An Exposure of Neal Barnard
TC
Neal Barnard
Biography
A psychiatrist by training, Neal Barnard has made a name for himself in
animal-rights circles since 1985, when he founded the Physicians
Committee for Responsible Medicine, an animal rights group dressed up
as a medical association. From 1989 to 1991 he served as a Contributing
Editor to The Animals' Agenda magazine, writing frequent columns on
animal-rights topics. In 2003, he was nominated for the "Animal
Rights Hall of Fame."
Barnard grew up in North Dakota in a family that included two doctors
and four cattle ranchers. He actually worked at a local McDonald's
during high school. According to a now-defunct publication called the
Animal Rights Reporter: "Barnard says that his involvement in animal
rights results from a rescue of a lab rodent that became a pet and
companion to him."
Although he's a psychiatrist by training, Barnard has written nearly
a dozen books on the subject of nutrition. All of them condemn animal
protein. One such book, Breaking the Food Seduction, argues that meat
and dairy are, literally, addictive drugs.
Neal Barnard is People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals' medical
advisor, and is president of the Foundation to Support Animal
Protection (also known as "The PETA Foundation") -- a legal entity
that owns most of PETA's real estate, pays its largest salaries, and
has funneled huge sums of money to PCRM.
In 1995 Merritt Clifton, editor of Animal People News, wrote that
Barnard and PETA president Ingrid Newkirk had "lived together for
many years" and were "lovers."
Background
Founder & President, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine;
Advisory Board Member, EarthSave International; President, Foundation
to Support Animal Protection (The PETA Foundation); former Contributing
Editor, The Animals' Agenda
Associated Organizations and Foundations
Organization: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
Position: Medical Advisor
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has been described
as "by far the most successful radical organization in America." The
key word is...
find out more »
Organization: EarthSave International
Position: Advisory Board Member
EarthSave began in 1988 as a pet project of John Robbins, one-time heir
to the Baskin-Robbins ice cream fortune. His book Diet for a New
America had...
find out more »
Organization: Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine
Position: Founder & President
The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) is a wolf in
sheep's clothing. PCRM is a fanatical animal rights group that seeks
to remove...
find out more »
Foundation: PETA Foundation
Position: President
This foundation is a project of PETA president Ingrid Newkirk and the
Physicians Committee's Neal Barnard. In addition to being a money
funnel between...
****
Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine
5100 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 404, Washington, DC 20016
Phone 202-686-2210 | Fax 202-686-2216 | Email pc...@pcrm.org
The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) is a wolf in
sheep's clothing. PCRM is a fanatical animal rights group that seeks
to remove eggs, milk, meat, and seafood from the American diet, and to
eliminate the use of animals in scientific research. Despite its
operational and financial ties to other animal activist groups and its
close relationship with violent zealots, PCRM has successfully duped
the media and much of the general public into believing that its
pronouncements about the superiority of vegetarian-only diets represent
the opinion of the medical community.
"Less than 5 percent of PCRM's members are physicians," Newsweek
wrote in February 2004. The respected news magazine continued:
[PCRM president Neal] Barnard has co-signed letters, on PCRM
letterhead, with the leader of Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, an
animal-rights group the Department of Justice calls a "domestic
terrorist threat." PCRM also has ties to People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals. An agency called the Foundation to Support Animal
Protection has distributed money from PETA to PCRM in the past and,
until very recently, did both groups' books. Barnard and PETA head
Ingrid Newkirk are both on the foundation's board.
New York Times columnist Joe Sharkey put it more crisply in a November
2004 piece about PCRM's annual airport-food ratings. "The
physicians' committee has a PETA link," he wrote, "and its food
rankings reflect that agenda."
While PCRM presents itself as a doctor-supported, unbiased source of
health guidance, the group's own literature echoes Newsweek's
observation that 95 percent of its members have no medical degrees. And
even the five-percent doctor membership that PCRM claims is open to
question. Anyone claiming to be a physician or a medical student can
join without paying a dime -- even if their only motivation is to
collect free waiting-room reading material.
PCRM's anti-meat and anti-dairy tactics include newspaper op-eds and
letters, campaigns against airports and school boards, and television
commercials. One 2005 TV spot claims "the most dangerous thing our
kids have to deal with today isn't violence. It isn't drugs. It's
unhealthy food." PCRM's prescription? "Vegetarian foods."
The American Medical Association (AMA), which actually represents the
medical profession, has called PCRM a "fringe organization" that
uses "unethical tactics" and is "interested in perverting medical
science."
PCRM is a font of medical disinformation. The group has argued, with a
straight face, that experiments involving animal subjects "interfere
with new drug development." PCRM even rejects the consensus of the
respectable medical community by claiming that animal experimentation
"leads AIDS research astray."
PCRM discourages Americans from making donations to health charities
like the American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society, St.
Jude Children's Research Hospital, the American Foundation for AIDS
Research, the Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation, the American Red
Cross, and even Boys Town. All because they support research that
requires animals, in order to cure human diseases. PCRM's multi-year
crusade against the March of Dimes, which includes protests directed at
March walkers, volunteers, and donors, has been reported widely.
Attacking Meat and Dairy
Often appearing in a lab coat, PCRM president Neal Barnard looks the
part of a mainstream health expert. He also churns out a steady stream
of reliably anti-meat and anti-dairy nutrition research. Although his
"results" generally conclude that a vegan diet (practiced by a tiny
fraction of Americans) will solve any of dozens of health problems, the
mass media eats them up. And PCRM is media-savvy enough to take
advantage.
But Barnard was trained as a psychiatrist, not a nutritionist. His
nutritional advice boils down to one basic message: don't eat meat,
or anything that comes from animals. PCRM has complained to the Federal
Trade Commission about advertisements that depict milk as part of a
healthy diet. It petitioned the government to slap meat and poultry
with a "biohazard label," adding in its newsletter that eggs should
carry these dire warnings as well.
PCRM often uses a mixed carrot-and-stick approach to spreading its
propaganda. While its ads call school lunches "weapons of mass
destruction" for including meat and milk, its "report card" press
releases congratulate selected schools for serving "healthy" (read:
vegetarian-friendly) meals. After receiving a "failing" grade in a
2004 PCRM survey, the Albuquerque Public Schools told the press that it
wouldn't have participated if it had known the group's real agenda.
"Real physicians," the school district's nutrition coordinator
told the Albuquerque Tribune, "would not recommend a vegan diet for
growing children."
In 1994, PCRM created an ad that suggested eating meat is "tantamount
to suicide." The ad began: "Last year, over a million people left
the same suicide note." Under that headline a handwritten note read:
"Shopping list: Butter, eggs, mayo, potato chips, ham, bacon."
A 2003 PCRM ad campaign had the same theme. The group bought a full
page in the "Hospital Guide" issue of U.S. News & World Report and
used the space to imply that eating meat will put you on a hospital
gurney. The ad places readers in the position of a patient, looking up
at surgeons, and reads: "High-Protein Diets Can Have Surprising
Results."
And so it goes with milk. PCRM claims that dairy causes "a host of
medical problems like cancer, anemia, diabetes, and heart disease."
The group has compared Christopher Columbus's introduction of cheese
in the New World to the 15th-Century contagions that ravaged Native
American populations. It also makes the ridiculous argument that policy
makers "should think of drinking milk the same way we think of
smoking cigars."
A January 23, 2002 article by the Cybercast News Service further
reveals PCRM's duplicity:
A Harvard professor is denouncing efforts by an animal rights group to
show a link between milk and cancer, accusing it of misrepresenting his
research. The group Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine
(PCRM) is using the research of Dr. Daniel Cramer, M.D. to support a
recent ad campaign that claims milk and dairy products contribute to
"obesity, ear infections, constipation, respiratory problems, heart
disease, and some cancers."
But Cramer said those conclusions are false and that his research never
supported such claims ... "I think that particular group has their
own sort of agenda, of not wanting milk production around, and cows to
be utilized," said Cramer. "Their agenda is that [they] don't
want ... cows exploited or they want everybody to be vegetarians,"
Cramer said.
Participating in Fast-Food Lawsuits
One of the most farcical aspects of American culture in the last few
years has been the advent of lawsuits blaming restaurants and food
companies for individuals' obesity. Even before such cases became the
stuff of late-night television comedy, PCRM was demanding tobacco-style
federal lawsuits against meat producers and fast-food restaurants.
Claiming that "meat consumption is just as dangerous to public health
as tobacco use," PCRM recommended that the Justice Department
"begin preparing a case against major meat producers and
retailers." That was in 1999.
In the summer of 2002, New York City attorney Samuel Hirsch filed suit
against McDonald's, Wendy's, Burger King, and KFC, alleging that
the restaurant chains should be held financially responsible for some
of their customers' obesity and health problems. The suit's lead
plaintiff was an obese maintenance worker named Caesar Barber. At the
time, PCRM stated that it "applauds the lawsuit filed Wednesday in a
New York State court that holds four fast-food chains responsible for
an obese man's health problems."
Less than a month after the Barber lawsuit was filed, PCRM warned
doctors about possible legal action. "An ad targeting primary care
physicians -- with the headline 'Could Prescribing a High-Protein
Diet Put You at Legal Risk?' -- will debut the following week on The
Journal of Family Practice's Web site," PCRM wrote in a press
release. In the release, Neal Barnard alleged that doctors who
prescribe high-protein diets "may be assuming serious legal
liability."
When Samuel Hirsch filed a second lawsuit early in 2003 (this time
blaming McDonald's alone for the weight problems of children),
Barnard's name appeared four times in the legal complaint. One
section read:
The Defendants' [sic] allegedly distributed attractive plastic toys
and booklets on what they consider to be good nutrition. One of these
toys is a plastic beefsteak named "Slugger," which flexes its toy
muscles as if to suggest that meat gives strength. Dr. Neil [sic]
Barnard, a physician who is the president of the Physician's [sic]
Committee for Responsible Medicine (with over 5000 members) testified
that the accompanying booklet stated that eating two servings a day of
foods in the meat group "can make it easier to do things like climb
higher and ride your bike farther." However, as Dr. Neal Barnard
noted, the aforementioned "Slugger" representation was deceptive as
foods in the meat group do not increase endurance or athletic prowess,
and do not improve a child's capacity to climb or ride, and the
concept that high-protein foods are essential for endurance was proved
false many years ago. See Exhibit J, Witness Statement, Dr. Neil [sic]
Barnard.
In June 2003, Barnard's book Breaking the Food Seduction went on
sale. Part 1, less than 60 pages of the book, argues that meat, cheese,
and chocolate -- all anathema to the PETA crowd -- are addictive.
It's based, writes Barnard, on work done "over the past several
years at our research center in Washington, D.C." PCRM's press
release refers to this work as "recently conducted but previously
unpublicized studies."
Part 2, more than 200 pages long, makes the case for a vegan diet. The
book is littered with absurd claims (page 51 insinuates that all milk
and dairy foods contains morphine and other illicit drugs) and is
exactly what you'd expect from an animal-rights zealot posing as a
nutritionist.
Except that the press release announcing Barnard's book was
headlined: "Nutrition Expert Provides New Ammunition for Fast-Food
Lawsuits." The release insisted that "it's high time we stopped
blaming ourselves" for overeating. Instead, PCRM argues, we should
blame restaurants and the food industry. After all, Neal Barnard has
declared that meat is addictive, and cheese is "morphine on a
cracker" and "dairy crack"
Supersized Con Job
It's not surprising that PCRM's magazine gave "Super Size Me,"
the anti-fast-food film polemic, "two carrots up" for pushing the
absurd notion of "the addictive nature of many unhealthy foods."
After all, the flick featured only one doctor who believes food is
addictive: PCRM president Neal Barnard. And in November 2004, when the
film's DVD was released, PCRM distributed copies to every member of
Congress.
Fast food lawsuits are the perfect cover for PCRM's anti-meat agenda,
and film director Morgan Spurlock made full use of Barnard's
addiction theories in "Super Size Me." The movie's soundtrack
plays Curtis Mayfield's "Pusher Man" while showing footage of
Ronald McDonald. Discussing his all-McDonald's diet, Spurlock
complained: "I definitely went through serious withdrawal
symptoms."
But at the end of his 30-day fast-food escapade, Spurlock rejoiced that
he was no longer forced to continue his all-McDonald's diet. If
Spurlock were truly addicted, as his claim of "withdrawal symptoms"
would indicate, he couldn't have changed his diet so easily.
Playing Chicken
PCRM has also pursued its own lawsuit against Tyson Foods. An ad
campaign describing chicken as "heart healthy" ruffled PCRM's
feathers, even though the American Heart Association says that eight
separate Tyson chicken products are exactly that. The bogus lawsuit
also complained about the company describing its products as "all
natural." Tyson responded by noting that the USDA explicitly allows
its health claims.
Once the Tyson ad campaign had run its course and PCRM had wrung the
last drop of free publicity out of the episode, the lawsuit withered on
the vine.
Yet PCRM continues to insist: "There's no room for chicken in a
healthy diet." Its argument? A big non sequitur: "Chicken, no
matter how smartly advertised, will never contain fiber, complex
carbohydrates, or vitamin C."
Similarly, spinach, broccoli, and carrots contribute no vitamin B-12 to
the diet, contain very little protein, and offer absolutely zero in the
way of heart-healthy omega-3 fatty acids. But like chicken, they have
other properties to recommend them.
Exploiting the Dead and Drumming Up Lawsuits
In February 2004, PCRM ran the following advertisement in The Express,
a free commuter newspaper distributed on the DC metro-rail system by
the Washington Post:
Have you had serious problems on an Atkins-style, high protein, low
carbohydrate diet? Were you advised by a doctor to go on the diet or
did you consult with a doctor about the diet? If so, you may be able to
file a lawsuit to recover damages. If you believe you are injured,
contact attorney Daniel Kinburn at ...
Openly soliciting lawsuits against physicians -- at a time when
frivolous malpractice litigation runs rampant -- does not represent a
real conflict of interest for PCRM. After all, only 5 percent of its
"members" are actual doctors. And PCRM's not saying how many of
those physicians "joined" for free.
The other (non-leather) shoe dropped in May 2004, when PCRM announced
that it had enlisted a Florida millionaire named Jody Gorran to sue the
late Dr. Atkins's estate. Gorran claimed his cholesterol escalated to
unhealthy levels after he followed the Atkins diet plan for 30 months
-- despite the fact that he weighed a svelte 148 pounds before going on
the diet. Gorran insists that he's not in it for the money. He
enlisted PCRM's help, writes The New York Times, "because they are
familiar with publicity."
This is true -- PCRM is adept at using negative publicity to attack
anyone supporting a diet that includes meat and dairy foods. Just a
week after the "sue your doctor" ad appeared, PCRM scurrilously
leaked the late Dr. Robert Atkins's confidential medical examiner's
report to the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times, spurring a
media frenzy that misrepresented the facts surrounding his death and
unfairly painted him as an obese victim of his own diet advice.
PCRM obtained Dr. Atkins' records from Dr. Richard M. Fleming, who at
the time was promoting his own vegetarian diet book. (The manner in
which Fleming obtained the records is an ethical breach in and of
itself.) In its comments to the press, PCRM intentionally emphasized
ambiguous information from Dr. Atkins' medical file in an attempt to
smear him as "obese" at the time of his death. Dr. Atkins, however,
gained 60 pounds during the last days of his life, as he was hydrated
to an unusual degree in order to maintain his blood pressure. When Dr.
Atkins was initially admitted to the hospital following a head injury,
hospital records showed he was a fit 195 pounds. Details, details,
details.
PCRM also attempted to blame the Atkins diet for its namesake's heart
condition. But doctors note that the root cause of this was a virus,
and not diet-related. An upset Veronica Atkins decried her late
husband's attackers as "the vegetarian Taliban ... They're nasty.
I've seen them. I've been to conventions, and everything else. They
are nasty, nasty people," she told Dateline NBC.
What Mainstream Doctors Have Said About PCRM
The American Medical Association (AMA) has issued several strong public
rebukes of PCRM, including a 1991 statement in Newsweek by the AMA's
senior vice president for science and medical education, who said:
"They are neither responsible nor are they physicians."
In a December 25, 1991 letter to JAMA (the AMA's official journal),
AMA scientific affairs vice president Dr. Jerod M. Loeb wrote: "the
Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine has been formally
censured by the AMA for purposefully misrepresenting the critical role
animals play in medical research." Loeb also noted that PCRM
"orchestrated a letter-writing campaign to JAMA" designed to
promote the false impression that most doctors agreed with
animal-rights positions.
Barnard responded in an August 12, 1992 letter to JAMA, claiming that
"censure is used by the AMA for specific purposes, and PCRM has never
been the subject of any such proceeding."
Replying on the following page within the same issue of JAMA, Dr. Loeb
shot back:
The term "officially censured" refers to a resolution adopted by
the AMA House of Delegates in June 1990 and noted in Dr. Barnard's
letter. Contrary to Barnard's statement, this resolution was debated
fully in a Reference Committee hearing at which Barnard was present and
at which he was given several opportunities to present his views in
full. The Reference Committee heard overwhelming support for passage of
this resolution and consequently recommended that it be included on the
consent calendar for approval by the AMA House of Delegates. This
procedure is traditionally reserved for those resolutions that the
Reference Committee believes have strong and obvious support. The House
of Delegates had ample opportunity to remove this item of business from
the consent calendar for specific discussion on the floor of the House
of Delegates but chose instead to move for passage. The resolution was
passed without dissenting vote and is now official AMA policy ... In
their zeal to promote animal rights, PCRM shortchanges patients.
Loeb was writing about AMA Resolution H-460.963, which the AMA
re-affirmed again in 2000, and is currently in force as official AMA
policy. It reads:
"Our AMA registers strong objections to the Physicians Committee for
Responsible Medicine for implying that physicians who support the use
of animals in biomedical research are irresponsible, for
misrepresenting the critical role animals play in research and
teaching, and for obscuring the overwhelming support for such research
which exists among practicing physicians in the United States."
In a letter notifying Barnard of the resolution's unanimous approval
(July 26, 1990), the AMA wrote:
The general approach used by PCRM takes selective data and quotations,
often out of context ... In response to a Resolution passed unanimously
at the recent AMA House of Delegates meeting, the American Medical
Association calls upon the Physicians Committee for Responsible
Medicine to immediately terminate the inappropriate and unethical
tactics your organization uses to manipulate public opinion.
The AMA has publicly issued several other criticisms of PCRM. A few are
reproduced below.
AMA Resolution H-460.947 (1992, lapsed):
The AMA will ... continue to aggressively counter fallacious claims
about biomedical research being made by animal rights groups and
especially those of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine
and the Medical Research Modernization Committee, two animal rights
organizations that purport to speak for medicine.
AMA news release (April 11, 1991):
The AMA finds the recommendations of PCRM irresponsible and potentially
dangerous to the health and welfare of Americans. [PRCM is] blatantly
misleading Americans on a health matter and concealing its true purpose
as an animal 'rights' organization.
A 1992 AMA press release blasting PCRM for starting a "milk panic":
The American Medical Association is alarmed by today's allegation
that milk is dangerous and should not be required or recommended in
government guidelines. There is absolutely no scientific proof to
support such a claim ... The AMA continues to marvel at how effectively
a fringe organization of questionable repute continues to hoodwink the
media with a series of questionable research that fails to enhance
public health. Instead, it serves only to advance the agenda of
activist groups interested in perverting medical science. The
Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine is an animal "rights"
organization, and, despite its title, represents less than 0.5 percent
of the total U.S. physician population. Its founder, Dr. Neal Barnard,
is also the scientific advisor to People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals (PETA), an organization that supports and speaks for the
terrorist organization known as the Animal Liberation Front (ALF).
The AMA released a statement in 2004 acknowledging that it no longer
has an official "policy specifically addressing vegetarian diets or
the inclusion of milk in diet." However, the AMA has never disavowed
its specific criticisms of PCRM's unethical tactics or its
animal-rights ties.
Other organizations have followed suit, including the California
Medical Association (CMA). In response to PCRM's campaign of
deception against the use of animals in AIDS research, CMA's
president wrote to Neal Barnard describing an action taken by the
CMA's House of Delegates:
[The House of Delegates] voted unanimously to register the strongest
objection to the lies and misrepresentations promulgated by your
organization ... The inability of the so-called "Physician's
Committee" to make the obvious distinction between misuse and proper
use of animal research subjects has resulted in a total loss of
credibility.
Big Money
Some of PCRM's high-profile officers use their affiliation with the
group to take financial advantage of an unwary public. Consider Cornell
University's Dr. T. Colin Campbell. This vocal PCRM Advisory Board
member has appeared in print, warning of the supposed dangers related
to dioxin in food (especially in meat). He also serves as chairman of a
company called Paracelsian, Inc., which markets its own proprietary
method of dioxin testing.
PCRM's name is also used to sell "Dr. McDougall's 12-Day Diet
Meal Plan," a product marketed by PCRM Advisory Board member John
McDougall. You can find this slick $120 bundle of vegetarian cup-a-soup
meals in grocery and health-food stores, as well as in the Sharper
Image catalog.
The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine has participated in
scare campaigns about pollution from livestock farming, meat
irradiation, mad cow disease, and the alleged overuse of antibiotics in
farm animals. Those disparate causes have one common element: they all
serve to frighten consumers away from eating meat. Which is exactly
what the animal liberationists at PCRM want.
The evidence that PCRM is an animal rights group is overwhelming. In
2003, Neal Barnard was nominated for induction into the "Animal
Rights Hall of Fame." From 1990 to 1991 he served as a Contributing
Editor to The Animals Agenda magazine, writing frequent columns on
animal-rights topics.And according to the Daily Californian, in 1989
Neal Barnard told a UC Berkeley audience: "I don't approve of the
use of animals for any purpose that involves touching them -- caging
them."
In a campaign against the United States Surgical Corporation (USSC) in
the late '80s and early '90s, PCRM brandished a petition supposedly
including thousands of signatures from doctors who opposed USSC's
animal experimentation. PCRM even claimed the list had been
"audited," even though Animal People News would later write that
the planned audit was "never completed." And according to the (now
defunct) Animal Rights Reporter, PCRM's list contained "names of
physicians who deny having signed or even seen the document. It also
contains many names of persons who are not physicians."
By the time PCRM trumpeted its petition in 1989, the campaign against
USSC had become so intense that animal-rights militant Fran Stephanie
Trutt attempted to assassinate the company's president. PETA paid
$7,500 of her legal expenses.
The PCRM-PETA Connection
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has used a tax-exempt
affiliate called the Foundation to Support Animal Protection to funnel
at least $592,000 to PCRM. This foundation, whose letterhead now shows
that it is doing business as "The PETA Foundation," has the same
mailing address as PETA, and PETA owns its website address. Neal
Barnard and PETA co-founder Ingrid Newkirk are two of the
Foundation's three officers. Barnard is its President.
And PETA itself directly gave PCRM over $265,000 between 1988 and 1999.
Barnard is PETA's "medical advisor" and regularly writes for
PETA's publications. He admitted in a sworn deposition (International
Primate Protection League v. Administrators of the Tulane Educational
Fund, 1992) that PCRM has been housed at PETA headquarters in the past.
