It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Eating Animals is Making us Sick

page: 27
27
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 30 2009 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rawhemp

Lets see some examples of sickness caused by not eating meat, might take you awhile to find them because they are non existent



- Nutrient Deficiencies: Of course, these aren't solely caused by meat restriction. But, depending on geographical location and the scarcity of food, avoiding meat may only allow for the consumption of less nutrient dense foods.

- Under/mal nutrition: This can eventually lead to death. In some geographical locations, the only calorically dense foods are meat. Caloric restriction causes lethargy and catabolism.

And then, of course, what would you be replacing those calories with? If they're carbohydrates, especially starchy ones....they can lead to a multitude of diseases caused by they're direct effects on blood sugar and, most importantly, insulin.

Just curious: Can you list some examples of sickness caused by not eating carbohydrates?

-Dev




posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 12:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd

Just curious: Can you list some examples of sickness caused by not eating carbohydrates?

-Dev


Assuming your talking about the only carbs that matter(fruit) Vitamin deficiency, mineral deficiency, fatigue, lethargy, cancer, heart disease, arthritis, IBS, colitis, the flu, colds, heart attack, high cholesterol, tumors etc. The list is too long for me to even name everything.

From the nature of your posts devolution it seems you prescribe to this absolutely absurd diet, forum.zeroinginonhealth.com...


By the way what is your thought on subsidies? Do you realize how ridiculously priced meat would be without these?

What about the millions of gallons, probably billions? that could be saved by not consuming meat.

[edit on 1-12-2009 by Rawhemp]



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
[...] If the point of this 5th grade post was to suggest that an all meat diet is harmful, then you might need to have a look at pre-westernized eskimos. The Inuit are a group of individuals that had almost no incidence of cancer, diabetes or heart disease......and they consume/consumed a diet consisting almost entirely of meat.

This observation can not simply be ignored.


It can be simply ignored. This thread isn't about people that can live on an all meat diet.

This is about people who's health issues are affected by those that raise and eat meat. For example, H5N1 is said to be spread by chickens. People have been infected H5N1 from their neighbors chickens. Those people could have never eaten their neighbor's chickens. It was the proximity that caused the infection.

The people in this thread have posted resources and ways to live more on vegetarian diets in order to not need to raise so much livestock for food. This in affect would help prevent the spread of diseases like H5N1.

By your post above, it is clear you have not considered fully the vegetarian efforts to be more healthy even for proximity causes.

Here is a link to an article about Inuit and CVD: Traditional Inuit diet cuts heart disease risk: study

That report doesn't say they are healthy because of the variety of meat they eat. It says there is less CVD because of their marine diet, which is high in Omega-3.

It looks like, due to that report, that Hemp can be considered an excellent source for a healthy diet that prevents CVD. It contains Omega-3 and Omega-6 as well as protein and many other healthy nutrients.

Now, this is observation that can't be ignored that is on topic.

[edit on 1-12-2009 by dzonatas]



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 12:53 AM
link   
Calcium deficiencies are most obvious in young, growing animals or those that are nursing young. When great cats consume whole animals including bone they ingest calcium and phosphorus in a ratio of approximate two parts calcium to one part phosphorus. This is an ideal ration allowing for the growth and maintenance of strong bones and joints. When they eat primarily chunk meats without the bones, this ratio is reversed (1:15 to 1:30). After a period of time on a reversed Ca: P ratio young animals develop a bone and joint disease called rickets while older animals develop soft bones, bone and joint pain, arthritis and lameness (osteomalacia). To prevent these diseases, the diets of captive cats must be fortified with calcium at one-half to one percent of the dry weight of the diet.


This is about big cats but can obviously be applied to humans

[edit on 1-12-2009 by Rawhemp]



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rawhemp
Calcium deficiencies are most obvious in young, growing animals or those that are nursing young. When great cats consume whole animals including bone they ingest calcium and phosphorus in a ratio of approximate two parts calcium to one part phosphorus. This is an ideal ration allowing for the growth and maintenance of strong bones and joints. When they eat primarily chunk meats without the bones, this ratio is reversed (1:15 to 1:30). After a period of time on a reversed Ca: P ratio young animals develop a bone and joint disease called rickets while older animals develop soft bones, bone and joint pain, arthritis and lameness (osteomalacia). To prevent these diseases, the diets of captive cats must be fortified with calcium at one-half to one percent of the dry weight of the diet.


