🚀 go-pugleaf

Seals make tasty meals and I look forward to consuming many of them this 
season.

"KrakAttiK" <moodswings@derekm.plus.C0M> wrote in message
news:evv2805755dbe5kva89743oim39n5qvkfl@4ax.com...
> http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/general/default.aspx?oid=21446
>
> Saving Harp Seals
>
> The Canadian government has announced plans to expand the seal hunt
> and permit the deliberate culling of nearly one million seals over
> three years... the highest level of government-sanctioned cruelty to
> seals since the 1960s.

All the children dying all over the world through starvation, disease and
war, and what do the fat arsed, mushy minded leftists worry themselves over?
Seals. Then they'll waddle into Macdonalds in their Gucci sandles and slurp
back their big macs.

Hey, lameoid, there are literally MILLIONS and MILLIONS of seals. You could
at least worry over some endangered animals. Oh, but the baby seals are so
cuuuuuuuuuuuuuttttteeee. Ohhhh. Oooohhhh.

Not when they get to be enormous, five hundred pound fish eating vacuums
cleaners, but hey, who wants to think about that, right? Fish are like,
slimy and stuff (ick!). Who cares about them!?

"tsarkon" <tsarkon@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:NGfgc.147429$Pk3.92697@pd7tw1no...
> Seals make tasty meals and I look forward to consuming many of them this
> season.

Ah!

We have an Eskimo on the NG:-)

"KrakAttiK" <moodswings@derekm.plus.C0M> wrote in message
news:evv2805755dbe5kva89743oim39n5qvkfl@4ax.com...
> http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/general/default.aspx?oid=21446
>
> Saving Harp Seals

> Cheerio
>
> -- 




I say!   How are things in Merry Old England?

Now fuck off.    Killing Seals is good fun and you know it.   You're just
jealous that you can't get in on it.

Club a seal for Jesus.

"KrakAttiK" <moodswings@derekm.plus.C0M> wrote in message
news:evv2805755dbe5kva89743oim39n5qvkfl@4ax.com...
| http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/general/default.aspx?oid=21446
|
| Saving Harp Seals

Hey fuck-wit.  they dont kill baby harp seals.  Eben the National Geographic
says so.

I have seen you retards using those picture from the 70s still.

I am going to Canada for skiing.

"KrakAttiK" <moodswings@derekm.plus.C0M> wrote in message
news:evv2805755dbe5kva89743oim39n5qvkfl@4ax.com...
> http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/general/default.aspx?oid=21446
>
> Saving Harp Seals
>
>
Fri, April 16, 2004

The slaughter of the truth
By MICHAEL HARRIS -- For the Ottawa Sun




Not much has changed since that brilliant March day back in 1981 on the St.
John's waterfront when Captain Morrissey Johnson threw a Greenpeace
demonstrator off the deck of the Lady Johnson before setting sail for the
annual Newfoundland seal hunt.

I can still hear the smack. The young lady hit the wharf with a thud heard
around the world. The crowd of Newfoundlanders cheered lustily. They were
there for the traditional blessing of the fleet, wishing safe passage for
their "swilers" and they didn't appreciate the international condemnation
and humiliation that the "come-from-aways" were dishing out.

What their urban denouncers did not know is that many of the people on the
dock that day had lost family members in the annual trek to the hunt which
had been going on since 1800. In the 19th century, the seal hunt, then a
land-based harvest, accounted for a staggering one-third of Newfoundland's
exports. Much of the island's history has been written in human blood in the
twin quest for cod and seal.

To this day, seal flippers are a hot commodity on the St. John's waterfront
every spring, the main ingredient in flipper pie. Newfoundland is a place
where rural people still have their feed of moose, caribou, seal, ptarmigan,
and wild salmon according to the season. There are no sushi restaurants in
places like Harbour Grace, Twillingate, or Harbour Breton. But there is the
land and sea and everything in them.

All these years later, emotions are still running high. In the United
Kingdom, the Independent made the seal hunt its lead story under the
headline, "The Bloody Slaughter." Even the BBC intoned that up to 350,000
"baby seals" would be killed this season, a gross distortion of the facts.
And so the standoff continues. Newfoundlanders sorely resent their
vilification by animal rights activists and the protesters continue to
display an appalling ignorance and opportunistic exploitation of the seal
hunt. Brigitte Bardot may have been replaced by Paris Hilton as the poster
girl of the anti-sealing lobby, but the appeal is unchanged; a triumph of
marketing over matter.

Forgotten in the bloody pictures of "whitecoats" being clubbed to death is
the harsh reality of all animal slaughter. Whether it is chickens in a mass
production facility, cattle in a stockyard, or seals on the March ice off
Newfoundland's northeast coast, there is nothing pleasant about the
commercial harvesting of any living creature for human consumption --
regardless of what part is being consumed.

Most of our urban kill floors are dark inner sanctums the public never gets
to see. The great difference in the seal hunt is that it is an outdoor
abattoir operation involving wild animals. The blood that is spilled is
there for all to see. The impact is gruesome enough against the dazzling
white snow and ice, but when you depict the slaughter of a baby seal that
looks more like a stuffed toy than a creature in the wild it is emotionally
devastating.

It was largely because of that horrific image that the International Fund
for Animal Welfare (IFAW) was able to raise $80 million a year to fund their
anti-seal hunt protests in the 1980s -- an amount six times greater than the
entire budget of the Newfoundland Fisheries Department to run an industry
and fight back against well-financed detractors.

Newfoundlanders are appalled by the hypocrisy factor. The French could
force-feed geese to bloat their livers for foie gras, calves could be
dispatched by the thousands for their livers and veal cutlets, lambs could
be butchered for their prized rack, and cattle might be dismembered alive on
slaughterhouse assembly lines, but there weren't many photo ops (or for that
matter photographers), for those far vaster but largely accepted varieties
of death on wheels.

The icefields are another matter. Protesters documented, and in some cases,
orchestrated, the most horrific images imaginable in which Newfoundlanders
came across as sadistic brutes who routinely skinned baby seals alive for
fun and profit. The protesters were so good at public relations that by 1983
the large-vessel seal hunt in Newfoundland was closed as country after
country, including the United States, caved in to Greenpeace and the IFAW
and banned the sale of seal products within their borders.

More importantly, the real poster star of the anti-sealing campaign, the
cute and cuddly whitecoat, has not been hunted since 1987, when it was given
legal protection by the federal government -- protection that extends to
this day. Yet when the Department of Fisheries and Oceans sanctioned this
year's cull of 300,000 harp seals, the anti-sealing lobby reproduced
pictures of the same animals that are no longer being hunted to condemn a
practice that they have seriously distorted and never understood. The
U.S.-based Humane Society is taking full-page ads in big American newspapers
to urge a travel boycott on Canada -- the same group that was silent on the
destruction of migratory salmon stocks at the hands of U.S. fishermen.

The successful closing down of the annual seal hunt has been devastating to
coastal communities in Newfoundland. Traditionally, the hunt provided
fishermen with their first cash of the year and a means of outfitting
themselves for the new fishing season. Since 1992, when the cod fishery was
closed because of gross human overfishing, the intervention on behalf of the
harp and hooded seal has led to an explosion in the size of their herds at
the worst possible moment. In 1983, when the commercial hunt was closed,
there were 3.1 million harp seals and roughly 450,000 hooded seals. Today,
the herd has doubled in size, and that is bad news for Newfoundland's
decimated cod stocks.

Seals are prodigious feeders. They eat fish to the tune of 6% of their body
weight per day. Although cod comprise only 3% of the seal's diet, the size
of the herd has a deadly multiplier effect. In 1994, seals consumed 88,000
metric tonnes of cod off Newfoundland's northeast coast, compared to just
24,000 tonnes caught by the commercial fishery in the last year of the cod
fishery before the closure. The grim fact comes down to this: Whether seals
eat juvenile cod (38,000 fish to the tonne) or the cod's favorite food,
caplin, they have a profound effect on the ocean's food web when their
numbers are very high and the northern cod has been all but wiped out.
Protecting one animal in the ocean's ecosystem without understanding the
impact of the intervention on others is not compassion but tampering. For
years, the sorcerer's apprentice has been loose on the Grand Banks. Perhaps
that is why Greenpeace, traditionally a vocal opponent of the hunt, has
decided not to campaign against the cull this year.

Did the seals wipe out the northern cod? No, man did. Is every part of the
seal hunt noble? Of course not. The harvesting of animals for their penises
which are a hot aphrodisiac in China, is deplorable. (The practice has been
banned.) But for the 11,000 Newfoundlanders who still get an important part
of their income from today's limited seal hunt, they are not there to feed
China's erotic fantasies or skin baby animals alive. They are there to cling
to their bald rock and make a living with what's at hand, just as they've
always done.

Within the regulations of the hunt and the fiats of basic humanity, they
should be left alone to do it.





begin 666 Type=count&ClientType=2&AdID=15749&FlightID=8775&TargetID=2578&Segments=2371,4176,5882,5954,5973,6027,6038,6140,6143,6221,6273,6274&Targets=439,2574,2578,2600,2643&Values=25,31,43,51,60,72,82,92,100,110,160,213,224,264,334,363,379,380,392,490,493,860,1281,1315,1445,1467,1544,1551,1567,1570,1620,1946,2292,2307,2350,2435,2540,2553,2569&RawValues=&random=uWssmz,bailimtepooIu.dat
K1TE&.#EA`0`!`( ``````/___R'Y! $```$`+ `````!``$`0 ("3 $`.P``
`
end

"pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message news:<c6656s$kd2$1@kermit.esat.net>...

> 
> - Interesting that you should feel a need to point that out. ..

<remainder of rant deleted to conserve electrons>

And the point of your ravings is ...?

"Wally" <where'swally@world.co> wrote in message news:<40867232$0$440$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>...
> "William J. Wolfe" <w_j_wolfe2oo3@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:11c3082a.0404210005.6f0f488e@posting.google.com...
> | "Andy" <andy3030@spammail.co> wrote in message
>  news:<4081a84d$0$25657$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>...
> | > "KrakAttiK" <moodswings@derekm.plus.C0M> wrote in message
> | > news:evv2805755dbe5kva89743oim39n5qvkfl@4ax.com...
> | > | http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/general/default.aspx?oid=21446
> | > |
> | > | Saving Harp Seals
> | >
> | > Hey fuck-wit.  they dont kill baby harp seals.  Eben the National
>  Geographic
> | > says so.
> | >
> | > I have seen you retards using those picture from the 70s still.
> | >
> | > I am going to Canada for skiing.
> |
> | Bugger the skiing. That's like  being a heroin addict on ice. Climb up
> | high, then slide back down again.
> |
> | I'm going to Canada to do some serious hunting. Nothing like a Caribou
> | steak on a cold Canadain winter night, washed down with a bottle of a
> | good dry red wine.
> 
> Sauteered in baby harp oils, with a dash of crispy dolphin skin?

 No fucking way. If I want fish flavoured meat I eat fish.

On 21 Apr 2004 15:08:27 -0700, w_j_wolfe2oo3@yahoo.com (William J.
Wolfe) wrote:

>"pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message news:<c6656s$kd2$1@kermit.esat.net>...
>
>> 
>> - Interesting that you should feel a need to point that out. ..
>
><remainder of rant deleted to conserve electrons>
>
>And the point of your ravings is ...?

Eat meat, die young(er) and leave the world to the meek. 