He also acknowledged requesting and receiving money from PETA, and
using a PETA-owned car to drive back and forth from work. According to
Barnard's deposition, PETA even paid the salaries of some of PCRM's
staffers.
Citing an unnamed former PETA employee, a 1989 Washingtonian magazine
article explains:
PETA funds were used, he says, to finance membership campaigns and
activities of two anti-vivisectionist organizations, the Physicians
Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) and the National Association
of Nurses Against Vivisection (NANAV). Both organizations were housed,
rent-free, in PETA's headquarters, he says, and the respective heads
of the groups, Neal Barnard and Susan Brebner, were introduced to him
as PETA staff members.
Hostile Takeover: The New England Anti-Vivisection Society
PCRM's animal-rights agenda was perhaps most clearly evidenced when
Neal Barnard involved himself in PETA's successful campaign to wrest
control of the New England Anti-Vivisection Society (NEAVS). On March
20, 1989, Forbes reported:
PETA aggressively runs slates of its own people in board elections of
rival rights groups. Latest is the successful 1987 "takeover" of
the Boston-based New England Anti-Vivisection Society (fund balance, $8
million). The century-old group officially still operates
independently, but in reality PETA vegans and allies now control the
Society and its spending.
An April 10, 1987 Boston Globe article explained how PETA did it:
The wife of Gary Francione, a PETA executive and a Pennsylvania
attorney, walked into the Anti-Vivisection Society's Boston
headquarters a few months ago and purchased 300 voting memberships for
$3000 in cash. A surge of several hundred applications for voting
memberships arrived at the headquarters in bulk March 31. PETA set up
the Action Campaign Fund to subsidize or pay full air fare to Boston
for an unspecified number of voting activists.
And the Boston Herald wrote on April 30, 1987 that Ingrid Newkirk:
... sought to fill four open board of directors' seats and four
officer's positions with a slate of PETA members and friends. Some
locals claimed the election was "stacked" by PETA, who bankrolled
the busing of new members to the Boston election meeting from New York,
Washington, New Jersey, and New Mexico.
Along with PETA founders Ingrid Newkirk and Alex Pacheco, PETA's
candidates for NEAVS board membership included Neal Barnard himself.
Barnard even co-signed letters with Newkirk and Pacheco, urging NEAVS
members to vote for the PETA slate. In 1987, Barnard was elected to
NEAVS' board. He and Newkirk remained there for ten years.
A coalition of NEAVS members -- including some of its officers --
formed an ad hoc group called the Save NEAVS Committee to fight
PETA's takeover. They disclosed a proposal signed by Ingrid Newkirk
that read in part:
NEAVS has $7 to $8 million. I would suggest sharing some part of this
financial well-being with other organizations which a) have proven
themselves to be movement resources, b) are performing valuable
services compatible with NEAVS' goals, and c) are worth protecting.
My choices are the Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights
(AVAR), the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), and
the National Alliance for Animal Legislation (NAAL) ... A $1,000,000
grant to each of these organizations would not come close to depleting
NEAVS' holdings. It would, however, provide each with an annual
income security of approximately $100,000 if we stipulate that the
grant be held as principle [sic].
Although Newkirk's million-dollar-gift proposal was never acted upon,
NEAVS did give PCRM more than $500,000 between 1989 and 1998. In a
sworn deposition (IPPL v. Tulane, 1992), Barnard admitted that PCRM
received no money from NEAVS before the takeover, but hundreds of
thousands of dollars afterwards.
A profile of PCRM appearing in a contemporary newsletter called the
Animal Rights Reporter, discusses the importance of the NEAVS takeover:
With PETA's and NEAVS' resources, PCRM can take on campaigns that
otherwise would be financially prohibitive. For example, costs of the
physicians' petition against USSC last fall were paid for by NEAVS.
This occurred at a time when NEAVS had ongoing litigation with USSC and
the PCRM assault can be seen as apart of a NEAVS/PETA attack on the
medical supply company. Despite long-standing denials by Barnard and
PCRM that it was an animal rights group, PCRM was listed as an
"affiliate" on NEAVS' 1987 tax returns.
The connection between PETA and NEAVS was so strong that, for a time,
NEAVS' Legislative Director Cynthia Lebrun-Yaffee operated out of
PETA headquarters. Barnard, Newkirk, and Pacheco are no longer on the
NEAVS board, but NEAVS current executive director Theodora Capaldo was
on PETA's original 1987 slate of candidates.
In 2001, PCRM president Neal Barnard co-signed a series of over 40
letters (on PCRM letterhead) with Kevin Kjonaas, a former
"spokesperson" for the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and the
then-U.S.-director of the violent animal rights group SHAC (Stop
Huntingdon Animal Cruelty).
Both groups have been designated "domestic terrorist" organizations
by high-ranking FBI officials. SHAC and seven of its leaders (including
Kjonaas) are scheduled to face federal Animal Enterprise Terrorism
charges in June 2005.
SHAC is singularly dedicated to dismantling Huntingdon Life Sciences, a
biomedical research firm that (like the rest of the medical and
scientific community) recognizes that breakthroughs in the study of
human diseases often require research using animals as test subjects.
Huntingdon's work includes animal research to find new treatments and
cures for Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, epilepsy, AIDS,
and several forms of cancer.
SHAC activists have chosen to make their feelings known by fire-bombing
automobiles, smashing windows, assaulting research employees, and
targeting anyone associated with Huntingdon (and their families) for
around-the-clock harassment and intimidation.
Barnard and Kjonaas co-signed letters to business leaders in 32 states
and 8 foreign countries, urging them not to do business with Huntingdon
Life Sciences. Given SHAC's tactics, these letters can be fairly
interpreted as a threat of harassment and violence.
Jerry Vlasak
The Barnard-Kjonaas letters instructed recipients to "read the
enclosed studies" -- both of which were co-authored by PCRM's Jerry
Vlasak. A trauma surgeon with connections to SHAC and a deep
association with PCRM, Jerry Vlasak told the crowd at the "Animal
Rights 2002" convention:
I think we do need to embrace direct action and violent tactics as part
of our movement ... I don't think we ought to be criticizing someone,
whether we're criticizing [them] because they're writing letters,
or whether we criticize them because they're burning down fur stores
or vivisection labs.
And at the "Animal Rights 2003" event in Los Angeles, Vlasak made a
verbal slip that suggests he may be an ALF thug himself, praising those
responsible for "all those hundreds of ALF actions that occurred
making us the, er, making the ALF, rather, the number one domestic
terrorist group in the United States." Vlasak also openly endorsed
the murder of doctors who use animals in their research:
If these vivisectors were being targeted for assassination, and call it
political assassination or what have you, I think if -- and I wouldn't
pick some guy way down the totem pole, but if there were prominent
vivisectors being assassinated, I think that there would be a
trickle-down effect and many, many people who are lower on that totem
pole would say, "I'm not going to get into this business because it's
a very dangerous business and there's other things I can do with my
life that don't involve getting into a dangerous business." And I
think that the -- strictly from a fear and intimidation factor, that
would be an effective tactic.
And I don't think you'd have to kill - assassinate - too many
vivisectors before you would see a marked decrease in the amount of
vivisection going on. And I think for 5 lives, 10 lives, 15 human
lives, we could save a million, 2 million, 10 million non-human lives.
At the 2003 conference, Vlasak was billed as a representative of PCRM.
He regularly represents PCRM on issues of animal testing. He has
written for PCRM's Good Medicine magazine, and is identified there as
"PCRM's Jerry Vlasak." In a February 2002 press release on animal
experimentation in medical schools, Vlasak is called a "PCRM
spokesperson." And in Vlasak's own writings, he has described
himself as PCRM's "scientific advisor."
Vlasak reinforced his advocacy of violence in April 2004, telling a
national cable network audience on the Showtime program "Penn &
Teller: Bullsh*t" that violence is a "morally justifiable
solution" for activists. Vlasak and his wife, the former child
actress Pamelyn Ferdin, are both directors of a SHAC-like group in Los
Angeles called the Animal Defense League (ADL-LA). Ferdin herself is
the legal president of SHAC USA. She carries business cards describing
herself as a PCRM employee, but listing ADL-LA's business address.
ADL-LA's website candidly states that it "fully supports" the
Animal Liberation Front (ALF). Its president is Gary Yourofsky, a
convicted ALF felon who serves PETA as its in-school "humane
education presenter."
Vlasak's threatening animal-rights exploits have been covered by No
Compromise, a magazine written by and for supporters of the ALF. Vlasak
has personally been arrested several times for animal-rights-related
activity, and urges others to "get arrested."
Neal Barnard is more circumspect about violence. The Animal Rights
Reporter has written of him: "Although he disavows the use of
violence, he says that researchers 'have set themselves up for it'
and 'have to worry' about animal rights violence. And in an
interview with Washingtonian magazine, Barnard says: "We're
demoralizing the people who think there's a buck to be made in animal
research. And they're starting to get scared, and they're starting
to get angry, and they're starting to give way."
*********
TC
ban...@hotmail.com
The following is a feeble attempt at damage control by a food zionazi.
rick
<ban...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1129579505.1...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
The following is a feeble attempt at damage control by a food
zionazi.
===============
ROTFLMAO This from a loon that would ban a whole array of foods
because of his delusions and disorders. You truely are a hoot,
killer.
TC
Ok, I'll bite. WTH is a food zionazi? And in what dictionary did you
find that word?
TC
Beach Runner
Experts
Neal Barnard, M.D.
Neal Barnard, M.D., is a nutrition researcher, an author, and the
founder of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), a
nationwide organization of physicians and laypersons that promotes
preventive medicine, especially good nutrition, and addresses
controversies in modern medicine, including ethical issues in research.
As president of PCRM, Dr. Barnard directs numerous innovative programs
to promote healthy eating. He has conducted numerous studies of the
ability of nutritional interventions to treat high cholesterol levels,
hormone imbalances, diabetes, and other conditions, and has published
groundbreaking findings in journals such as The American Journal of
Cardiology, Obstetrics & Gynecology, and Preventive Medicine. One recent
study, conducted with a grant from the National Institutes of Health,
shows how a low-fat, vegan diet helps diabetes patients reduce and even
eliminate their medication.
Neal Barnard, M.D., has been instrumental in reforming federal dietary
guidelines. In his published reports, he has shown how meat-based diets
not only cause health problems, but also are responsible for up to $60
billion every year in health care costs. In 2000, PCRM won a lawsuit
against the U.S. Department of Agriculture over the influence of the
meat and dairy industries on federal diet guidelines.
Dr. Barnard’s interest in healthy eating evolved over many years. His
family background includes both doctors and cattle ranchers—two groups
that often butt heads over health issues. Before going to medical
school, Dr. Barnard worked as an autopsy assistant, where he observed
heart disease and other deadly effects of a bad diet firsthand.
Neal Barnard, M.D., is also a rigorous opponent of unethical research
practices. Since founding PCRM in 1985, he has spearheaded many
successful campaigns to promote alternatives to the use of animals in
medical research and education. PCRM also promotes higher standards in
human research, and has fought against unethical human experiments,
including a U.S. government study in which healthy short children were
given a genetically engineered growth hormone.
Dr. Barnard is the author of seven books, including Food for Life; Foods
That Fight Pain; Eat Right, Live Longer; and Turn Off the Fat Genes. He
is also the editor-in-chief of Good Medicine and the author of hundreds
of articles in magazines such as Scientific American and newspapers such
as The New York Times. A regular guest on network talk and news shows
and a busy public speaker, Dr. Barnard lives in Washington, D.C.
Neal Barnard, M.D., is also an adjunct associate professor of medicine
at George Washington University.
For more information about Neal Barnard, M.D., including a complete list
of his scientific publications, please go to www.nealbarnard.org.
eal Barnard, M.D., is a clinical researcher, author, and health
advocate. He has been the principal investigator or coinvestigator on
several clinical trials investigating the effects of diet on health. He
was a coinvestigator on a study, conducted in conjunction with
Georgetown University, of the effect of dietary interventions in type 2
diabetes, and is currently the principal investigator of a study on
dietary interventions in diabetes, funded by the National Institutes of
Health and conducted under the auspices of the George Washington
University School of Medicine, in association with the University of
Toronto. Dr. Barnard was also the principal investigator of a study
assessing the effects of dietary interventions on premenstrual and
menstrual symptoms and of a study on weight loss in postmenopausal women.
He is the author of dozens of publications in scientific and medical
journals as well as numerous nutrition books for lay readers and is
frequently called on by news programs to discuss issues related to
nutrition, research issues, and other controversial areas in modern
medicine.
He is a frequent lecturer at scientific and lay conferences and has made
presentations for the American Public Health Association, the World
Bank, the National Library of Medicine, the Franklin Institute, the
American Medical Writers Association, the Association of Health Care
Journalists, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, and many
state dietetic associations.
Dr. Barnard grew up in Fargo, N.D. He received his M.D. degree at the
George Washington University School of Medicine in Washington, D.C., and
completed his residency at the same institution. He practiced at St.
Vincent’s Hospital in New York before returning to Washington to found
the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) in 1985. PCRM
has since grown into a nationwide group of physicians and lay supporters
that promotes preventive medicine and addresses controversies in modern
medicine. As president of PCRM, Dr. Barnard has been instrumental in
efforts to reform federal dietary guidelines.
Dr. Barnard is an Adjunct Associate Professor of Medicine at the George
Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, a Life
Member of the American Medical Association, and a member of the American
Diabetes Association.
tund...@hotmail.com
Is that the best you can do? He still comes off as a nut-job with a
Phd.
TC
Beach Runner wrote:
> Experts
>
> Neal Barnard, M.D.
>
> Neal Barnard, M.D., is a nutrition researcher, an author, and the
> founder of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), a
> nationwide organization of physicians and laypersons that promotes
> preventive medicine, especially good nutrition, and addresses
> controversies in modern medicine, including ethical issues in research.
>
> As president of PCRM, Dr. Barnard directs numerous innovative programs
> to promote healthy eating. He has conducted numerous studies of the
> ability of nutritional interventions to treat high cholesterol levels,
> hormone imbalances, diabetes, and other conditions, and has published
> groundbreaking findings in journals such as The American Journal of
> Cardiology, Obstetrics & Gynecology, and Preventive Medicine. One recent
> study, conducted with a grant from the National Institutes of Health,
> shows how a low-fat, vegan diet helps diabetes patients reduce and even
> eliminate their medication.
>
> Neal Barnard, M.D., has been instrumental in reforming federal dietary
> guidelines. In his published reports, he has shown how meat-based diets
> not only cause health problems, but also are responsible for up to $60
> billion every year in health care costs. In 2000, PCRM won a lawsuit
> against the U.S. Department of Agriculture over the influence of the
> meat and dairy industries on federal diet guidelines.
>
> Dr. Barnard's interest in healthy eating evolved over many years. His
> family background includes both doctors and cattle ranchers-two groups
Dutch
"Beach Runner" <b...@nospam.com> wrote
>
> Experts
>
> Neal Barnard, M.D.
>
> Neal Barnard, M.D., is a nutrition researcher, an author, and the founder
> of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), a nationwide
> organization of physicians and laypersons that promotes preventive
> medicine, especially good nutrition, and addresses controversies in modern
> medicine, including ethical issues in research.
http://www.physicianscam.com/article_detail.cfm
http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/23
The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) is a wolf in sheep’s
clothing. PCRM is a fanatical animal rights group that seeks to remove eggs,
milk, meat, and seafood from the American diet, and to eliminate the use of
TC
Beach Runner wrote:
> Experts
>
> Neal Barnard, M.D.
>
> founder of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), a
> nationwide organization
7 Things You Didn't Know About PCRM
The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine
PCRM is an animal rights group. Less than 5 percent of its members are
actual physicians. The group's goals are to stop medical research that
requires the use of animals, and to remove meat and dairy foods from
our diet by demonizing them as "unhealthy." People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals (PETA) has already steered more than $1.3 million
to PCRM. Animal People News notes that PETA and PCRM are so closely
connected that they should be considered "a single fundraising
unit."
When longtime PCRM spokesperson Dr. Jerry Vlasak addressed the
"Animal Rights 2003" convention, he openly endorsed the murder of
doctors who use animals in their research. "I don't think you'd
have to kill---assassinate---too many," Vlasak told the assembled
activists. "I think for 5 lives, 10 lives, 15 human lives, we could
save a million, 2 million, 10 million non-human lives."
PCRM president Neal Barnard is not a nutritionist, a dietician, or a
biochemist. He's a non-practicing psychiatrist who claims that cheese
is "dairy crack" and "morphine on a cracker." Barnard is also
PETA's "medical advisor" and president of The PETA Foundation.
The American Medical Association (AMA) has called PCRM a "fringe
organization" that uses "unethical tactics" and is "interested
in perverting medical science." When he was the AMA's Vice President
for Scientific Affairs, Dr. Jerod M. Loeb wrote that PCRM was
"officially censured" by the AMA. That AMA statement also condemned
PCRM for supporting "a campaign of misinformation against important
animal research of AIDS."
According to Newsweek, PCRM president Neal Barnard co-signed
intimidating letters (on PCRM letterhead) in 2001 with Kevin Kjonaas,
then the leader of a violent animal rights group described by the U.S.
Department of Justice as a "domestic terrorism threat." The letters
demanded that companies in 32 states and 8 foreign countries stop doing
business with a biomedical research laboratory that uses animals in a
small portion of its work. Kjonaas will face federal terrorism charges
in June 2005.
PCRM gained a high public profile in 2004 by sponsoring a lawsuit
against the late Dr. Robert Atkins (whose low-carbohydrate diet
typically includes meat and dairy foods, two big animal-rights no-nos).
PCRM has run newspaper ads looking for disgruntled low-carb dieters
willing to sue their own physicians for prescribing the Atkins plan.
PCRM also unethically leaked Dr. Atkins's private coroner's report to
The Wall Street Journal.
PCRM discourages Americans from making donations to health charities
like the American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society, the
St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, the American Red Cross, the
American Foundation for AIDS Research, and the Christopher Reeve
Paralysis Foundation---solely because they support disease research
that requires the use of animals.
*********
TC
Mark Probert
Posting from misc.health.ALTERNATIVE...
Join ALTERNATIVE-PETA...
*P*eople for *E*ating *T*asty *A*nimals.
tund...@hotmail.com
Dutch
> Posting from misc.health.ALTERNATIVE...
>
> Join ALTERNATIVE-PETA...
>
> *P*eople for *E*ating *T*asty *A*nimals.
Congratulations, that's the oldest 'joke' in the annals of human history.
Beach Runner
tund...@hotmail.com wrote:
You may not like his politics but he is well published in peer reviewed
journals.
I happen to dissagree with much of PETA and definately against any of
their violence, but it's good to have a MD that questions and
researchers conventional wisdom.
Mark Probert
> http://mtd.com/tasty/
Not bad....he did get some hatemail, though.
I ran into a PETA demonstration in NYC near one of the department
stores. The annoying person was upset that I would not accept his
literature. I told him I prefer Charmin.
Mark Probert
Sorry, but I do know much older ones than that. Did you hear the one
where a Phoenician walked into a bar with a Minocean on his shoulders?
dh
>
>ban...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> The following is a feeble attempt at damage control by a food zionazi.
>
>Ok, I'll bite. WTH is a food zionazi?
Probably anyone who is not a veg*n.
dh
>food zionazi.
_________________________________________________________
If scientists could replace animal research and testing
with methods which did not need to use animals then
they would.
There are several reasons for this:
* Scientists do not like or want to use animals in research.
Like the vast majority of people they do not want to see animals
suffer unnecessarily. In fact less than 10% of biomedical research
uses animals. Unfortunately for much of the work involved in
biomedical research there are as yet no working alternative
techniques that would allow us to stop using animals.
* Biomedical research is producing thousands of new compounds,
which may have potential as new drugs. It is much more efficient to
screen these compounds using rapid non-animal techniques to test
their effectiveness and toxicity.
* The very high standards of animal welfare and care required of
British research establishments are a contributory factor in making
animal research very expensive. If scientists can develop alternatives
to using animals it will allow them to divert their limited research funds
to other areas of research.
[...]
http://www.bret.org.uk/noan.htm
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
[...]
From the bald eagle to the red wolf, biomedical research has
helped bring many species back from the brink of extinction.
Conservation and captive breeding programs, often using
fertilization techniques developed for humans, have made it
possible for these animals to be reintroduced into the wild, and
today their numbers are growing. Biologists and wildlife
veterinarians rely on the latest research in reproduction, nutrition,
toxicology and medicine to build a better future for our wild
animals.
In vitro fertilization, sperm banks and artificial insemination were
all developed to help human couples, but today they also are
regularly used to ensure the survival of endangered species.
[...]
http://fbresearch.org/helpingwildlife.html
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
WITHOUT ANIMAL RESEARCH:
Polio would kill or cripple thousands of unvaccinated children and
adults this year.
Most of the nation's one million insulin-dependent diabetics wouldn't
be insulin dependent -- they would be dead.
60 million Americans would risk death from heart attack, stroke or
kidney failure from lack of medication to control their high blood
pressure.
Doctors would have no chemotherapy to save the 70% of children who
now survive acute lymphocytic leukemia.
More than one million Americans would lose vision in at least one eye
this year because cataract surgery would be impossible.
Hundreds of thousands of people disabled by strokes or by head or
spinal cord injuries would not benefit from rehabilitation techniques.
The more than 100,000 people with arthritis who each year receive hip
replacements would walk only with great pain and difficulty or be
confined to wheelchairs.
7,500 newborns who contract jaundice each year would develop cerebral
palsy, now preventable through phototherapy.
There would be no kidney dialysis to extend the lives of thousands of
patients with end-stage renal disease.
Surgery of any type would be a painful, rare procedure without the
development of modern anesthesia allowing artificially induced
unconsciousness or local or general insensitivity to pain.
Instead of being eradicated, smallpox would continue unchecked and many
others would join the two million people already killed by the disease.
Millions of dogs, cats, and other pets and farm animals would have died
from anthrax, distemper, canine parvovirus, feline leukemia, rabies and
more than 200 other diseases now preventable thanks to animal research.
http://www.ampef.org/research.htm
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
Beach Runner
ban...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> The following is a feeble attempt at damage control by a food zionazi.
>
>
>
It ignores his great research in peer reviewed publications. Pure bigotry.
![Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com's profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjURN6b50hrZp1VmOKY6vUoD4xke_qxfdpwlGhkd6mvzimVI=s40-c)
Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com
Mark Probert wrote:
> > Congratulations, that's the oldest 'joke' in the annals of human history.
>
> Sorry, but I do know much older ones than that. Did you hear the one
> where a Phoenician walked into a bar with a Minocean on his shoulders?
COMMENT:
One day Socrates came upon a student who exclaimed: "Socrates, do you
know what I have just heard concerning one of your other students?"
"Before you speak," Socrates replied, "say first if you have made
absolutely sure that what you would tell me is true."
No, Socrates." the student said. "For I just now heard of it."
"Very well," said Socrates. "So you do not know if it is true or not.
Now that it has not passed the test of truth, let us apply the test of
goodness. Is what you are about to tell me about my student something
which is good?"
"No, Socrates, on the contrary."
