Political Crossfire Forums

[mathurin]

jasonireland wrote: did you click the link? no.
do you realise what you are saying?emmmm?

mathurin, do i have to draw a diagram for you? no actually why dont you click on the link(or paste it to your url)and see the diagrams for yourself.

and if you cannot see a pattern, then i am dumbfounded and totally and utterly lost on you.

i clicked the link, i even quoted the link, he did not add many known factors for cancer into the mix


correlation does not equal causation
regression only finds relation, relation does not prove causation, it could be that both items are caused by a seperate item
for example, lets say (and at this point i am late for class so i cant check for sure) that wealth is the causing factor, wealth causes people to have more choice in their foods, wealth also will allow them to REPORT cancer, while poorer people will eat what is available and cheap, and often will not go to the doctor when they are sick

basically, when medical doctors start doing studies of cancer patients and a significantly smally proportion are vegan then perhaps it would suggest a link

bottom line, that guy has an agenda, he left out the major causes, i see the lines, with enough work i could prove that baby formula causes cancer through his method

bottom line: poll cancer patients to determine causes of cancer

[ieatfood]

mathurin wrote:

bottom line: poll cancer patients to determine causes of cancer

actually polling cancer pts is not the best way

the best way is to find a bunch of people
assign a random half of them a meat diet and half of them a vegan diet
and see which group gets more cancer

another good way is simply to poll a bunch of people first
then see which of them get cancer


polling cancer pts is subject to all sorts of biases
for example, cancer pts may themselves attribute their cancer to a certain cause and will tend to overreport that cause.

[Canadian_Patriot]

I find it amazing how many people beleive food and drug studies are legit.

A example of this is when Hershey's funded a study that said chocolate is good for you. (this actually happened)

A website called Vegsource made by and for vegitarians having a study in which they say meat is bad. I would trust this study as far as i could throw an automobile. I personally think there is no study since they don't post the data from the study.

[jasonireland]

listen , i am coming to the point of not caring about sharing information..no, actually i am already there, so eat what you want and see how you end up, look around you and see who seems to be getting sickest most, people who eat mainly vegetables or mainly meat.

a few years down the line when this becomes more of an issue and maybe you people will ignore mainstream press for once, try and remember what i said, because other than that , my time is wasted on you.

sorry for sounding slighty bitter, but thats the result of what happens when you try to help people learn about things that are true,(you can read an infinite amount of books on from all over the world, all saying the same thing) but people just dont want to know. people would prefer to believe all the crap they brought up with and vehemently deny any new source of knowledge.they trust what the meat industry tells them and swallow it whole. and its tastes sooooooooo good.

of course the studies come from a veg site they were hardly going to be carried out by the beef lobbiests were they? and if you believe that all similar studies are carried out by veg people you a far from wrong , so so far, if you have HALF an interest in your own health you would research these issues on the web or in books by yourself.please.

listen , i have nothing to gain if you believe me or not, so why do you think i am even talking about it? for arguements sake. no

[thintheherd]

Not that I'm sad to see this fruitless (pun intended) debate dissolve I feel the need to point out something... Your real problem is that you think people eat meat thanks to some sort of 'propaganda' drummed up by the 'meat industry' or, for heavens sake, the press. :roll:

That view is extremely short-sighted at best and doesn't take into consideration the thousands of years of evolution / experience we have as omnivores, nor does it respect our desire to remain as such.

The truth of the matter is your chosen lifestyle is the new kid on the block. A blip on the radar screen if you will. It is a fad driven primarily by real propaganda, you call studies, that most recently strives to deny you your natural tendencies and mocks your canines.

Sometimes the act of over engineering ones place in the natural order is indeed detrimental to ones existence in that order.

[OneZero]

jasonireland wrote: listen , i am coming to the point of not caring about sharing information..no, actually i am already there, so eat what you want and see how you end up, look around you and see who seems to be getting sickest most, people who eat mainly vegetables or mainly meat.

