You asked me to back up what i said and i have provided you with that, now what do you have to say about the 10,000 dieing from these prescription drugs? regardless if it’s a major killer or not it’s a killer. i wonder if you would be saying the same thing if your family were among thos 10,000?

Thank you for retracting your statement.

Obviously I'd be unhappy if any of my family died for any reason. I'd be unhappy if my family died in a car crash, but I wouldn't campaign to ban cars - I'd simply campaign to improve car and road safety.

ADRs are a risk, but crossing the road is a far bigger risk.

Furthermore, the biggest killers in the world are diseases - ie heart, cancer and respiratory. Hence improvements and discoveries in medicine will hopefully reduce deaths by these diseases.

The major killers are mostly preventable diseases or inventions of man, ie the gun and the car. Ooooooooo such a bright species.

Tell you what, until we can control the gun, car, why bother saving such a clear attempt to wipe itself out??

Thats what a lot of people have already said too, still avoiding the bigger picture??

Its all very touching to say this and that, but its still your science against the world, a science that gave us most of the killers as well as offers the cure.

If we cannot as a humann race stop doing things that directly kill us, and even take care with things that are highly dangerous/high chance of accident/death. Until at least these things happen, why on earth should we throw more resources at the matter. Especially resources some of us regard as individual entities capable of their own thoughts and considerations, and one may argue as valid and valued as yours. Many of the people on this forum would probably argue more so.

quote:

preventable diseases

?

Are you suggesting that genetic disorders such as heart disease, cancer and respiratory disease are some how preventable ?

Having a strict diet and exercise regimen only marginally reduces incidences of these diseases, and hence can't be defined as preventable.

Yes, lets see your proof Malkie.

And please do lets have those humans living the good life in a good environemnt, until their end.

Thx for yout time.

Proof?

Ok, read

quote:

Lifestyle determinants and mortality in German vegetarians and health-conscious persons: results of a 21-year follow-up in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention Volume 14, Issue 4 , April 2005, Pages 963-968

which states :-

quote:

Within the cohort, vegetarian compared with nonvegetarian diet had no effect on overall mortality

or you could read

quote:

Mortality in British vegetarians: review and preliminary results from EPIC-Oxford in The American Journal Of Clinical Nutrition, Volume 78, Issue 3, Supplement , September 2003, Pages 533S-538S

which states :-

quote:

Within the studies, mortality for major causes of death was not significantly different between vegetarians and nonvegetarians

I could go on and on.

VegEd - Are you a human? Or some other species?

You also seem to have problems with the English language. You don't put your point accross well.

Anyway, natural disasters kill more people than cars and guns.

Ok lets deal with the irrelevant first then. Firstly I could actually take more time to construct these messages so as to impress you with my word skills, I just dont care that much about you understanding what I say, by what Ive read of yours it wont help you any.

Im also just banging them out while sat here drinking my coffee on a laptop. So yes off mistakes do and will happen, and I thats life. Added to this joy is this damn forum, which refuses to make my life any easier, but again thats cool, Ill reply with any changes I see fit afterwards as others have done beforehand.

Ill ignore your species comment not only as trite but also as offensive.

So you planning to cure the natural disasters next?? Good luck, please tell me yoiu dont plan to use more animals for this.

As for Malkie, pls try harder, Im also more militanat than that, and dont wish to give you too much ammo to use against me on the 'next' debate that you choose to make 'your' point, whatever it maybe, why saying your on our side.

Well while keeping some level of secrecy on my life, I have actually been involved in some health studies that directly compared vegies vegans and meat eaters for exactly that purpose. HAVE YOU??

remove *off - yes off mistakes
remove *I - and I thats life

Insert , before *as others.

Anymore people, please dont resist pointing them out, and I will try and correct them. If you can read round them, well done, I promise to do likewise on yours should errors exist. :|

quote:

As for Malkie, pls try harder, Im also more militanat than that, and dont wish to give you too much ammo to use against me on the 'next' debate that you choose to make 'your' point, whatever it maybe, why saying your on our side

thank you for retracting your statement

Thats not a retraction you arrogant fook. get a grip, thats saying your judging the wrong diet you simpleton. lol Retraction indeed. All of what you posted are based on vegetarian vs meat, not the vegan equation. Anyone who knows anything about this debate, KNOWS most vegetarians dont have the healthiest diet, as they replace at least half of the meat they stopped with dariy products, hardly the answer Im sure you wont agree.