This is about big cats but can obviously be applied to humans

[edit on 1-12-2009 by Rawhemp]


Where's the source?

And no, it can not be applied to humans based on this observation alone.

You're ignoring the physiological effects of other exogenous sources. For instance; one of vitamin d's primary functions is to assist calcium through the instestine wall and into the blood. Without adequate amounts of vitamin d, calcium deficiencies can be expected.

Guess what? Felines have to get vitamin D through the diet, unlike humans which synthesize it through exposure to sunlight. You see the problem with your assumption now?

No? Well consider the effects of Insulin. Calcium shuttled to the kidneys to be excreted when insulin levels are elevated. And, as you know, insulin is secreted upon the ingestion of a meal consisting of carbohydrates.

All of your evidence, and the others in the thread, are simply observational and anecdotal and are loosely associated....if at all with the diseases that inflict us.

-Dev



posted on Dec, 1 2009 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd

Where's the source?


www.2ndchance.info...



Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvdunlike humans which synthesize it through exposure to sunlight. You see the problem with your assumption now?


This has nothing to do with what i was pointing out, the point is that no carnivore can eat stale meat but somehow humans think this is acceptable. Due to the nature of meat it spoils very fast, most commercial meat is sprayed with nitrates to keep it from browning to fast.

Also to a lesser extent to demonstrate that humans can clearly not eat bones therefore clearly can't consume meat without creating an extreme CA/P imbalance.



Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvdAll of your evidence, and the others in the thread, are simply observational and anecdotal and are loosely associated....if at all with the diseases that inflict us.


As is yours...

You seem to be deflecting my questions regarding subsidies and water usage, what are your takes on these issues??

Seems i forgot to post this part of the excerpt which deals with the issue of stale meat

Big Cats are also quite sensitive to arginine, methionine and cystine deficiencies. None of these deficiencies occur in the wild, when large cats eat fresh, whole prey animals. But they often do occur in captivity when the cats are fed unfortified meat and meat byproduct. This is because meat procured for zoo animals is usually meat that has been diverted from human consumption because it has partially spoiled. Meat that is not bright red in color should not be fed regardless of its smell. Meat that has had nitrite, protoporphyrin, or any other chemical added to keep the color red should not be fed. Harmful changes that affect Big Cat nutrition occur long before these color changes. During the spoilage process these essential amino-acids are destroyed and fats are oxidized into harmful free-radicals.

[edit on 1-12-2009 by Rawhemp]



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 05:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rawhemp


Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvdunlike humans which synthesize it through exposure to sunlight. You see the problem with your assumption now?


This has nothing to do with what i was pointing out, the point is that no carnivore can eat stale meat but somehow humans think this is acceptable. Due to the nature of meat it spoils very fast, most commercial meat is sprayed with nitrates to keep it from browning to fast.


It's quite obvious that your original intent with that post was to imply that the cause of calcium deficiencies in felines are caused by the same factors as human calcium deficiency (which can actually be caused by a multitude of factors).


Also to a lesser extent to demonstrate that humans can clearly not eat bones therefore clearly can't consume meat without creating an extreme CA/P imbalance.


Honestly, the majority of carnivores can't break large bones apart. But, humans definitely can't eat bones, I'll agree with that. They can, however, eat the bone marrow inside the bones. And that's exactly what hunter-gatherer societies do.....it's tastey.


Historically, native American hunters would pass up a thin bison carcass, rather than eat lean muscle... or just eat the fatty bits. This is also one reason why BONE MARROW is a very popular food among foragers -- a great source of lipids & kcal.


Source: www.indiana.edu...

In fact, Marrow is a very nutrient dense food that DOES contain calcium, is easier to digest than plant food and was, according to multiple studies and observational evidence, probably the staple of the pre-agriculture diet.

Even still, bone marrow aside, most of the evidence existing that suggests eating a high-phosphorus diet is linked to calcium excretion and deficiency is lacking conclusive research and typically relies on epidemiology. You go right ahead and cling to an article written on a feline nutrition website; I'll provide an actual study to support my position.