"So," Socrates continued, "you wish to tell me something bad about
him, but you are not not certain that it is true. There is a final test
left. Sometimes men may joke with one another. Is what you wish to tell
me about my student intended to be entertaining to me?"
"No, not really."
"Well," concluded Socrates, "if what you want to tell me is neither
true nor good nor even entertaining, then why tell it to me at all?"
And so the student went away. And that illustrates why Socrates was a
great philosopher, and held in high regard by all.
And that is also why Socrates never found out that Plato was banging
his wife.
Dave
LOL! Brilliant.
Mark Probert
Hmmm...Jan should heed this story.
Beach Runner
running on the Christian coalition. We don't leave our feeling at the
door that motivate us. Do you complain? He fights all stem cell
research. He also aligns with Bush on our antiquated energy policy.
The difference is he's doing real research to prove his point in peer
reviewed journals. You don't like them. Review them. His peers are at
the highest level of research.
At least McCain is fighting the effects of lobbying.
Leif Erikson
> Experts
>
> Neal Barnard, M.D.
>
> Neal Barnard, M.D., is a nutrition researcher,
I have to marvel at this label. Barnard has an M.D., and he did his
residency in *psychiatry*. While medical doctors certainly have a lot
of background in science, their instruction in science is *not*
acquired with a goal of conducting research in any of the science
fields they study, and it is *not* comparable to what doctoral students
in those fields of science must do. Medical doctors learn enough
science to enable them to practice medicine, not to make original
contributions to the literature in those fields.
It's very troubling that Barnard did a residency in psychiatry, but now
portrays himself as an expert in nutrition.
she...@yahoo.com
> ____________________________________________
Hi, just checking in to see the content in the latest spam here!
Usually pretty decent I remember..
_____________
> [...]
> From the bald eagle to the red wolf, biomedical research has
> helped bring many species back from the brink of extinction.
> Conservation and captive breeding programs, often using
> fertilization techniques developed for humans, have made it
> possible for these animals to be reintroduced into the wild, and
> today their numbers are growing. Biologists and wildlife
> veterinarians rely on the latest research in reproduction, nutrition,
> toxicology and medicine to build a better future for our wild
> animals.
>
> In vitro fertilization, sperm banks and artificial insemination were
> all developed to help human couples, but today they also are
> regularly used to ensure the survival of endangered species.
> [...]
>
> http://fbresearch.org/helpingwildlife.html
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> _________
So far so good!
________________________________________________
> WITHOUT ANIMAL RESEARCH:
>
> Polio would kill or cripple thousands of unvaccinated children and
> adults this year.
>
Whoops! Most cases of polio are cause by the vaccine now..
> Most of the nation's one million insulin-dependent diabetics wouldn't
> be insulin dependent -- they would be dead.
>
Check out the correlation between diabetes and animal protein
consumption..
> 60 million Americans would risk death from heart attack, stroke or
> kidney failure from lack of medication to control their high blood
> pressure.
>
Ditto..
> Doctors would have no chemotherapy to save the 70% of children who
> now survive acute lymphocytic leukemia.
>
Ditto.. and why do you need animal research to expose someone to
radiation?
> More than one million Americans would lose vision in at least one eye
> this year because cataract surgery would be impossible.
>
Why would cataract surgury be impossible?
> Hundreds of thousands of people disabled by strokes or by head or
> spinal cord injuries would not benefit from rehabilitation techniques.
>
How so?
> The more than 100,000 people with arthritis who each year receive hip
> replacements would walk only with great pain and difficulty or be
> confined to wheelchairs.
>
Again, untrue. Research on non-humans can't be all that useful to
would-be hip surgeons..
> 7,500 newborns who contract jaundice each year would develop cerebral
> palsy, now preventable through phototherapy.
>
> There would be no kidney dialysis to extend the lives of thousands of
> patients with end-stage renal disease.
>
> Surgery of any type would be a painful, rare procedure without the
> development of modern anesthesia allowing artificially induced
> unconsciousness or local or general insensitivity to pain.
>
> Instead of being eradicated, smallpox would continue unchecked and many
> others would join the two million people already killed by the disease.
>
> Millions of dogs, cats, and other pets and farm animals would have died
> from anthrax, distemper, canine parvovirus, feline leukemia, rabies and
> more than 200 other diseases now preventable thanks to animal research.
>
> http://www.ampef.org/research.htm
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
I'm totally with you that animal research is important and should be
continued in a rational and as compassionate as possible manner, but I
don't think your post would help anyone take that viewpoint.
Doug Freese
"Leif Erikson" <notg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1131160429....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
I find Barnard a flaming a_hole but you, TC, etc are debunking his
nutritional knowledge on innuendo. You haven't the faintest idea what he
has or has not studied. You don't like what he says and therefore throw
a big spear.
-DF
cathyb
You big tease! It's just not fair to say you find him a "flaming
a_hole" without telling us why.
Cathy
>
> -DF
Mr-Natural-Health
Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com wrote:
> And that is also why Socrates never found out that Plato was banging
> his wife.
Sorry, but Steve you are still a stiff in the romance department.
You have my condolences.
Doug Freese
"cathyb" <cathyb...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:1131193152.2...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> You big tease! It's just not fair to say you find him a "flaming
> a_hole" without telling us why.
I find PETA's view on not eating meat BS and this has nothing to do with
nutrition.
-DF
Beach Runner
Leif Erikson wrote:
Except his research is top notch. Show me where his research is wrong
rather than your blanket unproved assumptions in clinical journals.
It reminds me of BF Skinner, who I saw lecture at Harvard. He did not
study in Psychology, but was well verses in the scientific method. He
said the taking of psychology courses weakens one's knowledge. While I
can't agree with that, and I don't totally agree with Skinner, his
contribution to behvioristic thinking revolutionized psychology, and led
to extensive research by many behaviorists.
Dutch
"Beach Runner" <b...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:IAbbf.185289$xl6....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
Barnard is not Skinner is not Einstein is not GB Shaw. It is a fallacy to
propose that Barnard has any more business commenting on nutrition than any
self-taught layperson because some other person X many years ago developed
useful ideas on behaviour, a more subjective field. His obvious Animal
Rights affiations also makes the objectivity of his opinions on the issue
highly suspect. This is about "science" today, not feelgood philosophies.
Leif Erikson
>
>
> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>> Beach Runner wrote:
>>
>>> Experts
>>>
>>> Neal Barnard, M.D.
>>>
>>> Neal Barnard, M.D., is a nutrition researcher,
>>
>>
>>
>> I have to marvel at this label. Barnard has an M.D., and he did his
>> residency in *psychiatry*. While medical doctors certainly have a lot
>> of background in science, their instruction in science is *not*
>> acquired with a goal of conducting research in any of the science
>> fields they study, and it is *not* comparable to what doctoral students
>> in those fields of science must do. Medical doctors learn enough
>> science to enable them to practice medicine, not to make original
>> contributions to the literature in those fields.
>>
>> It's very troubling that Barnard did a residency in psychiatry, but now
>> portrays himself as an expert in nutrition.
>>
>
> Except his research is top notch.
I doubt you're competent to say. Rather, you like what
he has to say as a polemicist. You don't know anything
about nutrition, either; certainly not any
qualifications to judge his "research".
Beach Runner
Doug Freese wrote:
You may find it, but the use of excessive meat is correlated well with
coronary artery disease, colon cancer and other problems. Yes, less
meat and exercise reduce the effects. So it certainly does.
Dutch
"Beach Runner" <b...@nospam.com> wrote
> You may find it, but the use of excessive meat is correlated well with
> coronary artery disease, colon cancer and other problems. Yes, less meat
> and exercise reduce the effects. So it certainly does.
I submit that a similar amount of potato chips or donuts would have the same
effect. As a nutritional fact that's not as politically interesting though
is it?
Beach Runner
Dutch wrote:
In his research, which is you examine it is a statically significant
reduction in many diseases in modern society. You are making a wild
ass guess. If you think so, publish your hypothesis.
Dutch
"Beach Runner" <b...@nospam.com> wrote
>
>
> Dutch wrote:
>
>> "Beach Runner" <b...@nospam.com> wrote
>>
>>
>>>You may find it, but the use of excessive meat is correlated well with
>>>coronary artery disease, colon cancer and other problems. Yes, less meat
>>>and exercise reduce the effects. So it certainly does.
>>
>>
>> I submit that a similar amount of potato chips or donuts would have the
>> same effect. As a nutritional fact that's not as politically interesting
>> though is it?
> In his research, which is you examine it is a statically significant
> reduction in many diseases in modern society.
That's not a sentence.
> You are making a wild ass guess.
I'm assuming that trans-fat laden potato chips would be as least as as
harmful as typical meat given comparable amounts consumed over a long period
of time. It seems like a reasonable assumption.
> If you think so, publish your hypothesis.
What exactly do you suppose is in meat that causes high consumption to
correlate with disease?
Doug Freese
>> I find PETA's view on not eating meat BS and this has nothing to do
>> with nutrition.
>>
>> -DF
> You may find it, but the use of excessive meat is correlated well with
> coronary artery disease, colon cancer and other problems. Yes, less
> meat and exercise reduce the effects. So it certainly does.
BR, I should have been more specific - it's the so called PETA morality
play that I find repugnant. And yes the data showing meat is carcinogen
is valid and I find I eat less meat and another reason I think
vegetarianism is a healthy lifestyle(assuming organic). People like TC
believe the cancer issue with meat is another conspiracy.
-DF
usual suspect
<...>
>>WITHOUT ANIMAL RESEARCH:
>>
>>Polio would kill or cripple thousands of unvaccinated children and
>>adults this year.
>
> Whoops! Most cases of polio are cause by the vaccine now..
Grossly inaccurate, shev. Only the oral vaccine presents any risk of
causing polio, not the injected vaccine. Polio is still spread in
developing nations through person-to-person contact, and in developed
nations by those with incomplete immunization.
No wild polio has been found in the United States for over 20
years, but polio is still common in some parts of the world,
only one plane flight away. It would only take one case of polio
entering from another country to bring the disease back, unless
we are protected by vaccine....
The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) for
poliomyelitis prevention replaced the previous recommendations
issued in 1997 with new recommendations as of January 1, 2000.
ACIP recommends that the inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) be
used exclusively for routine childhood polio vaccination in the
United States.
The reason for this is that the only cases of polio reported in
the U.S. since 1979 have been associated with the OPV (oral
polio vaccine) vaccine. OPV is very effective. It was largely
responsible for ridding the United States of polio, but caused
vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis (VAPP) in about one
in 2.4 million people receiving it. In the United States and
other countries where the risk of polio is extremely low, using
OPV is no longer worth this small risk.
http://www.umm.edu/ency/article/002030.htm
With respect to transmission of polio:
Who is most at risk of polio?
Polio mainly affects children under five years of age. However,
immune and or partially immune adults and children can still be
infected with poliovirus and carry the virus for long enough to
take the virus from one country to another, infecting close
contacts and contaminating sanitation systems. This could
facilitate transmission especially in countries where sanitation
systems are sub-standard.
How is polio spread?
In the remaining polio endemic countries, poliovirus is mainly
passed through person-to-person contact. Most people infected
with the poliovirus do not develop polio paralysis or other
symptoms of polio infection. However one in 200 people do have
symptoms and can become paralyzed. The virus enters the
environment through faeces of people infected then is passed to
others especially in situations of poor hygiene. The poliovirus
can also infect persons who have been vaccinated and can be
carried by them. Such individuals will not develop polio, but
can carry the virus in their intestines and can pass it to
others in conditions of sub-standard hygiene. The disease may
infect thousands of people, depending on the level of
sanitation, before the first case of polio paralysis emerges.
Individuals can carry the virus in their intestines just long
enough to transmit to others. WHO considers a single confirmed
case of polio paralysis to be evidence of an epidemic -
particularly in countries where very few cases occur.
How can polio be prevented?
There is no cure for polio, it can only be prevented through
immunization. Polio vaccine, given multiple times, almost always
protects a child for life. Full immunization will markedly
reduce an individual's risk of developing paralytic polio. Full
immunization will protect most people, however individuals can
still contract the disease due to the failure of some
individuals to respond to the vaccine.
http://www.polioeradication.org/disease.asp
>>Most of the nation's one million insulin-dependent diabetics wouldn't
>>be insulin dependent -- they would be dead.
>
> Check out the correlation between diabetes and animal protein
> consumption..
Better idea: check out the correlations between diabetes and sugar
consumption, diabetes and sedentary lifestyle, diabetes and age,
diabetes and obesity, diabetes and ethnicity, etc.
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002072.htm
<...>
>>Doctors would have no chemotherapy to save the 70% of children who
>>now survive acute lymphocytic leukemia.
>
> Ditto.. and why do you need animal research to expose someone to
> radiation?
Animal research is used to advance technology and procedures. The
improvements in leukemia treatment didn't happen in a fucking vacuum,
they occurred because of research. In just twenty years, we've seen an
survival rate increase from 55% to 77% in pediatric leukemia.
http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cancernet/600640.html
>>More than one million Americans would lose vision in at least one eye
>>this year because cataract surgery would be impossible.
>
> Why would cataract surgury be impossible?
Budding ophthalmologists hone their craft on animals rather than
practicing on people. Would you prefer your doctor practice on animals
or you?
>>Hundreds of thousands of people disabled by strokes or by head or
>>spinal cord injuries would not benefit from rehabilitation techniques.
>
> How so?
http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/sci/detail_sci.htm
>>The more than 100,000 people with arthritis who each year receive hip
>>replacements would walk only with great pain and difficulty or be
>>confined to wheelchairs.
>
> Again, untrue. Research on non-humans can't be all that useful to
> would-be hip surgeons..
Bullshit, it's been invaluable. Hip replacement surgery was first
developed in dogs. Advances require further testing.
http://www.mismr.org/educational/arthritis.html
http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/biomed/faq.shtml
<...>
> I'm totally with you that animal research is important
Then cut your bullshit, shev.
usual suspect
<...>
>> It's very troubling that Barnard did a residency in psychiatry, but now
>> portrays himself as an expert in nutrition.
>
> Except his research is top notch.
How the FUCK would YOU know, Bob? And how the fuck would you know what
"research" he's done? Writing diatribes arguing against animal research
isn't research, it's advocacy and activism. And guess what -- he's a
fucking animal rights activist. You twat.
> It reminds me of BF Skinner
Barnard doesn't hold a candle to Skinner.
usual suspect
>> I find PETA's view on not eating meat BS and this has nothing to do
>> with nutrition.
>
Excessive sugar. Excessive eating, period. Inadequate activity. Smoking.
Excessive stress. Etc. You fucking putz.
> is correlated well with
> coronary artery disease,
Your excessive use of drugs causes you to make grand mistakes of judgment.
she...@yahoo.com
usual suspect wrote:
> she...@yahoo.com wrote:
> <...>
> >>WITHOUT ANIMAL RESEARCH:
> >>
> >>Polio would kill or cripple thousands of unvaccinated children and
> >>adults this year.
> >
> > Whoops! Most cases of polio are cause by the vaccine now..
>
> Grossly inaccurate, shev. Only the oral vaccine presents any risk of
> causing polio, not the injected vaccine. Polio is still spread in
> developing nations through person-to-person contact, and in developed
> nations by those with incomplete immunization.
>
> No wild polio has been found in the United States for over 20
> years,
Yes, that was my point.
> but polio is still common in some parts of the world,
> only one plane flight away. It would only take one case of polio
> entering from another country to bring the disease back, unless
> we are protected by vaccine....
Do you really know that?
>
> The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) for
> poliomyelitis prevention replaced the previous recommendations
> issued in 1997 with new recommendations as of January 1, 2000.
> ACIP recommends that the inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) be
> used exclusively for routine childhood polio vaccination in the
> United States.
>
Hmm, I wonder what industries are connected with ACIP?
> The reason for this is that the only cases of polio reported in
> the U.S. since 1979 have been associated with the OPV (oral
> polio vaccine) vaccine. OPV is very effective. It was largely
> responsible for ridding the United States of polio,
What evidence do you have of that? I'd need something a little more
than temporal coincidence, but I don't even know if you could
demonstrate that very well.
> but caused
> vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis (VAPP) in about one
> in 2.4 million people receiving it. In the United States and
> other countries where the risk of polio is extremely low, using
> OPV is no longer worth this small risk.
> http://www.umm.edu/ency/article/002030.htm
>
OK, I approve of the shift to the less virulent vaccine, but I've still
seen no positive double-blind efficacy study done with the polio
vacine.
Since a child is most always protected for life anyway, you aren't
saying much there. That is a content-free advertising slogan, kind of
like "Part of your nutritious breakfast".
> Full immunization will markedly
> reduce an individual's risk of developing paralytic polio. Full
> immunization will protect most people, however individuals can
> still contract the disease due to the failure of some
> individuals to respond to the vaccine.
> http://www.polioeradication.org/disease.asp
>
> >>Most of the nation's one million insulin-dependent diabetics wouldn't
> >>be insulin dependent -- they would be dead.
> >
> > Check out the correlation between diabetes and animal protein
> > consumption..
>
> Better idea: check out the correlations between diabetes and sugar
> consumption, diabetes and sedentary lifestyle, diabetes and age,
> diabetes and obesity, diabetes and ethnicity, etc.
> http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002072.htm
>
I guess you're right, always better to be complete. I heard one doctor
claim that diabetes was paritally caused by chromium and vanadium
deficiencies. ANyway that was a pretty useless advertisement, I'm not
going to come in for a blood test every three years thank you very
much.
> <...>
> >>Doctors would have no chemotherapy to save the 70% of children who
> >>now survive acute lymphocytic leukemia.
> >
> > Ditto.. and why do you need animal research to expose someone to
> > radiation?
>
> Animal research is used to advance technology and procedures. The
> improvements in leukemia treatment didn't happen in a fucking vacuum,
> they occurred because of research. In just twenty years, we've seen an
> survival rate increase from 55% to 77% in pediatric leukemia.
> http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cancernet/600640.html
>
I'm more interested in the per capita leukemia mortality. How has that
been doing? I think a larger fraction of us are dying of the disease
now.
> >>More than one million Americans would lose vision in at least one eye
> >>this year because cataract surgery would be impossible.
> >
> > Why would cataract surgury be impossible?
>
> Budding ophthalmologists hone their craft on animals rather than
> practicing on people. Would you prefer your doctor practice on animals
> or you?
>
> >>Hundreds of thousands of people disabled by strokes or by head or
> >>spinal cord injuries would not benefit from rehabilitation techniques.
> >
> > How so?
>
> http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/sci/detail_sci.htm
>
Your link wasn't very convincing in favor of animal tests! :
"Fetal spinal cord tissue implants have also yielded success in animal
trials, giving rise to new neurons, which, when stimulated by
growth-promoting factors (neurotrophins), extend axons that stretch up
and down several segments in the spinal cord. Animals treated in these
trials have regained some function in their limbs. Some patients with
long-term spinal cord injuries have received fetal tissue transplants
but the results have been inconclusive. [..]"
Great, inconclusive.. sure have some more grant money guys and take
these monkeys with you.
"Animal studies have shown that early decompression can reduce
secondary damage, but similar results haven't been reliably reproduced
in human trials. "
Ok, and this is a success how?
"Recent animal studies have revealed what appears to be a neural
circuit within the spinal cord that is critical for triggering
ejaculation in animal models and may play the same role in humans.
Triggering ejaculation by stimulating these cells might be a better
option than some of the current, more invasive methods, such as
electroejaculation."
Give me a fricking break. Are they serious? Hands free masturbation -
is this your justification for animal testing? You must be arguing for
the loonies who say to ban -all- animal testing.
> >>The more than 100,000 people with arthritis who each year receive hip
> >>replacements would walk only with great pain and difficulty or be
> >>confined to wheelchairs.
> >
> > Again, untrue. Research on non-humans can't be all that useful to
> > would-be hip surgeons..
>
> Bullshit, it's been invaluable. Hip replacement surgery was first
> developed in dogs. Advances require further testing.
> http://www.mismr.org/educational/arthritis.html
> http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/biomed/faq.shtml
>
Yeah, you're probably right here, sorry. If somebody wants to test a
crazy new surgical procedure out on other animals and such a chance
presents itself, I'm cool with that - of course there always needs to
be thought put into the care for the animals but that goes without
saying.
> <...>
> > I'm totally with you that animal research is important
>
> Then cut your bullshit, shev.
You first :)
rick
"Doug Freese" <dfr...@hvc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:CUmbf.2630$ek6...@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
>
> "Beach Runner" <b...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:Qudbf.34301$kd.1...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>>> I find PETA's view on not eating meat BS and this has nothing
>>> to do with nutrition.
>>>
>>> -DF
>> You may find it, but the use of excessive meat is correlated
>> well with coronary artery disease, colon cancer and other
>> problems. Yes, less meat and exercise reduce the effects. So
>> it certainly does.
>
> BR, I should have been more specific - it's the so called PETA
> morality play that I find repugnant. And yes the data showing
> meat is carcinogen is valid
LOL Show it then....
and I find I eat less meat and another reason I think
> vegetarianism is a healthy lifestyle(assuming organic).
================================
Why? Are you one of the willfully ignorant that believes that
organic means pesticide-free? You cannot get all the nutrients
you need to survive from plants only. That is the real fact.
People like TC
> believe the cancer issue with meat is another conspiracy.
=====================
Vegans are the masters of conspiracy and every crack-pot idea
around. Just ask Lys/pearl about them all..
>
> -DF
>
pearl
<she...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1131297625.3...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> usual suspect wrote:
> > she...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > <...>
> > >>WITHOUT ANIMAL RESEARCH:
> > >>
> > >>Polio
'Sabin, who eventually developed the polio vaccine, stated that:
"It became necessary to extend the studies to human volunteers
when it was found that poliovirus, which were devoid of
paralytogenic activity in chimpanzees, multiplied poorly or not
at all in the alimentary tract of monkeys; and that amounts of
virus that multiplied poorly or not at all in the alimentary tract
of chimpanzees multiplied very well in the intestinal tract of
susceptible human volunteers".[10]
Sabin himself later stated on oath to the US Congress that
the polio vaccine had been delayed by decades due to
misleading animal data. He testified that "...the work on
prevention (of polio) was long delayed by the erroneous
conception of the nature of the human disease based on
misleading experimental models of the disease in monkeys."[11] >
http://vivisection-absurd.org.uk/vin13.html
> > >>Most of the nation's one million insulin-dependent diabetics wouldn't
> > >>be insulin dependent -- they would be dead.
> > >
> > > Check out the correlation between diabetes and animal protein
> > > consumption..
http://vivisection-absurd.org.uk/diabetes.html
http://vivisection-absurd.org.uk/diabet2.html
http://www.health.org.nz/diab.html
> > <...>
> > >>Doctors would have no chemotherapy to save the 70% of children who
> > >>now survive acute lymphocytic leukemia.
> > >
> > > Ditto.. and why do you need animal research to expose someone to
> > > radiation?
> >
> > Animal research is used to advance technology and procedures. The
> > improvements in leukemia treatment didn't happen in a fucking vacuum,
> > they occurred because of research. In just twenty years, we've seen an
> > survival rate increase from 55% to 77% in pediatric leukemia.
