peta

Someone has been paying attention! Therefore you know I proudly wear that title as a badge of honor. Much like "bastard" was once a title of nobility.

Even though I have little but contempt to offer the human race as a whole, I still fail to see where you stated emphatically whether you would sacrifice your own child to save an animal. So in the interest of time, not debate, could you answer it again please? Thank you.

And please, bear in mind, I am active in animal rescue and animal rights, yet my opinion is that PETA is a poorly run organization funded by the misguided, managed by liars and led by a business oriented master of spin and manipulation. Her adorable British accent makes her seem more important, more intelligent, more appealing to the average slack jawed redneck and teenaged kitten fancier. Intelligent people can examine the facts and make up their own minds on the subject, as I have done.

I don't hate anything or anyone. I just think people should call themselves what they are and open their doors to prove it. Anything less is pure and simple hypocrasy.

 

OK give me your scientific references.

http://www.westonaprice.org/mythstruths/mtvegetarianism.html#7

I sourced my information on EFA's from the book Cholesterol Control By Dr Ian Hamilton Craig , Heinemann Australia.ISBN 0-85561-233-9

Give me your references.

Do some research, it is quality, not quantity of fat that matters.

You realise that the demonisation of cholesterol started in 1954 based on some research by some nutty Russian scientist who experimented on rabbits? Such research has since been seized upon by margarine & vegetable oil companies, together with pharmacutical companies who make huge profits from cholesterol lowering medications. Hundreds of people have died premeturely and many more made very ill from taking cholesterol lowering medications. I have no intention of ever taking any colesterol lowering medications. These cholesterol lowering medications were shown to be "safe" by testing on rabbits.

I would not recommend fish from contaminated waters, nor would I not recommend eating food grown on contaminated land.

OK, give me your references.

 

Thank you, Bilby. Bad science really pisses me off.

 

Now that is fucking scary. And then meat and dairy gets blamed for the early developement of young girls.

 

If "bad science pisses you off", than why are you thanking bilby after dumping bad science all over this board?

Post has been edited to reflect citations.

I have done the research, but seeing that you are getting your information from the Weston A. Price foundation it now becomes clear how you can be so wrong about nutrition. Fallon and the rest of the dental club have zero merit among the scientific community.

I'm not sure exactly what you are talking about, but the Framingham Heart Study has shown steadily and convincingly the link between cholesterol and heart disease. Your story about Russians and rabbit experiments discredits current research, how?

It's also "fucking" bogus. First of all I just want to make it clear that I advocate human breast milk for human babies, not formulas. Now, in the case of meats and dairy, they play a large role in the early maturation of children due to their high fat content and other properties. Diets high in fat and animal protein release, create and inhibit the elimination of estrogens (actual estrogen, not plant estrogen) in the body which results in early and extended maturation in both girls and boys. I can go into more detail if you like reading.

 

Could you give me the URL's of these studies? Doing a google search, I could only find articles that refered to these studies, not the actual studies themselves. In doing a search I came across this article,

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9860378&dopt=Abstract

Let me quote from it,
Cholesterol levels by themselves reveal little about a patient's coronary artery disease risk. Most infarctions occur in patients who have normal total cholesterol levels.

So there you are. In other words cholesterol reading levels are essentially useless. Do research on Cerivastatin.
http://www.abc.net.au/health/minutes/stories/s1398045.htm

If you are interested in the issue of blood circulation, have you heard of the work of Danish physicians, J.Dyerberg and H.O.Bang who studied the Greenland Eskimos in the 1970's?


http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/33/12/2657

http://hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=117925

 

There's no need to "eat" cholesterol, the body produces enough. What we eat is just excess which leads to hypercholesterolemia.

 

The very essence of science is controversy.There is no consensus in science. I am sure you can find detractors of Weston A Price from scientists who are funded by by big business. Remember big business will spout any old rubbish just to make money. If you can show any instances of scientific fraud or even just unscientific rigour on the part of Weton A price, I would be glad to look them up.

I have looked at the Framingham Heart Study on the net. I could not find anything to back up what you have to say on the matter. Could you post up a URL please? It is fairly obvious that experimenting on rabbits is completely unscientific. If cholesterol is such a toxic substance, it shows that there is a fundemental flaw in the genetic make up of the entire animal l kingdom and the use of Cerivastatin should have done paitients the world of good.

Give us the reference.

PS Just found this one,
http://www.thincs.org/Malcolm.choltheory.htm

 

Isn't that the politically organisation that advocated that pets have a right to vote (albight via their owners). Seriously, I did have to look twice at their political billboard in the last set of European elections. I have heard about that children should have voting rights, but having maybe the Queen's Corgey elected as EU President?

 

Viewing journals online usually requires a paid subscription.

You're taking that sentence out of context. When you read the abstract in it's entirety you can clearly see that they are saying the ratio of LDL to HDL is an important factor and cannot be determined from the total cholesterol number. Because higher HDL lowers your chances of heart attack, having a high total cholesterol number does not mention how much of that cholesterol is HDL or LDL, so risk cannot be accurately determined from the total cholesterol alone. However, having low total cholesterol is still a good thing since the study has shown that having total cholesterol of less than 150 mg/dl makes the chances of heart attack virtually non-existent.

Why do you keep mentioning statin medications? I have been advocating healthy diets and lifestyle changes, not drugs. By the way, Eskimos are not exactly a group of people known for their health.

Big business? A lot of research is funded by tax money, and even those funded by industry that get published in respected peer-reviewed journals are open to and receive scrutiny. How can you claim a bias in mainstream science while ignoring the bias of groups who have their own agenda? I think you don't really care about scientific methods or the truth. I think you are just going to believe whoever tells you what you want to hear. If you want to believe that large amounts of saturated fat and cholesterol are healthy then be my guest, but don't try to convince others with your online collection of junk science and fallacy-riddled position papers.

