Jean-Louis tried to make a point by creating a non-sarcastic sacasm that made a
point for me 100 times better than any point *I* could have made:


> People have [high] cholesterol because they eat
> unhealthy animals but cows raised on high-Brix grass have a better
> fatty-acid profile.

Thank you, thank you, thank you---people for years have told me about this.  I
know you were having fun, but it appears you inadvertently dumped out a great
truth.  Sure, a very big problem with today's beef is that it is fed low-quality
*grain* in huge feeding lots (where is Don Wiss when I need him?) and the
fatty-acid profile degenerates.

Another point: in the  past ten years at least 3 people plagued with cholesterol
problems told me that their doctors (all 3 AMA types) had warned them about
eating supermarket beef.  However, the medicos then added "wild game or
range-fed beef is OK."  Evidently at least a few of the doctors are defying the
AMA "it's all the same" party line.

Also, the verdict seems to be back in the case of chickens.  For instance, the
fatty-acid profile in eggs from free-range chickens, where they get abundant
grass, is dramatically superior (so I hear) to those forced to eat low-quality
(sometimes moldy) grains.  I don't know what the semi-scientists are reporting
about the meat, but it's clearly better in the chickens I raise.  I can promise
you that I'll never raise another chicken that doesn't have access to
high-quality grass.

Thanks, Jean-Louis.  We've obviously had our differences in the past when I idly
pulled the plug in some of the semi-scientific studies you like to post, by
simply mentioning the quality differences.  I think you knew there was nothing
personal---I just want to see semi-science stomped out.  If you're saying
by-gones are by-gones, I'm with you.

Regards,
Rex Harrill
PS: 'semi-scientific' is not directed toward you.  It is just my way of pointing
out that much of what scientists present to the world as truth is either
half-baked, or half-bought, or both.