Reply #135: Ah, soybeans in the rainforst...

[feloneous cat]

They are cutting down the amazon to raise soy as well, btw.

I assume it is this amazon we are talking about? http://www.nature.org/wherewework/southamerica/brazil/work/art15385.html

I looked at your article at http://www.westonaprice.org/basicnutrition/vegetarianism.html and it basically a poorly written article. When it says "no data was found" they take it to mean that "vegetarianism is bad for you" (or at least offers nothing significant). BUT then you get this gem:

In a review of some 3,000 articles in the scientific literature, Smith found only two that compared mortality data for vegetarians and nonvegetarians. One was a 1978 study of Seventh Day Adventists (SDAs). Two very poor analyses of the data were published in 1984, one by H. A. Kahn and one by D. A. Snowden.

Niiiice.

However, the bottom like kicker is this: THEY DON'T TELL YOU WHAT THE SAMPLE WAS!

Was 10, 100, 1000, or 10,000? WE DON'T KNOW!

This is what is called lying through omission. It has the look of something genuine with just enough pertinent facts missing to prevent you from going "oh, I see".

Almost like there was an agenda...

But lets look at the numbers! The numbers say that in a population of 10,000, if they were all vegetarian there would be 22 people with heart disease. Non-vegetarians, 33. Did they bother to take into account other risk factors (family history for example?) WE DON'T KNOW!

Junk science is still junk science.