I don't know what you have been looking at, but the Framingham heart study has basically shown that heart disease does not occur below 150mg/dl. I'm not sure why you keep bringing up rabbits and statin drugs, but I advocate neither of those. Could you elaborate on what you are saying about the animal kingdom?

You have got to be kidding me. According to this obviously unbiased person the claim is that dietary cholesterol does not affect our cholesterol levels. Hence the following quote from this paper;

"First little problem - dietary intake of cholesterol has no impact on the level of cholesterol in your blood."

To which I respond...
Lancet. 1984 Mar 24;1(8378):647-9.

You want my reference? You guys cite one poorly supported paper written by a former Weston A. Price cronie who himself originally supported this claim by citing research published in the Weston A. Price foundation's own journal? A man who may I add, followed his own diet high in cholesterol and saturated fat, and also died at age 40 after suffering a massive stroke a couple years ago? These are the nutritional geniuses you are going to believe? Brilliant!

My source
Rev Infect Dis 6(suppl1):s85, 1984

You do realize that cholesterol is just one of many problems associated with the human consumption of animal products. If you manage to convince yourself that large amounts of cholesterol and fat are healthy, how do you address the rest of the problems?

 

damned ...you mean all those experiments with rhesus monkeys and insulin and all those experiments were failures ......man get out all the coffins .cause all the people alive because of these experiments should be dead ..but nobody told them .........man ,what a convincing lie

 

No, for the most part he's correct on this. Many avian species are immune to arsenic. Hair care products and cosmetics are often tested on rabbits, mostly by placing the product directly in their eyes, yet rabbit eyes are drastically different from human eyes. And yes, epidemiological studies can be performed at the cellular level. The problem with this is that most strains act unpredictably outside the petri dish, hence the alleged pandemic we currently face.

 

It looks to me like you have read an article that cited these references and have not read the actual references themselves.



I have looked up the Framingham Heart Study http://www.framingham.com/heart/

but I could not find any mention of this:

Even if that was the case, how do you know that an increased level of LDL’s is the cause not a symptom of CHD?



From: http://www.framingham.com/heart/4stor_02.htm

• Infectious Agents -- Viruses and other infectious agents may harm blood vessel walls, starting the atherosclerotic process. Framingham researchers are investigating whether cytomegalovirus (CMV), chlamydia, and H. pylori, a bacterium that causes stomach ulcers, play a role in damaging healthy blood vessels.

Could it be that since cholesterol is essential to the repair of body tissue, that in such instances the level of LDL’s increases in order to heal damaged blood vessel walls? Remember it is dead easy to misinterpret scientific studies or data.

Really? When did I do that? What you refer to as “mainstream science” could be what gets the most publicity in the US media. Let us not forget the media in the US is one big propaganda machine that is beholden to various interested groups who have a barrow to push.

Who did you have in mind?

For statements or studies to be of a scientific nature they must be verifiable and I have already asked you for scientific references only to be given ones that it appears you have not actually seen. I have been to The British Medical Journal site http://www.bmjjournals.com/ I can get a two day pass for $4, but I need an author and title to look up the study.

I am always interested in stories of scientific fraud. For the record I am not sure I agree with everything that is written at WestonA.Price but if you can give me any examples of factual errors, I will gladly look them up.

I think I should explain. Until 1970 saturated fat and trans fat were considered to be one and the same thing, consequently all the sins of trans fat were blamed on saturated fat. Even though many organizations such as The American Heart Association and The National Heart Foundation (of Australia) have acknowledged the evils of trans fat, they have since continued demonising saturated fat even though they have no scientific references listed. Ideas become set in stone. Let us not forget that many vegetarian wholefoods contain saturated fat such as every types of nut except for chestnuts. Of all the fad diets there have been over the years, the Pritkin diet would have to be the silliest. Mr Pritkin was so duped with the demonisation of saturated fat that all nuts (except for chestnuts) , avocados and olives were all forbidden fruit in his crackpot diet. Mr.Pritkin died a premature death from cancer. If you are going to be veg*n, a large amount of nuts are essential to your diet to obtain a complete range of amino acids.
Let us ask ourselves if we want to believe in science or superstition. Also next time you see someone demonizing saturated fat, be a smarty pants and ask them for their scientific references.

This is what in found in wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturated_fat

Controversy

It has been alleged that the many studies of saturated fat in the diet do not distinguish between saturated fat and trans fat. Some claim that saturated fat (in the absence of trans fat) is healthful; for example, foods such as peanuts and pure peanut butter (peanut butter having no added partially hydrogenated vegetable oil) contain saturated fat but no trans fat. Such foods may be beneficial or may be a health hazard; no research specific to this question has as yet been done.

Also, it has been pointed out that meat and dairy foods contain some naturally-occurring trans fatty acids. It is unknown whether or not they cause heart disease. Some researchers [1] claim that there are "good" trans fatty acids, such as conjugated linoleic acid.

In that case, why not eat margarine ,straight from the tub by the spoonful?

"First little problem - dietary intake of cholesterol has no impact on the level of cholesterol in your blood."

Well as I understand the situation most cholesterol in the human body is manufactured by the liver. If you completely avoid dietary cholesterol and your body needs more, it will simply make more. Let us not forget that sex hormones are made from cholesterol.

See point 4 of posting guidelines.

 

I do not see anything wrong with citing research from the organisation that Stephen Byrnes was associated with. His early death is anecdotal, just like the premeture death of Linda McCartney was.

That only refers to eating eggs, something that I don't eat a great deal of.

Enlighten me.

 

An interesting piece on statin drugs and LDL cholesterol.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/perspective/stories/s1599299.htm