Re: 101 reasons why I am a vegetarian

[Guest guest]

Well, with a 101 reasons it would make for a long rebuttal. But its

got the standard crap about fat clogging your arteries. Outdated

science even among those scientists looking to blame cholesterol. And

as the Taubes 'Soft Science of Dietary Fat' article points out,

the cancer community has backed away from any meat-cancer link.

Considering that people with low cholesterol have higher overall

mortality rates than people with cholesterol levels of around 200,

and that cholesterol is a vital component of cellular membranes which

are responsible for keeping carcinogens out of the cells, its not

surprising.

It also made some good points about factory farms.

[Guest guest]

..... Considering that people with low cholesterol have higher overall

> mortality rates than people with cholesterol levels of around 200...

>

>

Some would argue for proof of cause and effect: Does a low serum

cholesterol level make you more susceptible to cancer or does a

developing cancer, which may remain undiagnosed for years, cause a

lower serum cholesterol level?

Alec

[Guest guest]

>

> .... Considering that people with low cholesterol have higher

overall

> > mortality rates than people with cholesterol levels of around

200...

> >

>

> >

>

> Some would argue for proof of cause and effect: Does a low serum

> cholesterol level make you more susceptible to cancer or does a

> developing cancer, which may remain undiagnosed for years, cause a

> lower serum cholesterol level?

Yes, that's a good point. Its also amusing because the reverse wrt

heart disease was never considered a possibility!

At the risk of sounding pedantic (me? never!), in science we are

supposed to interpret the data using our knowledge of biology. If we

find a link that makes no biological sense, we should discard it as

not being a causal relationship. But if that link does have

biological plausibility, then we should be a lot more inclined to

think its causal. Since cholesterol makes up cellular membranes, and

one of the roles of cellular membranes is to keep out carcinogens, it

has biological plausibility.

The standard rebutal is that most epidemiology finds that cholesterol

drops, then a few years down the road that person gets cancer. So

they attribute that drop to pre-clinical features of the cancer.

However, its just as likely that the cholesterol goes down for some

other reason, which allows carcinogens to enter, then cancer occurs.

Causality can really only be tested clinically. I do think that the

meta-analysis's on cancer and cholesterol lowering drugs have been

done (I have no idea of the results), but usually cancer has a longer

latency period than the 5 to 7 years that most clinical studies on

heart disease last. So assuming the meta-analysis finds no increase,

its left as a topic of debate.

[Guest guest]

At 08:16 AM 3/30/2002 -0700, you wrote:

>No, not me. :-) Just saw the article and wondered if anyone has rebutted

>it?

><http://www.garynull.com/Documents/VivaVine/101ReasonsVegetarian.htm>http://www\

..garynull.com/Documents/VivaVine/101ReasonsVegetarian.htm

>

>~ Carma ~

Well, it DOES make some good points for better farming practices, where I

think I'm on the same page (I try to avoid factory-grown food). But the

same points apply, I think, for factory-grown vegies: small farms are more

efficient and produce better food, whether that food is meat or vegies, and

far more chemicals are used on the vegies. You could make the same points

about the abuse of farm workers in the picking of (organic) strawberries as

the humane killing of animals.

I also think it's a problem how the vegetarian press makes it sound like

food poisoning is only from meat. We had a vegetarian working with us, and

she got bad food poisoning on New Years. Turned out she had left all the

dips out all night, then snacked on them in the morning. She said " How can

that cause food poisoning? There was no meat in them! " .

If we make a good press for LESS population and a quieter lifestyle,

everyone can have good food without destroying the planet. But few

vegetarians (or anyone else I know) is seriously into making good sex

education and birth control available or telling people that 'fewer is

better', and the economy is all tied to infinite growth.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

We are already puppets in population control, how else can you explain the food

system and choices people are making in the shadow of " good

health " when it actually shortens your life, numbs your mind, and reduces the

birth rate!!

Tim

Heidi Schuppenhauer wrote:

> At 08:16 AM 3/30/2002 -0700, you wrote:

> >No, not me. :-) Just saw the article and wondered if anyone has rebutted

> >it?

>

><http://www.garynull.com/Documents/VivaVine/101ReasonsVegetarian.htm>http://www\

..garynull.com/Documents/VivaVine/101ReasonsVegetarian.htm

> >

> >~ Carma ~

>

> Well, it DOES make some good points for better farming practices, where I

> think I'm on the same page (I try to avoid factory-grown food). But the

> same points apply, I think, for factory-grown vegies: small farms are more

> efficient and produce better food, whether that food is meat or vegies, and

> far more chemicals are used on the vegies. You could make the same points

> about the abuse of farm workers in the picking of (organic) strawberries as

> the humane killing of animals.

>

> I also think it's a problem how the vegetarian press makes it sound like

> food poisoning is only from meat. We had a vegetarian working with us, and

> she got bad food poisoning on New Years. Turned out she had left all the

> dips out all night, then snacked on them in the morning. She said " How can

> that cause food poisoning? There was no meat in them! " .

>

> If we make a good press for LESS population and a quieter lifestyle,

> everyone can have good food without destroying the planet. But few

> vegetarians (or anyone else I know) is seriously into making good sex

> education and birth control available or telling people that 'fewer is

> better', and the economy is all tied to infinite growth.

>

> -- Heidi

>

>

>

>

>