Skip to content

Lancet Obesity Report Slammed As “One Sided & Not Backed By Rigorous Science”

February 10, 2019
tags:

By Paul Homewood

 

 

Last month, I reported on the Lancet Commission on Obesity report. It came across to me as another fanatical, highly politicised, left wing and anti democratic report, in similar vein to their regular ones on Climate Change.

 

image

 https://www.thelancet.com/commissions/global-syndemic

 

Now, it has been slammed by the Nutrition Coalition in the US, which is a non-profit, non-partisan educational organization, founded in 2015, with the primary goal of ensuring that U.S. nutrition policy is based on rigorous scientific evidence.

This is the Nutrition Coalition’s response:

 

image

The EAT-Lancet Report published last week, with headlines globally, stated that to save both planetary and human health, the world’s population needed to cut back dramatically on red meat and other animal products. The prescription is very close to a vegan diet.

Report Based on Fundamentally Weak Science

This report is disturbing on a number of fronts. Most importantly, its diet lacks the backing of any rigorous science. Indeed, it does not cite a single clinical trial to support the idea that a vegan/vegetarian diet promotes good health or fights disease. Instead EAT-Lancet relies entirely on a type of science that is weak and demonstrably unreliable, called epidemiology. This kind of science has been shown to be accurate, when tested in rigorous clinical trials, only 0-20% of the time.[1][2] One wouldn’t bet on a football team with such poor odds, so why bet on the public health this way?

Even the most recent U.S. Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, which clearly favored a vegetarian diet and recommended it to the entire U.S. public, found, in their review of the scientific evidence, that the power of this diet to fight any nutrition-related disease was “limited”— the lowest rank given for available data.

In the same vein, there is no rigorous (clinical trial) data on humans to show that red meat causes any kind of disease. This data can been seen in a 2-pager that The Nutrition Coalition published last week, in tandem with the EAT-Lancet report.

A One-sided Commission and No Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest

The EAT-Lancet commission was portrayed as the product of 37 scientists from around the world. However, in reality, the authors represented a very narrow range of opinions: 31 out of the 37 (>80%) had established published records as being in favor of vegetarian/vegan or anti-meat diets. This include seven from a Stockholm think tank (and EAT co-founder) dedicated to reducing/eliminating meat for environmental reasons. Thus, although readers are given the impression that the EAT authors have been objectively convened to comprehensively evaluate the science, the reality is that this group was one-sided from the start. Instead of grappling with the very real scientific controversies that exist on these topics, the group considered virtually none of the science that contradicts their views.

On diet and health, the lead commissioner was Walter Willett, professor at the Harvard Chan School of Public Health, and his extensive, significant potential conflicts of interest are published in a separate, 8-page document here.

It is also a matter of concern that none of the authors’ potential conflicts of interest were disclosed by The Lancet, an apparent violation of its standard disclosure policies.

The EAT Diet is Nutritionally Insufficient…

The EAT-Lancet diet is not only nutritionally deficient, it has been likened by some observers to the macrobiotic fad diets popular in the 1970s that resulted in severe protein and nutritional deficiencies.

UK researcher Zoe Harcombe, Ph.D., analyzed the EAT-Lancet diet and found it to provide only 17% of retinol (needed for eye health), 5% of our Vitamin D needs, 22% of sodium, 67% of potassium, 55% of calcium, and 88% of iron. Yet low as these numbers are, they would be worse still if one were to factor in the reality that most of these nutrients are less “bio-available” to humans when consumed from plant rather than animal sources.

The EAT diet is also deficient in Vitamin B12, which can only be obtained from animal foods. EAT’s note in the table below states that animal sources of protein can equally well be replaced with “plant proteins” but does not note that doing so would make the diet far more deficient in B12, which is crucial for the healthy growth and cognitive development of children, as well as the ongoing health of adults.

Thus, this diet is fairly sure to lead to malnutrition and ill health. Read Harcombe’s blog post on the subject here.

………….

The Corporate Interests Behind EAT-Lancet

EAT-Lancet was launched simultaneously in 40 cities with a massive PR budget. Who funded all this? All we know is that EAT has an extensive array of corporate partnerships.

Tim Rees of Nutritional Therapy Online created a table of all the EAT-Lancet corporate funders. These include;

—Seven Big Pharma companies, with drugs for many nutrition-related diseases
—About 20 Big Food companies, including Kellogg’s, Nestle, and PepsiCo.

Note that the companies selling highly processed foods, like Nestle and Kellogg’s are essentially vegan. The vast majority of packaged foods sold on the inner aisles of supermarkets—cookies, crackers, chips (crisps), candy, cereals—are made up of the same basic ingredients: soy, corn, grains, sugars, and salt. This is vegan. These companies would presumably like nothing more than to put a big green V on their packages to give them a reason to advertise their foods as healthy.

Meanwhile, the pharmaceutical companies profit from selling drugs, insulin, and devices that sick people need. Would these companies be backing EAT if this diet were to genuinely improve health, reduce disease, and thus, shrink their profits? It’s hard to imagine.

Moreover, also supporting the EAT-Lancet report are:

—14 chemical companies, including BASF, the “world’s largest chemical company.”