This is most likely a systemic or meta analysis of multiple studies (it's only the abstract): jn.nutrition.org...


The widespread opinion that both protein and phosphorus cause calcium loss is examined. Controlled human studies show that commonly used complex dietary proteins, which have a high phosphorus content, do not cause calcium loss in adult humans. Similarly, a phosphorus intake of up to 2000 mg/d does not have adverse effects on calcium metabolism; however, the type of phosphate contained in carbonated beverages may not behave in the same manner.



Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvdAll of your evidence, and the others in the thread, are simply observational and anecdotal and are loosely associated....if at all with the diseases that inflict us.



As is yours...


See, I've been posting studies like the above. And I've also described, in detail, the physiological effects to explain many of the observations that have been proposed in this thread. You, on the other hand, have provided articles and stated falsehoods. You've butchered biochemistry and physiology and haven't even attempted to explain the effects that cause your observations.

It's ok, you're not the only one here doing the same.


You seem to be deflecting my questions regarding subsidies and water usage, what are your takes on these issues??


No, I'm not deflecting, I'm ignoring questions such as these because they are of no importance to the health, or sickness, of humans currently. Water might, but, conversely, many crops will drain rivers dry. However, we're speaking of the physiological effects of nutrient consumption.

You're straying off topic with those questions and are stretching for a way to attack ANY consumption of animal products, regardless of their effects on us. If you'd like to talk about the water supply and meat consumption.....the Fragile Earth Forum would be great for it. If you'd like to talk subsidies......their are plenty of other forums that subject would be fitting.

-Dev



[edit on 2-12-2009 by DevolutionEvolvd]

[edit on 2-12-2009 by DevolutionEvolvd]



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 06:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by dzonatas


It can be simply ignored. This thread isn't about people that can live on an all meat diet.


I'm sorry, perhaps my eyes were deceiving me, but wasn't I responding to another member regarding an all meat diet? I mean, the thread title is, "Eating animals is making us sick" is it not?


The people in this thread have posted resources and ways to live more on vegetarian diets in order to not need to raise so much livestock for food.


Perhaps this is the case with some; however, it is not the case with the remaining posters.


By your post above, it is clear you have not considered fully the vegetarian efforts to be more healthy even for proximity causes.


I sure have. And it's factory farming and it's crowded raising of animals that allows these diseases to mutate into a human transmissable strain, not necessarily the proximity of humans and animals.


Here is a link to an article about Inuit and CVD: Traditional Inuit diet cuts heart disease risk: study

That report doesn't say they are healthy because of the variety of meat they eat. It says there is less CVD because of their marine diet, which is high in Omega-3.


The report also says this:


Heart healthy omega-3 levels are associated with greater high-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol concentrations and lower levels of triacylglycerols.


High-density lipoprotein is HDL, not LDL. My point is, do you have to believe every health article you read?

Omega-3's really came into popularity when researchers observed the amount of fat that mediterranean populations didn't add up with relatively low incidence of heart disease. Since this didn't make sense and researchers "knew" dietary fat caused heart disase, they coined omega-3's, and olive oil, as being the preventative dietary food that kept them healthy.


Problem is, this notion doesn't support the current observations, of which are: a huge increase in Coronary Heart Disease in the Omega-3 drenched areas. For more information on this paradoxical thinking, check it here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

One other thing, it's not just CHD that Inuits are seemingly immune to. It's most of the diseases of civilization.


Now, this is observation that can't be ignored that is on topic.


This is a joke right?

-Dev



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
I'm sorry, perhaps my eyes were deceiving me, but wasn't I responding to another member regarding an all meat diet? I mean, the thread title is, "Eating animals is making us sick" is it not?




This is a joke right?


That's what I ask to your first comment above.



Omega-3's really came into popularity when researchers observed the amount of fat that mediterranean populations didn't add up with relatively low incidence of heart disease. Since this didn't make sense and researchers "knew" dietary fat caused heart disase, they coined omega-3's, and olive oil, as being the preventative dietary food that kept them healthy.


There is a big difference between prevention and being kept healthy. We have discovered ways to prevent the spread of cancer, yet that doesn't mean those preventive measures keep people with cancer healthier than they ever been.



One other thing, it's not just CHD that Inuits are seemingly immune to. It's most of the diseases of civilization.


