Harriet Hall's critism of Michael Greger

[miniboes]

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/dea ... more-24760

A response: http://donmatesz.blogspot.nl/2013/02/ha ... egers.html

What do you guys think of these articles?

[Jebus]

This article is a piece of shit. The author is clearly trying to justify the morality of her own meat consumption. She must have looked long and hard to find the "research" that supports her claims. I clicked on a couple of the links and the research methods used in these studies seem very questionable. The final link which is supposed to convince the reader that the animals are better off without veganism addresses an issue that was debunked many years ago.

I didn't have time to read the second article yet but will hopefully get to it later.

[brimstoneSalad]

The final link which is supposed to convince the reader that the animals are better off without veganism addresses an issue that was debunked many years ago.

She says she's not going to talk about those aspects, and then plugs that terrible piece of propaganda.

[brimstoneSalad]

The second link you posted ( http://donmatesz.blogspot.nl/2013/02/ha ... egers.html ) is a pretty excellent rebuttal.

Like Matt Dillahunty, and any creationist or altie quack, it seems Hall is only interested in Science when she already agrees with the conclusions.

Suggest that animal products might be unhealthy, and these people shit bricks.

[Volenta]

I'm actually more shocked by the opening remarks, like her statement that vegans sound like 'religious zealots' when they state that 'right now the biggest social issue facing the world is the violence and suffering of animals'. There actually is a certain truth to it. First you should examine what you mean by the biggest social issue. You could say it's public opinion, but I think it's more reasonable to ask the question: which social issue is addressing the biggest cause of suffering in the world? It should be noted that as an empirical fact it really is animal suffering caused by human desires, simply because of the enormousness scale on which intensive animal farming in taking place—having no trouble outweighing the suffering of the whole human population—and the experience of pain in animals being so similar to that of humans. It's too easy to dismiss people that are making valid points of critic of society as religious zealots…

[miniboes]

I recently stumbled upon the blog of Neal Barnard, I'm not sure if the argument that eggs do not raise cholesterol significantly and that is supported by studies came up, but this blog post has a really good response:
http://www.pcrm.org/nbBlog/index.php/th ... dible-egg/

"What The New York Times blog fails to explain is that eating an occasional egg might not increase health risks for people already eating a high-fat, high-cholesterol diet—just as smoking an occasional cigar might not increase health risks for people already smoking cigarettes. But if people are already eating a healthful diet without any added dietary cholesterol, eggs can contribute to many problems in addition to heart disease. Recent studies in Atherosclerosis and the International Journal of Cancer show that egg consumption can also cause diabetes and even cancer."