For thousands of years people have eaten a mostly meat diet, and have come out none the worse for wear. If it was good enough for them, it's good enough for me.

Quote: sorry for sounding slighty bitter, but thats the result of what happens when you try to help people learn about things that are true,(you can read an infinite amount of books on from all over the world, all saying the same thing) but people just dont want to know. people would prefer to believe all the crap they brought up with and vehemently deny any new source of knowledge.they trust what the meat industry tells them and swallow it whole. and its tastes sooooooooo good.

Well if I'm going to die of cancer I might as well go eating what I think tastes best and is healthy for you.

[OneZero]

thintheherd wrote: Not that I'm sad to see this fruitless (pun intended) debate dissolve I feel the need to point out something... Your real problem is that you think people eat meat thanks to some sort of 'propaganda' drummed up by the 'meat industry' or, for heavens sake, the press. :roll:

That view is extremely short-sighted at best and doesn't take into consideration the thousands of years of evolution / experience we have as omnivores, nor does it respect our desire to remain as such.

The truth of the matter is your chosen lifestyle is the new kid on the block. A blip on the radar screen if you will. It is a fad driven primarily by real propaganda, you call studies, that most recently strives to deny you your natural tendencies and mocks your canines.

Sometimes the act of over engineering ones place in the natural order is indeed detrimental to ones existence in that order.

:clap: Good post, I agree.

[ieatfood]

The actual increase in cancer risk from eating meat is most likely fairly small

The sacrifice in taste required to switch to vegetarianism is not worth it.

[OneZero]

ieatfood wrote: The actual increase in cancer risk from eating meat is most likely fairly small

The sacrifice in taste required to switch to vegetarianism is not worth it.

I heartily agree.

[mathurin]

jason, still you have problems understanding that this "study" is a farce

and that regression lines dont prove causation, they prove relation, for all you know this could mean that increases in radioactivity provoke cravings of meat and increase cancer rates, you just dont know

stated again, corelation only proves they are related, not that one causes the other
and this kind of statistical study doesnt prove anything, i could easily do a study of a disease, lets say malaria, and prove (at least aswell as this guy has) that a vegetarian diet causes malaria, because western countries have stomped out malaria and poorer countries where they are too poor to afford meat have not

that study ignores the biggest causes of cancer, therefore it is moot
that study also relies on reported cases, while poorer people will often not report illness because they have no money to pay the doctor






i am happy i had 2 statistics classes, it helps to weed out these jokes

[GTTofAK]

ieatfood wrote: The actual increase in cancer risk from eating meat is most likely fairly small

The sacrifice in taste required to switch to vegetarianism is not worth it.

Its even less than that. All this article showed is that Beafaholics as we call them in bodybuilding don't eat enough greens and therefore don't get enough antioxidants to help prevent cancer. It has nothing to do with the meat in their diets. Just that alot of meat eaters don't eat a balanced diet. Lets face it there are people who wont eat broccoli even if it is deep fried.

[ieatfood]

GTTofAK wrote: ieatfood wrote: The actual increase in cancer risk from eating meat is most likely fairly small

The sacrifice in taste required to switch to vegetarianism is not worth it.

Its even less than that. All this article showed is that Beafaholics as we call them in bodybuilding don't eat enough greens and therefore don't get enough antioxidants to help prevent cancer. It has nothing to do with the meat in their diets. Just that alot of meat eaters don't eat a balanced diet. Lets face it there are people who wont eat broccoli even if it is deep fried.

Yes but there are other articles with actual hard science that suggests that meat increases cancer risk. It's not a slam dunk. But theres some evidence. That's why I say the increase is probably small, but still an increase.

[Face]

7) Vegetarian Diets and Longevity

The inability of vegetarian diets to extend lifespan is discussed in the following papers:

Key TJ, et al. Mortality in vegetarians and non-vegetarians: detailed findings from a collaborative analysis of 5 prospective studies. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 1999; 70 (S): 516S-524S. Free full text.