It sounds like you just tried to compare a population that is less than a million that lives in a specific climate to a population of 6+ billion of various climates.



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 07:59 AM
link   
reply to post by dzonatas
 


You accused me of straying off topic and then respond to my "off topic" post and say it shouldn't be ignored.


You're just a walking contradiction aren't you?


There is a big difference between prevention and being kept healthy


Read that again. Until it sinks in. Because you just said there's a big difference between keeping healthy and preventing sickness.


It sounds like you just tried to compare a population that is less than a million that lives in a specific climate to a population of 6+ billion of various climates.


Yes. That's EXACTLY what epidemiologists do.

Guess I have to explain this to you in easier terms.

It's possible that an isolated population could consume a certain food healthily and that the same food could cause problems in other isolated populations that did not evolve consuming said food.

This is where you have to use your head. Not all Inuits continued their 95% meat diets. In fact, presently, nearly all of them are westernized in their food consumption habits and in doing so the incidence of heart disease, diabetes, obesity and cancer have dramatically increased.

So....what was added to/removed from their diet that caused these ailments?

You're simply confirming my assumption that no one in this thread understands the science/history behind nutritional research.



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
reply to post by dzonatas
 


You accused me of straying off topic and then respond to my "off topic" post and say it shouldn't be ignored.


You're just a walking contradiction aren't you?


I took the example of your post and tried to put it back in on-topic context. You wanted to bring up a culture of all meat eaters. I had to go out of my way to find an article that is actually on topic. You could have found that article yourself and posted it, and then your post would have been on-topic. You ask for sources, yet you don't provide them yourself. Please stop with your vague accusations and claims and actually try to respond to opinion and actually try to not make a comment about the writers abilities or disabilities. I mean actually try. Unless you are out to discredit other people here, but this isn't the thread to do that.


Read that again. Until it sinks in. Because you just said there's a big difference between keeping healthy and preventing sickness.


No, without your elaboration on this claim you made of a so-called contradiction that you think is there, this becomes a game of guesses, which you could prevent. If you intentionally want to stay vague, just say so. I can't read your mind, and I won't be one of those people that force what you know out of you.




It sounds like you just tried to compare a population that is less than a million that lives in a specific climate to a population of 6+ billion of various climates.


Yes. That's EXACTLY what epidemiologists do.


And yet, you clearly said you will ignore the observation Rawhemp brought up about large cats. Rawhemp even posted sources!


Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
And no, it can not be applied to humans based on this observation alone.




Guess I have to explain this to you in easier terms.


I think Rawhemp is already ahead of you on this on with attempts to point it out specifically to you.


It's possible that an isolated population could consume a certain food healthily and that the same food could cause problems in other isolated populations that did not evolve consuming said food.


It's possible that an isolated population of Big Cats that eat meat... but you said...



And no, it can not be applied to humans based on this observation alone.


Can you elaborate on how meat is not meat? Or, is this your mere opinion to avoid some contradiction.

I'm human. Inuit's are human. I'm not Inuit. Therefore, ... oh nevermind. Lemme just get to the specifics here:

You said:


Felines have to get vitamin D through the diet, unlike humans which synthesize it through exposure to sunlight. You see the problem with your assumption now?


So Big Cats have fur coats so you claim they don't get sunlight to produce vitamin D.

From another source:


With this temperature range and the smaller amount of sunlight the Inuit have not been able to become true agriculturalists.


So Inuit wear coats and the they don't get sunlight like the rest of 6+ billion.

Do you have any source to claim Inuits get more sunlight than Big Cats in regard to vitamin D production?


This is where you have to use your head.

[...]

You're simply confirming my assumption that no one in this thread understands the science/history behind nutritional research.


Again, Rawhemp was obviously ahead of you on this one on being able to understand nutritional research and being able to present sources. Use your head.



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd

You're simply confirming my assumption that no one in this thread understands the science/history behind nutritional research.


Including you and basically anyone who relies on mainstream nutritionist or scientific studies which are largely funded by and for big business.

No one gets sick from fruits, vegetables, nuts or seeds. Its a fact. I see 300 pound people going in and out of Mcdonalds daily tho. The same people are filling our hospitals to the brim.

