OT. 'Tragedy at Beverley Races'

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Barchullona said:
I'm just wondering how.
Click to expand...

We let them all live and they eat all the plant produce instead of us as their already huge populations multiply on a colossal scale. We import wolves, bears and other predators to humanely control the populations of former livestock which also turn on people, killing small children whilst they're playing in fields and back gardens. Then eventually we all die because we refuse to eat animals and vegans get to say I told you so.
 
Mr Bob said:
We let them all live and they eat all the plant produce instead of us as their already huge populations multiply on a colossal scale. We import wolves, bears and other predators to humanely control the populations of former livestock which also turn on people, killing small children whilst they're playing in fields and back gardens. Then eventually we all die because we refuse to eat animals and vegans get to say I told you so.
Click to expand...

i wish we had wild wolves and bears
 
Barchullona said:
I'm just wondering how.
Click to expand...

It'll be that meat gives you cancer or something along those lines. In truth, it's true that processed meat like bacon, salami and pepperoni are Type One carcinogens. However, red meat as a whole has been scientifically certified as a "probable" cause of cancer. No tests on humans have ever been conclusive.

Basically, if all you eat is red meat, you have an increased risk of getting certain types of cancer. It's not nailed on, of course and there are other health problems caused by eating too much red meat. But there are health benefits to eating lean red meat and no white meat has been scientifically proven to cause cancer either.

It's a cop out argument, as there are literally thousands of things we do that are avoidable that can give us cancer and even after that, we could do none of it and still catch the bastarding thing. Using a laptop or sitting too close to the TV can give you cancer. Drinking certain alcohols, smoking, working with fossil fuels, The Sun (not the paper, the star (also not the paper)), genetic abnormalities... the list is endless.

I wasn't teaching you to suck eggs by the way, IIRC you have some scientific background so you probably know all this, I just figured this would be the comeback he chose, as it is with most vegans.
 
Sterling Archer said:
It'll be that meat gives you cancer or something along those lines. In truth, it's true that processed meat like bacon, salami and pepperoni are Type One carcinogens. However, red meat as a whole has been scientifically certified as a "probable" cause of cancer. No tests on humans have ever been conclusive.

Basically, if all you eat is red meat, you have an increased risk of getting certain types of cancer. It's not nailed on, of course and there are other health problems caused by eating too much red meat. But there are health benefits to eating lean red meat and no white meat has been scientifically proven to cause cancer either.

It's a cop out argument, as there are literally thousands of things we do that are avoidable that can give us cancer and even after that, we could do none of it and still catch the bastarding thing. Using a laptop or sitting too close to the TV can give you cancer. Drinking certain alcohols, smoking, working with fossil fuels, The Sun (not the paper, the star (also not the paper)), genetic abnormalities... the list is endless.

I wasn't teaching you to suck eggs by the way, IIRC you have some scientific background so you probably know all this, I just figured this would be the comeback he chose, as it is with most vegans.
Click to expand...

What’s a “type one Carcinogen”?

Do you mean “Group 1”?
 
Sir Cheshire Ben said:
I also think the WHO classifications were based on survey data rather than similar long term scientific trials that would be used when classifying new drugs, or similar, as carcinogenic.
Click to expand...

So where does that leave red meat? Less worrying or more worrying? Presumably scientific data is more valued than survey data?
 
Sterling Archer said:
So where does that leave red meat? Less worrying or more worrying? Presumably scientific data is more valued than survey data?
Click to expand...

Absolutely.

To ascertain reliable carcinogenic data you would need to feed red meat each day, at varying levels, to a defined number of groups, usually 4, with a GP size > 192 (96 of each sex). One group would act as a control group & be fed no red meat.

Obviously Groups would need to be similarly made up through set criteria including such things as height, weight, level of fitness & previous diet.

All groups would need to be housed in identical conditions both environmental & economicaly. They would also need to be provided with an identical supporting diet.

Drink would be water only.

Usual length of a Carc study would be 2 years.

Anything other than the above is statistics, surveys & guessing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ImperialTiger
Sir Cheshire Ben said:
Absolutely.

To ascertain reliable carcinogenic data you would need to feed red meat each day, at varying levels, to a defined number of groups, usually 4, with a GP size > 192 (96 of each sex). One group would act as a control group & be fed no red meat.

Obviously Groups would need to be similarly made up through set criteria including such things as height, weight, level of fitness & previous diet.

All groups would need to be housed in identical conditions both environmental & economicaly. They would also need to be provided with an identical supporting diet.

Drink would be water only.

Usual length of a Carc study would be 2 years.

Anything other than the above is statistics, surveys & guessing.
Click to expand...

Good luck to them trying to get any volunteers for that. Drink would be water only?!
 
Sir Cheshire Ben said:
Absolutely.

To ascertain reliable carcinogenic data you would need to feed red meat each day, at varying levels, to a defined number of groups, usually 4, with a GP size > 192 (96 of each sex). One group would act as a control group & be fed no red meat.

Obviously Groups would need to be similarly made up through set criteria including such things as height, weight, level of fitness & previous diet.

All groups would need to be housed in identical conditions both environmental & economicaly. They would also need to be provided with an identical supporting diet.

Drink would be water only.

Usual length of a Carc study would be 2 years.

Anything other than the above is statistics, surveys & guessing.
Click to expand...
Was just going to put the self same ben. Saved me the trouble
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sir Cheshire Ben
Sir Cheshire Ben said:
Absolutely.

To ascertain reliable carcinogenic data you would need to feed red meat each day, at varying levels, to a defined number of groups, usually 4, with a GP size > 192 (96 of each sex). One group would act as a control group & be fed no red meat.

Obviously Groups would need to be similarly made up through set criteria including such things as height, weight, level of fitness & previous diet.

All groups would need to be housed in identical conditions both environmental & economicaly. They would also need to be provided with an identical supporting diet.

Drink would be water only.

Usual length of a Carc study would be 2 years.

Anything other than the above is statistics, surveys & guessing.
Click to expand...

That's interesting. So when a vegan says "meat causes cancer", they're talking bollocks based on a presumption?
 
Sterling Archer said:
That's interesting. So when a vegan says "meat causes cancer", they're talking bollocks based on a presumption?
Click to expand...

I would ask the for the scientific data to back up their claim. A couple of dozen scientists catigaorising different foods based on surveying diets of those with cancer is not scientific.

You can read that this food or that food gives you more chance of getting cancer but as there's no benchmark control it’s not accurate. That’s why guidelines are vague & varied.

What causes cancer to develop in one person may not cause it to develop in another. It’s far more complicated than putting it down to food. That’s why the emphasis is on developing treatments rather than vaccine like preventatives.

Eating red meat can, according to some, increase your chance of developing bowel cancer by 45%. That’s if you eat more than around 220g, 3-4 times a week which is probably a normal intake.

There are at least four different types of bowel cancer each with many sub groups of their own. Some types may be unique to the patient. Which one is red meat causing? Each cancer may react differently to different treatments. That’s why finding treatments is difficult & expensive.

Anyone who suggests there’s a hidden cure for cancer is an ignorant **** who needs head butting.

If a non vegan suggests it, I usually let it go.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back