Even the epic study you mention, you actually know about that EPIC study or do you wish to quote a bit mroe for the masses?? Be warned I am ready for a return visit on this one, I hope you are likewise, cos I remember the prelim results and some of the overall results they came too. Trust me, it DOES NOT say that meat eating is health, just that many veggies dont practice a good diet, and may I add, this isnt probably a probem to many of them/us, it wasnt picked due to the fact is was healthy, another thing you seem to be blindly ignoring.

Don't worry VegEd we know that the vegan diet can be quite sophistacated.

Anyway please tell me what myths I am suppose to be peddling.

Ah, so you want data on vegan diets ? Ok, here we go.

Firstly, it's widely accepted that the only reason that vegans have a reduced risk of cancer, obesity and heart disease because of the high level of non-essential amino acids found in soy (and other related vegan proteins)

It's also been shown that if a meat eat increases their consumption of soy they have the same reduced level of disease, PROVING that it's got nothing to do with meat consumption.

Read the evidence for yourself here :-

quote:

Vegan proteins may reduce risk of cancer, obesity, and cardiovascular disease by promoting increased glucagon activity in Medical Hypotheses Volume 53, Issue 6 , December 1999, Pages 459-485

Further evidence :-

quote:

Hypertension and blood pressure among meat eaters, fish eaters, vegetarians and vegans in EPIC-Oxford in Public Health Nutrition Volume 5, Issue 5 , October 2002, Pages 645-654

Which only reported a less than 10% reduction in hypertension with a vegan diet versus meat diet.

And finally, most importantly, vegans have a much higher risk of stroke :-

quote:

IGF-I activity may be a key determinant of stroke risk – a cautionary lesson for vegans in Medical Hypotheses, Volume 61, Issue 3 , September 2003, Pages 323-334

Which states :-

quote:

low-fat vegan diets tend to down-regulate systemic IGF-I activity; this effect increases stroke risk in vegans.

He also states:

"Although low-fat vegan diets may markedly reduce risk for coronary disease, diabetes, and many common types of cancer, an increased risk for stroke may represent an 'Achilles heel,'" concluded McCarty. "Nonetheless, vegans have the potential to achieve a truly exceptional 'healthspan' if they face this problem forthrightly by restricting salt intake and taking other practical measures that promote cerebrovascular health."

To conclude maybe why we shouldnt listen to mad americans and their mad diets, as truly we can blame them for spreading beef as much as we see. Especially when recommending fish oil to vegans, again even if it was the magical cure to strokes, I can catergorically tell you it wont stop us and we dont believe your science. Again you know these facts, these scientists know all these facts, they studied the lifes of many total vegans have they?? Indeed, we quite a rare bunch, and for sure those that you do find wont be the most willing to be studied or help you with YOUR science. The EPIC study truly was something special and specially for that reason. Sceince as always is finding out stuff alll the time that corrects its thinking, even yours. Theres as much reseacrh saying SOY is good for all sorts, including natural HRT, and while these all sound very productive, again I say we take these as a natural by product of our ethical diet. The proof in the pudding wont be found in ya books Malkie, it will be found in your guts and in the knowledge of yourown health. Until you can produce that human in a sealed environment living on a vegan diet its entire life, aand studying the outcome, your science doesnt even come close, its trying to prove to many of us what we already know. Our diet is better than yours. lol

quote:

The proof in the pudding wont be found in ya books Malkie

what books? Where have referenced any books? I've mentioned a few journal articles, but no books.

quote:

Our diet is better than yours. lol

um, what's *my* diet? Where have I stated anything about my diet ?

You know what they say about assumptions.

Journals, books blah blah. then, until it fills the above requirements its not proving your points.

In the case of assumtions, its hard to use anything else, to say what you actually believe would open you up to too many others, although Im always happy to open myself up a little to debate, even if it makes me an ass.

Prof2006 (page 6), animals will not show which drugs are safe or not safe. Many deadly ones have not been picked up in animals. Using animals is cheaper than designing safe tests for humans and looking after those humans during the tests. Animals can be treated in any way the researchers please, as undercover filming has proved. Using animals is much cheaper, more convenient and easier. And flawed.

