On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 06:50:28 -0600, Geoffrey Purcell  
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Ther have been a huge number of studies damning all meats. While some  
> have been rather vague, the sheer number involved is rather conclusive.
Actually, it's amazingly easy to distort either the design of the study, or
the writeup of the study.  The Framingham study has shown the benefits of  
eating
meat, but is often written up in direct contradiction to the actual  
results.

Most studies have vested interests.  In particular, studies which are  
designed
to show health problems associated with meat eating are very common.  Of  
course, if
you design your study carefully, you can get it to prove whatever you  
want.  It's
an ethical issue for many vegetarians and vegans.  They haven't had much  
luck changing
people's ethical beliefs, so they're trying to do it with health issues,  
and they're
very industrious.

You may also have noticed numerous articles recently stating how
cows cause global warming, etc., and meat takes 11,000 gallons of water  
per pound to
produce, etc.  (I don't remember the exact number, but it was insane.)  Of  
course, it's
the soybeans, corn, wheat, etc., that uses all that water.  And feeding  
the cows that
poor excuse for bovine food causes flatulence, e coli, etc. etc.  And  
produces heaps of manure, methane, etc.  A steer eating grass in the field  
doesn't spend the entire day guzzling hundreds of gallons of water.   
You've got to keep your wits about you when you
read this stuff.

	Lynnet