > > than it does to grow vegetables.
> > >
> > > That's an utterly irrelevant point.
> >
> > It is a standard argument used by vegetarians
>
> It is utterly irrelevant.

No it isn't.

> > and it is hard
> > to argue against the idea that more efficient use of the
> > planet's limited resources is desirable.
>
> It's a total misrepresentation of what "efficiency" is. There is
> NOTHING "inefficient" about using land and other resources to produce
> meat.

Check out this comparison for usable protein yields per acre
from different foods. Soybeans 356, Rice 261, Corn 211, Other
legumes 192, Wheat 138, Milk 82, Eggs 78, Meat (all types 45)
,Beef 20. Consider what % of the calories in each of these
foods is protein and the comparison becomes even less favourable
to the animal foods. My source is a leaflet published by CIWF.
The source they quote is: USDA; FAO/WHO/UNICEF Protein Advisory
Group.

> > > > This argument is widely
> > > > used to justify vegetarian diets but doesn't apply to fish.
> > >
> > > Of course it applies to fish, you dummy.
> >
> > Is it possible to have a conversation on this newsgroup
> > without insults being thrown around like confetti?
>
> Stop saying absolutely and unequivocally silly and stupid things, and
> then check to see if it's possible.

So you won't be uncivil if I agree with you? How kind;-)

> > > Most fish are "farm raised".
> >
> > Not the fish I eat!
>
> Baloney. If you ever eat salmon or catfish, you're most likely eating
> farm-raised fish.

In my country, labelling regulations require that the origin of fish,
including whether they were wild or farmed must be stated. I have never
eaten catfish. Wild Salmon is easy enough to come by.

[snip]

I would argue that it is meaningless to talk about an emotionless
entity
as having "interests".

Pesco-vegan wrote:
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
> > > > Fish are animals, no matter how you want to rationalize it away.
> > >
> > > Your point being?
> >
> > You aren't a "vegan" if you eat them,
>
> I don't claim to be a vegan.

You have "vegan" as part of your inane posting ID, and you clearly with
to capture some of what you falsely imagine to be the ethical cachet of
"veganism".


>
> >*and* your attempt to rationalize
> > why you eat them is crap.
>
> Whatever.

Yeah, "whatever". People who say that are unimaginative. They're also
defeated, but they don't have the graciousness to make a more
forthright concession.



> > > > > Other considerations: Consumption of fish is recommended by
> > > > > nutrition experts who don't have a vegetarian agenda.
> > > >
> > > > So is the consumption of limited amounts of lean meat, and dairy
> > > > products. But they aren't vegetarian, and sure as hell aren't "vegan".
> > >
> > > Lean meat is often presented as having a place in a healthy balanced
> > > diet
> >
> > It has one.
> >
> >
> > > and some sources advise against red meat without noting
> > > exceptions.
> >
> > They're wrong.
>
> If you say so.

I'm not the only one.


> > > It is not generally specifically recommended in the same way that
> > > fish is. Dairy products are rather controversial, recommended by some,
> > > frowned upon by others.
> >
> > *None* of them are "vegan", including fish.
>
> Oh, aren't you a clever boy.

Aren't you the snide, deflated little bit of nothing.


> > > > > In general it takes more land and more energy to grow meat
> > > > > than it does to grow vegetables.
> > > >
> > > > That's an utterly irrelevant point.
> > >
> > > It is a standard argument used by vegetarians
> >
> > It is utterly irrelevant.
>
> No it isn't.

Yes, it is. It is completely irrelevant.


> > > and it is hard
> > > to argue against the idea that more efficient use of the
> > > planet's limited resources is desirable.
> >
> > It's a total misrepresentation of what "efficiency" is. There is
> > NOTHING "inefficient" about using land and other resources to produce
> > meat.
>
> Check out this comparison for usable protein yields per acre
> from different foods. Soybeans 356, Rice 261, Corn 211, Other
> legumes 192, Wheat 138, Milk 82, Eggs 78, Meat (all types 45)
> ,Beef 20. Consider what % of the calories in each of these
> foods is protein and the comparison becomes even less favourable
> to the animal foods. My source is a leaflet published by CIWF.
> The source they quote is: USDA; FAO/WHO/UNICEF Protein Advisory
> Group.

It's meaningless. It has NOTHING to do with economic efficiency, and
that's the only kind of efficiency that matters.


> > > > > This argument is widely
> > > > > used to justify vegetarian diets but doesn't apply to fish.
> > > >
> > > > Of course it applies to fish, you dummy.
> > >
> > > Is it possible to have a conversation on this newsgroup
> > > without insults being thrown around like confetti?
> >
> > Stop saying absolutely and unequivocally silly and stupid things, and
> > then check to see if it's possible.
>
> So you won't be uncivil if I agree with you? How kind;-)

No guarantees.


