Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
reply to post by STFUPPERCUTTER

---

Yes, I did.

And most of the infromation that you're basing your assumptions on are from about the same time period.

Had you any idea of how studies are conducted, you'd realize that date, especially concerning OBSERVATIONAL studies, has no releveance.

Originally posted by STFUPPERCUTTER

3. heart disease - www.npr.org...

The study included some 545,000 adults who were surveyed about their eating habits. The major drawback of the study is that it relies on people's memories, which are not always accurate.

Originally posted by STFUPPERCUTTER

6. diabetes - www.bio-medicine.org...

According to researchers, a diet packed with hot dogs, bologna and bacon can increase the risk of type 2 diabetes by about 50 percent in men.

Cancer incidence was monitored in a population of 34,000 Seventh-day Adventists in California. By religious belief, Adventists do not consume tobacco, alcohol, or pork and approximately one-half adhere to a lacto-ovovegetarian lifestyle. Only a small percentage are pure vegetarians. Comparisons of cancer-incidence rates in this population with an external reference population were completed by calculating standardized morbidity ratios (SMRs) for all cancer sites. Also, within the population, relative risks were calculated by using data obtained from a detailed lifestyle questionnaire that members of the study population completed. For all cancer sites combined in males, the SMR was lower in the Adventists (SMR = 0.73). The SMR was also lower in males for most individual cancer sites. However, prostate cancer risk was higher. For females, the all-cancer SMR was lower but not significantly so (SMR = 92). Most site-specific SMRs were lower, although not as much as the male SMRs. The SMR for endometrial cancer was significantly higher in female Adventists.

argumentum ad verecundiam

Argument from authority or appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative. The most general structure of this argument is:

Source A says that p.
Source A is authoritative.
Therefore, p is true.

This is a fallacy because the truth or falsity of the claim is not necessarily related to the personal qualities of the claimant, and because the premises can be true, and the conclusion false (an authoritative claim can turn out to be false). It is also known as argumentum ad verecundiam (Latin: argument to respect) or ipse dixit (Latin: he himself said it).

On the other hand, arguments from authority are an important part of informal logic. Since we cannot have expert knowledge of many subjects, we often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true. The fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be

Murder, as defined in common law countries, is the unlawful killing of another human being with intent (or malice aforethought), and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide (such as manslaughter).

Originally posted by Divinorumus
Excuse me if this was already pointed out,

but I've not the patience to go through 16 pages to verify.

Anyhow, this should make you meat eaters drool, huh:

What's really in that burger? E.coli and chicken feces both allowed by USDA

Yummy. Bon appétit. Ya'll deserve it. And remember, you are what you eat.

but I've not the patience to go through 16 pages to verify.

Just because you think it should be true does not make it in fact true.