Originally posted by dzonatas
Did you miss the point of the OP, the book, and the health issues all related to 'eating animals'?
No, I'm very well aware of the OP, the book, and I am very well aware of the consequences of factory farming. However, I have specifically responded
to other members suggesting that the CONSUMPTION of meat is making us sick. The definition of "sick" has included, but not limited to, the diseases
Tuberculosis is an infectious, airborne disease that is transmitted from human to human by inhaling bacteria from droplets. Zoonose, or the
transmission of a disease from animal to human, is quite rare, especially considering the way food is prepared/cooked.
Tb is not caused by the direct consumption of meat, in the vast majority of cases. Your own sources confirmed this.
Continue to read that book and you will see that your narrowed means of "westernization" was after the fact of of the start of the epidemic
I'd rather not read the book as it is of no importance to the conversation. I mean, you are seriously making a stretch trying to associate the
Inuit's wild meat consumption with Tb incidence. Occam's Razor......Let's use the simple hypothesis instead of complicating a simple problem to
support your preconception. Simple: Tb in the Inuit is easily explained by their isolation from infectious diseases before the Europeans
introduced it to their culture.
Why do traditional Inuit's seem to be immune to all of the diseases of civilization? It's an observation that can not be
And, you stated:
Once again, I simply referred to a group of individuals that thrive on meat without incidence of the diseases of civilization and then
said it can't be ignored...
They are still not immune to tuberculous, especially when their sickness rate is 10 to 20 times higher than the national average. This is what you
obviously ignored when you stated "without incidence."
Here. I'll make this simple. Tb is not a disease of civilization
Lifestyle diseases (also sometimes called diseases of longevity or diseases of civilization interchangably) are diseases that appear to increase
in frequency as countries become more industrialized and people live longer. They can include Alzheimer's disease, atherosclerosis, asthma, cancer,
chronic liver disease or cirrhosis, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Type 2 diabetes, heart disease, metabolic syndrome, nephritis or chronic
renal failure, osteoporosis, acne, stroke, depression and obesity.
Some commenters maintain a distinction between diseases of longevity, and diseases of civilization. Certain diseases, such as diabetes or asthma
appear at greater rates in young populations living in the "western" way; their increased incidence is not related to age, so the terms cannot
accurately be used interchangeably for all diseases.
I was very clearly speaking of diseases of civilization that are directly associated with dietary choice. Tb....is not one.
Further, this thread never claims it is impossible to live on meat alone.
I know. It was, however, directly implied.
The only thing you really shown is that in order to eat an 'all meat' diet and stay healthy is for everybody to live like the Inuit and hunt
animals in their natural migration.
I agree that epidemiology/observations do not prove causation. But to make the assumption above is absolutely ridiculous for two reasons. 1) There
are corroborating epidemiological/observational data in different climates consuming different types of meat (The masai are just one example). 2) If
your above statement is true then epidemiology has no place in nutritional science and every observation, including the ones made by you and rawhemp,
You should ask Devo that question based on his "can't be ignored" claims of the Inuit. (How ironic you tried to state that against me,
and it's actually against Devo's claims!)
I can't believe the amount of misrepresentation, dishonesty and deflections in your attempts to discredit me. Unless you just have a true problem
with comprehension, you are purposefully twisting my posts/points and striving to present them as false, all the while arguing points that are