Key TJ, et al. Mortality in British vegetarians: review and preliminary results from EPIC-Oxford. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2003; 78: 533S-538S. Free full text.


from this site--> http://www.theomnivore.com/home.html

sorry new to the site gimme time to figure out the coding

[jasonireland]

As i said above, eat what you want , i don`t care at this stage.Its your loss/gain.

People believe what they want to believe, that goes for both you and I. Science, history, ethics, diet , it all comes down to what your beliefs are and what you[b] think suits your current situation best, not what others say.

At one time, women could note vote, Africans were slaves, this was perceived as ethically appropriate just because it was the norm, the government advocated it.Women are still not treated as equals today.
In regard to studies, scientists everywhere continually come up with conflicting results, usually funded by interested parties on their behalf to benefit from the "evidence".

Unfortunately most people base their beliefs on what they or their government , laws , religion , or common society believes in at this moment in time because thats the easiest option,it requires no research, no integrity, no [i]self - belief [/i]its alot harder to go against the grain. This acceptance of the common standard does not lead one to have true beliefs, they are "assumed beliefs", and the inability or lack of will to think for oneself. In toadys world diversity, dissent and autonomy are abhorred. Reliance, discrimination, follow-the-herd mentality are applauded.

I will repeat, once more, i do not care whether you believe my case or not, i do not care whether this "debate" is won or lost, i just wish people would put a little more original thought into their lives and not go with the flow, just because its the easiest thing to do.

[/b]

[mathurin]

too bad you have fallen into the "correlation means causation" trap

seriously, go pick up a statistics book if you really think this study is anything but a hoax

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0618205543/sr=8-1/qid=1144713152/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-6724826-8795143?%5Fencoding=UTF8

amazon.com, used for $2

though i am sure your library has some kind of book, dont hide in ignorance, learn why his methods produce data that is not reliable

[jasonireland]

mathurin, as i already stated, i have my beliefs , they do not come from one study, i do not care whether you believe me or not, i do not even care if his study is a "hoax" or not. as i said above, people believe what they want to believe.

so giving me a link to some other book or study is completely ignoring what i said. the debate is over, nothing has come from this because neither side was willing to listen or change their stance, so you can keep posting all you want but there is no point.

it seems like almost every single thread on this website is counter-productive. nobody ever admits defeat, if subject is posted that the usual right -wing or left-wing people should dis-agree with but they cannot because they have no case, then they simply ignore it, and it gets lost through the pages. and if someone is losing a debate they they just dismiss the whole argument.............i am not talking soley about the animal rights issue / veganism I am talking about ALL the issues.

[George W Bush]

i seriously want to become vegetarian but dont have the patience to make the food.

i will, someday.

[OneZero]

George W Bush wrote: i seriously want to become vegetarian but dont have the patience to make the food.

i will, someday.

Um.... so why do you want to make OTHER people vegetarians? That kinda sounds like hypocrasy.

[George W Bush]

OneZero wrote: George W Bush wrote: i seriously want to become vegetarian but dont have the patience to make the food.

i will, someday.

Um.... so why do you want to make OTHER people vegetarians? That kinda sounds like hypocrasy.

i never said that.
thats a misconception because I care for animals, or am a PETA member.

I would be a hypocrite if I insisted people not eat animals.

I am not a hypocrite when I expect animals to be treated decently.

[OneZero]

George W Bush wrote: OneZero wrote: George W Bush wrote: i seriously want to become vegetarian but dont have the patience to make the food.

i will, someday.

Um.... so why do you want to make OTHER people vegetarians? That kinda sounds like hypocrasy.

i never said that.
thats a misconception because I care for animals, or am a PETA member.

I would be a hypocrite if I insisted people not eat animals.

I am not a hypocrite when I expect animals to be treated decently.

Define "decently." I care for animals too, I'm just not an extremist.