"Terry Crawford" <tdcraw@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:40870070.27616059@news.gv.shawcable.net...
> On 21 Apr 2004 15:08:27 -0700, w_j_wolfe2oo3@yahoo.com (William J.
> Wolfe) wrote:
>
> >"pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
news:<c6656s$kd2$1@kermit.esat.net>...
> >
> >>
> >> - Interesting that you should feel a need to point that out. ..
> >
> ><remainder of rant deleted to conserve electrons>
> >
> >And the point of your ravings is ...?
>
> Eat meat, die young(er) and leave the world to the meek.
==================
Only problem is that isn't the case.  The longest lived people as a group in
the world are not vegans.  Kinda screws the whole vegan rant, doesnt it?



>

Terry Crawford (tdcraw@rogers.com) wrote in message news:<40870070.27616059@news.gv.shawcable.net>...
> On 21 Apr 2004 15:08:27 -0700, w_j_wolfe2oo3@yahoo.com (William J.
> Wolfe) wrote:
> 
> >"pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message news:<c6656s$kd2$1@kermit.esat.net>...
> >
> >> 
> >> - Interesting that you should feel a need to point that out. ..
> >
> ><remainder of rant deleted to conserve electrons>
> >
> >And the point of your ravings is ...?
> 
> Eat meat, die young(er) and leave the world to the meek.

Meaning you, little lettuce muncher. As some nutrition person once
told me - "you are what you eat." Who wants to look like a fucking
lentil.

"rick etter" <etterr@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<OlDhc.6081$e4.2229@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> "Terry Crawford" <tdcraw@rogers.com> wrote in message
> news:40870070.27616059@news.gv.shawcable.net...
> > On 21 Apr 2004 15:08:27 -0700, w_j_wolfe2oo3@yahoo.com (William J.
> > Wolfe) wrote:
> >
> > >"pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
>  news:<c6656s$kd2$1@kermit.esat.net>...
> > >
> > >>
> > >> - Interesting that you should feel a need to point that out. ..
> > >
> > ><remainder of rant deleted to conserve electrons>
> > >
> > >And the point of your ravings is ...?
> >
> > Eat meat, die young(er) and leave the world to the meek.
> ==================
> Only problem is that isn't the case.  The longest lived people as a group in
> the world are not vegans.  Kinda screws the whole vegan rant, doesnt it?

Rabid veggie munchers are just like he other antisocial bigots, the
queers, the antinukes, the tree huggers, the flat earthers. They will
grab at any straw of insignificant evidence to promote their cause.

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 23:21:18 GMT, "rick etter" <etterr@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>
>"Terry Crawford" <tdcraw@rogers.com> wrote in message
>news:40870070.27616059@news.gv.shawcable.net...
>> On 21 Apr 2004 15:08:27 -0700, w_j_wolfe2oo3@yahoo.com (William J.
>> Wolfe) wrote:
>>
>> >"pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
>news:<c6656s$kd2$1@kermit.esat.net>...
>> >
>> >>
>> >> - Interesting that you should feel a need to point that out. ..
>> >
>> ><remainder of rant deleted to conserve electrons>
>> >
>> >And the point of your ravings is ...?
>>
>> Eat meat, die young(er) and leave the world to the meek.
>==================
>Only problem is that isn't the case.  The longest lived people as a group in
>the world are not vegans.  Kinda screws the whole vegan rant, doesnt it?
>
>

Damn. OK, steak tonight with a nice big Cabernet Suauvignon. MMMmmmm.

On 21 Apr 2004 23:41:37 -0700, w_j_wolfe2oo3@yahoo.com (William J.
Wolfe) wrote:

>Terry Crawford (tdcraw@rogers.com) wrote in message news:<40870070.27616059@news.gv.shawcable.net>...
>> On 21 Apr 2004 15:08:27 -0700, w_j_wolfe2oo3@yahoo.com (William J.
>> Wolfe) wrote:
>> 
>> >"pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message news:<c6656s$kd2$1@kermit.esat.net>...
>> >
>> >> 
>> >> - Interesting that you should feel a need to point that out. ..
>> >
>> ><remainder of rant deleted to conserve electrons>
>> >
>> >And the point of your ravings is ...?
>> 
>> Eat meat, die young(er) and leave the world to the meek.
>
>Meaning you, little lettuce muncher. As some nutrition person once
>told me - "you are what you eat." Who wants to look like a fucking
>lentil.

Yow. The thing about these postings and email in general is that I
write a and you (all of us) some times read b. 

I am not against veg heads and don't care what they shove down their
gullets. I am an omnivore, just like dog planned it. I do object of
course that the veg heads have mounted some morally superior bitch and
are riding it for all it is worth. I won't tell them how to live their
llives and they can do the same. And we all just get along, real nice
like. 

"Terry Crawford" <tdcraw@rogers.com> wrote in message news:40870439.28585313@news.gv.shawcable.net...
> On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 23:21:18 GMT, "rick etter" <etterr@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Terry Crawford" <tdcraw@rogers.com> wrote in message
> >news:40870070.27616059@news.gv.shawcable.net...
> >> On 21 Apr 2004 15:08:27 -0700, w_j_wolfe2oo3@yahoo.com (William J.
> >> Wolfe) wrote:
> >>
> >> >"pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
> >news:<c6656s$kd2$1@kermit.esat.net>...
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> - Interesting that you should feel a need to point that out. ..
> >> >
> >> ><remainder of rant deleted to conserve electrons>
> >> >
> >> >And the point of your ravings is ...?
> >>
> >> Eat meat, die young(er) and leave the world to the meek.
> >==================
> >Only problem is that isn't the case.  The longest lived people as a group in
> >the world are not vegans.  Kinda screws the whole vegan rant, doesnt it?
> >
> >
>
> Damn. OK, steak tonight with a nice big Cabernet Suauvignon. MMMmmmm.

Actually, the people etter, our dietary wizardness, was referring to
are vegetarians.  That's right,- vegetarian Seventh-day Adventists.
Longevity of the vegan sub-set wasn't studied seperately, afaIa, but
other epidemiological (study of populations) research shows that
vegans are less at risk of chronic disease than lacto-ovo vegetarians.
Kind of really screws the whole meatarian rant, doesn't it, eh etter?

"pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote
> "Terry Crawford" <tdcraw@rogers.com> wrote
> > On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 23:21:18 GMT, "rick etter" <etterr@earthlink.net>
> > wrote:

[..]
> > >> Eat meat, die young(er) and leave the world to the meek.
> > >==================
> > >Only problem is that isn't the case.  The longest lived people as a
group in
> > >the world are not vegans.  Kinda screws the whole vegan rant, doesnt
it?

> > Damn. OK, steak tonight with a nice big Cabernet Suauvignon. MMMmmmm.
>
> Actually, the people etter, our dietary wizardness, was referring to
> are vegetarians.  That's right,- vegetarian Seventh-day Adventists.

He's referring to the longest-lived race of people in the world, the
Okinawans, who consume one to three servings of fish a day, along with soy,
lots of fresh fruits and vegetables, some poultry and eggs, and almost no
processed foods or alcohol.

> Longevity of the vegan sub-set wasn't studied seperately, afaIa, but
> other epidemiological (study of populations) research shows that
> vegans are less at risk of chronic disease than lacto-ovo vegetarians.
> Kind of really screws the whole meatarian rant, doesn't it, eh etter?

No rant, just a fact that dispels one of the myths of veganism.

"pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
news:c6c6ol$ddb$1@kermit.esat.net...
> "Terry Crawford" <tdcraw@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:40870439.28585313@news.gv.shawcable.net...
> > On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 23:21:18 GMT, "rick etter" <etterr@earthlink.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Terry Crawford" <tdcraw@rogers.com> wrote in message
> > >news:40870070.27616059@news.gv.shawcable.net...
> > >> On 21 Apr 2004 15:08:27 -0700, w_j_wolfe2oo3@yahoo.com (William J.
> > >> Wolfe) wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >"pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
> > >news:<c6656s$kd2$1@kermit.esat.net>...
> > >> >
> > >> >>
> > >> >> - Interesting that you should feel a need to point that out. ..
> > >> >
> > >> ><remainder of rant deleted to conserve electrons>
> > >> >
> > >> >And the point of your ravings is ...?
> > >>
> > >> Eat meat, die young(er) and leave the world to the meek.
> > >==================
> > >Only problem is that isn't the case.  The longest lived people as a
group in
> > >the world are not vegans.  Kinda screws the whole vegan rant, doesnt
it?
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Damn. OK, steak tonight with a nice big Cabernet Suauvignon. MMMmmmm.
>
> Actually, the people etter, our dietary wizardness, was referring to
> are vegetarians.  That's right,- vegetarian Seventh-day Adventists.
> Longevity of the vegan sub-set wasn't studied seperately, afaIa, but
> other epidemiological (study of populations) research shows that
> vegans are less at risk of chronic disease than lacto-ovo vegetarians.
> Kind of really screws the whole meatarian rant, doesn't it, eh etter?
====================
Not at all, fool.   You should learn to read real things instead of your
propaganda.  The longest lived groups of people are not vegan, period.
Your whole religion is still just smoke and mirrors, killer.




>
>

"K�dos" <kodos@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<c5s7e9$56qnm$1@ID-15498.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> Club a seal for Jesus.

If not for Jesus, please do it for the children. For goodness sake,
think of the children.

"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in message news:108jg9r7ol4bp4b@news.supernews.com...
> "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote
> > "Terry Crawford" <tdcraw@rogers.com> wrote
> > > On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 23:21:18 GMT, "rick etter" <etterr@earthlink.net>
> > > wrote:
>
> [..]
> > > >> Eat meat, die young(er) and leave the world to the meek.
> > > >==================
> > > >Only problem is that isn't the case.  The longest lived people as a group in
> > > >the world are not vegans.  Kinda screws the whole vegan rant, doesnt it?
>
> > > Damn. OK, steak tonight with a nice big Cabernet Suauvignon. MMMmmmm.
> >
> > Actually, the people etter, our dietary wizardness, was referring to
> > are vegetarians.  That's right,- vegetarian Seventh-day Adventists.
>
> He's referring to the longest-lived race of people in the world, the
> Okinawans, who consume one to three servings of fish a day, along with soy,
> lots of fresh fruits and vegetables, some poultry and eggs, and almost no
> processed foods or alcohol.

A health-advice book has been recently published based on findings
from the centenarian study in Okinawa, where the average life
expectancy, 81.2 years, is the highest in the world.
http://hmiworld.org/past_issues/March_April_2002/living_100.html

.. not.  ..

A 12 year study of 34,000 Adventists undertaken by Loma Linda
University Health Center and published in their Archives of Internal
Medicine (July 9, 2001) revealed that Adventists who most closely
followed the recommended way of life had an average life expectancy
for men of 83.3 years and for women 85.7 years.  By comparison,
the Healthy Life Expectancy for top-ranking Japan was 72 years for
men and 77 years for women.
http://www.ktc.net/NoHypeHealth/dakoma.html

> > Longevity of the vegan sub-set wasn't studied seperately, afaIa, but
> > other epidemiological (study of populations) research shows that
> > vegans are less at risk of chronic disease than lacto-ovo vegetarians.
> > Kind of really screws the whole meatarian rant, doesn't it, eh etter?
>
> No rant, just a fact that dispels one of the myths of veganism.

Rotfl.