What is the interest of these companies in supporting a report targeting animal agriculture as the main driver of global warming if not—perhaps—to displace attention away from their own polluting activities? Or perhaps they make the pesticides that grow crops.

One cannot know the answer to all these questions, but the massive level of corporate backing clearly raises serious questions about the interests behind this report, especially when there is no rigorous evidence to support the idea that this diet promotes human health and quite a bit of evidence to show that it causes harm.

The Globe-Trotting Billionaires Behind the Report

The founder and executive chair of EAT, vegan Norwegian billionaire, Gunhild Stordalen, says she has a passion for preventing climate change. Shortly after publication of EAT-Lancet, however, she was revealed to be the owner of a $26 million private jet which she and her husband regularly fly to exotic locations around the world—thus emitting vast amounts of their own greenhouse gasses (GHG) and causing some observers to wonder if Stordalen was unwittingly enacting a modern-day version of “let them eat cake.”

The Mirror UK published, “Globe-trotting billionaire behind campaign to save planet accused of blatant hypocrisy.”

On Twitter, one observer did some calculations:

Thanks to Belinda Fettke and    her article    for this find.

Thanks to Belinda Fettke and her article for this find.

One could ask, further, about the GHG emitted by the whole EAT-Lancet project. Thirty-seven authors from 16 countries were gathered together for at least two scientific meetings, followed in 2019 by at least 5 “launch” meetings by the Commission, as well as a further massive roll-out last week in 35 sites worldwide.

A second EAT-Lancet paper, released January 27th, involved 43 authors from countries around the globe, who were gathered for 9 “workshops” and 3 meetings in various locations worldwide. How much GHG was required to enable all this travel?

Although many researchers claim that planes, trains, and automobiles do not produce as much greenhouse gases as do cows, there are contrary views on this topic. For instance, as the Food and Agriculture Organization recently pointed out, the GHG of livestock have been calculated to include both direct and indirect costs, whereas the transport sector has been analyzed looking only at direct costs. I’m not an expert in the environmental issues here, but this does seem like a worrisome oversight.

One Other Significant Funder of EAT-Lancet: The Wellcome Trust

Among the complex network of funders behind EAT, the Wellcome Trust is a principal one, for the report’s scientific component (as opposed to the worldwide PR). The trust, with $29.2 billion in assets, is funded by the Wellcome family and its pharmaceutical fortune. This family also has a three-generation history in the 7th Day Adventist Church, including a member—the father of the trust’s founder—who was a church elder. The 7th Day Adventist Church promotes vegetarianism as part of its religious beliefs and has pursued an aggressive mission to spread these beliefs and practices around the world. This raises the disturbing question of whether a religious agenda might be informing the EAT-Lancet report.

EAT-Lancet Aggressive in its Policy Recommendations: Wants Near-Vegan Diet for All

EAT-Lancet states that “the scale of change to the food system is unlikely to be successful if left to the individual or the whim of consumer choice.” [Emphasis added.] Thus, the report advocates:

“hard policy interventions include laws, fiscal measures, subsidies and penalties, trade reconfiguration, and other economic and structural measures….[C]ountries and authorities should not restrict themselves to narrow measures or soft interventions. Too often policy remains at the soft end of the policy ladder.”

Because meat taxes seems to be the intervention of choice, stay tuned for those…and other measures intervening in our daily choices about what to eat.

There’s a Better, Evidence-based Way Forward

In all, EAT-Lancet has every indication of being the product of international industrialist interests, from processed food companies, whose products provoke nutrition-related diseases, to pharmaceutical companies, whose profits are fueled by those diseases, to the world’s chemical companies, whose interests in environmental well-being are elusive. The common cause of these industries appears now to be scapegoating meat for all environmental and health ills. And they have found willing advocates in the committed, idealistic vegans and environmentalists who deeply believe in these solutions.

We should return to the fundamentals of good science. Establishing policy based on weak science leads to unintended consequences as we’ve seen time and again—with the mistaken policies recommending hormone replacement therapy, caps on cholesterol, and more. Such policies actually ended up causing far more harm than good, as the EAT diet seems bound to do.

What does the rigorous science say about the best way to reverse the epidemics of obesity and diabetes (and more) now crippling our nations? The rigorous evidence does not support a near-vegan diet. The answer must include animal foods, since they naturally contain the nutrients needed for healthy human growth and development.

Our way forward should be to gather a group of experts who could objectively identify the rigorous clinical trial data on healthy diets, and then work together to make those diets sustainable.

https://www.nutritioncoalition.us/news/eatlancet-report-one-sided

 

I have no comment to make about the technical nutrition questions discussed, but there are some other pertinent issues raised, which also are relevant to the Lancet’s stance on climate change:

1) Fundamentally weak science

2) Heavily biased, and even fanatical, authors, many with conflicts of interest. In particular, most already hold strong views on vegetarian/vegan diets, and cannot be expected to offer an impartial and objective evaluation of the science.

3) Questions regarding the adequacy of peer review.

4) The role and motivation of funders.

