"Studies have shown that vegetarians have
approximately double the natural killer cell activity (natural killer cells
engulf and destroy cancer cells) compared to nonvegetarians."
You need to be a member of The Frugivore Diet to add comments!
Replies
I don't want to start too many threads, so I'll just respond to this one instead:
Got finished watching the Neal Barnard DvD found a Dean Ornish study of interest:
http://ornishspectrum.com/proven-program/the-research/
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/cancer-reversal-through-diet/
"We examined the effects of intensive lifestyle changes on men with early stage Prostate Cancer after 1 year. After 1 year, none of the men in the experimental group underwent conventional treatments compared to 6 in the control group. Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) decreased 4% in the experimental group compared to a 6% increase in the control group, and prostate cancer cell growth was inhibited almost eight times as much in the experimental group compared to the control group. These results indicate that intensive lifestyle changes may effect the progression of early low grade prostate cancer." http://ornishspectrum.com
Impressive. More and more my perception is that the science for a vegan diet exists. The naysayers are just relying upon the "memory hole" hoping the public will forget these studies. The criticism is often laughable relying upon prejudice against vegans and animal rights groups in general. For example there is a website that is a humanesociety hate group. I'm not kidding, they h8 an animal right group. Here they are:
http://www.humanewatch.org/hsus_doc_exposed_as_schlock/
let's not forget their partner in crime sciencebasedmedicine:
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/death-as-a-foodborne-illness-c...
The scary fact is people are listening to these sites and people. Todo: criticize the criticism of Dr. Greger.
I know I'm starting several projects at once, and not really finishing any of them. Yet, I'm of the opinion its best not to gold plate. Make an average rebuttal against several opponents, rather than one awesome counterpoint. I may be wrong.
Let me start, the Humanewatch's words are dripping with contempt and hatred. Throwing words around like shill and cherrypicking. People tend to see their own flaws in others, its obvious for me that this group is a shill for the Dairy and meat industry. As for cherry picking, the funding effect comes to mind. So what if Greger skipped over studies endorsed by coca-cola.
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/food-industry-funding-effect/
As for sciencebasedmedicine.org at least they are more literate than most. As for going through the studies and criticizing them. I'm starting to realize there is plenty, plenty of additional studies in favor of veganism. Even if Hall found flaws, there is plenty more. More importantly, the supposed flaws are just soft pedaling. Meaning playing down the significance of the findings.
Finally, Hall types too much and her last link is poor quality. Just because roaming cattle could have less environmental impact, doesn't mean its feasible. This is misleading because people will be like "gee I can eat beef and that's ok." Not realizing that the cow is factory farmed raised. The world's cattle alone could feed 8.7 billion people. Forks over Knives.
http://www.thereasonstobeavegan.com/products/forks-over-knives
One more note, roaming cattle are more expensive. If you watch the Food Stamped documentary you will realize beans and rice is the way to go for the poor.
http://www.foodstamped.com/
In summary, the meat and diary industry are cornered like the cigarette companies were and Coca-Cola is now. They are hiring people like Hall to slow down vegan-ism so they can make more money. Every day they deny, more money is put into the meat, dairy, and pharmaceutical industries pocket.
I learned some new information from watching bite sized vegan's videos. In Hall's argument here she referenced this site:
http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/6822461573/veganism-is-not-the-lifes...
Which the author Rhys Southan summaries "Davis’ point two main points – sullied as they were by poorly-chosen details and imaginary numbers – were simple: it is possible to harm fewer animals by eating some animal products, and to animals, less harm is better, no matter how humans make that possible." Southan
Yet, where do the free range cattle come from? The Amazon rainforest cleared by slave labor. The amount of land used is huge for grazing cattle.
Source: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/planet...
Also of note is Bite Sized Vegan's video.
http://www.30bananasaday.com/video/vegans-kill-animals-more-than-me...
The fish argument:
Often I see the argument made for consuming fish. The health benefits seems to all derive from omega 3 fatty acids. Flax seeds provides lots of omega 3 and beans a little.
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/legumes-and-legume-products/7698/2
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/finfish-and-shellfish-products/...
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/nut-and-seed-products/3163/2
197 mg of omega 3 for baked beans.
4023 mg for salmon
38325 mg for flax seed.
It should be obvious that you can be vegan and receive plenty of omega 3s. Yet, salmon is 54% fat. I wouldn't want that as the mainstay of my diet. Salmon is also expensive, wild caught can cost over 10$ a pound. As for tuna, which is low fat, who eats tuna alone? Tuna salad is more likely, and guess what mayonnaise is how much % fat? 90% fat. I used to use two parts mayonnaise per one part tuna. That's high fat.
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/fats-and-oils/7520/2
See the film We Feed the World to see how cruel fishing is. See Neal Barnard's documentaries on why high fat is so bad.
Eating fish is expensive, unhealthy, and cruel. Meanwhile vegan alternatives for omega 3's exist.
The fish argument part II:
I don't think I have driven this point in quite enough. With flax seed one might be like but its 66% fat? Ok, but it has so much omega 3s you don't need much. Just grind up the flax seeds in a Vitamix and make a green smoothie.
As for fish they are also environmentally unfriendly too. Watch Sos Planet, to see how overfishing and destruction of the coral reefs are effecting the environment. Onto health, mercury and bio-accumulation is a problem with a large fish like tuna. Finally high fat is bad because of intramyocellular lipid. Simply excess fat accumulates inside the cells.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2677007/
Fish argument part III:
Paleo argument:This native group or this tribe ate fish and lived a long time. Response, depletion of the ocean's fisheries and pollution.
http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/blue_planet/problems/problems_...
Ironic that the very tribes we study like the Eskimo's that are healthy eating lots of fish we are depriving by over-fishing with industrial trawlers. We are also polluting the ocean again depriving them of this resource they depend upon. There is only a finite number of fish in the sea, and that number is running out.
To summarize don't consume fish for the following reasons:
I. Animal cruelty
II. Enviorment
III. Health
IV. Humanitarian reasons
V. Economic
Your effectively being cruel to fish, while destroying the environment, your health, primitive tribes, and your wallet.
I was in a rush, no idea why everything veered to the left. Anyways I was watching Barnard's DvDs which are awesome in my opinion.
link again, this time not veered to the left.
http://www.pcrm.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/health/cancer/Cancer_S...
Here's the quote "Studies have shown that vegetarians have
approximately double the natural killer cell activity (natural killer cells
engulf and destroy cancer cells) compared to nonvegetarians." Barnard & Reilly
Barnard talks about also talks about fat and estrogen and how fat is an organ that produces estrogen. Estrogen in a test tube causes rampant cancer growth. There is so much wealth of information I can't really do it much justice. 258 pages is a lot to read through.
Here's the original source Barnard and Reilly cited:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2771803
I'm really happy to find this.