Inner-earth Lesley wrote:
>>>>>>- Interesting that you should feel a need to point that out. ..
>>>>>
>>>>><remainder of rant deleted to conserve electrons>
>>>>>
>>>>>And the point of your ravings is ...?
>>>>
>>>>Eat meat, die young(er) and leave the world to the meek.
>>>
>>>==================
>>>Only problem is that isn't the case.  The longest lived people as a group in
>>>the world are not vegans.  Kinda screws the whole vegan rant, doesnt it?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Damn. OK, steak tonight with a nice big Cabernet Suauvignon. MMMmmmm.
> 
> Actually, the people etter, our dietary wizardness, was referring to
> are vegetarians.  That's right,- vegetarian Seventh-day Adventists.

Be fully accurate in describing SDAs in the study. They are:
	- vegetarians
	- tee-totalers (zero alcohol consumption)
	- non-smokers
	- regular exercisers
	- active church members
	- Christians
	- very moderate/temperate sorts

It's not just the diet that explains longevity. It's the entire lifestyle. Why 
aren't you pushing for people to attend church, to not smoke, to get regular 
exercise, and to abstain from booze, Chelsea?

> Longevity of the vegan sub-set wasn't studied seperately, 

	Probably the best science we have was summarized in the American Journal
	of Clinical Nutrition in 1999, in an article entitled Mortality in
	Vegetarians and Nonvegetarians. In an enormous undertaking, twelve
	researchers took all of the biggest and best studies to date on
	vegetarian mortality rates and pooled all the data together. They took a
	decade of mortality data from 28,000 vegetarians from Germany,
	California, and Britain. And found... no survival advantage for
	vegetarians. What about vegans though? Despite even having lower
	cholesterol levels than vegetarians, the vegans in the study didn't live
	any longer either. Vegans had the same mortality rate as meateaters.
	http://vegnews.org/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=121

> afaIa, but
> other epidemiological (study of populations) research shows that
> vegans are less at risk of chronic disease than lacto-ovo vegetarians.

Ipse dixit. Comparative studies between Western omnivorous populationad and 
Indian vegetarian populations shows that people tend to die of the same causes 
regardless of culture or diet.

	It is usually claimed that the lives of predominantly meat-eating
	peoples are short-lived, but the Aborigines of Australia, who
	traditionally eat a diet rich in animal products, are known for their
	longevity (at least before colonisation by Europeans). Within Aboriginal
	society, there is a special caste of the elderly (42). Obviously, if no
	old people existed, no such group would have existed. In his book
	Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, Dr. Price has numerous photographs
	of elderly native peoples from around the world (42). Explorers such as
	Vilhjalmur Stefansson reported great longevity among the Inuit (again,
	before colonisation). (43)

	Similarly, the Russians of the Caucasus mountains live to great ages on
	a diet of fatty pork and whole milk products. The Hunzas, also known for
	their robust health and longevity, eat substantial portions of goat's
	milk which has a higher saturated fat content than cow's milk (44). In
	contrast, the largely vegetarian inhabitants of southern India have the
	shortest life-spans in the world (45). Dr Weston Price, DDS, travelled
	around the world in the 1920s and 1930s, investigating native diets.
	Without exception, he found a strong correlation among diets rich in
	animal fats, with robust health and athletic ability. Special foods for
	Swiss athletes, for example, included bowls of fresh, raw cream! In
	Africa, Dr Price discovered that groups whose diets were rich in fatty
	fish and organ meats, like liver, consistently carried off the prizes in
	athletic contests, and that meat-eating tribes always dominated peoples
	whose diets were largely vegetarian (42).
	http://www.vegetarian-diet.info/vegetarian-diet-issues-lifespan.htm

> Kind of really screws the whole meatarian rant, doesn't it, eh etter?

Quite the contrary, Lesley. Those who eat balanced diets and have balanced lives 
tend to outlive their less temperate counterparts.

inner-earth chelsea wrote:
>>>>>>Eat meat, die young(er) and leave the world to the meek.
>>>>>
>>>>>==================
>>>>>Only problem is that isn't the case.  The longest lived people as a group in
>>>>>the world are not vegans.  Kinda screws the whole vegan rant, doesnt it?
>>
>>>>Damn. OK, steak tonight with a nice big Cabernet Suauvignon. MMMmmmm.
>>>
>>>Actually, the people etter, our dietary wizardness, was referring to
>>>are vegetarians.  That's right,- vegetarian Seventh-day Adventists.
>>
>>He's referring to the longest-lived race of people in the world, the
>>Okinawans, who consume one to three servings of fish a day, along with soy,
>>lots of fresh fruits and vegetables, some poultry and eggs, and almost no
>>processed foods or alcohol.
> 
> A health-advice book has been recently published based on findings
> from the centenarian study in Okinawa, where the average life
> expectancy, 81.2 years, is the highest in the world.
> http://hmiworld.org/past_issues/March_April_2002/living_100.html

Try this one:
http://www.okinawaprogram.com/study.html

Your cheesy link below for the SDAs notes Okinawa. It gives a bit too much 
credence, imo, to calorie restriction, but at least it does note their 
traditional diet (which Dutch mentioned) AND their *active* lifestyles.

> .. not.  ..
> 
> A 12 year study of 34,000 Adventists undertaken by Loma Linda
> University Health Center and published in their Archives of Internal
> Medicine (July 9, 2001) revealed that Adventists who most closely
> followed the recommended way of life had an average life expectancy
> for men of 83.3 years and for women 85.7 years.  By comparison,
> the Healthy Life Expectancy for top-ranking Japan was 72 years for
> men and 77 years for women.
> http://www.ktc.net/NoHypeHealth/dakoma.html

Update your link, Lesley. And also note that Nornan Ford states at the top of 
the article, "In  the  world's  top  Citadels Of  Longevity,   physical activity 
  is emerging  as  the  single  most  powerful  factor  contributing  to  a 
long, disease-free  life."

What's the "recommended way of life" noted above? According to their 
"prophetess" Ellen G White, SDAs should be:
     - vegetarians
     - tee-totalers (zero alcohol consumption)
     - non-smokers
     - *regular exercisers*
     - active church members
     - Christians
     - very moderate/temperate sorts

<...>

"pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote

> A 12 year study of 34,000 Adventists undertaken by Loma Linda
> University Health Center and published in their Archives of Internal
> Medicine (July 9, 2001) revealed that Adventists who most closely
> followed the recommended way of life had an average life expectancy
> for men of 83.3 years and for women 85.7 years.  By comparison,
> the Healthy Life Expectancy for top-ranking Japan was 72 years for
> men and 77 years for women.
> http://www.ktc.net/NoHypeHealth/dakoma.html

Adventists to a person do not smoke or drink alcohol and they maintain close
supportive family relationships. The effect of their diets per se apart from
these other factors is not known.

"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in message news:108lmguqv5ngg51@news.supernews.com...
>
> "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote
>
> > A 12 year study of 34,000 Adventists undertaken by Loma Linda
> > University Health Center and published in their Archives of Internal
> > Medicine (July 9, 2001) revealed that Adventists who most closely
> > followed the recommended way of life had an average life expectancy
> > for men of 83.3 years and for women 85.7 years.  By comparison,
> > the Healthy Life Expectancy for top-ranking Japan was 72 years for
> > men and 77 years for women.
> > http://www.ktc.net/NoHypeHealth/dakoma.html
>
> Adventists to a person do not smoke or drink alcohol and they maintain close
> supportive family relationships. The effect of their diets per se apart from
> these other factors is not known.

Animal product consumption and mortality because of all
causes combined, coronary heart disease, stroke, diabetes,
and cancer in Seventh-day Adventists.
Snowdon DA. Division of Epidemiology, School of Public Health,
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
This report reviews, contrasts, and illustrates previously published
findings from a cohort of 27,529 California Seventh-day Adventist
adults who completed questionnaires in 1960 and were followed
for mortality between 1960 and 1980. Within this population, meat
consumption was positively associated with mortality because of all
causes of death combined (in males), coronary heart disease (in
males and females), and diabetes (in males). Egg consumption was
positively associated with mortality because of all causes combined
(in females), coronary heart disease (in females), and cancers of the
colon (in males and females combined) and ovary. Milk consumption
was positively associated with only prostate cancer mortality, and
cheese consumption did not have a clear relationship with any cause
of death. The consumption of meat, eggs, milk, and cheese did not
have negative associations with any of the causes of death investigated.
PMID: 3046303 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE


'Plasma lipids and diet groups

The first article published about this study compared concentrations
of total cholesterol and various lipoprotein fractions in 4 diet groups:
vegans, who never ate animal products; vegetarians, who never ate
meat or fish but did eat dairy products, eggs, or both; fish eaters, who
ate fish but no meat; and meat eaters (4). Both total- and LDL-cholesterol
concentrations were significantly lower in vegans than in meat eaters,
whereas vegetarians and fish eaters had similar, intermediate values.
HDL-cholesterol concentrations were highest in fish eaters but did not
differ among the other diet groups. Mean cholesterol concentrations for
vegans, vegetarians, fish eaters, and meat eaters, adjusted for age and
sex, are shown in Table 1. On the basis of these results, it was predicted
that the incidence of ischemic heart disease might be 24% lower in
lifelong vegetarians and 57% lower in lifelong vegans than in meat
eaters.
....
The most striking results from the analysis were the strong positive
associations between increasing consumption of animal fats and ischemic
heart disease mortality [death rate ratios (and 95% CIs) for the highest
third of intake compared with the lowest third in subjects with no prior
disease were 3.29 (1.50, 7.21) for total animal fat, 2.77 (1.25, 6.13)
for saturated animal fat, and 3.53 (1.57, 7.96) for dietary cholesterol;
P for trend: <0.01, <0.01, and <0.001, respectively]. In contrast, no
protective effects were noted for dietary fiber, fish, or alcohol consumption.
Consumption of eggs and cheese were both positively associated with
ischemic heart disease mortality in these subjects (P for trend, < 0.01 for
both foods).
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/70/3/525S

"pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote
> http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/70/3/525S

The problem I have with the Oxford study is that they grouped all
meat-eaters together as a single group, those 23% who ate meat once a week
or less were averaged in with those who who ate it several times a day, and
did not differentiate between those who avoided pork, fatty meats, or all
red meat. IOW people with very poor dietary habits were grouped with those
meat-eaters whose results may have been very favorable. Generally. consuming
larger amounts of fresh fruit and vegetables relative to meats is more
healthy, that's a given.

You are both right and you are both wrong. There will always be those
examples in nature and the world that will forever confound the experts and
spit in the face of science. Accept that premise, and the rest is mashed
potatoes and gravy.... now back to boating

Bryan

"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in message news:108m5a11e7nqk0e@news.supernews.com...
> "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote

Not indicating snips now Dutch?

How about acknowledging that you were wrong about Adventists?

> > http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/70/3/525S
>
> The problem I have with the Oxford study is that they grouped all
> meat-eaters together as a single group, those 23% who ate meat once a week
> or less were averaged in with those who who ate it several times a day, and
> did not differentiate between those who avoided pork, fatty meats, or all
> red meat. IOW people with very poor dietary habits were grouped with those
> meat-eaters whose results may have been very favorable.

'The most striking results from the analysis were the strong positive
associations between increasing consumption of animal fats and ischemic
heart disease mortality [death rate ratios (and 95% CIs) for the highest
third of intake compared with the lowest third in subjects with no prior
disease were 3.29 (1.50, 7.21) for total animal fat, 2.77 (1.25, 6.13)
for saturated animal fat, and 3.53 (1.57, 7.96) for dietary cholesterol;
P for trend: <0.01, <0.01, and <0.001, respectively]. '

> Generally. consuming
> larger amounts of fresh fruit and vegetables relative to meats is more
> healthy, that's a given.