> > http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cancernet/600640.html
> >
>
> I'm more interested in the per capita leukemia mortality. How has that
> been doing? I think a larger fraction of us are dying of the disease
> now.
1. Benzene was not withdrawn from use as an industrial
chemical despite clinical and epidemological evidence that
exposure caused leukemia in humans, because manufacturer-
supported tests failed to reproduce leukemia in mice.[1]
[1]Lancet, June 25 1977, pp1348-9.
http://vivisection-absurd.org.uk/50dis.html
'There is much evidence that childhood leukemia is also the
direct legacy of vaccination, the foundation stone of vivisection.
"Vaccinations and sulfa drugs have been recognised as being
directly responsible for the production of leukemia in humans."
(Dr B. Duperrat, of the Sant-Louis Hospital in Paris, writing in
the French medical journal Presse Medicale, March 12 1955.)
"Already published reports, as well as our own observations
indicate that smallpox vaccination sometimes produces
manifestations of leukemia. In children and adults observed
in the clinics of Cracow, smallpox vaccination has been
followed by violent local and general reactions and by leukemia."
(Professors Julian Aleksandrowickz and Boguslave Halileokowski
of the Medical Academy of Cracow, Poland wrote as reported in
Lancet, May 6 1967.)
"The vaccine modifies the terrain of the vaccinated, driving it
towards alkaline and oxidised terrain - the terrain of cancer.
The fact can no longer be denied."
(The January 1958 issue of another French medical journal,
Revue De Pathologie Generale et de Physiologie Clinique.)
"In England and Wales, total death rates from all forms of
leukemia have increased more than six times between 1920
and 1952... According to Wilkinson, sulphanomides (antibiotics)
stand convicted as one of the contributing factors, even when
fairly low dosages were employed. In cases reported in detail,
the tragic path from a granulocytosis to haemolitic anaemia and
acute monolytic leukemia is revealed in black and white."
(The July 1957 issue of Medical World, article by Freda Lucas.)
"Leukemia has been dramatically increasing, especially among
children, ever since the various modern 'therapies' have been
inflicted upon a frightened, artfully misinformed public.
Urethane has sometimes an inhibitory effect on human leukemia
in contrast to what animal experiments had shown."
"The characteristic effects in leukemia were detected solely as
a result of clinical observation. The various leukemias in the
mouse and rat were relatively refractory to the influence of
urethane, and the remarkable effect in the human might have
eluded discovery if attention had been directed to the animal
alone. That illustrates the hazards of such work."
(Prof. Alexander Haddow, British Medical Journal, December
2 1950, page 1272.)
"The argument from man is so much more convincing than
the argument from mice - which indeed, may be completely
misleading, as in the case of urethane, which has some inhibitory
action on human tumours, but a marked, though temporary one
on chronic human leukemias."
(Dr C.G. Learoyd, Surgeon, Medical World, August 1954, page 172.)
"The drugs Prednisone and Vincristine are often hailed as
'curing' childhood leukemia. Both drugs were rejected by the
US National Cancer Institute as 'useless' on the basis of animal
tests. Prednisone was developed as a result of clinical observation
of the effects of adrenal extract. Vincristine is an alkaloid of
'Vincra Rosea', a type of periwinkle plant, and extracts of
periwinkle were used in the Roman Empire to 'dry tumours'
(Pliny). They were eventually brought to clinical trials. The
children cured of leukemia owe their lives to clinical observations
and trials - and not to the animal 'model'."
(Brandon Reines, Cancer Research on Animals: Impact and
Alternatives.)
http://www.health.org.nz/chleu.html
> > >>More than one million Americans would lose vision in at least one eye
> > >>this year because cataract surgery would be impossible.
> > >
> > > Why would cataract surgury be impossible?
> >
> > Budding ophthalmologists hone their craft on animals rather than
> > practicing on people. Would you prefer your doctor practice on animals
> > or you?
'On January 6 1992 the N.Z. Woman's Weekly cites the work of
Dr George Duncan of the University of East Anglia who is using
human eye tissue in cataract research. He, and fellow researchers
at Lister Hospital, claim that human tissue tests "give reassurance
that experiments on animals do not".
"The wounds of an animal behave so differently from those of
man that the conclusions drawn from them by the vivisectors are
completely valueless and have caused more damage than benefit."
(Lawson Tait, quoted in Prof. Croce's Vivisection or Science -
a choice to make.)
In the Journal of Organotherapy, Vol. XVI, No. 1, January-February
1932, page 23, it is reported that a well-known operation for cataract
devised by Philip Syng Physick, was the result of clinical research alone.
In Medical Press, January 27 1954, page 74, in criticism of an article
which drew attention to reports of successful treatment of cataract
through experiments on rats, Posner warns that there are dangerous
hazards, even resulting in blindness should the method be applied to
human beings.
http://www.health.org.nz/catrct.html
'Spinal cord experiments on animals are part of the medical
fraud of vivisection. We are told that animals must be used
in this horrifying way in attempts to understand physiological
mechanisms and to test surgical procedures, but extracts from
articles written by those undertaking this "research" show that
spinal cord research with animals is obviously not working.
..
http://www.health.org.nz/spcord.html
> > >>The more than 100,000 people with arthritis who each year receive hip
> > >>replacements would walk only with great pain and difficulty or be
> > >>confined to wheelchairs.
> > >
> > > Again, untrue. Research on non-humans can't be all that useful to
> > > would-be hip surgeons..
> >
> > Bullshit, it's been invaluable. Hip replacement surgery was first
> > developed in dogs. Advances require further testing.
> > http://www.mismr.org/educational/arthritis.html
> > http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/biomed/faq.shtml
> >
>
> Yeah, you're probably right here, sorry. If somebody wants to test a
> crazy new surgical procedure out on other animals and such a chance
> presents itself, I'm cool with that - of course there always needs to
> be thought put into the care for the animals but that goes without
> saying.
'HIP REPLACEMENT SURGERY
John Charnley developed an arthoplasty of the hip in 1946, but
a preliminary trial led him to believe that it was unsatisfactory(1).
In 1949, Charnley received a Home Office licence to experiment
on animals, and it is said that he grafted bones in goats but did
not record the results. Likewise, he did not publish ANY papers
on any animal experiments he may have conducted(1). Charnley
wrote "A few observations on the human are often of more value
than a large series of experiments on animals..."The `crucial`
experiment was an isolated observation"(2). The `crucial`
experiment had been performed on a human patient(3).
Later, Charnley measured co-efficiency of the fracture of
articular cartilage. This could be done quite simply in an
engineering laboratory but it was not so easy in animal joints,
since the cartilage could not be fashioned into a plane surface.
Charnley checked the published papers and found two written
in 1934 and 1936 by E S Jones, who had described his
experiments on the knees of horses but Charnley believed
that such experiments were open to various objections and
decided to make measurements on a freshly amputated knee
joint of a human patient(3).
Thus, Charnley may have had a vivisector`s license and,
possibly, did conduct some animal experiments - but he
realized that the progress had to come from clinical work -
which he did.
refs
1. Waugh,W. John Charnley - the man and the hip. Springer-Verlag.
2. Charnley,J. 1956. quoted in ibid.
3. Waugh,W. John Charnley - the man and the hip. Springer-Verlag.
http://www.freewebs.com/scientific_anti_vivisectionism7/surgerycontinued.htm
> > > I'm totally with you that animal research is important
BMJ 2004;328:514-517 (28 February),
doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7438.514
Where is the evidence that animal research benefits humans?
Pandora Pound, research fellow1, Shah Ebrahim, professor1,
Peter Sandercock, professor2, Michael B Bracken, professor3,
Ian Roberts, professor4 Reviewing Animal Trials Systematically
(RATS) Group 1 Department of Social Medicine, University of
Bristol, Bristol BS8 2PR, 2 Department of Clinical Neurosciences,
University of Edinburgh, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh ..,
3 Center for Perinatal, Pediatric, and Environmental Epidemiology,
Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT 06520
USA, 4 London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine,
London WC1B 3DP
..
Clinicians and the public often consider it axiomatic that animal
research has contributed to the treatment of human disease, yet
little evidence is available to support this view. Few methods
exist for evaluating the clinical relevance or importance of basic
animal research, and so its clinical (as distinct from scientific)
contribution remains uncertain.1 Anecdotal evidence or
unsupported claims are often used as justification- for example,
statements that the need for animal research is "self evident"2
or that "Animal experimentation is a valuable research method
which has proved itself over time."3 Such statements are an
inadequate form of evidence for such a controversial area of
research. We argue that systematic reviews of existing and
future research are needed.
Assessing animal research
Despite the lack of systematic evidence for its effectiveness,
basic animal research in the United Kingdom receives much
more funding than clinical research.1 4 5 Given this, and
because the public accepts animal research only on the
assumption that it benefits humans,6 the clinical relevance of
animal experiments needs urgent clarification.
.............'
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/328/7438/514
"I cannot name one single case in which experiments
on animals may have led to a useful result." - Dr med.
Philippe Grin, G.P., Video Interview with CIVIS,
July 1 1986.
"I am of the opinion that all experiments on animals
should be abolished because they only lead us to
error." - Dr Marie-Louise Griboval, April 1987.
"As a physician, I am definitely opposed to animal
experiments. They are totally useless, they don't
contribute in any way to progress of medicine."
- Dr med. Jurg Kym, Physicians Have the Word,
ATRA, December 1986.
"My own conviction is that the study of human
physiology by way of experiments on animals is
the most grotesque and fantastic error ever
committed in the whole range of human intellectual
activity." - Dr G. F. Walker, Medical World,
December 1933.
"Are there alternatives to vivisection? Of course
not. There are no alternatives to vivisection
because any method intended to replace it should
have the same qualities; but it is hard to find anything
in biomedical research that is, and always was, more
deceptive and misleading than vivisection. So the
methods we propose for medical research should
be called 'scientific methods'... they are NOT
'alternatives'." - Prof. Croce, Vivisection or Science
- a choice to make, page 21.
"I am fully in agreement with the bills against
vivisection, for the abolition of vivisection can only
be seen as an advance in public education" -
Dr Josef Drobny, District Physician, Morashitz,
Bohemia, October 6 1909.
..........'
http://www.health.org.nz/contents.html
Beach Runner
usual suspect wrote:
> Beach Runner wrote:
> <...>
>
>>> It's very troubling that Barnard did a residency in psychiatry, but now
>>> portrays himself as an expert in nutrition.
>>
To do a residency in psychiatry, FIRST on must become a MD and satisfy
all the requirements. Psychiatry requires additional training.
>>
>> Except his research is top notch.
>
>
> How the FUCK would YOU know, Bob? And how the fuck would you know what
> "research" he's done? Writing diatribes arguing against animal research
> isn't research, it's advocacy and activism. And guess what -- he's a
> fucking animal rights activist. You twat.
>
Because he's well published in peer reviewed journals. Are you.
Well published.
S. Maizlich
>
>
> usual suspect wrote:
>
>> Beach Runner wrote:
>> <...>
>>
>>>> It's very troubling that Barnard did a residency in psychiatry, but now
>>>> portrays himself as an expert in nutrition.
>>>
>>>
>
> To do a residency in psychiatry, FIRST on must become a MD and satisfy
> all the requirements. Psychiatry requires additional training.
Yes, and NOT involving nutrition!
>
>>>
>>> Except his research is top notch.
>>
>>
>>
>> How the FUCK would YOU know, Bob? And how the fuck would you know what
>> "research" he's done? Writing diatribes arguing against animal
>> research isn't research, it's advocacy and activism. And guess what --
>> he's a fucking animal rights activist. You twat.
>>
>
>
> Because he's well published in peer reviewed journals.
You haven't read his articles, and you're INCOMPETENT
to judge the quality of them.
Face the facts: you are braying, incompetently, about
his supposed expertise in nutrition, and YOU don't have
a clue.
Beach Runner
S. Maizlich wrote:
> Beach Runner wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> usual suspect wrote:
>>
>>> Beach Runner wrote:
>>> <...>
>>>
>>>>> It's very troubling that Barnard did a residency in psychiatry, but
>>>>> now
>>>>> portrays himself as an expert in nutrition.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> To do a residency in psychiatry, FIRST on must become a MD and satisfy
>> all the requirements. Psychiatry requires additional training.
>
>
> Yes, and NOT involving nutrition!
>
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Except his research is top notch.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> How the FUCK would YOU know, Bob? And how the fuck would you know
>>> what "research" he's done? Writing diatribes arguing against animal
>>> research isn't research, it's advocacy and activism. And guess what
>>> -- he's a fucking animal rights activist. You twat.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Because he's well published in peer reviewed journals.
>
>
> You haven't read his articles, and you're INCOMPETENT to judge the
> quality of them.
I have an advanced degree from Columbia and NYU and can read clinical
journals. The very amount of publication is clinical journals stands as
a testimate.
>
> Face the facts: you are braying, incompetently, about his supposed
> expertise in nutrition, and YOU don't have a clue.
>
A personal attack you can't back and is not true.
>
>>>> It reminds me of BF Skinner
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Barnard doesn't hold a candle to Skinner.
Skinner had a degree in literature, but was well schooled.
S. Maizlich
>
>
> S. Maizlich wrote:
>
>> Beach Runner wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> usual suspect wrote:
>>>
>>>> Beach Runner wrote:
>>>> <...>
>>>>
>>>>>> It's very troubling that Barnard did a residency in psychiatry,
>>>>>> but now
>>>>>> portrays himself as an expert in nutrition.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>> To do a residency in psychiatry, FIRST on must become a MD and
>>> satisfy all the requirements. Psychiatry requires additional training.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, and NOT involving nutrition!
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Except his research is top notch.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How the FUCK would YOU know, Bob? And how the fuck would you know
>>>> what "research" he's done? Writing diatribes arguing against animal
>>>> research isn't research, it's advocacy and activism. And guess what
>>>> -- he's a fucking animal rights activist. You twat.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Because he's well published in peer reviewed journals.
>>
>>
>>
>> You haven't read his articles, and you're INCOMPETENT to judge the
>> quality of them.
>
>
> I have an advanced degree from Columbia and NYU
In what?
> and can read clinical
> journals.
That isn't established.
> The very amount of publication is clinical journals stands as
> a testimate.
It is a testament - not 'testimate'; your advanced
degrees are not in evidence - to verbosity.
>> Face the facts: you are braying, incompetently, about his supposed
>> expertise in nutrition, and YOU don't have a clue.
>>
>
>
> A personal attack you can't back and is not true.
You have not established that you have any
qualification to judge the quality of his "research".
However, you have amply demonstrated your sympathy with
his polemical positions.
>>>>> It reminds me of BF Skinner
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Barnard doesn't hold a candle to Skinner.
>
>
>
> Skinner had a degree in literature, but was well schooled.
Skinner held a Ph.D. in psychology from Harvard, you
fucking dunderhead.
she...@yahoo.com
1. A lack of absorbable/bioactive minerals and vitamins.
2. An enhanced amount of environmental toxins.
3. A mismatch between genetically optimized digestion and stomach
contents.
Did I leave anything out?
rick
<she...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1131324369....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Facts?
>
TC
she...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Dutch wrote:
> > "Beach Runner" <b...@nospam.com> wrote
> > >
> > >
> > > Dutch wrote:
> > >
> > >> "Beach Runner" <b...@nospam.com> wrote
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>You may find it, but the use of excessive meat is correlated well with
> > >>>coronary artery disease, colon cancer and other problems. Yes, less meat
> > >>>and exercise reduce the effects. So it certainly does.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I submit that a similar amount of potato chips or donuts would have the
> > >> same effect. As a nutritional fact that's not as politically interesting
> > >> though is it?
> >
> > > In his research, which is you examine it is a statically significant
> > > reduction in many diseases in modern society.
> >
> > That's not a sentence.
> >
> > > You are making a wild ass guess.
> >
> > I'm assuming that trans-fat laden potato chips would be as least as as
> > harmful as typical meat given comparable amounts consumed over a long period
> > of time. It seems like a reasonable assumption.
> >
> > > If you think so, publish your hypothesis.
> >
> > What exactly do you suppose is in meat that causes high consumption to
> > correlate with disease?
>
> 1. A lack of absorbable/bioactive minerals and vitamins.
Nonsense. Meat supplies plenty of absorbable and bioactive minerals and
vitamins. In greater amounts than most vegetable foods.
> 2. An enhanced amount of environmental toxins.
No more than vegetable or grains crops, and depending on the source,
most luikely less than what is sprayed and genetically modified into
and onto plant crops.
> 3. A mismatch between genetically optimized digestion and stomach
> contents.
Errrr..... no...... Humans are primarily carnivorous omnivores. We
digest meat and we digest it well. We have much greater problems with
grains than we do with meat. Corn and wheat are the most common
allergenic foods in our diets. And we don't handle beans and legumes
well. The most obvious sign of that is flatulence.
We are genetically optimized to stomach a mostly animal-sourced food
diet.
>
> Did I leave anything out?
In terms of anything accurate, you left everything out and substituted
a bunch of scientifically inaccurate vegan fallacies.
TC
usual suspect
>><...>
>>
>>>>WITHOUT ANIMAL RESEARCH:
>>>>
>>>>Polio would kill or cripple thousands of unvaccinated children and
>>>>adults this year.
>>>
>>>Whoops! Most cases of polio are cause by the vaccine now..
>>
>>Grossly inaccurate, shev. Only the oral vaccine presents any risk of
>>causing polio, not the injected vaccine. Polio is still spread in
>>developing nations through person-to-person contact, and in developed
>>nations by those with incomplete immunization.
>>
>> No wild polio has been found in the United States for over 20
>> years,
>
> Yes, that was my point.
That ISN'T what you wrote, nor is it the gist of what you wrote:
Whoops! Most cases of polio are cause by the vaccine now..
You didn't specify only within the US, you didn't distinguish between
oral and injected forms of the vaccine, etc. You made a categorical
statement, and it's categorically wrong. Most cases are still
transmitted the old-fashioned way. Vaccine-caused polio exists only
where the oral vaccine is still used -- and in those instances, the
risks from "wild" infection are much, much greater than from the oral
vaccine itself, so it's still wise to use it in those regions. It's not
worth the risk:reward in areas where polio has already been eradicated,
so it's not used in those regions anymore.
>> but polio is still common in some parts of the world,
>> only one plane flight away. It would only take one case of polio
>> entering from another country to bring the disease back, unless
>> we are protected by vaccine....
>
> Do you really know that?
"That" meaning what --
That polio is still common in the world?
Yes. It's still common in some parts of the world. It's also making
something of a comeback in places where ignorance over immunization has
taken root.
That it would take only one case entering from another country
to cause an outbreak?
Yes. It only takes one infected person to cause an outbreak,
particularly where there are non-immunized or immuno-suppressed persons.
That vaccines protect us?
Abso-fucking-lutely. Polio didn't just disappear on its own in the US
and in other developed nations. It, and other diseases like smallpox,
has become almost extinct thanks to widespread comprehensive immunization.
Comprehensive immunization is still sound policy given the amount of
immigration and international travel during this current era of human
history. We have people coming to our nation (and to other developed
nations) legally and illegally from a variety of nations without
comprehensive childhood immunization. We also have an increasing number
of Luddites on our shores who believe comprehensive immunization is more
harmful than beneficial. Accordingly, certain groups have outbreaks of
diseases which are uncommon in the greater immunized population.
Just last month, the state of Minnesota and CDC confirmed an outbreak of
polio among Minnesota's Amish population. The Amish by and large refuse
immunizations. All it takes is contact between their unvaccinated
children and the unvaccinated children (of Luddite anti-vaccination
twits) in the wider population to cause an outbreak outside their
"closed" society.
Four children have been infected with the virus, although none
has become paralyzed. The Amish typically decline to vaccinate
their children. The last large outbreak of polio occurred in
numerous Amish communities in several states in 1979.
The outbreak was discovered by chance on Sept. 29 after the
first child -- a 7-month-old infant with a severe immune
deficiency disease -- was tested for another problem in August.
Yesterday's announcement reveals the microbe is circulating
among healthy children in the isolated community, which has
about 200 people in 24 families....
The virus that all four children are carrying is derived from
the oral polio vaccine. That vaccine has not been used in the
United States since 2000, in part because it causes paralysis in
about one of every 13 million doses administered. American
children now get an injected vaccine, which also prevents
infection.
The oral vaccine, which is still used in most places in the
world, is made of a live but severely weakened strain of polio
virus. The vaccine virus can be passed person to person,
although it rarely becomes part of a prolonged "chain of
transmission" because most people in a population are vaccinated
and cannot be infected.
Occasionally, however, a vaccine strain circulates for years,
passed from one unvaccinated child to another. When that
happens, it undergoes genetic mutation that can restore the
dangerousness of the "wild" virus.
http://tinyurl.com/98bzg
>> The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) for
>> poliomyelitis prevention replaced the previous recommendations
>> issued in 1997 with new recommendations as of January 1, 2000.
>> ACIP recommends that the inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) be
>> used exclusively for routine childhood polio vaccination in the
>> United States.
>
> Hmm, I wonder what industries are connected with ACIP?
Why didn't you look up ACIP's board members before casting aspersions?
http://www.cdc.gov/nip/ACIP/members.htm
What do you have against pediatricians, professors, and renowned public
health researchers?
>> The reason for this is that the only cases of polio reported in
>> the U.S. since 1979 have been associated with the OPV (oral
>> polio vaccine) vaccine. OPV is very effective. It was largely
>> responsible for ridding the United States of polio,
>
> What evidence do you have of that? I'd need something a little more
> than temporal coincidence, but I don't even know if you could
> demonstrate that very well.
Twit.
http://www.polioeradication.org/history.asp
>> but caused
>> vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis (VAPP) in about one
>> in 2.4 million people receiving it. In the United States and
>> other countries where the risk of polio is extremely low, using
>> OPV is no longer worth this small risk.
>> http://www.umm.edu/ency/article/002030.htm
>
> OK, I approve of the shift to the less virulent vaccine, but I've still
> seen no positive double-blind efficacy study done with the polio
> vacine.
Twit.
http://www.polio.umich.edu/history/field-trials.html
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4585992
Protected for life by happenstance or protected for life through
immunization?
> That is a content-free advertising slogan, kind of
> like "Part of your nutritious breakfast".
Bullshit.
>> Full immunization will markedly
>> reduce an individual's risk of developing paralytic polio. Full
>> immunization will protect most people, however individuals can
>> still contract the disease due to the failure of some
>> individuals to respond to the vaccine.
>> http://www.polioeradication.org/disease.asp
>>
>>
>>>>Most of the nation's one million insulin-dependent diabetics wouldn't
>>>>be insulin dependent -- they would be dead.
>>>
>>>Check out the correlation between diabetes and animal protein
>>>consumption..
>>
>>Better idea: check out the correlations between diabetes and sugar
>>consumption, diabetes and sedentary lifestyle, diabetes and age,
>>diabetes and obesity, diabetes and ethnicity, etc.
>>http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002072.htm
>
> I guess you're right,
You guess? You know I am right.
> always better to be complete.
Or at least honest.
> I heard one doctor
> claim that diabetes was paritally caused by chromium and vanadium
> deficiencies.
