Rapid Responses to:

PAPERS: M Thorogood, J Mann, P Appleby, and K McPherson Risk of death from cancer and ischaemic heart disease in meat and non-meat eaters BMJ 1994; 308: 1667-1670 [Abstract] [Full text]

Rapid Responses: Submit a response to this article

Rapid Responses published:

Try cow milk product elimination due to cholesterol

Kerrie Saunders   (14 December 2001)

The true place and form of judgment in interpreting such tests and drawing relevant conclusions from them.

John J Bayne   (1 April 2009)

Try cow milk product elimination due to cholesterol 14 December 2001
Kerrie Saunders, speaker Port Sanilac, MI 48469, etc. Send response to journal: Re: Try cow milk product elimination due to cholesterol	This study, once again, lacks the exclusion of animal fluid products in its design. Cholesterol and saturated fat are multiplied in animal fluid processing, when compared to animal flesh. It is necessary to see the entire dietary picture as relevant when looking for truthful and sweeping disease reduction recommendations. Many people who eliminate animal flesh actually increase their intake of animal fluid (i.e. cow milk, goat milk, cheese, cottage cheese, etc.) True dietary recommendations regarding animal products need to begin with the premise that the harmful substances to humans are present in the flesh AND fluids of animals.
The true place and form of judgment in interpreting such tests and drawing relevant conclusions from them. 1 April 2009
John J Bayne, Maintenance personel at McDonald's Hawera Hawera 4800, South Taranaki, New Zealand Send response to journal: Re: The true place and form of judgment in interpreting such tests and drawing relevant conclusions from them.	Hello, I have been moved to comment on the comparison of the results between eating excluding meat from one's diet and not, as regards minimizing premature mortality and the correct procedure that needs to be adhered to in drawing realistic and relevant conlusions from that test. I include the subject of the role and form of the element of judgment in this process, the comment already made on December 14, 2001. Firstly with regards to the actual survey, I believe that the tradition, rather than the mandatory method, for drawing conclusions from empirical observations, obscures the original purpose unintentionally by becoming too preoccupied with formal compliance with the logical processes to the extent that commonsense and insight are inadvertently brushed aside. For example, I feel quite on solid ground to say that, the professed purpose of this study, that would justify time and even money being spent on it, is for the purpose of being able to find out if excluding meat from one's diet is going to significantly reduce (or not) the degree of premature mortality that is currently believed to be reducing the potential of the human life to enjoy its full term of the privilege of living in the highest of the four kingdoms that make up the entire physical universe (mineral, vegetable, animal and human). This being the case, and accompanying factors found to be consistently and significantly increased in the life of the meat eater, such as tobacco, alcohol, coffee and tea, being also able to induce premature mortality, especially from cancer, one does not have to look into that in order to rightfully declare that if one goes down that path one will encounter these additional hazards but if one goes down the other there is far less of those life shortening habits so that it is really a choice of only two paths here, the path entered on by choosing to eat meat and the path entered into by choosing not to eat meat, and the idea is to confirm by empirical observation that those who go down the meat eating path enjoy "x" percent less privilege of time allowed in the world of the human kingdom, before death reduces that person to the mineral kingdom. Focusing on the other factors of tobacco, coffee, tea and alcohol does not have the power to change the nature of the two paths nor the options, one iota but it does have the negative effect of causing confusion leading to delusion on the original question, which is the identifying of the two paths by empirical observation, so that the relative degree of time spent in the human kingdom offered by each can determine, (i)which offers the most time in this kingdom (ii) and how much more time? For example, is there enough increased time in the human kingdom (maximum avoidance of premature mortality)to justify a significant reward to sacrifice one's taste buds and discipline one's natural carnal inclinations for meat eating, tobacco, coffee, tea and alcohol for? Regards John Bayne Competing interests: None declared