'.. disease rates were significantly associated within a range of dietary
plant food composition that suggested an absence of a disease prevention
threshold. That is, the closer a diet is to an all-plant foods diet, the greater
will be the reduction in the rates of these diseases.'
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Nov98/thermogenesis_paper.html

pearl wrote:
<...>
>>Adventists to a person do not smoke or drink alcohol and they maintain close
>>supportive family relationships. The effect of their diets per se apart from
>>these other factors is not known.
> 
> Animal product consumption and mortality because of all
> causes combined, coronary heart disease, stroke, diabetes,
> and cancer in Seventh-day Adventists.

     Probably the best science we have was summarized in the American Journal
     of Clinical Nutrition in 1999, in an article entitled Mortality in
     Vegetarians and Nonvegetarians. In an enormous undertaking, twelve
     researchers took all of the biggest and best studies to date on
     vegetarian mortality rates and pooled all the data together. They took a
     decade of mortality data from 28,000 vegetarians from Germany,
     California, and Britain. And found... no survival advantage for
     vegetarians. What about vegans though? Despite even having lower
     cholesterol levels than vegetarians, the vegans in the study didn't live
     any longer either. Vegans had the same mortality rate as meateaters.
     http://vegnews.org/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=121

<...>

"usual suspect" <godbless@pat.tillman> wrote in message news:NAfjc.26954$hR1.3382@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> pearl wrote:
> <...>
> >>Adventists to a person do not smoke or drink alcohol and they maintain close
> >>supportive family relationships. The effect of their diets per se apart from
> >>these other factors is not known.
> >
> > Animal product consumption and mortality because of all
> > causes combined, coronary heart disease, stroke, diabetes,
> > and cancer in Seventh-day Adventists.
>
>      Probably the best science we have was summarized in the American Journal
>      of Clinical Nutrition in 1999, in an article entitled Mortality in
>      Vegetarians and Nonvegetarians. In an enormous undertaking, twelve
>      researchers took all of the biggest and best studies to date on
>      vegetarian mortality rates and pooled all the data together. They took a
>      decade of mortality data from 28,000 vegetarians from Germany,
>      California, and Britain. And found... no survival advantage for
>      vegetarians. What about vegans though? Despite even having lower
>      cholesterol levels than vegetarians, the vegans in the study didn't live
>      any longer either. Vegans had the same mortality rate as meateaters.
>      http://vegnews.org/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=121

But the S-D Adventists, study says otherwise.
Any idea what their agricultural methods are?

The article you quote goes on;

'.. it's important to realize that even as we vegetarians are now
with no changes, just because we don't seem to live longer, doesn't
mean we're not healthier. These studies were of mortality rates only.
Everybody's got to die some time and so it's not only how long one
lives, but also how well one lives. Vegetarians still have less heart
disease, less obesity, less hypertension, less diabetes, less colon
cancer-even less emergency appendectomies. The list goes on and
on. So it still makes sense to go vegetarian, just for health reasons
alone, but with all that one would think we'd have a survival
advantage. We have a tremendous potential for reducing heart
disease risk, but there's something getting in our way. What is it
about vegetarian and especially vegan diets that's increasing our
risk of heart disease so much that it's canceling out our potential?

The first reason why vegetarian nutrition experts think we're not
doing as well as we should is that we're not getting enough omega 3
fatty acids in our diet and we're getting too many omega 6 fatty
acids. For more information about these essential fatty acids, I
recommend the book Becoming Vegan by Melina and Davis and
an article by Jack Norris, R.D. entitled "Staying a Healthy Vegan"
at http://www.veganoutreach.org/health/stayinghealthy.html.

Suffice to say that every vegetarian and vegan should:

Step 1. Every day eat 1-2 tablespoons of ground up flax seeds

Step 2. If you have any of the following oils in your house, throw
them away: corn oil, safflower oil, sunflower oil, or cottonseed oil.
If you feel the need to use oil, use olive or canola instead.

Reason number two why we're not living up to our potential-
or more accurately, living out to our potential is probably even
more important. Reasons number two is homocysteine.
Homocysteine is a toxic metabolite-it attacks our blood vessels,
it' attacks our brain cells; it's a risk factor for heart disease, for
stroke, for Alzheimer's and a growing number of other diseases.
And, up to 25% of lacto-vegetarians and 80% of vegans have
seriously elevated levels in their blood. This is probably why the
latest research suggests vegetarians have over twice the risk of
dying from degenerative brain diseases.

Why do we build up more of this toxic stuff than meat-eaters?
Because, simply, we don't get enough vitamin B12. We now
have quite convincing data that there seems to be an epidemic
of this functional B12 deficiency among vegans. Every person
on this planet needs a regular and reliable source of B12. For
vegans this means vitamin B12 supplements or vitamin B12
fortified foods.

If one chooses the supplement route, one can take 100mcg
of B12 once a day, or 2000mcg once a week. Ideally the
supplements should be chewed or let to dissolve under the
tongue. Alternately, if one relies solely on B12 fortified foods,
one needs to eat servings of B12-fortified foods at least twice
a day, There does not seem to be a harm of taking too much.
And if you haven't been getting enough, once you start
supplementing your diet, odds are your homocysteine levels
will drop, you may physically and mentally feel better, and
you'll lower your risk of becoming paralyzed, demented and
dead-all for just pennies a day!

{pearl- beneficial gut microflora (which antibiotics severely
disrupt) resident in the small intestine produce B12, as long
as the trace-mineral cobalt is consumed in adequate amounts.
Conventionally-grown foods are deficient in cobalt and other
minerals.  Research has shown that organically (sustainably)
grown foods have higher levels of minerals, including cobalt,
and also B12, which plants take up from soil rich in B12}.

When I first learned about all this, my first thought was that
it just didn't seem natural. When human beings were evolving,
I kept thinking, they didn't have to take flax. I learned that
that's because there were no such things as cottonseed oil,
no such thing as trans fats. Prehistoric peoples got much of
their omega 3's from wild plants that tend to have much
higher levels than the ones currently cultivated. Purslane, for
example, the most common plant in the world, is one of the
highest plant sources of omega 3's. But, as a culture we just
don't eat weeds anymore.

And those cavepersons didn't have to take vitamin B12
supplements I thought. Well, one of the reasons is because
they didn't chlorinate it out of their water supply. People
used to be able to get B12 from well water, drinking from
mountain streams, etc. It's true that we don't get a lot of
B12 in our water anymore, but we don't get a lot of cholera
either-that's a good thing. The problem is that we live in an
unnatural world which is compromising our health,
compromising our vegetarian potential. But we can reclaim
that potential with a but few simple changes, and maximize
our chances for optimal health and longevity. '

http://vegnews.org/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=121


>
> <...>
>

pearl lied:
>><...>
>>
>>>>Adventists to a person do not smoke or drink alcohol and they maintain close
>>>>supportive family relationships. The effect of their diets per se apart from
>>>>these other factors is not known.
>>>
>>>Animal product consumption and mortality because of all
>>>causes combined, coronary heart disease, stroke, diabetes,
>>>and cancer in Seventh-day Adventists.
>>
>>     Probably the best science we have was summarized in the American Journal
>>     of Clinical Nutrition in 1999, in an article entitled Mortality in
>>     Vegetarians and Nonvegetarians. In an enormous undertaking, twelve
>>     researchers took all of the biggest and best studies to date on
>>     vegetarian mortality rates and pooled all the data together. They took a
>>     decade of mortality data from 28,000 vegetarians from Germany,
>>     California, and Britain. And found... no survival advantage for
>>     vegetarians. What about vegans though? Despite even having lower
>>     cholesterol levels than vegetarians, the vegans in the study didn't live
>>     any longer either. Vegans had the same mortality rate as meateaters.
>>     http://vegnews.org/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=121
> 
> But the S-D Adventists, study says otherwise.

No, it does not. The difference between 81.2 (Okinawa) and 84.5 (SDA) is not 
significant enough to motivate people to give up foods they enjoy -- and which 
can still be part of a healthy diet and lifestyle. Find studies on populations 
who eat lean meats, avoid alcohol and saturated fats, don't smoke, pray, and get 
lots of exercise. The SDA data are not diet-only, but about healthy lifestyle.

> Any idea what their agricultural methods are?

Yes, most of the SDAs I know here purchase their food at HEB and Albertson's 
(large chains) just live everyone else even though they don't buy meat.

<...>

sociopathic "usual suspect" <godbless@pat.tillman> lied in message
news:Itsjc.27204$hR1.5141@fe2.texas.rr.com...

 pearl wrote:
> >><...>
> >>
> >>>>Adventists to a person do not smoke or drink alcohol and they maintain close
> >>>>supportive family relationships. The effect of their diets per se apart from
> >>>>these other factors is not known.
> >>>
> >>>Animal product consumption and mortality because of all
> >>>causes combined, coronary heart disease, stroke, diabetes,
> >>>and cancer in Seventh-day Adventists.
> >>
> >>     Probably the best science we have was summarized in the American Journal
> >>     of Clinical Nutrition in 1999, in an article entitled Mortality in
> >>     Vegetarians and Nonvegetarians. In an enormous undertaking, twelve
> >>     researchers took all of the biggest and best studies to date on
> >>     vegetarian mortality rates and pooled all the data together. They took a
> >>     decade of mortality data from 28,000 vegetarians from Germany,
> >>     California, and Britain. And found... no survival advantage for
> >>     vegetarians. What about vegans though? Despite even having lower
> >>     cholesterol levels than vegetarians, the vegans in the study didn't live
> >>     any longer either. Vegans had the same mortality rate as meateaters.
> >>     http://vegnews.org/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=121
> >
> > But the S-D Adventists, study says otherwise.
>
> No, it does not.

It certainly does say otherwise.

> The difference between 81.2 (Okinawa) and 84.5 (SDA) is not
> significant enough to motivate people to give up foods they enjoy -- and which
> can still be part of a healthy diet and lifestyle. Find studies on populations
> who eat lean meats, avoid alcohol and saturated fats, don't smoke, pray, and get
> lots of exercise. The SDA data are not diet-only, but about healthy lifestyle.

Within that population, animal product consumption increases mortality.

Animal product consumption and mortality because of all
causes combined, coronary heart disease, stroke, diabetes,
and cancer in Seventh-day Adventists.
Snowdon DA. Division of Epidemiology, School of Public Health,
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
This report reviews, contrasts, and illustrates previously published
findings from a cohort of 27,529 California Seventh-day Adventist
adults who completed questionnaires in 1960 and were followed
for mortality between 1960 and 1980. Within this population, meat
consumption was positively associated with mortality because of all
causes of death combined (in males), coronary heart disease (in
males and females), and diabetes (in males). Egg consumption was
positively associated with mortality because of all causes combined
(in females), coronary heart disease (in females), and cancers of the
colon (in males and females combined) and ovary. Milk consumption
was positively associated with only prostate cancer mortality, and
cheese consumption did not have a clear relationship with any cause
of death. The consumption of meat, eggs, milk, and cheese did not
have negative associations with any of the causes of death investigated.
PMID: 3046303 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE

> > Any idea what their agricultural methods are?
>
> Yes, most of the SDAs I know here purchase their food at HEB and Albertson's
> (large chains) just live everyone else even though they don't buy meat.
>
> <...>
>

inner earth chelsea wrote:
>>>><...>
>>>>
>>>>>>Adventists to a person do not smoke or drink alcohol and they maintain close
>>>>>>supportive family relationships. The effect of their diets per se apart from
>>>>>>these other factors is not known.
>>>>>
>>>>>Animal product consumption and mortality because of all
>>>>>causes combined, coronary heart disease, stroke, diabetes,
>>>>>and cancer in Seventh-day Adventists.
>>>>
>>>>    Probably the best science we have was summarized in the American Journal
>>>>    of Clinical Nutrition in 1999, in an article entitled Mortality in
>>>>    Vegetarians and Nonvegetarians. In an enormous undertaking, twelve
>>>>    researchers took all of the biggest and best studies to date on
>>>>    vegetarian mortality rates and pooled all the data together. They took a
>>>>    decade of mortality data from 28,000 vegetarians from Germany,
>>>>    California, and Britain. And found... no survival advantage for
>>>>    vegetarians. What about vegans though? Despite even having lower
>>>>    cholesterol levels than vegetarians, the vegans in the study didn't live
>>>>    any longer either. Vegans had the same mortality rate as meateaters.
>>>>    http://vegnews.org/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=121
>>>
>>>But the S-D Adventists, study says otherwise.
>>
>>No, it does not.
> 
> It certainly does say otherwise.

