Re: Red Meat, Heart Disease, and Cancer: Read the Fine Print

[Guest guest]

Amen. Adele is my hero. She did great work with the information

available at the time and I still refer to her books frequently.

 

Carol Monroe

 

" Let there be peace on earth and let it begin with me. "

________________________________

From: Carolyn Graff <zgraff@...>

discussingnt ; ;

newwaphb ; WAPFchapterleaders

Sent: Friday, May 1, 2009 1:26:32 PM

Subject: Red Meat, Heart Disease, and Cancer: Read the Fine Print

http://www.garynorth.com/public/4900.cfm

Here's an excerpt:

PERSONAL TESTIMONY

In 1948, I was a sick boy. I had chronic bronchitis, and I was

underweight. My mother took me to a physician named Francis

Pottenger. He was one of the early physicians who specialized in

nutritional medicine. He put me on a special diet. I had to have red

meat every day for at least one meal. I had a lot of steamed

vegetables, and I had a bowl of whole grain cereal, cooked overnight.

I had virtually no sugar. I was allowed only one scoop of ice cream

per week.

He told my mother to buy a copy of Adelle 's brand-new book,

Let's Cook It Right. She did. She used it for over 50 years.

Within 18 months, I was completely restored to health. Since that

time, I have only on the rarest occasions been sick with anything

more than a cold or the flu. I am an almost flawless health. I have

stuck to the diet ever since. I eat ground beef almost every day.

Both my parents adopted a variation of that diet, and my mother is

still alive at age 91. My father died last December at age 91.

You can worry about red meat and heart disease if you want to. You

can worry about cancer and red meat. You can worry about a whole lot

of things. What I worry about is spending taxpayers' money on studies

of people's diets.

Carolyn

Madison, WI

[Guest guest]

Individual anectdotal stories really don't show anything, I think. You could

probably find some testimonial of someone who was cured of disease by eating

only potato chips, and people living to old ages doing nothing by smoking cigars

and eating vegan diets, etc, etc.

Given that ultimately what is a good diet and what isn't, is SCIENCE, not

religion, it seems to me this is a rather good thing to spend money on. Whether

the science is good or bad is kind of an independent issue.

Red Meat, Heart Disease, and Cancer: Read the Fine Print

http://www.garynorth.com/public/4900.cfm

Here's an excerpt:

PERSONAL TESTIMONY

In 1948, I was a sick boy. I had chronic bronchitis, and I was

underweight. My mother took me to a physician named Francis

Pottenger. He was one of the early physicians who specialized in

nutritional medicine. He put me on a special diet. I had to have red

meat every day for at least one meal. I had a lot of steamed

vegetables, and I had a bowl of whole grain cereal, cooked overnight.

I had virtually no sugar. I was allowed only one scoop of ice cream

per week.

He told my mother to buy a copy of Adelle 's brand-new book,

Let's Cook It Right. She did. She used it for over 50 years.

Within 18 months, I was completely restored to health. Since that

time, I have only on the rarest occasions been sick with anything

more than a cold or the flu. I am an almost flawless health. I have

stuck to the diet ever since. I eat ground beef almost every day.

Both my parents adopted a variation of that diet, and my mother is

still alive at age 91. My father died last December at age 91.

You can worry about red meat and heart disease if you want to. You

can worry about cancer and red meat. You can worry about a whole lot

of things. What I worry about is spending taxpayers' money on studies

of people's diets.

Carolyn

Madison, WI

[Guest guest]

I was born in 1953. My baby book was published in 1950. It has a chapter on

nutrition. It says the pregnant mother should have a quart of full fat dairy

(or equivalent in cheese) daily, liver weekly, and red meat should be LIMITED to

" no more than once a day " !

Quite a change since then in recommendations for pregnant women -- and everyone

else!

Ann

>

> http://www.garynorth.com/public/4900.cfm

>

> Here's an excerpt:

>

> PERSONAL TESTIMONY

>

> In 1948, I was a sick boy. I had chronic bronchitis, and I was

> underweight. My mother took me to a physician named Francis

> Pottenger. He was one of the early physicians who specialized in

> nutritional medicine. He put me on a special diet. I had to have red

> meat every day for at least one meal. I had a lot of steamed

> vegetables, and I had a bowl of whole grain cereal, cooked overnight.