Try to support your own claim about "animal protein consumption" before
you start changing the subject.
>><...>
>>
>>>>Doctors would have no chemotherapy to save the 70% of children who
>>>>now survive acute lymphocytic leukemia.
>>>
>>>Ditto.. and why do you need animal research to expose someone to
>>>radiation?
>>
>>Animal research is used to advance technology and procedures. The
>>improvements in leukemia treatment didn't happen in a fucking vacuum,
>>they occurred because of research. In just twenty years, we've seen an
>>survival rate increase from 55% to 77% in pediatric leukemia.
>>http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cancernet/600640.html
>
> I'm more interested in the per capita leukemia mortality. How has that
> been doing? I think a larger fraction of us are dying of the disease
> now.
Where do you come up with this fucking bullshit?
The relative five-year survival rate has *more than tripled* in
the past 45 years for patients with leukemia. In 1960-63, when
compared to a person without leukemia, a patient had a 14
percent chance of living five years. By 1970-73, the five year
relative survival rate had jumped to 22 percent, and in
1995-2001 the overall relative survival rate was 48 percent. The
relative survival rates differ by of the patient at diagnosis,
gender, race and type of leukemia.
During 1995- 2001 relative survival rates overall were:
* Acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL): 64.6 percent overall;
88.4 percent for children under 5
* Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL): 74.2 percent
* Acute myelogenous leukemia (AML): 19.8 percent overall; 52
percent for children under 15
* Chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML): 39.3 percent
At the present time there are approximately 198,257 people
living with leukemia in the United States.
Deaths
It is anticipated that approximately 22,570 deaths in the United
States will be attributed to leukemia in 2005 (12,540 males and
10,030 females).
There will be an estimated 4,600 deaths from chronic lymphocytic
leukemia and 1,490 deaths from acute lymphocytic leukemia. There
will be an estimated 9,000 deaths from acute myelogenous
leukemia and 850 deaths from chronic myelogenous leukemia.
Unclassified forms of leukemia will account for 6,630 additional
deaths.
* The estimated numbers of deaths attributed to leukemia in
the United States are about 25 percent higher for males
than females.
The leukemia death rate for children 0-14 years of age in the
United States *has declined 60 percent* over the past three
decades. Despite this decline, leukemia causes more deaths than
any other cancer among children under age 20. Approximately 413
children from 0-14 years of age are expected to die from
leukemia in 2005.
http://www.leukemia-lymphoma.org/all_page?item_id=9346
So, you see, leukemia death rates have *declined*. If you now want to
weasel around about per capita incidence, I'll bring up the increase in
*screening* for all cancers and how that's affected reporting of the
number of cases as well as the role its played in earlier treatment
(which, in turn, leads to increased chances of survival). Face it,
you're wrong.
>>>>More than one million Americans would lose vision in at least one eye
>>>>this year because cataract surgery would be impossible.
>>>
>>>Why would cataract surgury be impossible?
>>
>>Budding ophthalmologists hone their craft on animals rather than
>>practicing on people. Would you prefer your doctor practice on animals
>>or you?
>>
>>
>>>>Hundreds of thousands of people disabled by strokes or by head or
>>>>spinal cord injuries would not benefit from rehabilitation techniques.
>>>
>>>How so?
>>
>>http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/sci/detail_sci.htm
>
> Your link wasn't very convincing in favor of animal tests! :
Bullshit. I think research is just as beneficial when it doesn't pan out
as when it does. Sometimes the results aren't quite what was expected,
and researchers can figure out why they weren't and adjust things
accordingly. They also make new and relevant discoveries along the way.
I have no objection to research when it doesn't succeed in proving a
given hypothesis true -- it serves to narrow down options so more
testing can eventually bear fruit.
> "Fetal spinal cord tissue implants have also yielded success in animal
> trials, giving rise to new neurons, which, when stimulated by
> growth-promoting factors (neurotrophins), extend axons that stretch up
> and down several segments in the spinal cord. Animals treated in these
> trials have regained some function in their limbs. Some patients with
> long-term spinal cord injuries have received fetal tissue transplants
> but the results have been inconclusive. [..]"
>
> Great, inconclusive.. sure have some more grant money guys and take
> these monkeys with you.
"Inconclusive" isn't an absolute, nor is it not fruitful. Since most
research involves many variables, researchers can trace their way
through them and find which, if any, will improve the outcomes of their
study. Hypotheses require testing. Many fail before success is finally
achieved.
<...>
> "Recent animal studies have revealed what appears to be a neural
> circuit within the spinal cord that is critical for triggering
> ejaculation in animal models and may play the same role in humans.
> Triggering ejaculation by stimulating these cells might be a better
> option than some of the current, more invasive methods, such as
> electroejaculation."
>
> Give me a fricking break. Are they serious?
Yes. Such research goes far beyond ejaculation, dipshit. That's just one
complex response to stimuli that's easily observed. It's beneficial to
study nervous system pathways in such an example to understand neural
triggers and various reactions arising (no pun) from them. This would
have broader applications for discovering neural responses in patients
with spinal cord injuries -- such as learning neural triggers that allow
patients to move their arms and legs, as well as ones that would allow
them to breathe on their own without use of a respirator. Do you object
to such well-directed research?
>>>>The more than 100,000 people with arthritis who each year receive hip
>>>>replacements would walk only with great pain and difficulty or be
>>>>confined to wheelchairs.
>>>
>>>Again, untrue. Research on non-humans can't be all that useful to
>>>would-be hip surgeons..
>>
>>Bullshit, it's been invaluable. Hip replacement surgery was first
>>developed in dogs. Advances require further testing.
>>http://www.mismr.org/educational/arthritis.html
>>http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/biomed/faq.shtml
>
> Yeah, you're probably right here, sorry.
You should be sorry because you know I *am* right.
> If somebody wants to test a
> crazy new surgical procedure out on other animals and such a chance
> presents itself, I'm cool with that - of course there always needs to
> be thought put into the care for the animals but that goes without
> saying.
I disagree with your shitty premise that little or no thought goes into
such research.
>><...>
>>
>>>I'm totally with you that animal research is important
>>
>>Then cut your bullshit, shev.
>
> You first :)
Find just one example where I've bullshitted in this thread.
Leif Erikson
> "Leif Erikson" <notg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1131160429....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >> Experts
> >>
> >> Neal Barnard, M.D.
> >>
> >> Neal Barnard, M.D., is a nutrition researcher,
> >
> > I have to marvel at this label. Barnard has an M.D., and he did his
> > residency in *psychiatry*. While medical doctors certainly have a lot
> > of background in science, their instruction in science is *not*
> > acquired with a goal of conducting research in any of the science
> > fields they study, and it is *not* comparable to what doctoral
> > students
> > in those fields of science must do. Medical doctors learn enough
> > science to enable them to practice medicine, not to make original
> > contributions to the literature in those fields.
> >
> > now portrays himself as an expert in nutrition.
>
> nutritional knowledge on innuendo. You haven't the faintest idea what he
> has or has not studied.
There is ZERO evidence that he has studied nutrition apart from the
basics he might have learned in medical school. His residency in
psychiatry appears to be his terminal post-graduate education. Based
on that, I can't imagine he can be considered a bona fide expert in
nutrition.
> You don't like what he says and therefore throw
> a big spear.
No, that's wrong. What I don't like is what others make of him, purely
because they LIKE what he has to say AS A POLEMICIST. That is, Beach
Buttfucker's sole knowledge of Barnard is in the latter's capacity as
an *advocate* for veganism and "animal rights". Beach Buttfucker is in
no position to evaluate Barnard's qualifications to be writing in "peer
reviewed journals", and in fact, Beach Buttfucker's mention of
Barnard's published work in journals is a classic (and classically
fallacious) appeal to authority argument. Barnard's alleged expertise
in nutrition does NOT make him an ethics expert with the standing to be
taken as an authority on "animal rights" and its dietary expression of
"veganism".
Barnard has ZERO scientific credibility following his infamous article
in Scientific American concerning the use of animals in polio research.
Barnard's and Kaufman's fatuous claim that animal research delayed
the development of a vaccine for polio is flatly contradicted by two of
the three Nobel laureates whose research did in fact lead to the
development of the vaccine.
http://www.fbresearch.org/education/myth-polio.htm
TC
usual suspect wrote:
> Beach Runner wrote:
> >> I find PETA's view on not eating meat BS and this has nothing to do
> >> with nutrition.
> >
> > You may find it, but the use of excessive meat
>
> Excessive sugar. Excessive eating, period. Inadequate activity. Smoking.
> Excessive stress. Etc. You fucking putz.
>
excessive high fructose corn syrup, excessive refined white flour...
Beach Runner
TC wrote:
> usual suspect wrote:
>
>>Beach Runner wrote:
>>
>>>>I find PETA's view on not eating meat BS and this has nothing to do
>>>>with nutrition.
>>>
>>>You may find it, but the use of excessive meat
>>
>>Excessive sugar. Excessive eating, period. Inadequate activity. Smoking.
>>Excessive stress. Etc. You fucking putz.
>>
>
Everyone knows that highly refined sugar and white flower is horrendous
for you. Corn syrup is in everything because the government subsidizes
corn growing from years back.
But excess meat, as well as other factors, causes artery disease, and
colon cancer.
Just giving up meat alone is not healthy. One needs to eat a healthy diet.
>
> excessive high fructose corn syrup, excessive refined white flour...
>
>
>>>is correlated well with
>>>coronary artery disease,
>>
The most commonly abused drugs are alcohol and prescription drugs.
>
Beach Runner
S. Maizlich wrote:
> Beach Runner wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> S. Maizlich wrote:
>>
>>> Beach Runner wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> usual suspect wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Beach Runner wrote:
>>>>> <...>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's very troubling that Barnard did a residency in psychiatry,
>>>>>>> but now
>>>>>>> portrays himself as an expert in nutrition.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To do a residency in psychiatry, FIRST on must become a MD and
>>>> satisfy all the requirements. Psychiatry requires additional training.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, and NOT involving nutrition!
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Except his research is top notch.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> How the FUCK would YOU know, Bob? And how the fuck would you know
>>>>> what "research" he's done? Writing diatribes arguing against animal
>>>>> research isn't research, it's advocacy and activism. And guess what
>>>>> -- he's a fucking animal rights activist. You twat.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Because he's well published in peer reviewed journals.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You haven't read his articles, and you're INCOMPETENT to judge the
>>> quality of them.
>>
>>
>>
>> I have an advanced degree from Columbia and NYU
>
>
> In what?
>
What the fuck difference does it make. It includes statistics and
reading professional journals.
>
>> and can read clinical journals.
>
>
> That isn't established.
Well it is.
>
>
>> The very amount of publication is clinical journals stands as a
>> testimate.
>
>
> It is a testament - not 'testimate'; your advanced degrees are not in
> evidence - to verbosity.
>
>
>>> Face the facts: you are braying, incompetently, about his supposed
>>> expertise in nutrition, and YOU don't have a clue.
>>>
>>
>>
>> A personal attack you can't back and is not true.
I've read extensively.
>
>
> You have not established that you have any qualification to judge the
> quality of his "research". However, you have amply demonstrated your
> sympathy with his polemical positions.
>
With nuts like you on the internet I'm not giving you personal data.
>
>
>>>>>> It reminds me of BF Skinner
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Barnard doesn't hold a candle to Skinner.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Skinner had a degree in literature, but was well schooled.
>
>
> Skinner held a Ph.D. in psychology from Harvard, you fucking dunderhead.
I saw skinner. What he said and is published don't correlate.
Leif Erikson
If it's sociology or psychology, you fuckwit, or anything apart from
nutrition-related sciences, then you're INCOMPETENT to be passing
judgment that Barnard's list of published article is "impressive".
> >
> >> and can read clinical journals.
> >
> >
> > That isn't established.
> Well it is.
No, it isn't. You claim it, but you could make all kinds of
extravagant claims.
> >
> >
> >> The very amount of publication is clinical journals stands as a
> >> testimate.
> >
> >
> > It is a testament - not 'testimate'; your advanced degrees are not in
> > evidence - to verbosity.
> >
>
>
> >
> >>> Face the facts: you are braying, incompetently, about his supposed
> >>> expertise in nutrition, and YOU don't have a clue.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> A personal attack you can't back and is not true.
> I've read extensively.
So you say.
>
> >
> >
> > You have not established that you have any qualification to judge the
> > quality of his "research". However, you have amply demonstrated your
> > sympathy with his polemical positions.
> >
>
> With nuts like you on the internet I'm not giving you personal data.
I don't think you're qualified to be telling us that Barnard's crapola
about nutrition is sound or not.
> >>>>>> It reminds me of BF Skinner
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Barnard doesn't hold a candle to Skinner.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Skinner had a degree in literature, but was well schooled.
> >
> >
> > Skinner held a Ph.D. in psychology from Harvard, you fucking dunderhead.
>
> I saw skinner. What he said and is published don't correlate.
Listen, you fucking asshole. You're suggesting that Barnard is
knowledgeable about nutrition, despite his apparent lack of
professional or educational credentials. You wanted to suggest he's
some kind of self-taught polymath, and you fatuously offered a
comparison with Skinner, as if Skinner established his towering
reputation in psychology armed only with a degree in literature. In
fact, you prickcheese, Skinner had a Ph.D. in psychology - the field
for which is is considered a giant - from Harvard. Barnard appears to
have NO educational background in nutrition that would allow him to be
cited as an expert.
You got punked.
Dutch
"Beach Runner" <b...@nospam.com> wrote
>
>
> TC wrote:
>
>> usual suspect wrote:
>>
>>>Beach Runner wrote:
>>>
>>>>>I find PETA's view on not eating meat BS and this has nothing to do
>>>>>with nutrition.
>>>>
>>>>You may find it, but the use of excessive meat
>>>
>>>Excessive sugar. Excessive eating, period. Inadequate activity. Smoking.
>>>Excessive stress. Etc. You fucking putz.
>>>
>>
>
> Everyone knows that highly refined sugar and white flower is horrendous
> for you.
Flour
Corn syrup is in everything because the government subsidizes
> corn growing from years back.
>
> But excess meat, as well as other factors, causes artery disease, and
> colon cancer.
>
> Just giving up meat alone is not healthy. One needs to eat a healthy diet.
If health risks are related to excess, then the rational response is
moderation, not "giving up". This applies to everything in life.
[..]
Beach Runner
No, one should give up tobacco. Period.
There's no reason to eat white flower.
If you believe in not supporting the meat factories, then give it up.
Your vulgarity weakens you as a person.
> [..]
>
>
Beach Runner
Leif Erikson wrote:
I saw Skinner at Harvard. That was what he said.
As far as Bernard, he is well published in peer reviewed literature.
That makes him an authority.
>
> You got punked.
>
Beach Runner
Leif Erikson wrote:
I admit when I'm wrong. I went to a lecture at Harvard, and that was
what he said. Obviously I was wrong and I admit it.
In
> fact, you prickcheese, Skinner had a Ph.D. in psychology - the field
> for which is is considered a giant - from Harvard. Barnard appears to
> have NO educational background in nutrition that would allow him to be
> cited as an expert.
>
> You got punked.
>
Ok,
He's well published in Scientific America. Also the National Institute
of Health.
Experts
Neal Barnard, M.D.
Neal Barnard, M.D., is a nutrition researcher, an author, and the
founder of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), a
nationwide organization of physicians and laypersons that promotes
preventive medicine, especially good nutrition, and addresses
controversies in modern medicine, including ethical issues in research.
As president of PCRM, Dr. Barnard directs numerous innovative programs
to promote healthy eating. He has conducted numerous studies of the
ability of nutritional interventions to treat high cholesterol levels,
hormone imbalances, diabetes, and other conditions, and has published
groundbreaking findings in journals such as The American Journal of
Cardiology, Obstetrics & Gynecology, and Preventive Medicine. One recent
study, conducted with a grant from the National Institutes of Health,
shows how a low-fat, vegan diet helps diabetes patients reduce and even
eliminate their medication.
Neal Barnard, M.D., has been instrumental in reforming federal dietary
guidelines. In his published reports, he has shown how meat-based diets
not only cause health problems, but also are responsible for up to $60
billion every year in health care costs. In 2000, PCRM won a lawsuit
against the U.S. Department of Agriculture over the influence of the
meat and dairy industries on federal diet guidelines.
Dr. Barnard’s interest in healthy eating evolved over many years. His
family background includes both doctors and cattle ranchers—two groups
that often butt heads over health issues. Before going to medical
school, Dr. Barnard worked as an autopsy assistant, where he observed
heart disease and other deadly effects of a bad diet firsthand.
Neal Barnard, M.D., is also a rigorous opponent of unethical research
practices. Since founding PCRM in 1985, he has spearheaded many
successful campaigns to promote alternatives to the use of animals in
medical research and education. PCRM also promotes higher standards in
human research, and has fought against unethical human experiments,
including a U.S. government study in which healthy short children were
given a genetically engineered growth hormone.
Dr. Barnard is the author of seven books, including Food for Life; Foods
That Fight Pain; Eat Right, Live Longer; and Turn Off the Fat Genes. He
is also the editor-in-chief of Good Medicine and the author of hundreds
of articles in magazines such as Scientific American and newspapers such
as The New York Times. A regular guest on network talk and news shows
and a busy public speaker, Dr. Barnard lives in Washington, D.C.
Neal Barnard, M.D., is also an adjunct associate professor of medicine
at George Washington University.
For more information about Neal Barnard, M.D., including a complete list
of his scientific publications, please go to www.nealbarnard.org.
and
Experts
Neal Barnard, M.D.
Neal Barnard, M.D., is a nutrition researcher, an author, and the
founder of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), a
nationwide organization of physicians and laypersons that promotes
preventive medicine, especially good nutrition, and addresses
controversies in modern medicine, including ethical issues in research.
As president of PCRM, Dr. Barnard directs numerous innovative programs
to promote healthy eating. He has conducted numerous studies of the
ability of nutritional interventions to treat high cholesterol levels,
hormone imbalances, diabetes, and other conditions, and has published
groundbreaking findings in journals such as The American Journal of
Cardiology, Obstetrics & Gynecology, and Preventive Medicine. One recent
study, conducted with a grant from the National Institutes of Health,
shows how a low-fat, vegan diet helps diabetes patients reduce and even
eliminate their medication.
Neal Barnard, M.D., has been instrumental in reforming federal dietary
guidelines. In his published reports, he has shown how meat-based diets
not only cause health problems, but also are responsible for up to $60
billion every year in health care costs. In 2000, PCRM won a lawsuit
against the U.S. Department of Agriculture over the influence of the
meat and dairy industries on federal diet guidelines.
Dr. Barnard’s interest in healthy eating evolved over many years. His
family background includes both doctors and cattle ranchers—two groups
that often butt heads over health issues. Before going to medical
school, Dr. Barnard worked as an autopsy assistant, where he observed
heart disease and other deadly effects of a bad diet firsthand.
Neal Barnard, M.D., is also a rigorous opponent of unethical research
practices. Since founding PCRM in 1985, he has spearheaded many
successful campaigns to promote alternatives to the use of animals in
medical research and education. PCRM also promotes higher standards in
human research, and has fought against unethical human experiments,
including a U.S. government study in which healthy short children were
given a genetically engineered growth hormone.
Dr. Barnard is the author of seven books, including Food for Life; Foods
That Fight Pain; Eat Right, Live Longer; and Turn Off the Fat Genes. He
is also the editor-in-chief of Good Medicine and the author of hundreds
of articles in magazines such as Scientific American and newspapers such
as The New York Times. A regular guest on network talk and news shows
and a busy public speaker, Dr. Barnard lives in Washington, D.C.
Neal Barnard, M.D., is also an adjunct associate professor of medicine
at George Washington University.
For more information about Neal Barnard, M.D., including a complete list
of his scientific publications, please go to www.nealbarnard.org.
This is a partial listing of scientific publications by Neal Barnard,
M.D. For a more complete listing, visit MEDLINE/Pub Med through the
National Library of Medicine at www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi.
These are all peer reviewed journals.
* Barnard ND, Scialli, Turner-McGrievy GM, Lanou AJ. Acceptability
of a very-low-fat, vegan diet compares favorably to a more moderate
low-fat diet in a randomized, controlled trial. J Cardiopulm Rehab
2004;24:229-35.
* Turner-McGrievy GM, Barnard ND, Scialli AR, Lanou AJ. Effects of
a low-fat, vegan diet and a Step II diet on macro- and micronutrient
intakes in overweight, postmenopausal women. Nutrition 2004;20:738-46.
* Berkow S, Barnard ND. Blood pressure regulation and vegetarian
diets. Nutr Rev 2004, in press.
* Lanou A, Barnard ND, Berkow S. Calcium, dairy products, and bone
health in children and young adults: A re-evaluation of the evidence.
Pediatrics 2004, in press.
* Jenkins DJA, Kendall CWC, Marchie A, Jenkins AL, Augustin LSA,
Ludwig DS,Barnard ND, Anderson JW. Type 2 diabetes and the vegetarian
diet. Am J Clin Nutr 2003, in press.
* Barnard ND, Scialli AR, Turner-McGrievy G, Lanou AJ.
Acceptability of a low-fat, vegan diet compares favorably to a Step II
diet in a randomized, controlled trial. (Abstract) Diabetes 2003;
American Diabetes Association 63rd Scientific Sessions Abstract Book, in
press.
* Barnard ND. Toxicity testing in the development of anticancer
drugs. Lancet Oncol 2002;3:440–1.
* Keller JL, Lanou AJ, Barnard ND. The consumer cost of calcium
from food and supplements. J Am Dietetic Asso 2002;102:1669–71.
* Barnard ND, Scialli AR, Bobela S. The current use of estrogens
for growth-suppressant therapy in adolescent girls. J Ped Adol Gynecol
2002;15:23–6.
* Barnard ND, Scialli AR, Hurlock D, Bertron P. Diet and
sex-hormone binding globulin, dysmenorrhea, and premenstrual symptoms.
Obstet Gynecol 2000;95:245-50.
* Barnard ND, Scialli AR, Bertron P, Hurlock D, Edmonds K, Talev L.
Effectiveness of a low-fat, vegetarian diet in altering serum lipids in
healthy premenopausal women. Am J Cardiol 2000;85:969-72.
* Bertron P, Barnard ND, Mills M. Racial bias in federal nutrition
policy, part II: weak guidelines take a disproportionate toll. J Natl
Med Assoc 1999; 91: 201–08.
* Barnard ND. Study design of an investigation of lactose
maldigestion. Am J Clin Nutr 1999, 69: 1287–92.
* Nicholson AS, Sklar M, Barnard ND, Gore S, Sullivan R, Browning
S. Toward improved management of NIDDM: a randomized, controlled, pilot
intervention using a low-fat, vegetarian diet. Prev Med 1999;29:87–91.
* Bertron P, Barnard ND, Mills M. Racial bias in federal nutrition
policy, part I: the public health implications of variations in lactase
persistence. J Natl Med Assoc 1999;91:151–157.
* Barnard ND, Kaufman SR. Animal research is wasteful and
misleading. Sci Am 1997;276:64–6.