No, it doesn't. You're reading into it, as usual.

>>The difference between 81.2 (Okinawa) and 84.5 (SDA) is not
>>significant enough to motivate people to give up foods they enjoy -- and which
>>can still be part of a healthy diet and lifestyle. Find studies on populations
>>who eat lean meats, avoid alcohol and saturated fats, don't smoke, pray, and get
>>lots of exercise. The SDA data are not diet-only, but about healthy lifestyle.
> 
> Within that population, animal product consumption increases mortality.

Significantly? What rational person would gladly give up fish, steak, eggs, or 
dairy for an average of only three extra years?

> Animal product consumption and mortality because of all
> causes combined, coronary heart disease, stroke, diabetes,
> and cancer in Seventh-day Adventists.
> Snowdon DA. Division of Epidemiology, School of Public Health,
> University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
> This report reviews, contrasts, and illustrates previously published
> findings from a cohort of 27,529 California Seventh-day Adventist
> adults who completed questionnaires in 1960 and were followed
> for mortality between 1960 and 1980. Within this population, meat
> consumption was positively associated with mortality because of all
> causes of death combined (in males), coronary heart disease (in
> males and females), and diabetes (in males). Egg consumption was
> positively associated with mortality because of all causes combined
> (in females), coronary heart disease (in females), and cancers of the
> colon (in males and females combined) and ovary.

Were those eggs consumed alone or with saturated fats like those found in 
butter, bacon, sausages, etc.?
http://www.enc-online.org/dietc.htm

> Milk consumption
> was positively associated with only prostate cancer mortality, and
> cheese consumption did not have a clear relationship with any cause
> of death.

So consumption of cheese -- what the anti-milk activists call "concentrated 
milk" -- doesn't have a relationship with mortality but unconcentrated milk 
does. Go figure. BTW, did the researchers break down dairy consumption in terms 
of whole milk, reduced fat, and non-fat?

> The consumption of meat, eggs, milk, and cheese did not
> have negative associations with any of the causes of death investigated.

See this one from the same author, dummy:
	Diet, obesity, and risk of fatal prostate cancer

	DA Snowdon, RL Phillips and W Choi

	Findings described in this report are for 6,763 white male Seventh-day
	Adventists who completed a dietary questionnaire in 1960. Between 1960
	and 1980 mortality data were collected on cohort members. *Overweight*
	men had a significantly higher risk of fatal prostate cancer than men
	near their desirable weight. The predicted relative risk of fatal
	prostate cancer was 2.5 for *overweight* men. Suggestive positive
	associations were also seen between fatal prostate cancer and the
	consumption of milk, cheese, eggs, and meat. There was an orderly dose-
	response between each of the four animal products and risk. The
	predicted relative risk of fatal prostate cancer was 3.6 for those who
	heavily consumed all four animal products. The results of this study and
	others suggest that animal product consumption and *obesity* may be risk
	factors for fatal prostate cancer.
	MY EMPHASIS, DUMMY.
	http://aje.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/120/2/244
	
Same survey, same researchers. Compare these findings to other studies of 
*OVERWEIGHT* study participants. *Obesity* kills, STUPID CHELSEA.

> PMID: 3046303 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE
> 
> 
>>>Any idea what their agricultural methods are?
>>
>>Yes, most of the SDAs I know here purchase their food at HEB and Albertson's
>>(large chains) just live everyone else even though they don't buy meat.
>>
>><...>
>>
> 
> 

usual suspect wrote:
<...>
> See this one from the same author, dummy:
>     Diet, obesity, and risk of fatal prostate cancer
> 
>     DA Snowdon, RL Phillips and W Choi
> 
>     Findings described in this report are for 6,763 white male Seventh-day
>     Adventists who completed a dietary questionnaire in 1960. Between 1960
>     and 1980 mortality data were collected on cohort members. *Overweight*
>     men had a significantly higher risk of fatal prostate cancer than men
>     near their desirable weight. The predicted relative risk of fatal
>     prostate cancer was 2.5 for *overweight* men. Suggestive positive
>     associations were also seen between fatal prostate cancer and the
>     consumption of milk, cheese, eggs, and meat. There was an orderly dose-
>     response between each of the four animal products and risk. The
>     predicted relative risk of fatal prostate cancer was 3.6 for those who
>     heavily consumed all four animal products. The results of this study 
> and
>     others suggest that animal product consumption and *obesity* may be 
> risk
>     factors for fatal prostate cancer.
>     MY EMPHASIS, DUMMY.
>     http://aje.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/120/2/244
>     
> Same survey, same researchers. Compare these findings to other studies 
> of *OVERWEIGHT* study participants. *Obesity* kills, STUPID CHELSEA.

http://www.obesity-and-cancer.com/
http://dceg.cancer.gov/prost-cancer.html
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/51/2/568
http://www.coloradohealthsite.org/cancer/treatment_8.html
http://www.fao.org/docrep/V4700E/V4700E0g.htm
http://www.stanford.edu/~jpc/Chapter5.htm
http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/conference/kolonel.html

<...>

"pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message news:c6lj7p$6vj$1@kermit.esat.net...
<..>
> Homocysteine is a toxic metabolite-it attacks our blood vessels,
> it' attacks our brain cells; it's a risk factor for heart disease, for
> stroke, for Alzheimer's and a growing number of other diseases.
> And, up to 25% of lacto-vegetarians and 80% of vegans have
> seriously elevated levels in their blood. This is probably why the
> latest research suggests vegetarians have over twice the risk of
> dying from degenerative brain diseases.
<..>
> http://vegnews.org/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=121

?

Ref #235 - Giem P
SO: Neuroepidemiology. 1993; 12(1): 28-36
AB: We investigated the relationship between animal product
consumption and evidence of dementia in two cohort substudies.
The first enrolled 272 California residents matched for age,
sex, and zip code (1 vegan, 1 lacto-ovo-vegetarian, and 2
'heavy' meat eaters in each of 68 quartets). This design ensured
a wide range of dietary exposure. The second included 2,984
unmatched subjects who resided within the Loma Linda,
California area. All subjects were enrolled in the Adventist
Health Study. The matched subjects who ate meat (including
poultry and fish) were more than twice as likely to become
demented as their vegetarian counterparts (relative risk 2.18,
p = 0.065) and the discrepancy was further widened (relative
risk 2.99, p = 0.048) when past meat consumption was taken
into account. There was no significant difference in the
incidence of dementia in the vegetarian versus meat-eating
unmatched subjects. There was no obvious explanation for
the difference between the two substudies, although the power
of the unmatched sub-study to detect an effect of 'heavy' meat
consumption was unexpectedly limited. There was a trend
towards delayed onset of dementia in vegetarians in both
substudies.
http://www.llu.edu/llu/health/abstracts/abstracts2.htm

infantile liar "useless suspect" <godbless@pat.tillman> wrote in message
news:N%sjc.27208$hR1.8850@fe2.texas.rr.com...

pearl wrote:
<..>
> > The consumption of meat, eggs, milk, and cheese did not
> > have negative associations with any of the causes of death investigated.
>
> See this one from the same author, dummy:
> Diet, obesity, and risk of fatal prostate cancer
>
> DA Snowdon, RL Phillips and W Choi
>
> Findings described in this report are for 6,763 white male Seventh-day
> Adventists who completed a dietary questionnaire in 1960. Between 1960
> and 1980 mortality data were collected on cohort members. *Overweight*
> men had a significantly higher risk of fatal prostate cancer than men
> near their desirable weight. The predicted relative risk of fatal
> prostate cancer was 2.5 for *overweight* men. Suggestive positive
> associations were also seen between fatal prostate cancer and the
> consumption of milk, cheese, eggs, and meat. There was an orderly dose-
> response between each of the four animal products and risk. The
> predicted relative risk of fatal prostate cancer was 3.6 for those who
> heavily consumed all four animal products. The results of this study and
> others suggest that animal product consumption and *obesity* may be risk
> factors for fatal prostate cancer.
> MY EMPHASIS, DUMMY.
> http://aje.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/120/2/244
>
> Same survey, same researchers. Compare these findings to other studies of
> *OVERWEIGHT* study participants. *Obesity* kills,

J Clin Gastroenterol. 1986 Aug;8(4):451-3.
Energy intake and body weight in ovo-lacto vegetarians.
Levin N, Rattan J, Gilat T.
  Vegetarians have a lower body weight than omnivores. In
this study the relationship between the weight/height ratio and
food consumption was evaluated in 92 ovo-lacto vegetarians
and 113 omnivores in Israel. The average weight of the
vegetarians was significantly lower than that of the omnivores
(60.8 kg vs. 69.1 kg), even though the vegetarian diet supplied
a significantly higher amount of calories than the nonvegetarian
diet (3,030.5 cal/day vs. 2,626.8 cal/day). Consumption of fat
was similar in both groups. Carbohydrate consumption was
higher in the vegetarians while protein consumption was lower.
The prevalence of obesity was significantly lower in the
vegetarian group (5.4%) as compared to 19.5% among the
omnivores. The lower body weight of vegetarians despite a
higher caloric intake is of considerable interest.
PMID: 3760524

Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1998 May;22(5):454-60.
Low body mass index in non-meat eaters: the possible roles
of animal fat, dietary fibre and alcohol.
Appleby PN, Thorogood M, Mann JI, Key TJ. Imperial
Cancer Research Fund Cancer Epidemiology Unit, Radcliffe
Infirmary, Oxford, UK.
  OBJECTIVE: To examine the associations of diet and other
lifestyle factors with body mass index (BMI) using data from
the Oxford Vegetarian Study.
  SUBJECTS: 1914 male and 3378 female non-smokers
aged 20-89 y at recruitment to the study.
  MEASUREMENTS: All subjects completed a diet/lifestyle
questionnaire at recruitment giving details of their usual diet
and other characteristics including height and weight, smoking
and drinking habits, amount of exercise, occupation and
reproductive history. Answers to the food frequency
questionnaire were used to classify subjects as either meat
eaters or non-meat eaters, and to estimate intakes of animal
fat and dietary fibre. Subjects were further classified according
to their alcohol consumption, exercise level, social class, past
smoking habits and parity. RESULTS: Mean BMI was lower
in non-meat eaters than in meat eaters in all age groups for both
men and women. Overall age-adjusted mean BMIs in kg/m2
were 23.18 and 22.05 for male meat eaters and non-meat
eaters respectively (P < 0.0001) and 22.32 and 21.32 for
female meat eaters and non-meat eaters respectively (P < 0.0001).
In addition to meat consumption, dietary fibre intake, animal
fat intake, social class and past smoking were all independently
associated with BMI in both men and women; alcohol
consumption was independently associated with BMI in men,
and parity was independently associated with BMI in women.
After adjusting for these factors, the differences in mean BMI
between meat eaters and non-meat eaters were reduced by
36% in men and 31% in women.
  CONCLUSIONS: Non-meat eaters are thinner than meat
eaters. This may be partly due to a higher intake of dietary fibre,
a lower intake of animal fat, and only in men a lower intake of
alcohol.
PMID: 9622343


<..>

JESUS!!!!!!! QUIT HUMPING EACH OTHERS LEGS AND GET A PAIR OF LIVES! WHO
CARES, MEAT- VEGETABLES.... ITS ALL FOOD....NOW BOTH OF YOU SHUT UP! YOU'RE
GIVING US ALL A HEADACHE. BESIDES THIS IS A BOATING POST. NOW SCRAM!