> I had virtually no sugar. I was allowed only one scoop of ice cream

> per week.

>

> He told my mother to buy a copy of Adelle 's brand-new book,

> Let's Cook It Right. She did. She used it for over 50 years.

>

> Within 18 months, I was completely restored to health. Since that

> time, I have only on the rarest occasions been sick with anything

> more than a cold or the flu. I am an almost flawless health. I have

> stuck to the diet ever since. I eat ground beef almost every day.

> Both my parents adopted a variation of that diet, and my mother is

> still alive at age 91. My father died last December at age 91.

>

> You can worry about red meat and heart disease if you want to. You

> can worry about cancer and red meat. You can worry about a whole lot

> of things. What I worry about is spending taxpayers' money on studies

> of people's diets.

>

> Carolyn

> Madison, WI

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

--- Ancient Eyeball Recipe <implode7@...> wrote:

> Individual anectdotal stories really don't show anything, I think.

> You could probably find some testimonial of someone who was cured of

> disease by eating only potato chips, and people living to old ages

> doing nothing by smoking cigars and eating vegan diets, etc, etc.

I agree about the anecdotal evidence Gene. Burns comes to mind, smoking

15 cigars a day and living to be over 100. Although maybe he never inhaled

But I have to wonder if there are really any true strict vegans from birth (no

mother's milk allowed to be truly vegan IMO) who never cheat and live to be very

old.

[Guest guest]

> Individual anectdotal stories really don't show anything, I think.

True about the good or bad science.

Although, anecdotal evidence is still evidence, and many of the greatest

scientific discoveries started with " I wonder how that outlier individual thing

happened. "

Whereas, epidemiological observational study after observational study tells us

even less imo. Specially when there seems no limit to the observational

studies, and no pressure to do more quality precise studies to test hypotheses.

We taxpayers have a duty to call foul on this sort of thing.

Connie

[Guest guest]

On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 7:14 PM, <oz4caster@...> wrote:

>

>

> --- Ancient Eyeball Recipe <implode7@...> wrote:

>> Individual anectdotal stories really don't show anything, I think.

>> You could probably find some testimonial of someone who was cured of

>> disease by eating only potato chips, and people living to old ages

>> doing nothing by smoking cigars and eating vegan diets, etc, etc.

>

> I agree about the anecdotal evidence Gene.

Hey ,

Did you or Gene actually read the link? He is critiquing the science.

He throws in his personal testimony at the end, which nevertheless has

a link to the bio of Francis Pottenger for anyone who is so inclined

to do some research on the science behind Pottenger's recommendations.

Here is another excerpt from the article:

" Twenty-five years ago, Edith Efron's remarkable book on cancer

research was published: Apocalyptics: Cancer and the Big Lie: How

Environmental Politics Controls What We Know About Cancer. She read

15,000 studies on cancer. She concluded that the evidence of the

correlations was generally poor and often misused and misinterpreted

by some segments of the environmental movement. That book remains the

most comprehensive study of the studies. The book was ignored then and

is unknown today.

(Me: this would explain one reason - but certainly not the only one -

for being against the use of taxpayer money in funding " scientific "

studies)

" The Times article cites the supposed results of a handful of studies

on red meat and cancer, but it does not identify them. "

> Burns comes to mind,

> smoking 15 cigars a day and living to be over 100. Although maybe he never

> inhaled

Phooey. This is just a reflection of the modern unscientific (and

politically exacerbated) bias against tobacco.

> But I have to wonder if there are really any true strict vegans from birth

> (no mother's milk allowed to be truly vegan IMO) who never cheat and live to

> be very old.

Every vegan I have known personally or read about has cheated or

" cheats " , yet consistently downplays the value added nature of

cheating, by still referring to themselves as " vegans " . It would be

interesting to see a study done on the cheating of vegans.

--

" One hears that, in foreign lands, people are now learning to swim,

lying on the floor, with the aid of equipment. In the same way, one

can become a Catholic or Protestant without experiencing life at

all--by reading books in one's study. But to become Orthodox, it is

necessary to immerse oneself all at once in the very element of

Orthodoxy, to begin living in an Orthodox way. There is no other

way. " --Fr. Pavel Florensky

[Guest guest]

Well, I'd imagine that there are, but the point wasn't that any

specific 'violation' would produce counterexamples, just that these

counterexamples certainly exist.