* Outwater JL, Nicholson A, Barnard ND. Dairy products and breast
cancer: the IGF-I, estrogen, and bGH hypothesis. Med Hypoth 1997;48:453–61.
* Haapapuro ER, Barnard ND, Simon M. Animal waste used as livestock
feed: dangers to human health. Prev Med 1997;26:599–602.
* Barnard ND, Nicholson A. Beliefs about dietary factors in breast
cancer prevention among American women, 1991 to 1995. Prev Med
1997;26:109–13.
* Wolfe M, Barnard ND, McCaffrey SM. Animal laboratory exercises in
medical school curricula. ATLA 1996;24, 953–6.
* Barnard ND, Akhtar A, Nicholson A. Factors that facilitate
compliance to lower fat intake. Arch Fam Med 1995;4:153–8.
* Barnard ND, Nicholson A, Howard JL. The medical costs
attributable to meat consumption. Prev Med 1995;24:646–55.
* Barnard ND. Human experiments: redrawing ethical boundaries. Appl
Clin Trials 1994;3:34–6.
* Butrum R, Barnard ND, Campbell TC, et al. Diet, nutrition and
cancer in health care reform: a position paper of the American Institute
for Cancer Research. American Institute for Cancer Research, Washington,
DC, August 1994.
* Barnard ND, Scherwitz LW, Ornish D. Adherence and acceptability
of a low-fat, vegetarian diet among patients with cardiac disease. J
Cardiopulm Rehab 1992;12:423–31.
* Barnard ND. Prevention must take priority. Medical World News,
June 27, 1988, p. 60.
* Barnard ND, Hou S. Inherent stress: the tough life in lab
routine. Lab Animal, Sept. 1988, 21–7.
* Gabel RH, Barnard ND, Norko M, O'Connell RA. AIDS presenting as
mania. Comprehensive Psychiatry 1986;27(3):251–4.
* Sotsky SM, Barnard ND, Docherty J. The antidepressant efficacy of
imipramine in outpatient studies. Presented at the World Congress of
Psychiatry, Vienna, Austria, July 11, 1983.
* Barnard ND. Prevention must take priority. Medical World News,
June 27, 1988, p. 60.
* Barnard ND, Hou S. Inherent stress: the tough life in lab
routine. Lab Animal, Sept. 1988, 21–7.
* Gabel RH, Barnard ND, Norko M, O'Connell RA. AIDS presenting as
mania. Comprehensive Psychiatry 1986;27(3):251–4.
*
Sotsky SM, Barnard ND, Docherty J. The antidepressant efficacy of
imipramine in outpatient studies. Presented at the World Congress of
Psychiatry, Vienna, Austria, July 11, 1983.
Leif Erikson
He had a Ph.D. in psychology. THAT is why he was ever taken as an
authority in psychology, not his BA in literature. Get a clue.
>
> As far as Bernard, he is well published in peer reviewed literature.
Of dubious quality.
> That makes him an authority.
Not necessarily.
In any case, you are a fan because of his non-authoritative writings on
"animal rights" and "veganism".
TC
Beach Runner wrote:
> I saw Skinner at Harvard. That was what he said.
>
> As far as Bernard, he is well published in peer reviewed literature.
> That makes him an authority.
The fact that Barnard was published goes to show just how easy for any
one to write up some crap in the guise of a "study" and actually get it
published in the US. If anything destroys the credibility of the US
system of scientific peer review, it is the fact that Barnard was able
to get published.
The man is trained in psychiatry, adn apparently could not even do
that, so he became an animal rights activist linked with PETA and the
domestic terrorist group, SHAC.
He is an authority as much as Bush is a uniter.
TC
TC
Beach Runner wrote:
> I saw Skinner at Harvard. That was what he said.
>
> As far as Bernard, he is well published in peer reviewed literature.
> That makes him an authority.
Barnard is trained in psychiatry and has been a life long animal rights
activist linked with PETA and the domestic terrorist group SHAC.
He is most definitely NOT any kind of an authority in any field even
remotely connected to science or nutrition.
The fact that he is published at all is an indication of the lack of
oversight and complete failure of the peer review system in the US and
in the field of science in general.
TC
Dutch
"Beach Runner" <b...@nospam.com> wrote
>
>
> Dutch wrote:
>> "Beach Runner" <b...@nospam.com> wrote
>>
>>>
>>>TC wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>usual suspect wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Beach Runner wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>I find PETA's view on not eating meat BS and this has nothing to do
>>>>>>>with nutrition.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You may find it, but the use of excessive meat
>>>>>
>>>>>Excessive sugar. Excessive eating, period. Inadequate activity.
>>>>>Smoking.
>>>>>Excessive stress. Etc. You fucking putz.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>Everyone knows that highly refined sugar and white flower is horrendous
>>>for you.
>>
>>
>> Flour
>>
>> Corn syrup is in everything because the government subsidizes
>>
>>>corn growing from years back.
>>>
>>>But excess meat, as well as other factors, causes artery disease, and
>>>colon cancer.
>>>
>>>Just giving up meat alone is not healthy. One needs to eat a healthy
>>>diet.
>>
>>
>> If health risks are related to excess, then the rational response is
>> moderation, not "giving up". This applies to everything in life.
>>
>>
>
> No, one should give up tobacco. Period.
Tobacco is an addictive drug ingested as smoke into the lungs, meat is none
of those things. Attempting to commit suicide should also be avoided
completely, but that's not relevant.
> There's no reason to eat white flower.
The word is 'flour', and yes there are reasons to eat it, it tastes good.
> If you believe in not supporting the meat factories, then give it up.
Factories produce tofu and many other plant based products. Is it the word
"factory" that offends you?
> Your vulgarity weakens you as a person.
If that is intended as a personal insult, I find it offensive. When have I
been vulgar towards you? Anyway, holding onto flimsy moral fallacies weakens
you as a person more than vulgarity.
[..]
Dave
rick wrote:
> "Doug Freese" <dfr...@hvc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:CUmbf.2630$ek6...@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
> >
> > "Beach Runner" <b...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:Qudbf.34301$kd.1...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> >>> I find PETA's view on not eating meat BS and this has nothing
> >>> to do with nutrition.
> >>>
> >>> -DF
> >> You may find it, but the use of excessive meat is correlated
> >> well with coronary artery disease, colon cancer and other
> >> problems. Yes, less meat and exercise reduce the effects. So
> >> it certainly does.
> >
> > BR, I should have been more specific - it's the so called PETA
> > morality play that I find repugnant. And yes the data showing
> > meat is carcinogen is valid
> =========================
> LOL Show it then....
>
>
>
> and I find I eat less meat and another reason I think
> > vegetarianism is a healthy lifestyle(assuming organic).
> ================================
> Why? Are you one of the willfully ignorant that believes that
> organic means pesticide-free? You cannot get all the nutrients
> you need to survive from plants only. That is the real fact.
All nutrients except vitamin B12 which can be reliably sourced
from vegan supplements.
Dave
A highly unorthodox viewpoint.
> Corn and wheat are the most common
> allergenic foods in our diets.
Milk is more allergenic than corn. I think you'll find soya and yeast
are too.
> And we don't handle beans and legumes
> well. The most obvious sign of that is flatulence.
Another unorthodox viewpoint.
>
> We are genetically optimized to stomach a mostly animal-sourced food
> diet.
And another. Where did you get all this unreliable information from?
rick
"Dave" <prp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131411879.2...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Even b12 can be had from supplements, but the problem is that the
supplements are not natural. They rely on the unnecessary death
and suffering of animals. Why are unnatural products produced
through the petro-chemical industry 'better' than eating the
natural product that provides b12?
David Wright
rick <st...@stop.net> wrote:
>Even b12 can be had from supplements, but the problem is that the
>supplements are not natural. They rely on the unnecessary death
>and suffering of animals.
Pfui. B12 is made by bacteria, and that's how the supplements are
made also.
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me."
-- Alice Roosevelt Longworth
rick
"David Wright" <wri...@l1000.prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:8rWbf.5676$Y61....@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
> In article
> <k3Ubf.1152$Xo....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> rick <st...@stop.net> wrote:
>
>>Even b12 can be had from supplements, but the problem is that
>>the
>>supplements are not natural. They rely on the unnecessary
>>death
>>and suffering of animals.
>
> Pfui.
B12 is made by bacteria, and that's how the supplements are
> made also.
======================
Yes, they are. But they are products of a petro-chemical
industry process to get it made in massive amounts and then into
caps, pills, liquids and the packaging to get them all to you.
None of that is a natural process. A process that causes
unnecessary death and suffering of animals.
>
usual suspect
>> <...>
>>
>>>> It's very troubling that Barnard did a residency in psychiatry, but now
>>>> portrays himself as an expert in nutrition.
>
> To do a residency in psychiatry, FIRST on must become a MD and satisfy
> all the requirements. Psychiatry requires additional training.
All specialties require additional training. FWIW, psychiatrists as a
group have the lowest medical licensing exam scores of any specialty.
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/161/8/1477
You've neither noted nor established Barnard's _bona fides_ in the field
of nutrition, or any other field in which he and his organization
advocate meatless diets and an end to all research performed on animals.
>>> Except his research is top notch.
>>
>> How the FUCK would YOU know, Bob? And how the fuck would you know what
>> "research" he's done? Writing diatribes arguing against animal
>> research isn't research, it's advocacy and activism. And guess what --
>> he's a fucking animal rights activist. You twat.
>
> Because he's well published in peer reviewed journals.
"Well-published" is very relative. Did you know Barnard has been
censured by the AMA for misrepresentations of facts about animal research?
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/2786
The AMA continues to marvel at how effectively a fringe
organization of questionable repute continues to hoodwink the
media with a series of questionable research that fails to
enhance public health. Instead, it serves only to advance the
agenda of activist groups interested in perverting medical
science. The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine is an
animal ‘rights’ organization, and, despite its title, represents
less than .5 percent of the total U.S. physician population. Its
founder, Dr. Neal Barnard, is also the scientific advisor to
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), an
organization that supports and speaks for the terrorist
organization knows as the Animal Liberation Front (ALF).
— September '92 press release, American Medical Association
His peers do NOT hold him in very high regard.
>>> It reminds me of BF Skinner
>>
>> Barnard doesn't hold a candle to Skinner.
And neither do you. Twat.
usual suspect
<...>
> I have an advanced degree from Columbia and NYU
Irrelevant.
> and can read clinical journals.
So the fuck what. You're still only vouching for an animal rights activist.
> The very amount of publication is clinical journals stands as
> a testimate.
It's a *testament* to his advocacy, you *testicle*. How much of his
writing is advocacy and how much is primary research?
>> Face the facts: you are braying, incompetently, about his supposed
>> expertise in nutrition, and YOU don't have a clue.
>
> A personal attack you can't back and is not true.
You *don't* have a clue. Not even when you're sober.
<snip rest of your weird, confused bullshit>
usual suspect
<...>
>>I'm assuming that trans-fat laden potato chips would be as least as as
>>harmful as typical meat given comparable amounts consumed over a long period
>>of time. It seems like a reasonable assumption.
>>
>> > If you think so, publish your hypothesis.
>>
>>What exactly do you suppose is in meat that causes high consumption to
>>correlate with disease?
>
> 1. A lack of absorbable/bioactive minerals and vitamins.
Bullshit. Consider iron.
There are two forms of dietary iron: heme and nonheme. Heme iron
is derived from hemoglobin, the protein in red blood cells that
delivers oxygen to cells. Heme iron is found in animal foods
that originally contained hemoglobin, such as red meats, fish,
and poultry. Iron in plant foods such as lentils and beans is
arranged in a chemical structure called nonheme iron. This
is the form of iron added to iron-enriched and iron-fortified
foods. Heme iron is absorbed better than nonheme iron, but most
dietary iron is nonheme iron.
http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/iron.asp
One of the reasons nonheme iron isn't as readily absorbed is because
plants also contain phytates, which bind iron (and zinc) and prevent
absorption. What benefits absorption of nonheme iron? Try meat. In one
study, non-heme iron was absorbed more easily in the presence of heme
iron from meat. The study showed that just eating 50 or 75 grams (about
an eighth of a pound) of pork increased nonheme absorption by 44% to 57%
(respectively on 50g and 75g trials):
http://tinyurl.com/x8b2
> 2. An enhanced amount of environmental toxins.
Bullshit. And wtf do you mean by "enhanced"?
> 3. A mismatch between genetically optimized digestion and stomach
> contents.
Bullshit. *Absolute* bullshit. Our physiology is neither strictly
carnivore or herbivore -- omnivorous diets are appropriate for our
species, if not optimal. Other primates are also omnivores. Etc.
> Did I leave anything out?
Yes: facts. As usual.
usual suspect
<...>
> But excess meat,
Eat it in moderation.
> as well as other factors,
MANY other factors.
> causes artery disease,
"Causes"? No. Is correlated with increased risks.
> Just giving up meat alone is not healthy. One needs to eat a healthy diet.
Healthy can include meat.
> The most commonly abused drugs are alcohol and prescription drugs.
You should know. Why aren't you in rehab yet?
Beach Runner
Here's some studies that Dr. Brenard did that showed advantages of
vegetarian diets.
In addition, here are some links to our studies and other health
information:
Weight loss:
http://www.pcrm.org/news/release050909.html
http://www.pcrm.org/news/archive050908.html
http://www.pcrm.org/health/prevmed/weightloss.html
http://www.pcrm.org/health/clinres/wls.html
Diabetes:
http://www.pcrm.org/news/archive030902.html
http://www.pcrm.org/health/prevmed/diabetes.html
http://www.pcrm.org/health/clinres/diabetes.html
Vegan Diet Acceptability:
http://www.pcrm.org/news/archive040812.html
Dutch
> Beach Runner wrote:
> <...>
>> I have an advanced degree from Columbia and NYU
>
> Irrelevant.
>
>> and can read clinical journals.
>
> So the fuck what. You're still only vouching for an animal rights
> activist.
>
>> The very amount of publication is clinical journals stands as a
>> testimate.
>
> It's a *testament* to his advocacy, you *testicle*.
He also warns of the dangers of white "flower".
"advanced degree from Columbia and NYU " MY ASS!
Beach Runner
usual suspect wrote:
If that's what you choose to believe. You obviously have severe
personality disorders and should seek a psychiatrist.
usual suspect
Why shouldn't I believe that?
Beach Runner
Big shit. I had a typo and it replaced it with flower, rather than flour.
> "advanced degree from Columbia and NYU " MY ASS!
>
I do.
>
Beach Runner
usual suspect wrote:
Because you have clearly demonstrated a desire to cause people pain.
It's sick behavior.
Leif Erikson
> >>>
> >>> His peers do NOT hold him in very high regard.
> >>>
> >>>>>> It reminds me of BF Skinner
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Barnard doesn't hold a candle to Skinner.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> And neither do you. Twat.
> >>
> >>
> >> If that's what you choose to believe.
> >
> >
> > Why shouldn't I believe that?
>
> Because you have clearly demonstrated a desire to cause people pain.
ipse dixit
Dutch
"Flower" is not a typo of "flour", "flout" is a typo of flour. You repeated
the same error after I corrected you the first time. It indicates that you
are semi-literate.
>> "advanced degree from Columbia and NYU " MY ASS!
> I do.
I don't believe you.
she...@yahoo.com
usual suspect wrote:
> she...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >><...>
> >>
> >>>>WITHOUT ANIMAL RESEARCH:
> >>>>
> >>>>Polio would kill or cripple thousands of unvaccinated children and
> >>>>adults this year.
> >>>
> >>>Whoops! Most cases of polio are cause by the vaccine now..
> >>
> >>Grossly inaccurate, shev. Only the oral vaccine presents any risk of
> >>causing polio, not the injected vaccine. Polio is still spread in
> >>developing nations through person-to-person contact, and in developed
> >>nations by those with incomplete immunization.
> >>
> >> No wild polio has been found in the United States for over 20
> >> years,
> >
> > Yes, that was my point.
>
> That ISN'T what you wrote, nor is it the gist of what you wrote:
> Whoops! Most cases of polio are cause by the vaccine now..
>
> You didn't specify only within the US, you didn't distinguish between
> oral and injected forms of the vaccine, etc. You made a categorical
> statement, and it's categorically wrong. Most cases are still
> transmitted the old-fashioned way.
My statement is certainly true in the US, my apologies if it isn't true
worldwide.
> Vaccine-caused polio exists only
> where the oral vaccine is still used -- and in those instances, the
> risks from "wild" infection are much, much greater than from the oral
> vaccine itself, so it's still wise to use it in those regions. It's not
> worth the risk:reward in areas where polio has already been eradicated,
> so it's not used in those regions anymore.
>
It -is- still used in regions where polio has been eradicated, such as
the US.
> >> but polio is still common in some parts of the world,
> >> only one plane flight away. It would only take one case of polio
> >> entering from another country to bring the disease back, unless
> >> we are protected by vaccine....
> >
> > Do you really know that?
>
> "That" meaning what --
>
> That polio is still common in the world?
>
> Yes. It's still common in some parts of the world. It's also making
> something of a comeback in places where ignorance over immunization has
> taken root.
>
> That it would take only one case entering from another country
> to cause an outbreak?
>
> Yes. It only takes one infected person to cause an outbreak,
> particularly where there are non-immunized or immuno-suppressed persons.
>
> That vaccines protect us?
>
> Abso-fucking-lutely. Polio didn't just disappear on its own in the US
> and in other developed nations. It, and other diseases like smallpox,
> has become almost extinct thanks to widespread comprehensive immunization.
>
I'm surprised at you Usual. You seem to Usually be quite scientific in
demanding controlled experiments and comprehensive statistics before
allowing claims of correlation being causation. Why aren't you doing
the same here?
> Comprehensive immunization is still sound policy given the amount of
> immigration and international travel during this current era of human
> history. We have people coming to our nation (and to other developed
> nations) legally and illegally from a variety of nations without
> comprehensive childhood immunization. We also have an increasing number
> of Luddites on our shores who believe comprehensive immunization is more
> harmful than beneficial. Accordingly, certain groups have outbreaks of
> diseases which are uncommon in the greater immunized population.
>
> Just last month, the state of Minnesota and CDC confirmed an outbreak of
> polio among Minnesota's Amish population. The Amish by and large refuse
> immunizations. All it takes is contact between their unvaccinated
> children and the unvaccinated children (of Luddite anti-vaccination
> twits) in the wider population to cause an outbreak outside their
> "closed" society.
And what is your evidence of the danger of this contact? You seem
quite knowledgeable, can you put some numbers on polio vaccine efficacy
for us? And why are you blaming the Amish for any "outbreak" - when
you could be blaming vaccination practices?
>
> Four children have been infected with the virus, although none
> has become paralyzed. The Amish typically decline to vaccinate
> their children. The last large outbreak of polio occurred in
> numerous Amish communities in several states in 1979.
>
Are you sure that's not because they don't play video games? You have
argued before of the importance of controlled experiment, please
maintain your scientific expectations here as well.
> The outbreak was discovered by chance on Sept. 29 after the
> first child -- a 7-month-old infant with a severe immune
> deficiency disease -- was tested for another problem in August.
> Yesterday's announcement reveals the microbe is circulating
> among healthy children in the isolated community, which has
> about 200 people in 24 families....
>
> The virus that all four children are carrying is derived from
> the oral polio vaccine. That vaccine has not been used in the
> United States since 2000, in part because it causes paralysis in
> about one of every 13 million doses administered. American
> children now get an injected vaccine, which also prevents
> infection.
>
> The oral vaccine, which is still used in most places in the
> world, is made of a live but severely weakened strain of polio
> virus. The vaccine virus can be passed person to person,
> although it rarely becomes part of a prolonged "chain of
> transmission" because most people in a population are vaccinated
> and cannot be infected.
>
> Occasionally, however, a vaccine strain circulates for years,
> passed from one unvaccinated child to another. When that
> happens, it undergoes genetic mutation that can restore the
> dangerousness of the "wild" virus.
> http://tinyurl.com/98bzg
>
> >> The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) for
> >> poliomyelitis prevention replaced the previous recommendations
> >> issued in 1997 with new recommendations as of January 1, 2000.
> >> ACIP recommends that the inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) be
> >> used exclusively for routine childhood polio vaccination in the
> >> United States.
> >
> > Hmm, I wonder what industries are connected with ACIP?
>
> Why didn't you look up ACIP's board members before casting aspersions?
> http://www.cdc.gov/nip/ACIP/members.htm
>
> What do you have against pediatricians, professors, and renowned public
> health researchers?
>
Nothing in generality, but I've seen members of all those groups who I
wouldn't trust. All three have businesses to run, and professional
interests that you'd better be aware of.
> >> The reason for this is that the only cases of polio reported in
> >> the U.S. since 1979 have been associated with the OPV (oral
> >> polio vaccine) vaccine. OPV is very effective. It was largely
> >> responsible for ridding the United States of polio,
> >
> > What evidence do you have of that? I'd need something a little more
> > than temporal coincidence, but I don't even know if you could
> > demonstrate that very well.
>
> Twit.
> http://www.polioeradication.org/history.asp
>
Great, your claim is restated on a website - again without controlled
experiment to suggest causation - or even a very good analysis of
correlation. Who are you trying to impress?
"From 1923 to 1953,before the Salk killed-virus vaccine was introduced,
the polio death rate in the United States and England had already
declined on its own by 47 percent and 55 percent, respectively. Source
International Mortality Statistics (1981) by Michael Alderson."
> >> but caused
> >> vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis (VAPP) in about one
> >> in 2.4 million people receiving it. In the United States and
> >> other countries where the risk of polio is extremely low, using
> >> OPV is no longer worth this small risk.
> >> http://www.umm.edu/ency/article/002030.htm
> >
> > OK, I approve of the shift to the less virulent vaccine, but I've still
> > seen no positive double-blind efficacy study done with the polio
> > vacine.
>
> Twit.
> http://www.polio.umich.edu/history/field-trials.html
> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4585992
>
Now we're getting somewhere at least, except your vague links to links
to links that extol the Salk vaccine tests are not any kind of numbers
of efficacy.
Why not actually check out the science before you claim correctness?
A little bit of research into your claims led me to something closer to
a real reference:
http://www.sph.umich.edu/about/polioannouncement.html
but I still couldn't find any numbers from the report other than:
"Out of a total population of 1,829,916 children a total of 1013 cases
of polio developed during the study period and were reported to the
Center.
In placebo control areas, where vaccine was interchanged with an inert
substance, 428 out of 749,236 children contracted the disease."
A bit of simple subtraction tells me that there were 1,080,680 children
who received the vaccine, and 585 of those got polio - actually worse
than the placebo!
Any idea where that 90% efficacy came from? Was it from measurements
of a specific antibody level or something - evidence not that the
vaccine is efficacious but that it was administered.
> >> With respect to transmission of polio:
> >> Who is most at risk of polio?
> >> Polio mainly affects children under five years of age. However,
> >> immune and or partially immune adults and children can still be
> >> infected with poliovirus and carry the virus for long enough to
> >> take the virus from one country to another, infecting close
> >> contacts and contaminating sanitation systems. This could
> >> facilitate transmission especially in countries where sanitation
> >> systems are sub-standard.
> >>
> >> How is polio spread?