B

retarded foot-rubber lesley wrote:
> <..>
>>>The consumption of meat, eggs, milk, and cheese did not
>>>have negative associations with any of the causes of death investigated.
>>
>>See this one from the same author, dummy:
>>Diet, obesity, and risk of fatal prostate cancer
>>
>>DA Snowdon, RL Phillips and W Choi
>>
>>Findings described in this report are for 6,763 white male Seventh-day
>>Adventists who completed a dietary questionnaire in 1960. Between 1960
>>and 1980 mortality data were collected on cohort members. *Overweight*
>>men had a significantly higher risk of fatal prostate cancer than men
>>near their desirable weight. The predicted relative risk of fatal
>>prostate cancer was 2.5 for *overweight* men. Suggestive positive
>>associations were also seen between fatal prostate cancer and the
>>consumption of milk, cheese, eggs, and meat. There was an orderly dose-
>>response between each of the four animal products and risk. The
>>predicted relative risk of fatal prostate cancer was 3.6 for those who
>>heavily consumed all four animal products. The results of this study and
>>others suggest that animal product consumption and *obesity* may be risk
>>factors for fatal prostate cancer.
>>MY EMPHASIS, DUMMY.
>>http://aje.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/120/2/244
>>
>>Same survey, same researchers. Compare these findings to other studies of
>>*OVERWEIGHT* study participants. *Obesity* kills,
> 
> 
> J Clin Gastroenterol. 1986 Aug;8(4):451-3.
> Energy intake and body weight in ovo-lacto vegetarians.
> Levin N, Rattan J, Gilat T.
>   Vegetarians have a lower body weight than omnivores.

*Entirely* irrelevant to the issue at hand. Stop moving goalposts, you nasty 
foot-fetishist.

<...>

STUPID pearl wrote:
> <..>
>>Homocysteine is a toxic metabolite-it attacks our blood vessels,
>>it' attacks our brain cells; it's a risk factor for heart disease, for
>>stroke, for Alzheimer's and a growing number of other diseases.
>>And, up to 25% of lacto-vegetarians and 80% of vegans have
>>seriously elevated levels in their blood. This is probably why the
>>latest research suggests vegetarians have over twice the risk of
>>dying from degenerative brain diseases.
> 
> <..>
> 
>>http://vegnews.org/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=121
> 
> ?
> 
> Ref #235 - Giem P
> SO: Neuroepidemiology. 1993; 12(1): 28-36
> AB: We investigated the relationship between animal product
> consumption and evidence of dementia in two cohort substudies.

My God, you stupid woman. Why can't you stick to one issue at a time instead of 
treating scientific studies the same way you treat your conspiracy theory 
sources? What's the incidence of dementia in groups like the Inuit who eat very 
little in the way of plant foods and a lot of meat?

<snip of stuff you'll NEVER understand or stop abusing>

"usual suspect" <godbless@pat.tillman> wrote in message news:q%vjc.28877$hR1.21558@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> pearl wrote:
> > <..>
> >>>The consumption of meat, eggs, milk, and cheese did not
> >>>have negative associations with any of the causes of death investigated.
> >>
> >>See this one from the same author, dummy:
> >>Diet, obesity, and risk of fatal prostate cancer
> >>
> >>DA Snowdon, RL Phillips and W Choi
> >>
> >>Findings described in this report are for 6,763 white male Seventh-day
> >>Adventists who completed a dietary questionnaire in 1960. Between 1960
> >>and 1980 mortality data were collected on cohort members. *Overweight*
> >>men had a significantly higher risk of fatal prostate cancer than men
> >>near their desirable weight. The predicted relative risk of fatal
> >>prostate cancer was 2.5 for *overweight* men. Suggestive positive
> >>associations were also seen between fatal prostate cancer and the
> >>consumption of milk, cheese, eggs, and meat. There was an orderly dose-
> >>response between each of the four animal products and risk. The
> >>predicted relative risk of fatal prostate cancer was 3.6 for those who
> >>heavily consumed all four animal products. The results of this study and
> >>others suggest that animal product consumption and *obesity* may be risk
> >>factors for fatal prostate cancer.
> >>MY EMPHASIS, DUMMY.
> >>http://aje.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/120/2/244
> >>
> >>Same survey, same researchers. Compare these findings to other studies of
> >>*OVERWEIGHT* study participants. *Obesity* kills,
> >
> >
> > J Clin Gastroenterol. 1986 Aug;8(4):451-3.
> > Energy intake and body weight in ovo-lacto vegetarians.
> > Levin N, Rattan J, Gilat T.
> >   Vegetarians have a lower body weight than omnivores.
>
> *Entirely* irrelevant to the issue at hand. Stop moving goalposts, you nasty
> foot-fetishist.

Temper, temper.  You tried to move the goalposts, but they
were just too heavy for you.  hahaha.  BTW, thanks for this;

'Suggestive positive associations were also seen between fatal
prostate cancer and the consumption of milk, cheese, eggs, and
meat. There was an orderly dose- response between each of
the four animal products and risk. The predicted relative risk of
fatal prostate cancer was 3.6 for those who heavily consumed
all four animal products.'

Not so useless, after all.  Rah.

>
> <...>
>

"usual suspect" <godbless@pat.tillman> wrote in message news:E2wjc.28891$hR1.6175@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> pearl wrote:
<..>
> > Ref #235 - Giem P
> > SO: Neuroepidemiology. 1993; 12(1): 28-36
> > AB: We investigated the relationship between animal product
> > consumption and evidence of dementia in two cohort substudies.
>
> My God, you stupid woman.

"All cruelty springs from weakness." (Seneca, 4BC-AD65)

> Why can't you stick to one issue at a time instead of
> treating scientific studies the same way you treat your conspiracy theory
> sources?

The issue in this threadlet is diet.

> What's the incidence of dementia in groups like the Inuit who eat very
> little in the way of plant foods and a lot of meat?

Meat and fish.  You tell us.  The omega 3s in fish may be protective,
but there's another problem;

'In a survey of 93% of the adult population of a Baffin region
settlement in the NWT (Nunavut), Sampath (1974) found that over
one third of those interviewed had a mental disorder according to
DSM-II criteria. High prevalence rates were found for schizophrenia
(28/1000), affective psychoses (46/1000), neuroses (116/1000) and
personality disorder (177/1000). On a measure of global distress,
the Health Opinion Survey questionnaire, women reported more
symptoms than men and an increase in severe symptoms with age.
In contrast, men showed a decrease in severe symptomatology with
age. Sampath (1976a,b) attributed these differences to differential
effects of modernization. Among those with personality disorders
70% were found to have a hysterical personality often with
dissociative symptoms which Sampath related to 'pibloktoq'.
http://www.mcgill.ca/psychiatry/transcultural/pdf/Report4.pdf

'Experimental and clinical studies of nonhumans and humans
reveal somatic and behavioral effects of hypervitaminosis A
which closely parallel many of the symptoms reported for
Western patients diagnosed as hysterical and Inuit sufferers
of pibloktoq.  Eskimo nutrition provides abundant sources
of vitamin A and lays the probable basis in some individuals
for hypervitaminosis A through ingestion of livers, kidneys,
and fat of arctic fish and mammals, where the vitamin often
is stored in poisonous quantities.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=4049004&dopt=Abstract

> <snip of stuff you'll NEVER understand or stop abusing>

Why are you asking for more evidence, when you have this?

<restore>

Ref #235 - Giem P
SO: Neuroepidemiology. 1993; 12(1): 28-36
AB: We investigated the relationship between animal product
consumption and evidence of dementia in two cohort substudies.
The first enrolled 272 California residents matched for age,
sex, and zip code (1 vegan, 1 lacto-ovo-vegetarian, and 2
'heavy' meat eaters in each of 68 quartets). This design ensured
a wide range of dietary exposure. The second included 2,984
unmatched subjects who resided within the Loma Linda,
California area. All subjects were enrolled in the Adventist
Health Study. The matched subjects who ate meat (including
poultry and fish) were more than twice as likely to become
demented as their vegetarian counterparts (relative risk 2.18,
p = 0.065) and the discrepancy was further widened (relative
risk 2.99, p = 0.048) when past meat consumption was taken
into account. There was no significant difference in the
incidence of dementia in the vegetarian versus meat-eating
unmatched subjects. There was no obvious explanation for
the difference between the two substudies, although the power
of the unmatched sub-study to detect an effect of 'heavy' meat
consumption was unexpectedly limited. There was a trend
towards delayed onset of dementia in vegetarians in both
substudies.
http://www.llu.edu/llu/health/abstracts/abstracts2.htm

"Bryan" <flyerboyz@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:R3ujc.3243$EPt1.345@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
<..> WHO CARES, MEAT- VEGETABLES.... ITS ALL FOOD....NOW BOTH OF YOU SHUT UP! YOU'RE
> GIVING US ALL A HEADACHE. BESIDES THIS IS A BOATING POST. NOW SCRAM!
>
> B

AHOY!!  LEARN HOW TO USE YOUR KILLFILE!

pearl wrote:
>>><..>
>>>
>>>>>The consumption of meat, eggs, milk, and cheese did not
>>>>>have negative associations with any of the causes of death investigated.
>>>>
>>>>See this one from the same author, dummy:
>>>>Diet, obesity, and risk of fatal prostate cancer
>>>>
>>>>DA Snowdon, RL Phillips and W Choi
>>>>
>>>>Findings described in this report are for 6,763 white male Seventh-day
>>>>Adventists who completed a dietary questionnaire in 1960. Between 1960
>>>>and 1980 mortality data were collected on cohort members. *Overweight*
>>>>men had a significantly higher risk of fatal prostate cancer than men
>>>>near their desirable weight. The predicted relative risk of fatal
>>>>prostate cancer was 2.5 for *overweight* men. Suggestive positive
>>>>associations were also seen between fatal prostate cancer and the
>>>>consumption of milk, cheese, eggs, and meat. There was an orderly dose-
>>>>response between each of the four animal products and risk. The
>>>>predicted relative risk of fatal prostate cancer was 3.6 for those who
>>>>heavily consumed all four animal products. The results of this study and
>>>>others suggest that animal product consumption and *obesity* may be risk
>>>>factors for fatal prostate cancer.
>>>>MY EMPHASIS, DUMMY.
>>>>http://aje.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/120/2/244
>>>>
>>>>Same survey, same researchers. Compare these findings to other studies of
>>>>*OVERWEIGHT* study participants. *Obesity* kills,
>>>
>>>
>>>J Clin Gastroenterol. 1986 Aug;8(4):451-3.
>>>Energy intake and body weight in ovo-lacto vegetarians.
>>>Levin N, Rattan J, Gilat T.
>>>  Vegetarians have a lower body weight than omnivores.
>>
>>*Entirely* irrelevant to the issue at hand. Stop moving goalposts, you nasty
>>foot-fetishist.
> 
> Temper, temper.

