FreedomPhilosophy

Science is never "settled" because scientific facts (unlike plain facts) are always subject to revision in the light of new evidence. The evidence of what is unhealthy about meat is what it is. If you think that evidence is wrong then discredit it.Presenting a few pieces of conflicting data does not necessarily refute a theory. There can be errors in such data, a theory could also be generally sound but unable to explain some phenomena fully. Can there truly be equality within a species?

Do you understand what confirmation bias is, or what the term cherry-picking refers to?

You need to study the body of work and show me why you consider the authorities on the topic to be incorrect. It is you who present the controversial position. The evidence that meat is bad for people is in the literature and abundantly presented on various internet platforms. There is a vast amount of supportive data from a range of scientific fields. If you are not prepared to review this and understand the scientific consensus, then I'm hardly motivated to discus at length the few seemingly contrary findings you present.The best research I am aware of that approaches controlled studies of meat vs vegetarian are the Seventh Day Adventist studies. This population share a fairly consistent lifestyle (not drinking, not smoking, exercsie etc.) yet some are vegetarian whereas others are not. The vegetarians lived a few years longer on average than the meat eaters and suffered from less degenerative illness. Google AHS-1 / Adventist Health Study 1. See also http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/3/526S.longAs for the Masai they experience extreme atherosclerosis...

A tedious exchange I suspect! Clearly an objective definition of "exploitation" is required, because this is what the socialist argument seems to hinge upon. Yet apparently exploitation is something ordinary people are too stupid or ignorant to comprehend? How do socialist know they have not been exploited, what special knowledge about reality or abilities do they have that the ordinary person has not? I think we are seeing a difference of opinions, not a factual discourse.

There are no "controlled studies" indicating that meat is healthy or necessary to consume, but there is heaps of evidence that it is not. From these 2 facts alone a rational person will limit or remove meat from their diet (assuming that there are other things to eat known to be healthy). It is rare if not impossible to obtain definitive scientific conclusions in relation to human health, so the science is instead based on the weight of evidence, the theory being most parsimonious with the known facts being the one favoured.People waiting in denial until some unattainable scientific proof arises are engaged in acts of faith.

Yeah, it would be the worst thing in the world to risk being called a racists, so forget the kids, I'm taking my pay and keeping my nice government welfare job.

I'd prefer to be identified by stool sample instead.

Yeah, as I suggested anything below $350 was an exit short (or buy) opportunity. I think that was a pretty good call.

It's not enough to present a few questionable contrary findings, you have to be able to explain away over a century of findings inconsistent with what you believe. Those exhibiting denialism don't do this, just like creationism nuts don't actually deal with evolutionary theory.

Dr McDougall is a qualified medical doctor who's treatments are based on medical science and empirically lead to patient recovery. You are the "quack".

This is very misleading. Physiological cholesterol levels can only be raised so high, there is a saturation point and in most individuals the excess of dietary fat leaves little ceiling room for dietary cholesterol to elevate total cholesterol much further. I remember this phenomena is explained in one of the many Plant Positive videos on youtube, along with a relevant chart and in the article linked below. Cholesterol feeding experiments upon animals consistently lead to elevated cholesterol, this is true even in species adapted to consume meat*. Eggs are an animal product with a very high cholesterol to fat ratio compared to other popular animal products and they are associated with elevated CVD risk. Dr Greger has a few programs on this topic. *Since 1913 it has been demonstrated in thousands of animal experiments that the feeding of cholesterol, including in the form of fresh egg yolk accelerates the development of atherosclerosis in virtually every vertebrate species that has been sufficiently challenged. This includes mammalian, avian and fish species- herbivores, omnivores and carnivores, and over one dozen different species of nonhuman primates. https://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2013nl/may/travis.htm

At no point in my latest presentation or associated summary text do I express confidence in a price of $1150 soon, I'm less bullish now than 6 months ago. Instead I have given 2 trading scenarios should the market break above or below the current area of consolidation.Recently the market has been testing the $570 support again and it looks like it may hold up.

Keys did not cherry pick or falsify data, he ignored outliers because the data collection criteria for them were not consistent with the rest of the data in the set. You can only compare consistently gathered data. It's the Seven Countries Study btw and Keys lived to the age of 100. The lipid hypothesis is accepted by any reasonable person familiar with the science involved, that's why it appears in medical text books. We know the lipid hypothesis is correct because dietary and drug interventions empirically support it amongst a whole lot of other data.The Innuit thrived? No they got heart disease even centuries ago, parasites and osteoporosis too.