> >> In the remaining polio endemic countries, poliovirus is mainly
> >> passed through person-to-person contact. Most people infected
> >> with the poliovirus do not develop polio paralysis or other
> >> symptoms of polio infection. However one in 200 people do have
> >> symptoms and can become paralyzed. The virus enters the
> >> environment through faeces of people infected then is passed to
> >> others especially in situations of poor hygiene. The poliovirus
> >> can also infect persons who have been vaccinated and can be
> >> carried by them. Such individuals will not develop polio, but
> >> can carry the virus in their intestines and can pass it to
> >> others in conditions of sub-standard hygiene. The disease may
> >> infect thousands of people, depending on the level of
> >> sanitation, before the first case of polio paralysis emerges.
> >> Individuals can carry the virus in their intestines just long
> >> enough to transmit to others. WHO considers a single confirmed
> >> case of polio paralysis to be evidence of an epidemic -
> >> particularly in countries where very few cases occur.
> >>
> >> How can polio be prevented?
> >> There is no cure for polio, it can only be prevented through
> >> immunization. Polio vaccine, given multiple times, almost always
> >> protects a child for life.
> >
> > Since a child is most always protected for life anyway, you aren't
> > saying much there.
>
> Protected for life by happenstance or protected for life through
> immunization?
>
Yes, that's my question. Don't you think it is a reasonable one?
> > That is a content-free advertising slogan, kind of
> > like "Part of your nutritious breakfast".
>
> Bullshit.
>
That could be part of your nutritious breakfast as well. Those who eat
bullshit have an extremely low chance of getting polio.
> >> Full immunization will markedly
> >> reduce an individual's risk of developing paralytic polio. Full
> >> immunization will protect most people, however individuals can
> >> still contract the disease due to the failure of some
> >> individuals to respond to the vaccine.
> >> http://www.polioeradication.org/disease.asp
> >>
> >>
> >>>>Most of the nation's one million insulin-dependent diabetics wouldn't
> >>>>be insulin dependent -- they would be dead.
> >>>
> >>>Check out the correlation between diabetes and animal protein
> >>>consumption..
> >>
> >>Better idea: check out the correlations between diabetes and sugar
> >>consumption, diabetes and sedentary lifestyle, diabetes and age,
> >>diabetes and obesity, diabetes and ethnicity, etc.
> >>http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002072.htm
> >
> > I guess you're right,
>
> You guess? You know I am right.
>
> > always better to be complete.
>
> Or at least honest.
>
> > I heard one doctor
> > claim that diabetes was paritally caused by chromium and vanadium
> > deficiencies.
>
> Try to support your own claim about "animal protein consumption" before
> you start changing the subject.
>
> >><...>
> >>
> >>>>Doctors would have no chemotherapy to save the 70% of children who
> >>>>now survive acute lymphocytic leukemia.
> >>>
> >>>Ditto.. and why do you need animal research to expose someone to
> >>>radiation?
> >>
> >>Animal research is used to advance technology and procedures. The
> >>improvements in leukemia treatment didn't happen in a fucking vacuum,
> >>they occurred because of research. In just twenty years, we've seen an
> >>survival rate increase from 55% to 77% in pediatric leukemia.
> >>http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cancernet/600640.html
> >
> > I'm more interested in the per capita leukemia mortality. How has that
> > been doing? I think a larger fraction of us are dying of the disease
> > now.
>
> Where do you come up with this fucking bullshit?
>
?? You can't be serious. You aren't interested in mortality rates?
Instead you prefer to tout "survival rate" statistics?
> The relative five-year survival rate has *more than tripled* in
> the past 45 years for patients with leukemia. In 1960-63, when
> compared to a person without leukemia, a patient had a 14
> percent chance of living five years. By 1970-73, the five year
> relative survival rate had jumped to 22 percent, and in
> 1995-2001 the overall relative survival rate was 48 percent. The
> relative survival rates differ by of the patient at diagnosis,
> gender, race and type of leukemia.
>
> During 1995- 2001 relative survival rates overall were:
>
> * Acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL): 64.6 percent overall;
> 88.4 percent for children under 5
> * Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL): 74.2 percent
> * Acute myelogenous leukemia (AML): 19.8 percent overall; 52
> percent for children under 15
> * Chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML): 39.3 percent
>
> At the present time there are approximately 198,257 people
> living with leukemia in the United States.
>
> Deaths
> It is anticipated that approximately 22,570 deaths in the United
> States will be attributed to leukemia in 2005 (12,540 males and
> 10,030 females).
>
> There will be an estimated 4,600 deaths from chronic lymphocytic
> leukemia and 1,490 deaths from acute lymphocytic leukemia. There
> will be an estimated 9,000 deaths from acute myelogenous
> leukemia and 850 deaths from chronic myelogenous leukemia.
> Unclassified forms of leukemia will account for 6,630 additional
> deaths.
>
> * The estimated numbers of deaths attributed to leukemia in
> the United States are about 25 percent higher for males
> than females.
>
> The leukemia death rate for children 0-14 years of age in the
> United States *has declined 60 percent* over the past three
> decades. Despite this decline, leukemia causes more deaths than
> any other cancer among children under age 20. Approximately 413
> children from 0-14 years of age are expected to die from
> leukemia in 2005.
> http://www.leukemia-lymphoma.org/all_page?item_id=9346
>
> So, you see, leukemia death rates have *declined*. If you now want to
> weasel around about per capita incidence, I'll bring up the increase in
> *screening* for all cancers and how that's affected reporting of the
> number of cases as well as the role its played in earlier treatment
> (which, in turn, leads to increased chances of survival). Face it,
> you're wrong.
>
Thanks for the references, I was wrong.
Interesting, your first link said cancer rates had increased..
"Over the past 20 years, there has been some increase in the incidence
of children diagnosed with all forms of invasive cancer; from 11.4
cases per 100,000 children in 1975 to 15.2 per 100,000 children in
1998"
"For childhood brain tumors, the overall incidence rose from 1975
through 1998 (from 2.3 to 3.0 per 100,000), with the greatest increase
occurring from l983 through l986."
but I'll believe your stats on leukemia. Excellent, some good news!
Very glad to be proved wrong there, thanks.
> >>
> >>>>Hundreds of thousands of people disabled by strokes or by head or
> >>>>spinal cord injuries would not benefit from rehabilitation techniques.
> >>>
> >>>How so?
> >>
> >>http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/sci/detail_sci.htm
> >
> > Your link wasn't very convincing in favor of animal tests! :
>
> Bullshit. I think research is just as beneficial when it doesn't pan out
> as when it does. Sometimes the results aren't quite what was expected,
> and researchers can figure out why they weren't and adjust things
> accordingly. They also make new and relevant discoveries along the way.
> I have no objection to research when it doesn't succeed in proving a
> given hypothesis true -- it serves to narrow down options so more
> testing can eventually bear fruit.
>
Too bad you won't be peer reviewing my proposals..
> > "Fetal spinal cord tissue implants have also yielded success in animal
> > trials, giving rise to new neurons, which, when stimulated by
> > growth-promoting factors (neurotrophins), extend axons that stretch up
> > and down several segments in the spinal cord. Animals treated in these
> > trials have regained some function in their limbs. Some patients with
> > long-term spinal cord injuries have received fetal tissue transplants
> > but the results have been inconclusive. [..]"
> >
> > Great, inconclusive.. sure have some more grant money guys and take
> > these monkeys with you.
>
> "Inconclusive" isn't an absolute, nor is it not fruitful. Since most
> research involves many variables, researchers can trace their way
> through them and find which, if any, will improve the outcomes of their
> study. Hypotheses require testing. Many fail before success is finally
> achieved.
>
True indeed, but if you are trying to point to successes you shouldn't
be pointing to failures.
> <...>
> > "Recent animal studies have revealed what appears to be a neural
> > circuit within the spinal cord that is critical for triggering
> > ejaculation in animal models and may play the same role in humans.
> > Triggering ejaculation by stimulating these cells might be a better
> > option than some of the current, more invasive methods, such as
> > electroejaculation."
> >
> > Give me a fricking break. Are they serious?
>
> Yes. Such research goes far beyond ejaculation, dipshit. That's just one
> complex response to stimuli that's easily observed. It's beneficial to
> study nervous system pathways in such an example to understand neural
> triggers and various reactions arising (no pun) from them. This would
> have broader applications for discovering neural responses in patients
> with spinal cord injuries -- such as learning neural triggers that allow
> patients to move their arms and legs, as well as ones that would allow
> them to breathe on their own without use of a respirator. Do you object
> to such well-directed research?
>
Not at all, but I'd need a lot more evidence before I sent my money in.
> >>>>The more than 100,000 people with arthritis who each year receive hip
> >>>>replacements would walk only with great pain and difficulty or be
> >>>>confined to wheelchairs.
> >>>
> >>>Again, untrue. Research on non-humans can't be all that useful to
> >>>would-be hip surgeons..
> >>
> >>Bullshit, it's been invaluable. Hip replacement surgery was first
> >>developed in dogs. Advances require further testing.
> >>http://www.mismr.org/educational/arthritis.html
> >>http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/biomed/faq.shtml
> >
> > Yeah, you're probably right here, sorry.
>
> You should be sorry because you know I *am* right.
>
I thought you were right, your tone now suggests otherwise.
David Wright
rick <st...@stop.net> wrote:
>
>"David Wright" <wri...@l1000.prodigy.net> wrote in message
>news:8rWbf.5676$Y61....@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
>> In article
>> <k3Ubf.1152$Xo....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
>> rick <st...@stop.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Even b12 can be had from supplements, but the problem is that
>>>the
>>>supplements are not natural. They rely on the unnecessary
>>>death
>>>and suffering of animals.
>>
>> Pfui.
>???
>
> B12 is made by bacteria, and that's how the supplements are
>> made also.
>======================
>Yes, they are. But they are products of a petro-chemical
>industry process to get it made in massive amounts and then into
>caps, pills, liquids and the packaging to get them all to you.
>None of that is a natural process. A process that causes
>unnecessary death and suffering of animals.
How? Are the animals forced to work in the refineries? In the
packaging plants?
rick
Are you this willfully ignorant or just stupid? You really think
that any process that relies on inputs from the petro-chemical
industry is cruelty-free? If so, you're even more ignorant that
you seem already. But then, usenet vegans never have been
accused of logical thinking or fact checking. As long as they
have their simple rule for their simple minds, eh killer?
cathyb
Well, he actually how animals are killed by the petrochemical industry.
That would be fact checking.
You don't seem to have replied.
Your statement that "usenet vegans never have been accused of logical
thinking or fact checking" is noted for future reference though.
Cathy
cathyb
cathyb wrote:
Er, that should've been "he actually asked how animals" etc.
You don't seem to have replied. Sorry.
Beach Runner
When I make a mistake I admit it. I have a dual masters from Columbia.
I started in Music Therapy, thought it a lot of bull and got a dual
degree in Music and Music Ed. They were very behaviorist.
I got an advanced degree in Organizational Studies in NYU with
certification as a principal and management of computer resources.
I was in their Doctoral program but left because of family needs, a
tremendous mistake on my part. They gave me a 6th year degree in the
process.
As far as making a big deal over a typo, I know the difference between
flour and flower.
When I went to Berklee College of Music I went to see a lecture by
Skinner. He said the worst way to learn about psychology was by
studying it. Why he said he studied literature I don't know. I
appreciate the correction.
>
Peter Bowditch
It's obvious, Cathy. Billions of animals died millions of years ago to
make oil. Using that oil is exploiting the death and suffering of the
dead animals that turned into oil.
See - I can think like a PETAcretin too.
>
>>
>> Your statement that "usenet vegans never have been accused of logical
>> thinking or fact checking" is noted for future reference though.
>>
>> Cathy
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > >
>> > > -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
>> > > These are my opinions only, but they're almost always
>> > > correct.
>> > > "If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me."
>> > > -- Alice Roosevelt Longworth
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
Beach Runner
Leif Erikson wrote:
> Beach Runner wrote:
>
>>usual suspect wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Beach Runner wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>><...>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>It's very troubling that Barnard did a residency in psychiatry,
>>>>>>>>>but now
>>>>>>>>>portrays himself as an expert in nutrition.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>To do a residency in psychiatry, FIRST on must become a MD and
>>>>>>satisfy all the requirements. Psychiatry requires additional training.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>All specialties require additional training. FWIW, psychiatrists as a
>>>>>group have the lowest medical licensing exam scores of any specialty.
>>>>>
>>>>>http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/161/8/1477
>>>>>
They admonished Peta. So have I for certain position. The AMA is also
a monopoly and it's tactics are questionable.
>>>>>You've neither noted nor established Barnard's _bona fides_ in the
>>>>>field of nutrition, or any other field in which he and his
>>>>>organization advocate meatless diets and an end to all research
>>>>>performed on animals.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Except his research is top notch.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>How the FUCK would YOU know, Bob? And how the fuck would you know
>>>>>>>what "research" he's done? Writing diatribes arguing against animal
>>>>>>>research isn't research, it's advocacy and activism. And guess what
>>>>>>>-- he's a fucking animal rights activist. You twat.
>>>>>>
I have advanced degrees from Columbia, starting in their Music Therapy
program, which I felt was bullshit, graduating with a dual degree in
Music and Music Ed. I had a heavy concentration in the Psychology of
Music. I had an A average.
Then at NYU I completed a 6th year degree in Organizational studies with
certifications as a Principal and Management of Computer Resources. I
was in their doctoral program but had to leave for family reasons. It
was a mistake trying to save a marriage.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Because he's well published in peer reviewed journals.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Well-published" is very relative. Did you know Barnard has been
>>>>>censured by the AMA for misrepresentations of facts about animal
>>>>>research?
>>>>>http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/2786
>>>>>
They censure everyone with alternative views.
>>>>> The AMA continues to marvel at how effectively a fringe
>>>>> organization of questionable repute continues to hoodwink the
>>>>> media with a series of questionable research that fails to
>>>>> enhance public health. Instead, it serves only to advance the
>>>>> agenda of activist groups interested in perverting medical
>>>>> science. The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine is an
>>>>> animal 'rights' organization, and, despite its title, represents
>>>>> less than .5 percent of the total U.S. physician population. Its
>>>>> founder, Dr. Neal Barnard, is also the scientific advisor to
>>>>> People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), an
>>>>> organization that supports and speaks for the terrorist
>>>>> organization knows as the Animal Liberation Front (ALF).
>>>>> - September '92 press release, American Medical Association
>>>>>
>>>>>His peers do NOT hold him in very high regard.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>It reminds me of BF Skinner
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Barnard doesn't hold a candle to Skinner.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>And neither do you. Twat.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>If that's what you choose to believe.
>>>
>>>
>>>Why shouldn't I believe that?
>>
>>Because you have clearly demonstrated a desire to cause people pain.
>
>
> ipse dixit
>
No, it's sick.
usual suspect
No, I haven't. Cut the crap, Bob. Your *real* objection to my posts is
that the truth hurts. You've chosen to live a series of lies and to
peddle deceit and delusions. That's your problem, not mine.
> It's sick behavior.
You were a music major; you're entirely incompetent to make such diagnoses.
S. Maizlich
>
>
> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>> Beach Runner wrote:
>>
>>> usual suspect wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Beach Runner wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> <...>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's very troubling that Barnard did a residency in psychiatry,
>>>>>>>>>> but now
>>>>>>>>>> portrays himself as an expert in nutrition.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To do a residency in psychiatry, FIRST on must become a MD and
>>>>>>> satisfy all the requirements. Psychiatry requires additional
>>>>>>> training.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All specialties require additional training. FWIW, psychiatrists as a
>>>>>> group have the lowest medical licensing exam scores of any specialty.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/161/8/1477
>>>>>>
> They admonished Peta. So have I for certain position. The AMA is also
> a monopoly
The AMA isn't a monopoly. It doesn't sell anything.
> and it's tactics are questionable.
>
>>>>>> You've neither noted nor established Barnard's _bona fides_ in the
>>>>>> field of nutrition, or any other field in which he and his
>>>>>> organization advocate meatless diets and an end to all research
>>>>>> performed on animals.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Except his research is top notch.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How the FUCK would YOU know, Bob? And how the fuck would you know
>>>>>>>> what "research" he's done? Writing diatribes arguing against animal
>>>>>>>> research isn't research, it's advocacy and activism. And guess what
>>>>>>>> -- he's a fucking animal rights activist. You twat.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>
>
> I have advanced degrees from Columbia, starting in their Music Therapy
> program, which I felt was bullshit, graduating with a dual degree in
> Music and Music Ed. I had a heavy concentration in the Psychology of
> Music. I had an A average.
>
> Then at NYU I completed a 6th year degree in Organizational studies with
> certifications as a Principal and Management of Computer Resources. I
> was in their doctoral program but had to leave for family reasons. It
> was a mistake trying to save a marriage.
All that casts into doubt your claim to be able to read
medical journal articles.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because he's well published in peer reviewed journals.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Well-published" is very relative. Did you know Barnard has been
>>>>>> censured by the AMA for misrepresentations of facts about animal
>>>>>> research?
>>>>>> http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/2786
>>>>>>
>
> They censure everyone with alternative views.
They censured him for misrepresentation.
usual suspect
>>>><...>
>>>>
>>>>>>WITHOUT ANIMAL RESEARCH:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Polio would kill or cripple thousands of unvaccinated children and
>>>>>>adults this year.
>>>>>
>>>>>Whoops! Most cases of polio are cause by the vaccine now..
>>>>
>>>>Grossly inaccurate, shev. Only the oral vaccine presents any risk of
>>>>causing polio, not the injected vaccine. Polio is still spread in
>>>>developing nations through person-to-person contact, and in developed
>>>>nations by those with incomplete immunization.
>>>>
>>>> No wild polio has been found in the United States for over 20
>>>> years,
>>>
>>>Yes, that was my point.
>>
>>That ISN'T what you wrote, nor is it the gist of what you wrote:
>> Whoops! Most cases of polio are cause by the vaccine now..
>>
>>You didn't specify only within the US, you didn't distinguish between
>>oral and injected forms of the vaccine, etc. You made a categorical
>>statement, and it's categorically wrong. Most cases are still
>>transmitted the old-fashioned way.
>
> My statement is certainly true in the US,
It might be if the oral vaccine were still administered here. It isn't.
You were, and apparently remain, inaccurate.
> my apologies if it isn't true
> worldwide.
Apology (only one is necessary) accepted.
>>Vaccine-caused polio exists only
>>where the oral vaccine is still used -- and in those instances, the
>>risks from "wild" infection are much, much greater than from the oral
>>vaccine itself, so it's still wise to use it in those regions. It's not
>>worth the risk:reward in areas where polio has already been eradicated,
>>so it's not used in those regions anymore.
>
> It -is- still used in regions where polio has been eradicated, such as
> the US.
No, it is not. OPV is *NOT* used in the United States and hasn't been
used here in five years.
>>>> but polio is still common in some parts of the world,
>>>> only one plane flight away. It would only take one case of polio
>>>> entering from another country to bring the disease back, unless
>>>> we are protected by vaccine....
>>>
>>>Do you really know that?
>>
>>"That" meaning what --
>>
>> That polio is still common in the world?
>>
>>Yes. It's still common in some parts of the world. It's also making
>>something of a comeback in places where ignorance over immunization has
>>taken root.
>>
>> That it would take only one case entering from another country
>> to cause an outbreak?
>>
>>Yes. It only takes one infected person to cause an outbreak,
>>particularly where there are non-immunized or immuno-suppressed persons.
>>
>> That vaccines protect us?
>>
>>Abso-fucking-lutely. Polio didn't just disappear on its own in the US
>>and in other developed nations. It, and other diseases like smallpox,
>>has become almost extinct thanks to widespread comprehensive immunization.
>
> I'm surprised at you Usual. You seem to Usually be quite scientific in
> demanding controlled experiments and comprehensive statistics before
> allowing claims of correlation being causation. Why aren't you doing
> the same here?
I am. Immunization is one of the most studied fields in medicine.
Vaccines undergo rigorous research before being given to the general
population.
>>Comprehensive immunization is still sound policy given the amount of
>>immigration and international travel during this current era of human
>>history. We have people coming to our nation (and to other developed
>>nations) legally and illegally from a variety of nations without
>>comprehensive childhood immunization. We also have an increasing number
>>of Luddites on our shores who believe comprehensive immunization is more
>>harmful than beneficial. Accordingly, certain groups have outbreaks of
>>diseases which are uncommon in the greater immunized population.
>>
>>Just last month, the state of Minnesota and CDC confirmed an outbreak of
>>polio among Minnesota's Amish population. The Amish by and large refuse
>>immunizations. All it takes is contact between their unvaccinated
>>children and the unvaccinated children (of Luddite anti-vaccination
>>twits) in the wider population to cause an outbreak outside their
>>"closed" society.
>
> And what is your evidence of the danger of this contact? You seem
> quite knowledgeable, can you put some numbers on polio vaccine efficacy
> for us?
Yes. Here is a link to an article about a 1986 outbreak in Senegal.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00019250.htm
See also page 5, ff., of the following link for differences in efficacy
between IPV and OPV:
[IPV] Ninety percent or more of vaccine recipients develop
protective antibody to all three poliovirus types after 2 doses,
and at least 99% are immune following 3 doses....
[OPV] OPV is highly effective in producing immunity to
poliovirus. A single dose of OPV produces immunity to all three
vaccine viruses in about 50% of recipients. Three doses produce
immunity to all 3 poliovirus types in more than 95% of
recipients....
Serologic studies have shown that seroconversion following three
doses of either IPV or OPV is nearly 100% to all three vaccine
viruses.
http://tinyurl.com/9krwh
> And why are you blaming the Amish for any "outbreak" - when
> you could be blaming vaccination practices?
If I'm blaming anyone or anything, it's the *lack* of vaccination
practices. OPV is no longer administered in the US. US citizens who are
not vaccinated are at much greater risk infection from all three strains
of the virus including the one that can be passed along from travelers
or immigrants or those who received the OPV prior to its discontinuance
in the United States (and other nations). That appears to be the case --
yet again -- among the Amish case in Minnesota:
Given the degree of difference (2.3%) from the parent Sabin
poliovirus type 1 strain, the virus isolated from the index
patient is estimated to have been replicating for approximately
2 years, which means the virus likely is older than the infant.
OPV is still widely used in most countries; however, because OPV
has not been used in the United States since 2000 and in Canada
since 1997, the original source of this virus likely was a
person who received OPV in another country. Neither the infant
nor her family members had any history of international
travel....
The last wild poliovirus outbreak in the United States occurred
in 1979 and was caused by a wild type 1 poliovirus. In that
outbreak, 10 paralytic poliomyelitis cases and four other
poliovirus infections occurred among unvaccinated Amish persons
and members of other religious communities with low levels of
vaccination who lived in Iowa, Missouri, Pennsylvania, and
Wisconsin. The source of this outbreak was traced to religious
groups in Canada and the Netherlands that also had low levels of
vaccination. A polio outbreak in 1993 in the Netherlands with 71
paralytic cases among members of unvaccinated religious
communities also resulted in poliovirus transmission without
paralytic disease in Alberta, Canada; no evidence of
transmission from this outbreak was found in the United States.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm54d1014a1.htm
>> Four children have been infected with the virus, although none
>> has become paralyzed. The Amish typically decline to vaccinate
>> their children. The last large outbreak of polio occurred in
>> numerous Amish communities in several states in 1979.