My temper is under control. I laugh at you, I don't lose my cool.

> You tried to move the goalposts, but they
> were just too heavy for you.

No, Lesley, I showed your misuse of the studies you cite. I can show you fat 
veg-ns and thin meat-eaters. It has nothing to do with your points taken from 
the SDA study. As Derek has also rightly shown, SDAs are not merely vegetarian. 
Their lifestyles encompass factors far beyond the scope of the studies you've 
(mis)used to make points.

> hahaha.  BTW, thanks for this;
> 
> 'Suggestive positive associations were also seen between fatal
> prostate cancer and the consumption of milk, cheese, eggs, and
> meat. There was an orderly dose- response between each of
> the four animal products and risk. The predicted relative risk of
> fatal prostate cancer was 3.6 for those who heavily consumed
> all four animal products.'

Pay attention: those surveyed in that study were OBESE and they HEAVILY consumed 
those products. Both factors -- obesity and level of consumption -- are notable.

> Not so useless, after all.  Rah.

I'm not, but you sure are.

Sigh.......
    Amusing watching the when Harry met Sally post. Here's an idea, why
don't both of you go to McDonalds.....one orders the BigMac combo with a
coke, the other a salad and bottled water. Step two would be to consume your
meals and enjoy each others silence (for a change). Step three would be to
ponder the sad truth........meat or vegetables.....the shit all ends up in
the same place.

B :-\

"usual suspect" <godbless@pat.tillman> wrote in message news:v4Cjc.33774$Dn1.7135@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> pearl wrote:
> >>><..>
> >>>
> >>>>>The consumption of meat, eggs, milk, and cheese did not
> >>>>>have negative associations with any of the causes of death investigated.
> >>>>
> >>>>See this one from the same author, dummy:
> >>>>Diet, obesity, and risk of fatal prostate cancer
> >>>>
> >>>>DA Snowdon, RL Phillips and W Choi
> >>>>
> >>>>Findings described in this report are for 6,763 white male Seventh-day
> >>>>Adventists who completed a dietary questionnaire in 1960. Between 1960
> >>>>and 1980 mortality data were collected on cohort members. *Overweight*
> >>>>men had a significantly higher risk of fatal prostate cancer than men
> >>>>near their desirable weight. The predicted relative risk of fatal
> >>>>prostate cancer was 2.5 for *overweight* men. Suggestive positive
> >>>>associations were also seen between fatal prostate cancer and the
> >>>>consumption of milk, cheese, eggs, and meat. There was an orderly dose-
> >>>>response between each of the four animal products and risk. The
> >>>>predicted relative risk of fatal prostate cancer was 3.6 for those who
> >>>>heavily consumed all four animal products. The results of this study and
> >>>>others suggest that animal product consumption and *obesity* may be risk
> >>>>factors for fatal prostate cancer.
> >>>>MY EMPHASIS, DUMMY.
> >>>>http://aje.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/120/2/244
> >>>>
> >>>>Same survey, same researchers. Compare these findings to other studies of
> >>>>*OVERWEIGHT* study participants. *Obesity* kills,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>J Clin Gastroenterol. 1986 Aug;8(4):451-3.
> >>>Energy intake and body weight in ovo-lacto vegetarians.
> >>>Levin N, Rattan J, Gilat T.
> >>>  Vegetarians have a lower body weight than omnivores.
> >>
> >>*Entirely* irrelevant to the issue at hand. Stop moving goalposts, you nasty
> >>foot-fetishist.
> >
> > Temper, temper.
>
> My temper is under control. I laugh at you, I don't lose my cool.

You lie.

> > You tried to move the goalposts, but they
> > were just too heavy for you.
>
> No, Lesley, I showed your misuse of the studies you cite. I can show you fat
> veg-ns and thin meat-eaters. It has nothing to do with your points taken from
> the SDA study. As Derek has also rightly shown, SDAs are not merely vegetarian.
> Their lifestyles encompass factors far beyond the scope of the studies you've
> (mis)used to make points.

Nope.  You tried to argue that obesity is linked to prostate cancer,
ignoring the meat aspect, then I showed you that meat eaters were
four times more likely to be obese.  IDIOT.

> > hahaha.  BTW, thanks for this;
> >
> > 'Suggestive positive associations were also seen between fatal
> > prostate cancer and the consumption of milk, cheese, eggs, and
> > meat. There was an orderly dose- response between each of
> > the four animal products and risk. The predicted relative risk of
> > fatal prostate cancer was 3.6 for those who heavily consumed
> > all four animal products.'
>
> Pay attention: those surveyed in that study were OBESE and they HEAVILY consumed
> those products. Both factors -- obesity and level of consumption -- are notable.

Both factors in their own right, not together.  What a tired ploy.

> > Not so useless, after all.  Rah.
>
> I'm not, but you sure are.

You're beneath contempt, murderous fool.

"Bryan" <flyerboyz@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:lFJjc.1097$huU.263@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> Sigh.......
>     Amusing watching the when Harry met Sally post. Here's an idea, why
> don't both of you go to McDonalds.....one orders the BigMac combo with a
> coke, the other a salad and bottled water. Step two would be to consume your
> meals and enjoy each others silence (for a change). Step three would be to
> ponder the sad truth........meat or vegetables.....the shit all ends up in
> the same place.
>
> B :-\

Funny thing is, the other two are both vegans.  One ('usual suspect')
for his 'athletic performance', the other ('ipse dixit') because of a
professed belief in animal rights.  Both detest me, -but not only me-,
for reasons best known to them.  IMO, they both detest themselves
deep down, and part-justifiably so, but instead of sorting it out attack
others.  "All cruelty springs from weakness." (Seneca, 4BC-AD65).

pearl wrote:
<...>
>>>>*Entirely* irrelevant to the issue at hand. Stop moving goalposts, you nasty
>>>>foot-fetishist.
>>>
>>>Temper, temper.
>>
>>My temper is under control. I laugh at you, I don't lose my cool.
> 
> You lie.

No, silly woman, I really do laugh at you.

>>>You tried to move the goalposts, but they
>>>were just too heavy for you.
>>
>>No, Lesley, I showed your misuse of the studies you cite. I can show you fat
>>veg-ns and thin meat-eaters. It has nothing to do with your points taken from
>>the SDA study. As Derek has also rightly shown, SDAs are not merely vegetarian.
>>Their lifestyles encompass factors far beyond the scope of the studies you've
>>(mis)used to make points.
> 
> Nope.

Yep.

> You tried to argue that obesity is linked to prostate cancer,

I showed that obesity is the primary factor contributing to prostate cancer and 
other cancers.

> ignoring the meat aspect, 

I didn't ignore it, I pointed out that HIGH CONSUMPTION of foods with saturated 
fat was noted as a factor in your study. You stupidly but conveniently ignored 
(a) that the group with the highest mortality rate were already overweight and 
(b) that their consumption wasn't moderate or average.

> then I showed you that meat eaters were
> four times more likely to be obese.

That wasn't a scientific survey.

>  IDIOT.

Whore.

>>>hahaha.  BTW, thanks for this;
>>>
>>>'Suggestive positive associations were also seen between fatal
>>>prostate cancer and the consumption of milk, cheese, eggs, and
>>>meat. There was an orderly dose- response between each of
>>>the four animal products and risk. The predicted relative risk of
>>>fatal prostate cancer was 3.6 for those who heavily consumed
>>>all four animal products.'
>>
>>Pay attention: those surveyed in that study were OBESE and they HEAVILY consumed
>>those products. Both factors -- obesity and level of consumption -- are notable.
> 
> Both factors in their own right, not together.

Yes, together.

> What a tired ploy.

I know you don't comprehend science, which is why you rub feet for a living. 
Stop trying to play like you understand what you're posting; the only person 
you're fooling is yourself.

>>>Not so useless, after all.  Rah.
>>
>>I'm not, but you sure are.
> 
> You're beneath contempt, 

Just yours, moron.

> murderous fool.

I've never murdered anyone. As for the other part of your ad hominem, pot kettle 
black.

pearl wrote:
>>Sigh.......
>>    Amusing watching the when Harry met Sally post. Here's an idea, why
>>don't both of you go to McDonalds.....one orders the BigMac combo with a
>>coke, the other a salad and bottled water. Step two would be to consume your
>>meals and enjoy each others silence (for a change). Step three would be to
>>ponder the sad truth........meat or vegetables.....the shit all ends up in
>>the same place.
> 
> Funny thing is, the other two are both vegans.

Stop calling me that. I'm vegetarian.

> One ('usual suspect')
> for his 'athletic performance', the other ('ipse dixit') because of a
> professed belief in animal rights.  Both detest me, -but not only me-,
> for reasons best known to them.

I don't detest you, Lesley. You amuse me when you make your fantastic posts about:
     "veganism"
     "inner earth beings"
     "hollow earth"
     that goofy patent for a MANUFACTURED globe
     helium-inflated number(s) for feed:beef
     rain forest destruction
     Brazil's exports (based on *Argentina's* trade)
     Stolen French flying saucer
     Zapper
     Foot massage (as cure-all)
     Astrology
     Numerology
     Alien abduction
     bestiality
     Leprechauns
     Channeling
     Polar fountains
     Sun gazing
     Chemtrails
     AIDS and ebola conspiracy theory
     Crop circles
     sexually aroused by violent ex-convicts
     participation in skinhead subculture
     the validity of online IQ tests
     crackpot 9-11 conspiracy theories
     Jeff Rense for "news"

> IMO, they both detest themselves

No self-hatred here.

> deep down, and part-justifiably so, but instead of sorting it out attack
> others.  "All cruelty springs from weakness." (Seneca, 4BC-AD65).

Seneca never met you. Neither did Will Rogers.

"rick etter" <etterr@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<y4kic.9563$e4.958@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> "pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
> news:c6c6ol$ddb$1@kermit.esat.net...
> > "Terry Crawford" <tdcraw@rogers.com> wrote in message
>  news:40870439.28585313@news.gv.shawcable.net...
> > > On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 23:21:18 GMT, "rick etter" <etterr@earthlink.net>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >"Terry Crawford" <tdcraw@rogers.com> wrote in message
> > > >news:40870070.27616059@news.gv.shawcable.net...
> > > >> On 21 Apr 2004 15:08:27 -0700, w_j_wolfe2oo3@yahoo.com (William J.
> > > >> Wolfe) wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> >"pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
>  news:<c6656s$kd2$1@kermit.esat.net>...
> > > >> >
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> - Interesting that you should feel a need to point that out. ..
> > > >> >
> > > >> ><remainder of rant deleted to conserve electrons>
> > > >> >
> > > >> >And the point of your ravings is ...?
> > > >>
> > > >> Eat meat, die young(er) and leave the world to the meek.
> > > >==================
> > > >Only problem is that isn't the case.  The longest lived people as a
>  group in
> > > >the world are not vegans.  Kinda screws the whole vegan rant, doesnt
>  it?
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Damn. OK, steak tonight with a nice big Cabernet Suauvignon. MMMmmmm.
> >
> > Actually, the people etter, our dietary wizardness, was referring to
> > are vegetarians.  That's right,- vegetarian Seventh-day Adventists.
> > Longevity of the vegan sub-set wasn't studied seperately, afaIa, but
> > other epidemiological (study of populations) research shows that
> > vegans are less at risk of chronic disease than lacto-ovo vegetarians.
> > Kind of really screws the whole meatarian rant, doesn't it, eh etter?
> ====================



> Not at all, fool.   You should learn to read real things instead of your
> propaganda.  The longest lived groups of people are not vegan, period.
> Your whole religion is still just smoke and mirrors, killer.
> 



 "read real things"?  Such as what etter? Field mouse stuff?

 pEtter, have you ever had your head examined?