>

>

> --- Ancient Eyeball Recipe <implode7@...> wrote:

> > Individual anectdotal stories really don't show anything, I think.

> > You could probably find some testimonial of someone who was cured of

> > disease by eating only potato chips, and people living to old ages

> > doing nothing by smoking cigars and eating vegan diets, etc, etc.

>

> I agree about the anecdotal evidence Gene. Burns comes to

> mind, smoking 15 cigars a day and living to be over 100. Although

> maybe he never inhaled

>

> But I have to wonder if there are really any true strict vegans from

> birth (no mother's milk allowed to be truly vegan IMO) who never

> cheat and live to be very old.

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

On May 1, 2009, at 7:40 PM, cbrown2008 wrote:

>

>

> > Individual anectdotal stories really don't show anything, I think.

>

> True about the good or bad science.

>

> Although, anecdotal evidence is still evidence, and many of the

> greatest scientific discoveries started with " I wonder how that

> outlier individual thing happened. "

>

But that isn't the point at all. Every anecdotal story could produce

data that when compiled with other data would be evidence. But you

wouldn't consider one anecdotal example as evidence - both because

there is no measurement going on at all - just someone's story, and

because in itself it doesn't really show much of anything. So, you are

comparing a very loose use of the word evidence, with a more rigorous

one.

>

>

> Whereas, epidemiological observational study after observational

> study tells us even less imo. Specially when there seems no limit to

> the observational studies, and no pressure to do more quality

> precise studies to test hypotheses. We taxpayers have a duty to call

> foul on this sort of thing.

>

Again - missing the point. Ultimately, what is and isn't good for us

isn't religion, it's science. Whether the science is good or bad, or

isn't interpreted correctly is another issue. The implication is that

that anecdote means something - and it doesn't. Not at all.

>

>

> Connie

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

On May 1, 2009, at 10:19 PM, wrote:

>

>

> On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 7:14 PM, <oz4caster@...> wrote:

> >

> >

> > --- Ancient Eyeball Recipe <implode7@...> wrote:

> >> Individual anectdotal stories really don't show anything, I think.

> >> You could probably find some testimonial of someone who was cured

> of

> >> disease by eating only potato chips, and people living to old ages

> >> doing nothing by smoking cigars and eating vegan diets, etc, etc.

> >

> > I agree about the anecdotal evidence Gene.

>

> Hey ,

>

> Did you or Gene actually read the link? He is critiquing the science.

> He throws in his personal testimony at the end, which nevertheless has

> a link to the bio of Francis Pottenger for anyone who is so inclined

> to do some research on the science behind Pottenger's recommendations.

> Here is another excerpt from the article:

>

No - I thought that was clear. I was commenting on the post, not the

link. The post didn't inspire me to read the link, but I might take a

look at it based on that.

>

>

> " Twenty-five years ago, Edith Efron's remarkable book on cancer

> research was published: Apocalyptics: Cancer and the Big Lie: How

> Environmental Politics Controls What We Know About Cancer. She read

> 15,000 studies on cancer. She concluded that the evidence of the

> correlations was generally poor and often misused and misinterpreted

> by some segments of the environmental movement. That book remains the

> most comprehensive study of the studies. The book was ignored then and

> is unknown today.

>

> (Me: this would explain one reason - but certainly not the only one -

> for being against the use of taxpayer money in funding " scientific "

> studies)

>

Don't see that at all. It's like saying that because some tax money

goes to horrible things (war, etc), we shouldn't pay taxes at all, or

that because there is some bad medicine that you should never, ever go

to a doctor, etc. I think that have scientific studies ONLY privately

funded would simply make the situation worse, and if this stuff wasn't

studied scientifically at all, all we'd see is a bunch of people

eating religiously. It IS entirely about the science.