The idea of using human bodies is much better than using non-humans. The bodies, once the decision has been made, can be rendered definitely dead. Depending on what they are destined for, they can have parts removed, which can then be used in other tests, and which will ensure that they don't wake up. Bodies are already left to medical science. Relatives already make decisions to turn off life support. These people will have given their permission. As we have said, there are other alternatives to animal testing.

A-D (page 6), they can have my body when I have left it behind. The type of people who are already drug testers can continue to be drug testers. I'm not going to do it. It is you and people like you who are causing the deaths of humans and other animals by your belief in vivisection. Drug development can be started off using alternatives to animal testing. Only when they have been found to be safe in those will they be tested on fully living humans. Using very small doses, increasing when and where appropriate. How many more times do we have to say the same things before you understand?

RobDeManc (page 6), there are alternatives to vivisection. The drug companies and governments know about them. They won't make as much money for the drug companies. If you think that the drug companies would ignore their profits in their saintly desire to help people, you are very wrong. They don't care. Remember, humans can and will do anything if the motivation is high enough. In the 1940s, seemingly civilised men formed a committee which met reguarly to discuss the best methods and materials to use to kill millions of Jews. Don't, for one moment, think that such people don't still exist. When milliards of pounds of profit and huge salaries are at stake, gold-fever mentality can take control. Nothing will be allowed to stand in its way.

quote:

Originally posted by MartinGBUK:

A-D (page 6), they can have my body when I have left it behind. The type of people who are already drug testers can continue to be drug testers. I'm not going to do it. It is you and people like you who are causing the deaths of humans and other animals by your belief in vivisection. Drug development can be started off using alternatives to animal testing. Only when they have been found to be safe in those will they be tested on fully living humans. Using very small doses, increasing when and where appropriate. How many more times do we have to say the same things before you understand?

.

How can you really know whether a drug would be fatal in a dead body?! Really I can't communicate with you people. You said in an earlier post, you're the only one suggesting this idea. You have to wonder why that is. I'll help. The idea itself is submental!

Plus rigor mortis and all the chemical changes that take place following death would make results from your corpse almost meaningless. The scientific community needs you now; alive. You'll be saving the lives of millions!

The actual percentages don't really matter. Hundreds of thousands of people die because of adverse drug reactions each year. I base this on the 106,000 in the USA and that there will probably be another 100,000 elsewhere. Many more than this amount will be made ill by drugs. There will also be those who don't feel well but who don't associate their poor health to their drugs. The health problems might come on after they have stopped taking the drugs. Perhaps they have occasional headaches, indigestion, rashes, and other minor ailments that are cause by the drugs. There could be cases of cancer, heart disease and other conditions caused by drugs that the sufferer stopped taking years before any symptoms appeared. Add to these the children and grandchildren who could be affected by having been exposed to the drugs or their parents' impaired health condition whilst in the womb:

http://www.cdc.gov/des/consumers/daughters/index.html

I would also put the deaths and cases of ill health caused by household cleaners, farm chemicals, various plastics and other chemicals, in with the figures of advers drug reactions. After all, many of these chemicals were passed as safe in animal studies.

quote:

Originally posted by A-D:

quote:

Originally posted by MartinGBUK:

A-D (page 6), they can have my body when I have left it behind. The type of people who are already drug testers can continue to be drug testers. I'm not going to do it. It is you and people like you who are causing the deaths of humans and other animals by your belief in vivisection. Drug development can be started off using alternatives to animal testing. Only when they have been found to be safe in those will they be tested on fully living humans. Using very small doses, increasing when and where appropriate. How many more times do we have to say the same things before you understand?

.

How can you really know whether a drug would be fatal in a dead body?! Really I can't communicate with you people. You said in an earlier post, you're the only one suggesting this idea. You have to wonder why that is. I'll help. The idea itself is submental!

Plus rigor mortis and all the chemical changes that take place following death would make results from your corpse almost meaningless. The scientific community needs you now; alive. You'll be saving the lives of millions!

Who said anything about testing for fatality in these bodies? They could be used to see what the drugs do in a whole system or parts of a whole system. But, wait, they could show that a drug would kill if it stops some vital process. Or if it causes the body to turn into a werewolf.