Here's my analysis of the bitcoin summer market. An analysis of the Bitcoin market post MtGox! Dramatic declines in Bitcoin price towards the end of December left some pundits calling a bubble in Bitcoin. However a few weeks later in early January, after reviewing the situation it was clear that the bubble did not pop. Bubbles tend to occur when non-professional investors attempt to trade on gossip causing a dramatic price increase that attracts more greedy investors to join later to catch some of the action. Once the high is reached everyone sells off to try and take profit and prices return to their original levels. A money market like Bitcoin was a poor candidate for a price bubble and as I explained, the price range established mid November offered support to what appeared to be a crash. The failure of MtGox did not shake the other exchanges and although prices continued to decline in a down-trend on lowering volumes, prior lows probed more deeply but held and then the down-trend broke after consolidation mid May followed by recovery. Summer brings a return of confidence in the market with consolidation around $450 in May and $550 to $670 area in June-July. Conclusions Overall a bullish outlook but still with concern from the lower low swing down to $350 in April. Opportunities to trade short if $550 breaks to test below $350 or if $670 area breaks, then up to $850 and perhaps probe the highs again at around $1150.. The above information and the associated program are purely intended for educational purposes, they are not intended as advice or a solicitation to trade. Interested in more regular Bitcoin updates? Then please let me know. Errata: At 8:08 I describe the bottom at $670 instead of $570 (dark blue line in B region). Donate http://freedomphilosophy.tv/donate/

Post 1 peer reviewed article that claims humans require animal products, or 1 citation from an authoritative medical text book that supports what you claim. There is no such evidence, if there were, the meat industry would be all over it. Then you were not looking, again: [*] 1 The Journalist Gary Taubes 1: Controlling Histor[*]2 The Journalist Gary Taubes 2: A Parajournalism P[*]3 The Journalist Gary Taubes 3: Ancel Keys Was Ver[*]4 The Journalist Gary Taubes 4: Ancel Keys Was Ver[*]5 The Journalist Gary Taubes 5: John Yudkin Was Ve[*]6 The Journalist Gary Taubes 6: Lessons from the D[*]7 The Journalist Gary Taubes 7: Anomaly Hunter 1[*]8 The Journalist Gary Taubes 8: Anomaly Hunter 2[*]9 The Journalist Gary Taubes 9: Anomaly Hunter 3[*]10 The Journalist Gary Taubes 10: Anomaly Hunter 4[*]11 The Journalist Gary Taubes 11: Oil-Based Nutrit[*]12 The Journalist Gary Taubes 12: Oil-Based Nutrit[*]13 The Journalist Gary Taubes 13: The Taubes Filte[*]14 The Journalist Gary Taubes 14: Those Scientists[*]15 The Journalist Gary Taubes 15: Pesky Facts[*]16 The Journalist Gary Taubes 16: A Case Against F

There is no doubt that diet influences evolution, but that doesn't mean that meat eating is healthy for humans.I'm well aware that scientists use the words omnivore and omnivorism. I've addressed the humans are "omnivores" topic with a 16 page book. Quite a few paragraphs are spent on examining the use and meaning of the word. Again you present no evidence to support the humans should/need to/safely can consume meat claims.

The plant positive youtube series IS peer review. Dehmelts paper is a peer reviewed article from a journal.The paleo diet is either pseudo science or at least controversial, so the standard of evidence required is very high. My ebook makes no controversial claims (Darwin claimed that humans are frugivores), but it is not peer reviewed and that should be taken into consideration. Of course if you want to discredit any of my claims then please do so.

People do argue about this topic and you are right that it remains a contentious issue, but maybe not as contentious as you think. We can measure directly the immediate unhealthy effects of consuming animal products using empirical methods. Two examples come to mind, the inflammatory response after consuming animal products and the impact on vasodilation after consuming fatty foods (particularly animal products) - there are more examples too. Endotoxin Inflammation Thoery Empirical evidence of animal products in vascular pathology: What confuses the issue is genetic variations that may mean that some people fail to thrive in the long term without animal products. That does not mean that these people could not do better on a vegan diet, but finding all the nutrients they need in the right amounts might be much harder on a vegan diet for some people. For example I know someone with a polymorphism that increases their need for choline which is abundant in eggs but only in a few plant foods and supplements - so this person cannot casually go vegan, they must plan their diet to include the right foods for their individual genome. I don't express this gene polymorphism so I find being a vegan much easier. My philosophy when I started going vegetarian was simple, I will try it and if I don't thrive I will find out what I was missing and include that again. This has been throughly debunked by plant positive.