>

>

> " The Times article cites the supposed results of a handful of studies

> on red meat and cancer, but it does not identify them. "

>

> > Burns comes to mind,

> > smoking 15 cigars a day and living to be over 100. Although maybe

> he never

> > inhaled

>

> Phooey. This is just a reflection of the modern unscientific (and

> politically exacerbated) bias against tobacco.

>

>

right....and ancient people were known for smoking 15 cigars per day

and drinking heavily (didn't he also do that?). I'm sure his diet was

great, though.

> > But I have to wonder if there are really any true strict vegans

> from birth

> > (no mother's milk allowed to be truly vegan IMO) who never cheat

> and live to

> > be very old.

>

> Every vegan I have known personally or read about has cheated or

> " cheats " , yet consistently downplays the value added nature of

> cheating, by still referring to themselves as " vegans " . It would be

> interesting to see a study done on the cheating of vegans.

>

Anecdotal entirely.

>

>

>

> --

> " One hears that, in foreign lands, people are now learning to swim,

> lying on the floor, with the aid of equipment. In the same way, one

> can become a Catholic or Protestant without experiencing life at

> all--by reading books in one's study. But to become Orthodox, it is

> necessary to immerse oneself all at once in the very element of

> Orthodoxy, to begin living in an Orthodox way. There is no other

> way. " --Fr. Pavel Florensky

>

>

[Guest guest]

--- <slethnobotanist@...> wrote:

> Did you or Gene actually read the link? He is critiquing the

> science. He throws in his personal testimony at the end, which

> nevertheless has a link to the bio of Francis Pottenger for anyone

> who is so inclined to do some research on the science behind

> Pottenger's recommendations.

,

I agree with Gene that 's testimony about his personal life is anecdotal.

But I also think it's another piece in the puzzle. Taken by itself, it doesn't

mean much. But if there is enough anecdotal evidence confirming the same

result, it adds up and may be more convincing, though not a perfect proof (if

there is such a thing in health matters).

> " Twenty-five years ago, Edith Efron's remarkable book on cancer

> research was published: Apocalyptics: Cancer and the Big Lie: How

> Environmental Politics Controls What We Know About Cancer. She read

> 15,000 studies on cancer. She concluded that the evidence of the

> correlations was generally poor and often misused and misinterpreted

> by some segments of the environmental movement. That book remains

> the most comprehensive study of the studies. The book was ignored

> then and is unknown today.

>

> (Me: this would explain one reason - but certainly not the only one

> - for being against the use of taxpayer money in funding

> " scientific " studies)

Yes, our taxes are wasted on so many things that appear to be driven by large

business interests to serve large business interests and are often at odds with

public interest. As I see it, the problem in government is to find ways to

prevent undue influence from wealthy business interests. Money is a very

powerful influence and not just in government. Propaganda is everywhere and

blinds many people who don't take the trouble to investigate on their own. I

should know, I used to be one of them, and in some matters I may still be

blinded

> > Burns comes to mind,

> > smoking 15 cigars a day and living to be over 100. Although maybe

> > he never inhaled

>

> Phooey. This is just a reflection of the modern unscientific (and

> politically exacerbated) bias against tobacco.

Haha!!! This is just me poking fun at Bill Clinton (and myself since I have

posted about this here in the past).

> > But I have to wonder if there are really any true strict vegans

> > from birth (no mother's milk allowed to be truly vegan IMO) who

> > never cheat and live to be very old.

>

> Every vegan I have known personally or read about has cheated or

> " cheats " , yet consistently downplays the value added nature of

> cheating, by still referring to themselves as " vegans " . It would be

> interesting to see a study done on the cheating of vegans.

Yes, as Gene said, this is anecdotal evidence, but it corroborates with what I

have read and seen as well. If veganism was such a good thing, why is there no

evidence of purely vegan cultures? Surely over the vast history of humanity

many groups would have taken to veganism long ago if it was a successful way of

life. Some of the apes perhaps? But even they are not true vegans since they

eat insects and sometimes small animals. I never have understood where they

arbitrarily draw the line in not consuming animal life or products. I guess

microbes don't count? Most raw vegetables are covered with them

If our immune systems were not constantly killing microbes in the blood, we

would die quickly. That's why I think true vegans must commit suicide to keep

their bodies from killing those innocent microbes

And heaven forbid if they ever step on an insect or swat a mosquito!