You like meat good for you but don't get upset when 20, 30, 40, 50 years down the line you get cancer, heart disease, tumors, athritis etc. etc. If you don't you'll be one of the lucky ones.

I on the other hand choose to take every single measure i can to make my life the best it can be and after hefty experimentation i found the only path to be fruits and vegetables. I'm not and never will put my trust in some doctor, health professional, scientist or any other government official.

If you can eat meat and manage to take regular bowl movements, live an active life and generally feel fine then good for you. I unfortunately can't along with most other people who live on our planet



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd
 


Devo, you're awesome.

Thanks for interjecting science into the thread.


Interesting also, is the phenomenon of centenarians in Okinawa, where they have the world's longest life expectancy. They eat pork and fish.

In keeping with research, they also practice a form of calorie restriction, where they only eat until about 80% full. Calorie restriction is the only scientifically proven life extending diet.



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueTruth
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd
 


Calorie restriction is the only scientifically proven life extending diet.



I'm not disagreeing that calorie restriction isn't a very important part to an effective diet, however I would challenge you to prove that it's the ONLY 'scientifically' proven life extending diet. Please site your source.

"Scientists" from all sorts of pharmaceutical, health, and nutritional companies all claim that their product/lifestyle will extend your life. How do you know that your source is any more reliable?



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Avarus

"Scientists" from all sorts of pharmaceutical, health, and nutritional companies all claim that their product/lifestyle will extend your life. How do you know that your source is any more reliable?


Exactly, they have done studies on animals that have so-called benefited from calorie restriction but in reality what is calorie restriction?? Eating less then 2000 calories, eating till your 80% full as truetruth stated (this is very subjective method), starving yourself?

The science to back up calorie restriction is shoddy at best.

it is still not certain if CR has a positive effect on longevity for primates and humans. So far, most CR studies on humans have targeted overweight people, and even moderate calorie restriction may be harmful in specific patient populations, such as lean persons who have minimal amounts of body fat. The effect of CR on IGF-1 serum levels seen in rodents has not been replicated in human trials.

en.wikipedia.org...


On to the point that truetruth brings up about the Okinawa. The Okinawa follow a high carb low fat diet which is what devolution has been arguing against during this whole entire thread.

The traditional diet also includes a relatively small amount of fish (less than half a serving per day) and somewhat more in the way of soy and other legumes (6% of total caloric intake). Almost no meat, eggs, or dairy products are consumed. Okinawans consume large quantities of pork

So they consume large quantities of pork but wiki fails to clarify what large quantities mean. Its clearly not there staple food. Most websites emphasizing there diet don't even mention the pork intake, wiki seems to be the only one that brings up this fact.
Regardless they clearly incorporate small amounts of pork and fish, keyword is small.

The longevity of the Okinawans probably has more to do with the fact that they live on a island that is relatively unpolluted, not to mention they follow a lowfat, high carb diet which is proven time and time again to be the healthiest diet. I would venture to say that if the Okinawans incorporated a raw vegan low fat high carb diet they would have even loner life spans



posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Avarus
 


Here's a starter...

www.biology-online.org...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... _RA&linkpos=3&log$=relatedreviews&logdbfrom=pubmed

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...



Everybody craps on wikipedia, but this is a decent entry, and at the bottom are numerous direct links to specific scientific studies.

en.wikipedia.org...-Anderson09-1

There is still debate about the possible negative effects for certain sub-populations, or about what is optimal.... but this is more data than has been gathered, and better data, than for any other overall diet.


I'd wager there's a lot more to the Okinawa story than just this though. Scientists have pretty much ruled out genes as the factor, but there's so much more, like the quality of foods, commonality of exercise, supportive social networks, etc.


hope this helps.


peace.



[edit on 2-12-2009 by TrueTruth]



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rawhemp
The science to back up calorie restriction is shoddy at best.


Shoddy or Big Pharma has their hands in it.

Foods that have no metabolic precursors would lead someone to need a calorie restriction if they live on such a diet.

Teas are a good source for metabolic balance and fulfillment. It's sad the Big Pharma has gotten quite a few varieties taken off the shelf. I thought this subject alone would make a good thread in the new ats forum. Maybe...



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 04:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rawhemp
Including you and basically anyone who relies on mainstream nutritionist or scientific studies which are largely funded by and for big business.