"usual suspect" <godbless@pat.tillman> wrote in message news:CyQjc.33478$NR5.26243@fe1.texas.rr.com...
> pearl wrote:
> <...>
> >>>>*Entirely* irrelevant to the issue at hand. Stop moving goalposts, you nasty
> >>>>foot-fetishist.
> >>>
> >>>Temper, temper.
> >>
> >>My temper is under control. I laugh at you, I don't lose my cool.
> >
> > You lie.
>
> No, silly woman, I really do laugh at you.

Only because you're a fool.

> >>>You tried to move the goalposts, but they
> >>>were just too heavy for you.
> >>
> >>No, Lesley, I showed your misuse of the studies you cite. I can show you fat
> >>veg-ns and thin meat-eaters. It has nothing to do with your points taken from
> >>the SDA study. As Derek has also rightly shown, SDAs are not merely vegetarian.
> >>Their lifestyles encompass factors far beyond the scope of the studies you've
> >>(mis)used to make points.
> >
> > Nope.
>
> Yep.

BS.

> > You tried to argue that obesity is linked to prostate cancer,
>
> I showed that obesity is the primary factor contributing to prostate cancer and
> other cancers.

'primary' now, is it?  Let's see;

Diet, obesity, and risk of fatal prostate cancer
DA Snowdon, RL Phillips and W Choi

Findings described in this report are for 6,763 white male Seventh-day
Adventists who completed a dietary questionnaire in 1960. Between
1960 and 1980 mortality data were collected on cohort members.
Overweight men had a significantly higher risk of fatal prostate cancer
than men near their desirable weight. *The predicted relative risk of
fatal prostate cancer was 2.5 for overweight men*. Suggestive positive
associations were *also* seen between fatal prostate cancer and the
consumption of milk, cheese, eggs, and meat. There was an orderly
dose- response between each of the four animal products and risk.
*The predicted relative risk of fatal prostate cancer was 3.6 for those
who heavily consumed all four animal products.* The results of this study
and others suggest that animal product consumption and obesity may be
risk factors for fatal prostate cancer.
http://aje.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/120/2/244
<*emphasis mine>

Looks like animal product consumption is the primary factor
contributing to fatal prostate cancer, particularly as meat eating
is also associated with obesity.

> > ignoring the meat aspect,
>
> I didn't ignore it,

You scrawled;
"Same survey, same researchers. Compare these findings to other
studies of *OVERWEIGHT* study participants. *Obesity* kills,"

> I pointed out that HIGH CONSUMPTION of foods with saturated
> fat was noted as a factor in your study.

Not only.

'Suggestive positive associations were also seen between fatal prostate
cancer and the consumption of milk, cheese, eggs, and meat. *There was
an orderly dose- response between each of the four animal products and
risk.* The predicted relative risk of fatal prostate cancer was 3.6 for those
who heavily consumed all four animal products.  The results of this study
and others suggest that animal product consumption and obesity may be
risk factors for fatal prostate cancer.
http://aje.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/120/2/244
<*emphasis mine>

> You stupidly but conveniently ignored
> (a) that the group with the highest mortality rate were already overweight and

Show us where you read that.

> (b) that their consumption wasn't moderate or average.

That'd be correct.

> > then I showed you that meat eaters were
> > four times more likely to be obese.
>
> That wasn't a scientific survey.

Of course it was.

> >  IDIOT.
>
> Whore.

Liar.

> >>>hahaha.  BTW, thanks for this;
> >>>
> >>>'Suggestive positive associations were also seen between fatal
> >>>prostate cancer and the consumption of milk, cheese, eggs, and
> >>>meat. There was an orderly dose- response between each of
> >>>the four animal products and risk. The predicted relative risk of
> >>>fatal prostate cancer was 3.6 for those who heavily consumed
> >>>all four animal products.'
> >>
> >>Pay attention: those surveyed in that study were OBESE and they HEAVILY consumed
> >>those products. Both factors -- obesity and level of consumption -- are notable.
> >
> > Both factors in their own right, not together.
>
> Yes, together.

No, not together.

> > What a tired ploy.
>
> I know you don't comprehend science, which is why you rub feet for a living.
> Stop trying to play like you understand what you're posting; the only person
> you're fooling is yourself.

You wish.  You aint got a clue- still.

> >>>Not so useless, after all.  Rah.
> >>
> >>I'm not, but you sure are.
> >
> > You're beneath contempt,
>
> Just yours, moron.
>
> > murderous fool.
>
> I've never murdered anyone. As for the other part of your ad hominem, pot kettle
> black.

Idiot child- you support WAR.

pearl wrote:
<...>
>>No, silly woman, I really do laugh at you.
> 
> Only because you're a fool.

No, sweetheart, because you're the fool. See your list.

<...>
>>>You tried to argue that obesity is linked to prostate cancer,
>>
>>I showed that obesity is the primary factor contributing to prostate cancer and
>>other cancers.
> 
> 'primary' now, is it?

Yes.

> Let's see;
> 
> Diet, obesity, and risk of fatal prostate cancer
> DA Snowdon, RL Phillips and W Choi
> 
> Findings described in this report are for 6,763 white male Seventh-day
> Adventists who completed a dietary questionnaire in 1960. Between
> 1960 and 1980 mortality data were collected on cohort members.
> Overweight men had a significantly higher risk of fatal prostate cancer
_________________________________________________________________________

Read that again, shithead.

> than men near their desirable weight. *The predicted relative risk of
> fatal prostate cancer was 2.5 for overweight men*. Suggestive positive
                                                      ___________________

What kind of positive correlation? SUGGESTIVE, you imbecile.

> associations were *also* seen between fatal prostate cancer and the
> consumption of milk, cheese, eggs, and meat. 

Were the associations the same for low-fat and non-fat dairy and lean meat 
consumption or across the board? OR WAS THAT EVEN CONSIDERED?!

You're as ignorant about nutrition as the Atkins people. They say ALL carbs are 
bad, even though complex carbs don't cause the same kinds of glucose spikes that 
simple carbs do. You ignorantly engage in the same type of ignorant hysteria by 
failing to distinguish between good sources of proteins and bad. Pay attention 
below to the part about consumption, too. People who eat lean meats and 
reduced-fat dairy products usually don't engage in heavy consumption, which is 
one reason why they're not obese (which is one of the primary factors for 
certain kinds of cancers, CHD, etc.). You ass.

> There was an orderly
> dose- response between each of the four animal products and risk.
> *The predicted relative risk of fatal prostate cancer was 3.6 for those
> who heavily consumed all four animal products.* The results of this study
       ________________

Moderate consumption? NO. HEAVY CONSUMPTION.

> and others suggest that animal product consumption and obesity may be
> risk factors for fatal prostate cancer.

Note that the authors consider them FACTOR*S* -- PLURAL.

> http://aje.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/120/2/244
> <*emphasis mine>
> 
> Looks like animal product consumption is the primary factor
> contributing to fatal prostate cancer, 

IPSE DIXIT. THAT IS NOT THE FINDING REACHED IN THAT STUDY, NITWIT.

> particularly as meat eating
> is also associated with obesity.

IPSE DIXIT. You dolt.

>>>ignoring the meat aspect,
>>
>>I didn't ignore it,
> 
> You scrawled;
> "Same survey, same researchers. Compare these findings to other
> studies of *OVERWEIGHT* study participants. *Obesity* kills,"

Yes, and all the other links showing correlations between obesity and certain 
kinds of cancer. Which kinds? Those which are considered to be influenced by 
hormones: prostate, breast, etc. Another hormonal issue affecting obese people: 
diabetes, which also goes along with CHD.

http://www.obesity-and-cancer.com/
http://dceg.cancer.gov/prost-cancer.html
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/51/2/568
http://www.coloradohealthsite.org/cancer/treatment_8.html
http://www.fao.org/docrep/V4700E/V4700E0g.htm
http://www.stanford.edu/~jpc/Chapter5.htm
http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/conference/kolonel.html

>>I pointed out that HIGH CONSUMPTION of foods with saturated
>>fat was noted as a factor in your study.
> 
> Not only.

You retard. "Suggestive associations" are not strong ones.

> 'Suggestive positive associations were also seen between fatal prostate
> cancer and the consumption of milk, cheese, eggs, and meat. *There was
> an orderly dose- response between each of the four animal products and
> risk.* The predicted relative risk of fatal prostate cancer was 3.6 for those
> who heavily consumed all four animal products.  The results of this study
> and others suggest that animal product consumption and obesity may be
> risk factors for fatal prostate cancer.
> http://aje.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/120/2/244
> <*emphasis mine>
> 
>>You stupidly but conveniently ignored
>>(a) that the group with the highest mortality rate were already overweight and
> 
> Show us where you read that.

	The predicted relative risk of fatal prostate cancer was 3.6 for those
	who heavily consumed all four animal products.

>>(b) that their consumption wasn't moderate or average.
> 
> That'd be correct.

Damn right.

>>>then I showed you that meat eaters were
>>>four times more likely to be obese.
>>
>>That wasn't a scientific survey.
> 
> Of course it was.

No, it was not.

>>> IDIOT.
>>
>>Whore.
> 
> Liar.

Chelsea.

>>>>>hahaha.  BTW, thanks for this;
>>>>>
>>>>>'Suggestive positive associations were also seen between fatal
>>>>>prostate cancer and the consumption of milk, cheese, eggs, and
>>>>>meat. There was an orderly dose- response between each of
>>>>>the four animal products and risk. The predicted relative risk of
>>>>>fatal prostate cancer was 3.6 for those who heavily consumed
>>>>>all four animal products.'
>>>>
>>>>Pay attention: those surveyed in that study were OBESE and they HEAVILY consumed
>>>>those products. Both factors -- obesity and level of consumption -- are notable.
>>>
>>>Both factors in their own right, not together.
>>
>>Yes, together.
> 
> No, not together.

Yes, together. See other studies.

>>>What a tired ploy.
>>
>>I know you don't comprehend science, which is why you rub feet for a living.
>>Stop trying to play like you understand what you're posting; the only person
>>you're fooling is yourself.
> 
> You wish.  You aint got a clue- still.

You should play with the Atkins zealots since you share their inability to 
distinguish between healthy and unhealthy foods.

>>>>>Not so useless, after all.  Rah.
>>>>
>>>>I'm not, but you sure are.
>>>
>>>You're beneath contempt,
>>
>>Just yours, moron.
>>
>>
>>>murderous fool.
>>
>>I've never murdered anyone. As for the other part of your ad hominem, pot kettle
>>black.
> 
> Idiot child- you support WAR.

I support peace. Sometimes war is an inevitable step to having peace. It sure as 
hell doesn't come when nations appease terrorist and thug regimes like you 
wanted to do. How many more children would you have starved in Iraq through 
"containment," you bloodthirsty murderer?