>
> Are you sure that's not because they don't play video games?
Non sequitur.
> You have
> argued before of the importance of controlled experiment, please
> maintain your scientific expectations here as well.
See above. Immunology and infectious disease study isn't happenstance;
it's one of the most studied areas in medical science.
Name one board member of ACIP whose credentials cause you any mistrust.
***********************************************************************
> All three have businesses to run, and professional
> interests that you'd better be aware of.
Dittos for Neal Barnard and his coven of animal rights activists at PCRM:
Some of PCRM’s high-profile officers use their affiliation with
the group to take financial advantage of an unwary public.
Consider Cornell University’s Dr. T. Colin Campbell. This vocal
PCRM Advisory Board member has appeared in print, warning of the
supposed dangers related to dioxin in food (especially in meat).
He also serves as chairman of a company called Paracelsian,
Inc., which markets its own proprietary method of dioxin
testing.
PCRM’s name is also used to sell “Dr. McDougall’s 12-Day Diet
Meal Plan,” a product marketed by PCRM Advisory Board member
John McDougall. You can find this slick $120 bundle of
vegetarian cup-a-soup meals in grocery and health-food stores,
as well as in the Sharper Image catalog.
http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/23
***********************************************************************
That said, do you have any specific dirt to dish on any of ACIP's board
member(s)?
>>>> The reason for this is that the only cases of polio reported in
>>>> the U.S. since 1979 have been associated with the OPV (oral
>>>> polio vaccine) vaccine. OPV is very effective. It was largely
>>>> responsible for ridding the United States of polio,
>>>
>>>What evidence do you have of that? I'd need something a little more
>>>than temporal coincidence, but I don't even know if you could
>>>demonstrate that very well.
>>
>>Twit.
>>http://www.polioeradication.org/history.asp
>
> Great, your claim
That was actually a quote from a website, dummy. I offered the timeline
only to show that as immunizations have increased globally, there's been
a concomitant decline in polio cases. The last "wild" case in the US was
in 1979. The last in the Western Hemisphere was 1991. Most nations have
eradicated polio.
All you've done is regurgitate contrarian sources' wild claims that
polio was in some kind of decline during a thirty-year period. I'm
pretty sure you got the Alderson quote off an autism website, even
though the connection between autism and immunizations (specifically
MMR) has been debunked repeatedly.
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=702&id=233742005
Nobody is disputing that the number of polio cases prior to global
immunization efforts ebbed and flowed. The pattern of viral infections
is not static or a straight line, whether we're discussing influenza,
polio, AIDS, etc. Medically speaking, epidemics are occurrences of
diseases over specific time frames.
What I *do* dispute is your implying that the lack of new cases in
highly-immunized areas is happenstance. It's correlated directly with
the ratio of immunized persons in a given area. And when you do see a
recurrence of infections, it typically involves non-vaccinated
individuals or groups. See Minnesota Amish above.
> is restated on a website - again without controlled
> experiment to suggest causation - or even a very good analysis of
> correlation. Who are you trying to impress?
See above re Senegal. Also: http://tinyurl.com/9krwh
> "From 1923 to 1953,before the Salk killed-virus vaccine was introduced,
> the polio death rate in the United States and England had already
> declined on its own by 47 percent and 55 percent, respectively. Source
> International Mortality Statistics (1981) by Michael Alderson."
A period of thirty-years isn't especially illustrative, especially when
considering only the *death* rate. What was the actual *INFECTION* rate
during that period? Does the fact that the iron lung was invented by
Drinker and Shaw in *1927* -- near the start of the period you raise --
have something to do with polio survival rates and reduced death rates
in the US and UK? What about other medical advances made during that period?
I think YOU need to answer some pretty tough fucking questions before
asking me silly ones. And those questions have to do with your perverse
fascination with repeating contrarian bullshit before you look for truth.
>>>> but caused
>>>> vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis (VAPP) in about one
>>>> in 2.4 million people receiving it. In the United States and
>>>> other countries where the risk of polio is extremely low, using
>>>> OPV is no longer worth this small risk.
>>>> http://www.umm.edu/ency/article/002030.htm
>>>
>>>OK, I approve of the shift to the less virulent vaccine, but I've still
>>>seen no positive double-blind efficacy study done with the polio
>>>vacine.
>>
>>Twit.
>>http://www.polio.umich.edu/history/field-trials.html
>>http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4585992
>
> Now we're getting somewhere at least, except your vague links to links
> to links that extol the Salk vaccine tests are not any kind of numbers
> of efficacy.
Those links mention the double-blind study you seek. You could take the
ball and run from there instead of looking for conspiracy-theory crap on
autism websites.
> Why not actually check out the science before you claim correctness?
Why don't YOU do the same before adopting the views of crackpots who
rely on conjecture (at best) or outright bullshit?
> A little bit of research into your claims led me to something closer to
> a real reference:
>
> http://www.sph.umich.edu/about/polioannouncement.html
I thought I'd added that link to my post.
> but I still couldn't find any numbers from the report other than:
>
> "Out of a total population of 1,829,916 children a total of 1013 cases
> of polio developed during the study period and were reported to the
> Center.
>
> In placebo control areas, where vaccine was interchanged with an inert
> substance, 428 out of 749,236 children contracted the disease."
>
> A bit of simple subtraction tells me that there were 1,080,680 children
> who received the vaccine, and 585 of those got polio - actually worse
> than the placebo!
Wrong:
0.05413% vaccinated contracted polio
0.05712% placebo contracted polio
You also left out the following information:
Percentages in the placebo areas were: 67.5 paralytic, 17.6
non-paralytic, 7.2 doubtful, and 7.6 not polio. Specifically, 33
inoculated children receaving the complete vaccination series
became paralyzed in the placebo areas. This is opposed to 115
uninoculated children. Similarly, in the observed areas there
were 38 such children who became paralyzed, as opposed to 330
uninoculated children.
There were four deaths among children who received placebo; none
among the vaccinated. In observed areas there were 11
fatalities; none among children receiving the vaccine.
Only one child who had been inoculated with the vaccine died of
polio, and this death followed a tonsillectomy two days after
the second injection of the vaccine in an area where polio was
already prevalent.
So those who were vaccinated but contracted polio FARED REMARKABLY
BETTER than those who weren't inoculated.
> Any idea where that 90% efficacy came from? Was it from measurements
> of a specific antibody level or something - evidence not that the
> vaccine is efficacious but that it was administered.
I think the study speaks for itself. From above and what follows,
infection rates were lower in the vaccinated group, and those who were
infected despite being vaccinated were much less likely to die, be
paralyzed, pass it on to siblings, etc.
1. The vaccine's effectiveness was more clearly seen when
measured against the more severe cases of the disease;
2. Although data were limited, findings in Canada and Finland
support the Report in showing a significant effect of the
vaccine among cases from whom virus was isolated
3. Vaccination protected against family exposure. Only 1 out of
233 inoculated children developed the disease, while 8 out of
244 children receiving placebo contracted the disease from
family contact.
4. In picking the field trial areas, the National Foundation
scored a major victory. Although in placebo areas cases were 27
per cent under the 1949-53 average, and 12 per cent less in the
observed control areas, it was found that there had been a 26
per cent increase per 100,000 in trial areas as a non-trial
areas. This meant that trial areas were appropriately selected
for the best testing conditions for the vaccine.
*Which* question, dumb ass? Children aren't protected by happenstance --
they ARE protected by immunization. Happenstance is NOT protection for
life, it's leaving things to chance. Leaving such matters to fate is not
science, nor is it wise.
>>>That is a content-free advertising slogan, kind of
>>>like "Part of your nutritious breakfast".
>>
>>Bullshit.
>
> That could be part of your nutritious breakfast as well.
Then you eat it.
> Those who eat
> bullshit have an extremely low chance of getting polio.
Those who receive IPV have an even lower chance, even when surrounded by
people who have one of the three polio viruses. An unvaccinated
shit-eater should be very careful about his or her environment.
>>>> Full immunization will markedly
>>>> reduce an individual's risk of developing paralytic polio. Full
>>>> immunization will protect most people, however individuals can
>>>> still contract the disease due to the failure of some
>>>> individuals to respond to the vaccine.
>>>> http://www.polioeradication.org/disease.asp
>>>>
>>>>>>Most of the nation's one million insulin-dependent diabetics wouldn't
>>>>>>be insulin dependent -- they would be dead.
>>>>>
>>>>>Check out the correlation between diabetes and animal protein
>>>>>consumption..
>>>>
>>>>Better idea: check out the correlations between diabetes and sugar
>>>>consumption, diabetes and sedentary lifestyle, diabetes and age,
>>>>diabetes and obesity, diabetes and ethnicity, etc.
>>>>http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002072.htm
>>>
>>>I guess you're right,
>>
>>You guess? You know I am right.
>>
>>
>>>always better to be complete.
>>
>>Or at least honest.
>>
>>
>>>I heard one doctor
>>>claim that diabetes was paritally caused by chromium and vanadium
>>>deficiencies.
>>
>>Try to support your own claim about "animal protein consumption" before
>>you start changing the subject.
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=96197584&dopt=Citation
The medical costs attributable to meat consumption.
Barnard ND, Nicholson A, Howard JL.
Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, Washington, DC
20016, USA...
That "study" doesn't address consumption of animal protein, and it's
more a study in economics than science (even then I question its
relevance). It's polemical and deals with a few diseases and costs
associated with them. It does NOT address any issue related to protein,
animal or otherwise. Try again.
>>>><...>
>>>>
>>>>>>Doctors would have no chemotherapy to save the 70% of children who
>>>>>>now survive acute lymphocytic leukemia.
>>>>>
>>>>>Ditto.. and why do you need animal research to expose someone to
>>>>>radiation?
>>>>
>>>>Animal research is used to advance technology and procedures. The
>>>>improvements in leukemia treatment didn't happen in a fucking vacuum,
>>>>they occurred because of research. In just twenty years, we've seen an
>>>>survival rate increase from 55% to 77% in pediatric leukemia.
>>>>http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cancernet/600640.html
>>>
>>>I'm more interested in the per capita leukemia mortality. How has that
>>>been doing? I think a larger fraction of us are dying of the disease
>>>now.
>>
>>Where do you come up with this fucking bullshit?
>
> ?? You can't be serious.
I am.
> You aren't interested in mortality rates?
> Instead you prefer to tout "survival rate" statistics?
There's such a relationship between the two that I think it's a goalpost
move to have to prove my point a second time. But I did.
Why didn't you edit out your "You can't be serious" crap?
> Interesting, your first link said cancer rates had increased..
>
> "Over the past 20 years, there has been some increase in the incidence
> of children diagnosed with all forms of invasive cancer; from 11.4
> cases per 100,000 children in 1975 to 15.2 per 100,000 children in
> 1998"
I think the operative word here is "diagnosed." Screening has improved
and increased over the same period, thanks in large part to technology.
> "For childhood brain tumors, the overall incidence rose from 1975
> through 1998 (from 2.3 to 3.0 per 100,000), with the greatest increase
> occurring from l983 through l986."
You shouldn't have stopped there. Per my point above:
An article in the September 2, 1998, issue of the Journal of the
National Cancer Institute suggests that the rise in incidence
from 1983 through 1986 may not have represented a true increase
in the number of cases, but may have reflected new forms of
imaging equipment (magnetic resonance imaging or MRI) that
enabled visualization of brain tumors that could not be easily
visualized with older equipment. Other important developments
during the 1983[-19]86 period included the changing
classification of brain tumors that resulted in tumors
previously designated as benign being reclassified as malignant,
and improvements in neurosurgical techniques for biopsying brain
tumors.
So add changes in classification as well.
> but I'll believe your stats on leukemia.
They're not mine. They're the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society's.
> Excellent, some good news!
> Very glad to be proved wrong there, thanks.
You're welcome.
>>>>>>Hundreds of thousands of people disabled by strokes or by head or
>>>>>>spinal cord injuries would not benefit from rehabilitation techniques.
>>>>>
>>>>>How so?
>>>>
>>>>http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/sci/detail_sci.htm
>>>
>>>Your link wasn't very convincing in favor of animal tests! :
>>
>>Bullshit. I think research is just as beneficial when it doesn't pan out
>>as when it does. Sometimes the results aren't quite what was expected,
>>and researchers can figure out why they weren't and adjust things
>>accordingly. They also make new and relevant discoveries along the way.
>>I have no objection to research when it doesn't succeed in proving a
>>given hypothesis true -- it serves to narrow down options so more
>>testing can eventually bear fruit.
>
> Too bad you won't be peer reviewing my proposals..
You never know, and my point isn't that researchers should be given
_carte blanche_ to test even the looniest hypotheses. My point is that
"inconclusive" or even "failed" research is more often a fork in the
road rather than a dead end.
>>>"Fetal spinal cord tissue implants have also yielded success in animal
>>>trials, giving rise to new neurons, which, when stimulated by
>>>growth-promoting factors (neurotrophins), extend axons that stretch up
>>>and down several segments in the spinal cord. Animals treated in these
>>>trials have regained some function in their limbs. Some patients with
>>>long-term spinal cord injuries have received fetal tissue transplants
>>>but the results have been inconclusive. [..]"
>>>
>>>Great, inconclusive.. sure have some more grant money guys and take
>>>these monkeys with you.
>>
>>"Inconclusive" isn't an absolute, nor is it not fruitful. Since most
>>research involves many variables, researchers can trace their way
>>through them and find which, if any, will improve the outcomes of their
>>study. Hypotheses require testing. Many fail before success is finally
>>achieved.
>
> True indeed, but if you are trying to point to successes you shouldn't
> be pointing to failures.
Can you read? I didn't say that failure is praiseworthy. I only accept
that failures *will* occur, and probably in greater frequency than
successes. Repeated trial and error is required for success in most
worthwhile endeavors.
>><...>
>>
>>>"Recent animal studies have revealed what appears to be a neural
>>>circuit within the spinal cord that is critical for triggering
>>>ejaculation in animal models and may play the same role in humans.
>>>Triggering ejaculation by stimulating these cells might be a better
>>>option than some of the current, more invasive methods, such as
>>>electroejaculation."
>>>
>>>Give me a fricking break. Are they serious?
>>
>>Yes. Such research goes far beyond ejaculation, dipshit. That's just one
>>complex response to stimuli that's easily observed. It's beneficial to
>>study nervous system pathways in such an example to understand neural
>>triggers and various reactions arising (no pun) from them. This would
>>have broader applications for discovering neural responses in patients
>>with spinal cord injuries -- such as learning neural triggers that allow
>>patients to move their arms and legs, as well as ones that would allow
>>them to breathe on their own without use of a respirator. Do you object
>>to such well-directed research?
>
> Not at all,
Then stop whining.
>>>>>>The more than 100,000 people with arthritis who each year receive hip
>>>>>>replacements would walk only with great pain and difficulty or be
>>>>>>confined to wheelchairs.
>>>>>
>>>>>Again, untrue. Research on non-humans can't be all that useful to
>>>>>would-be hip surgeons..
>>>>
>>>>Bullshit, it's been invaluable. Hip replacement surgery was first
>>>>developed in dogs. Advances require further testing.
>>>>http://www.mismr.org/educational/arthritis.html
>>>>http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/biomed/faq.shtml
>>>
>>>Yeah, you're probably right here, sorry.
>>
>>You should be sorry because you know I *am* right.
>
> I thought you were right,
I was, and I still am.
> your tone now suggests otherwise.
Judge substance, not style.
usual suspect
<...>
>>B12 is made by bacteria, and that's how the supplements are
>>>made also.
>>
>>======================
>>Yes, they are. But they are products of a petro-chemical
>>industry process to get it made in massive amounts and then into
>>caps, pills, liquids and the packaging to get them all to you.
>>None of that is a natural process. A process that causes
>>unnecessary death and suffering of animals.
>
> How?
<snip standard vegan twittery>
usual suspect
<...>
>>>>>> All specialties require additional training. FWIW, psychiatrists as a
>>>>>> group have the lowest medical licensing exam scores of any specialty.
>>>>>> http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/161/8/1477
>
> They admonished Peta.
As they should.
> So have I for certain position.
You can give out the ol' blanket admonition against PETA. They've earned
it with their level of repugnance.
> The AMA is also a monopoly
How so? (Guess you don't have to know much about economics to get an
advanced music degree.)
> and it's tactics are questionable.
So are yours. What do you find specifically questionable about the AMA's
"tactics"?
<...>
>>>>>>>> How the FUCK would YOU know, Bob? And how the fuck would you know
>>>>>>>> what "research" he's done? Writing diatribes arguing against animal
>>>>>>>> research isn't research, it's advocacy and activism. And guess what
>>>>>>>> -- he's a fucking animal rights activist. You twat.
>
> I have advanced degrees from Columbia, starting in their Music Therapy
> program, which I felt was bullshit,
It is.
> graduating with a dual degree in
> Music and Music Ed.
This doesn't exactly help your case when it comes to your comprehension
of science or medicine.
> I had a heavy concentration in the Psychology of
> Music. I had an A average.
So what.
> Then at NYU I completed a 6th year degree in Organizational studies with
> certifications as a Principal and Management of Computer Resources. I
> was in their doctoral program but had to leave for family reasons. It
> was a mistake trying to save a marriage.
I'm sure your ex-wife feels the same way.
>>>>>>> Because he's well published in peer reviewed journals.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Well-published" is very relative. Did you know Barnard has been
>>>>>> censured by the AMA for misrepresentations of facts about animal
>>>>>> research?
>>>>>> http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/2786
>
> They censure everyone with alternative views.
No, not everyone. They have certain lines they do draw, though. PCRM
crosses those lines. PCRM isn't interested in science or medicine, only
animal rights.
>>>>>> The AMA continues to marvel at how effectively a fringe
>>>>>> organization of questionable repute continues to hoodwink the
>>>>>> media with a series of questionable research that fails to
>>>>>> enhance public health. Instead, it serves only to advance the
>>>>>> agenda of activist groups interested in perverting medical
>>>>>> science. The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine is an
>>>>>> animal 'rights' organization, and, despite its title, represents
>>>>>> less than .5 percent of the total U.S. physician population. Its
>>>>>> founder, Dr. Neal Barnard, is also the scientific advisor to
>>>>>> People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), an
>>>>>> organization that supports and speaks for the terrorist
>>>>>> organization knows as the Animal Liberation Front (ALF).
>>>>>> - September '92 press release, American Medical Association
>>>>>>
>>>>>> His peers do NOT hold him in very high regard.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It reminds me of BF Skinner
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Barnard doesn't hold a candle to Skinner.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And neither do you. Twat.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If that's what you choose to believe.
>>>>
>>>> Why shouldn't I believe that?
>>>
>>> Because you have clearly demonstrated a desire to cause people pain.
>>
>> ipse dixit
>>
> No, it's sick.
Your background doesn't qualify you to make such diagnoses.
Beach Runner
I was in a competive doctoral program. I was well trained to read
clinical journls. Psych of Music is all clinical studies, along with theory.
usual suspect
Competitive. You couldn't handle it.
> I was well trained to read
> clinical journls.
You dropped out.
> Psych of Music is all clinical studies, along with
> theory.
I'm not impressed, nor do I think you comprehend studies or articles
related to diet, global warming, hybrid technology, agricultural
practices, or anything else we've discussed.
Scented Nectar
news:59ocf.83354$GQ.2...@tornado.texas.rr.com...
> Beach Runner wrote:
[--snip--]
> > Because you have clearly demonstrated a desire to cause people pain.
>
> No, I haven't. Cut the crap, Bob. Your *real* objection to my posts is
> that the truth hurts. You've chosen to live a series of lies and to
> peddle deceit and delusions. That's your problem, not mine.
It's not crap. You're forgetting how
transparent you are. Everyone who
reads your posts, whether or not they
agree with your side of the argument
can easily see that you are looking to
cause pain and portray people as
some sort of losers, rather than just
putting forth your view.
> > It's sick behavior.
>
> You were a music major; you're entirely incompetent to make such
diagnoses.
Anyone can see it. You're sick. The
only people who might say otherwise
would be people who engage in the
same type of insulting posts as you do.
--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
Beach Runner
So I mnoroed in
economics and have most of an MBA. It was given in house, then I left
the company.
Dutch
"Beach Runner" <b...@nospam.com> wrote ...
> Dutch wrote:
>
> When I make a mistake I admit it. I have a dual masters from Columbia. I
> started in Music Therapy, thought it a lot of bull and got a dual degree
> in Music and Music Ed. They were very behaviorist.
>
> I got an advanced degree in Organizational Studies in NYU with
> certification as a principal and management of computer resources.
> I was in their Doctoral program but left because of family needs, a
> tremendous mistake on my part. They gave me a 6th year degree in the
> process.
>
> As far as making a big deal over a typo, I know the difference between
> flour and flower.
Fine, it's still a very odd mistake for an educated person to make. It's not
a typing error or a spelling error, it's more like cognitive sloppiness.
> When I went to Berklee College of Music I went to see a lecture by
> Skinner. He said the worst way to learn about psychology was by studying
> it. Why he said he studied literature I don't know. I appreciate the
> correction.
I can see how studying a meta-science like psychology or philosophy out of
books could be considered a hindrance, because they involve the expression
of free thinking and creative subjectivity. One can easily end up parroting
what one has read instead of thinking for oneself. Hard science is
different, you need to build systematically on what has gone before to
create anything worthwhile. First and foremost in science is the very
difficult task of eliminating bias. If a researcher has any preconceived
ideas beforehand their results will be tainted. Even objective researchers
have an enormous job to remove all traces of bias from their work. Barnard
et al are deeply invoved in the Animal Rights movement, so it is absolutely
predictable that their studies will find that diets based on all plant foods
are superior. The reasons, apart from the bias, is that plant foods *are*
healthy, and under-utilized, and over-consumption of meat is common in the
western diet. So it's no big surprise that a small but persistent bias in
the research would result in the conclusion that a diet containing *no* meat
is ideal. It's just as predictable that observers who share their bias would
disregard it.
Beach Runner
usual suspect wrote:
The AMA supported Viox, thalmadiahide (sp) and is has monopoly on on
American medicine.
In Finland they have 99% less hospital born illness. Our AMA has not
cracked down on this obvious problem/
>>>>>
>>>>> His peers do NOT hold him in very high regard.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It reminds me of BF Skinner
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Barnard doesn't hold a candle to Skinner.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And neither do you. Twat.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If that's what you choose to believe.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Why shouldn't I believe that?
>>
>>
>> Because you have clearly demonstrated a desire to cause people pain.
>
>
> No, I haven't. Cut the crap, Bob. Your *real* objection to my posts is
> that the truth hurts. You've chosen to live a series of lies and to
> peddle deceit and delusions. That's your problem, not mine.
>
>> It's sick behavior.
>
>
> You were a music major; you're entirely incompetent to make such diagnoses.
it is painfully obvious.
Actually, I minored in economics, and have most of an mbA program
completed. It was delivered in house, but when I went to another job
there went that.