I'm not and never will put my trust in some doctor, health professional, scientist or any other government official.


When you say things like this you lose credibility, quickly. No one is asking you to trust anyone. The smart thing to do would be to study the research and the textbooks yourself, or fact check what the nutritionists and doctors and scientists say.

You're no better than the scientists and nutritionists that adhere to a hypothesis blindly. According to this post alone, you simply dismiss any information that conflicts with your hypothesis. And now you're claiming that these people don't know what they're talking about because the studies are funded by big business? Come on....

The integrity of studies have been proven to be compromized in the past, and in the future to come; however, this is no reason to simply dismiss all studies as irrelavent.


No one gets sick from fruits, vegetables, nuts or seeds. Its a fact.


This is an utter lie. But I'm not disagreeing that most water dense fruits and vegetables, and nuts and seeds are great.


I see 300 pound people going in and out of Mcdonalds daily tho. The same people are filling our hospitals to the brim.


I've seen 300 pound people that have never touched McDonalds, and I've talked to them personally and counseled them. I've spoken with 300 pound vegetarians. What's you're point?


You like meat good for you but don't get upset when 20, 30, 40, 50 years down the line you get cancer, heart disease, tumors, athritis etc. etc. If you don't you'll be one of the lucky ones.


Of course.
If I don't get it....I'm just lucky.

Meat consumption has NEVER been accurately associated with heart disease. It has loosely been associated with cancer and tumors, and I mean very loosely. And arthritis? LOL. et cetera? I assume you mean diabetes and obesity. Well, they are not associated with protein and fat consumption either.


I on the other hand choose to take every single measure i can to make my life the best it can be and after hefty experimentation i found the only path to be fruits and vegetables.


It's funny, because you say you "know" your diet is healthy, and you say it is because you've experimented, yet you truely have no idea how it will affect you in the long term. Take your measures and experiment as you will but you will never understand the physiology of human beings until you learn how to evalutate the literature.

My diet, though I've refrained from exposing it, consists of fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds and various animal products. I strive to only consume whole foods and stay away from processed foods, if possible.

It's great that frutis and vegetables alone are the only benefitial items on your plate. But for others....they are not. My anecdotal evidence is truely irrelavent to the conversation; however, meat consumption has, if anything, helped me in my progression towards a healthier lifestyle.


If you can eat meat and manage to take regular bowl movements, live an active life and generally feel fine then good for you. I unfortunately can't along with most other people who live on our planet


Based on what data? Or, since you like to provide Op-Ed articles, based on what opinion articles?

-Dev



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 08:07 AM
link   
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd
 


didn't you know that all scientists, doctors, and health professionals are all part of a vast conspiracy?

scientific illiteracy is just a crying shame.

i will never understand the hostility towards science - and in its place, the blind faith in beliefs based on nothing but hunches and personal opinions.

in this day and age, it's just plain inexcusable. somebody did that kid a disservice in his education. minimally, students need to be able to know how to read and evaluate a scientific paper - even if they aren't expert in the field.

galileo is spinning in his grave...



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd And now you're claiming that these people don't know what they're talking about because the studies are funded by big business? Come on....


On this site, it seems people post satire more often than sarcasm. Some of it can be quite anecdotal and valid evidence...

... can't wait for the day you enter an emergency room and say you are sick and the doctor replies... "Sorry, we can't take your anecdotal evidence that you are sick. Come back when you have grounded scientific proof."


I do know of one famous ballplayer that fell dead on the field and Big Pharma stepped in to do a review and blamed it all on a particular substance found in his body at the time. This lead to the substance being banned. Oh ya, that was really scientific proof that the substance cause his death and therefore nobody should have access to it! Well, nobody except Big Pharma. Don't you love that anecdotal fine print!

That is just one case of how turn a conspiracy theory into a conspiracy fact, especially when people get prescribed with higher dosage amount to take on a daily basis than that ballplayer ever did. For some reason, they don't fall over dead like the ballplayer.

I'm sure that is enough evidence to question the studies funded by big business.

Earlier in this thread it was stated that vegetarians need supplements. That "need" is questionable if done in attempts like above where they take a more natural resource off the shelf in order to sell it as a supplement.

Isn't that the goal of big business? To patent natural resources? To make money?



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join