It's not peer reviewed. That's fine, you are of course free to do with your time as you wish. However, both science and philosophy require that you examine and account for evidence that is contrary to your views. Failing to do so is known confirmation bias, which is the stuff of creation theorists and other crackpots like Taubes.If you watch my video, you will see that I correct Miltons concept of using great apes as models because they are derived species. I have given my source and that provides compelling evidence.If you are not interested in being rigorous with disciplines such as science or philosophy, that's fine, but then do not try to present yourself as having useful knowledge on the topics in question. Evidence that our ancestors ate meat is not evidence that they were adapted to such a practice, nor is it evidence that this practice is health or necessary. Extant humans consume all manner of unhealthy things, someone would look foolish to suggest in 10,000 years that eating Krispy Kreme was healthy adaptive behaviour on the basis that people did it centuries ago.Your point about increasing brain size is very questionable. Firstly the evidence is for decreased somatisation, not increased encephalisation (see The Symbolic Species, Deacon). And the expensive tissue hypothesis is discredited see: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22507754 http://paleovegan.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/its-curtains-for-expensive-tissue.html I freely admit I don't know what omnivorous means, it's rather the point of my book that it has no scientifically useful meaning. The wild boar is classified as an omnivore, it's diet is 99% plant matter and 1% earth worms. What does that tell me about what I should eat?

The journalist Gary Taubes torn to shreds (1 of 16): Humans have the anatomy and physiology of a frugivorous primate that has not evolved to consume meat like chimps have. It's hopeless to label human omnivores, the term has no useful application in terms of selecting an optimal human diet. My free ebook exploding the urban myth that humans are omnivores: http://freedomphilosophy.tv/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Are-Humans-Omnivores-2nd-Ed.pdf A vegan diet that included B12 is possible historically. Primates can derive B12 from numerous sources under natural conditions including: 1) copraphagia - http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v283/n5749/abs/283781a0.html 2) invertebrate matter (insects etc.) on/in fruits and leaves http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3253e/i3253e06.pdf 3) presence of bacterial in plant matter http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1016/S0168-6496(04)00003-0/full 4) carrion (technically road kill is vegan so long as killed accidentally) Most of these sources are unacceptable to modern humans because of sanitation, use of pesticides and bug resistant crops. They couldn't win Stef over with their BS and pseudoscience, that must of left some butthurt.

With that being said, I have some questions for all of you: -How many of you are vegetarians/vegans and what do you think about the lifestyle? Going vegan 23 years ago is one of the best things I ever did, eating low fat high raw vegan since 1996 even better.. -Do you guys see eating meat as wrong even though morals can't be considered when an animal is involved due to their lack of capability to understand morals?Eating meat is not immoral, meat is dead matter, it is how it is acquired that raises moral concerns. Consuming road kill or naturally deceased animals would be technically compatible with vegan ethics. I reject the contractualist account of morality based on the argument from marginal cases. (I reject Stephans attempts to dodge the argument from marginal cases as well.) -Do the cravings for meat every go away because I cannot stop thinking about it? All cravings should go eventually, I found cheese and bread the hardest things to quit. With the exception of breast milk, all human tastes are acquired by habit. -Is it even healthy for humans to go vegan/vegetarian because I literally hear two sides to all of it and being as uneducated as I am in the health department, I can't figure out which is correct and incorrect?A considerable variety of evidence indicates that animal products are unhealthy for humans. The devil is in the detail though, a vegan diet must be correctly planned for optimal long term wellness. -If you are a vegan/vegetarian, do you have any foods/stores you can recommend? The produce isle. If you wish to economise stick to some staples like pulses and rice or potatoes plus some fresh veggies and check out http://www.fredericpatenaude.com/vegan100/If you have a head for science visit http://plantpositive.com/. Although I am vegan I don't have a moral issue with killing insects. Insects are not self aware, they are not like "people" - in contrast all mammals are self aware and express personality to some degree or other. That said, if anyone had a habit of intentionally killing insects (other than that they were hungry without alternatives), I would suspect they had a mental problem.

In this program I review recent news that the judiciary would like to extend access to the divorce process to the unmarried. I look at the cause of declining rates of marriage and the effects this is having on the divorce industry.

This probably relates to the high operational sex ratio between men and women under natural conditions. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlFj57ASDSI contains related material