>
> > > > Most fish are "farm raised".
> > >
> > > Not the fish I eat!
> >
> > Baloney. If you ever eat salmon or catfish, you're most likely eating
> > farm-raised fish.
>
> In my country, labelling regulations require that the origin of fish,
> including whether they were wild or farmed must be stated. I have never
> eaten catfish. Wild Salmon is easy enough to come by.

If you eat it, you're contributing to the depletion of wild salmon
stocks by overfishing.

Please don't remove all context from your responses.

"Pesco-vegan" > wrote
>I would argue that it is meaningless to talk about an emotionless
> entity
> as having "interests".

Why? What does emotion have to do with wanting to live?

Joe top-posted:
> But I won't argue with my own
> cessation of colds following the regime I outlined.

Anecdotal.

Rudy Canoza wrote:

> Pesco-vegan wrote:
> > Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >
> > > > > Fish are animals, no matter how you want to rationalize it away.
> > > >
> > > > Your point being?
> > >
> > > You aren't a "vegan" if you eat them,
> >
> > I don't claim to be a vegan.
>
> You have "vegan" as part of your inane posting ID, and you clearly with
> to capture some of what you falsely imagine to be the ethical cachet of
> "veganism".

My consumer habits are influenced by AR principles if that's what you
mean.

> > >*and* your attempt to rationalize
> > > why you eat them is crap.
> >
> > Whatever.
>
> Yeah, "whatever". People who say that are unimaginative. They're also
> defeated, but they don't have the graciousness to make a more
> forthright concession.

Of course. I mean "Your attempt to rationalize... is crap" is
a brilliant refutation to which there is no answer. I just
didn't have the graciousness to admit it before.

[snip]

> > > > It is not generally specifically recommended in the same way that
> > > > fish is. Dairy products are rather controversial, recommended by some,
> > > > frowned upon by others.
> > >
> > > *None* of them are "vegan", including fish.
> >
> > Oh, aren't you a clever boy.
>
> Aren't you the snide, deflated little bit of nothing.

When in Rome......

> > > > > > In general it takes more land and more energy to grow meat
> > > > > > than it does to grow vegetables.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's an utterly irrelevant point.
> > > >
> > > > It is a standard argument used by vegetarians
> > >
> > > It is utterly irrelevant.
> >
> > No it isn't.
>
> Yes, it is. It is completely irrelevant.
>
>
> > > > and it is hard
> > > > to argue against the idea that more efficient use of the
> > > > planet's limited resources is desirable.
> > >
> > > It's a total misrepresentation of what "efficiency" is. There is
> > > NOTHING "inefficient" about using land and other resources to produce
> > > meat.
> >
> > Check out this comparison for usable protein yields per acre
> > from different foods. Soybeans 356, Rice 261, Corn 211, Other
> > legumes 192, Wheat 138, Milk 82, Eggs 78, Meat (all types 45)
> > ,Beef 20. Consider what % of the calories in each of these
> > foods is protein and the comparison becomes even less favourable
> > to the animal foods. My source is a leaflet published by CIWF.
> > The source they quote is: USDA; FAO/WHO/UNICEF Protein Advisory
> > Group.
>
> It's meaningless. It has NOTHING to do with economic efficiency,

I wonder whether quite as much meat would be consumed in a free market
economy. I have heard it claimed that government interventionalism
favours meat production but I don't know if this is truth or
veggie propoganda.

> and that's the only kind of efficiency that matters.

Economics has a deservedly important place in society but
it makes a number of unreasonable, implicit assumptions
that ought to be corrected for. Land is the lifeblood
of the planet and as such has an intrinsic value, not simply
a commercial one.

> > > > > > This argument is widely
> > > > > > used to justify vegetarian diets but doesn't apply to fish.
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course it applies to fish, you dummy.
> > > >
> > > > Is it possible to have a conversation on this newsgroup
> > > > without insults being thrown around like confetti?
> > >
> > > Stop saying absolutely and unequivocally silly and stupid things, and
> > > then check to see if it's possible.
> >
> > So you won't be uncivil if I agree with you? How kind;-)
>
> No guarantees.
>
>
> > > > > Most fish are "farm raised".
> > > >
> > > > Not the fish I eat!
> > >
> > > Baloney. If you ever eat salmon or catfish, you're most likely eating
> > > farm-raised fish.
> >
> > In my country, labelling regulations require that the origin of fish,
> > including whether they were wild or farmed must be stated. I have never
> > eaten catfish. Wild Salmon is easy enough to come by.
>
> If you eat it, you're contributing to the depletion of wild salmon
> stocks by overfishing.

*Some* wild salmon stocks are overfished. Not the ones I eat.
http://www.fishonline.org/search/simple/?fish_id=130