I raised the question of who appoints the Lancet Commission, or indeed whether they appoint themselves.

Given the detailed criticisms made by the Nutrition Coalition, the Lancet now need to seriously answer this question, and explain how the authors are actually selected.

The Lancet might also care to explain why they felt it appropriate to lend their authority and publish such a one sided and shoddy report in the first place.

Advertisements
52 Comments
  1. Saighdear permalink
    February 10, 2019 12:53 pm

    Off topic – but relevant: Paul, why do your direct emails stop working now – since past few days -All linksdon’t work !

    • SteveT permalink
      February 10, 2019 1:31 pm

      Saighdear; I had a similar issue some time ago. It was either my email programme disabling URL links or the Firewall. I did fix the issue but can’t remember how!

    • Geoffb permalink
      February 10, 2019 1:32 pm

      Mine stopped as well, I use chrome, I suspect they updated something…The work around in chrome is Settings-Content Settings (in advanced)-Pop ups and redirects-allow. I tried to set up an allowed exception for the wordpress site only but that didnt work

      • Emrys Jones permalink
        February 10, 2019 1:50 pm

        Try Brave, smaller, faster and you does what you want, not what you ought to want (becoz they know better, and you are stupid).

      • Saighdear permalink
        February 10, 2019 1:52 pm

        @ SteveT & Geoofb; thaks for being in agreement on the issue = but my older links still work as does the following Confirmation Email : I just H8 it when things change by themselves – and now this stoopit Win10 – can’t find things as I used to in XP.
        THere are Major issues in the world – all as a result of a step change in how we do t hings – NOT FOR THE BETTER, but because THEY CAN….. bring on Brexit and clean up the swamp. Thanks to all the Donald-John’s in the World up here.

    • February 10, 2019 2:01 pm

      Is it going to spam?

      • Saighdear permalink
        February 10, 2019 3:34 pm

        No Paul, Just same procedure as last time: goes to filtered Inbox. Confirmation Follow link functions OK as did this reply to comment FYI. thanks & keep up the good work.

    • Joe Public permalink
      February 10, 2019 2:49 pm

      Maybe it’s WordPress notifications which have stopped?

      Mine for a couple of other WP sites stopped a few moths ago, but NaLoPKT notifications continued.

      No WP settings were changed, but notifications from those other sites have now resumed. 😉

  2. February 10, 2019 1:09 pm

    Well, since we are in the age of outrage……as a botanist I am outraged that these people advocate the eating of plants. What did those grains and beans ever do to you? Can’t you hear their cries as you crunch them down? Have you no shame, no pity?

    • Saighdear permalink
      February 10, 2019 1:47 pm

      (Well this link worked OK) Yes Joan, This is EXACTLY what I say to folk who goon about not eating meat – a mean tae sae…. can ye hear the scream o e tatties n krats as ye skin em alive afore ye chuck em in e hot watter! or e Kroolty oav pittin em in e Mikro Wave an watchen em chumpin aboot like Popcorn….. An Geoffb. , yer right there an a’ thae vegans jist blether is much as kims oot o’ t’ither end.. Me thayn’ it so ony wyse!

      • dennisambler permalink
        February 10, 2019 6:28 pm

        “Plants can scream”
        https://www.thenakedscientists.com/articles/science-news/prince-charles-right-talk-his-plants

        “nakedscientists” in the link is not related to the Cliscep link from Jaime Jessop below!

      • February 11, 2019 12:06 pm

        Can plants reason? I judged several junior high/high school science fairs in suburban Virginia when I worked at the US National Herbarium of the Smithsonian Institution.

        This was in the 1970’s. Oh, my word. The little students were playing music to their plants or talking to them and one was even studying the effects of smoke and alcohol on the plants. He blew smoke at some and poured liquor on the roots of others. At least the latter may have died happy.

        The main emphasis should have been on the scientific method and adherence to the tenets of it. Never mind. Within a given “study” there was generally no consistency as to pot size or materials. Plastic, terra cotta, various sizes were used within a single project. Seldom were there “control” plants. The emphasis from the schools was on uniqueness of project and not learning the scientific method.

  3. February 10, 2019 1:13 pm

    The Wellcome Trust, Our Planet, Our Health program (which has close links to the Lancet) came up in a comment at Cliscep recently. The head of the program, Prof Howard Frumkin, is quoted as saying:

    “I trained as a primary care physician, taking care of individual patients one by one, but I realised at a certain point that if we don’t take care of people’s habitat, if people don’t have good places to live, they can’t thrive. Every zoo keeper realises this – the first thing you think about, as a zoo keeper, is “How do I create a good habitat for the animals so that they can thrive?” We need to think about humans the same way…”

    https://cliscep.com/2019/02/07/why-we-dont-need-academics/#comment-33437

    These people are not normal. There is only one indisputably positive and evidence-based reason to cut back on or give up the consumption of cheap, industrially produced meat; that is to lessen the suffering of the animals involved. That is a decision for each individual to make, not to be badgered and cajoled by these mediocre academics into thinking that one is saving the planet or boosting one’s health with reference to their fake science perpetuated in journals and the media in order to push a global governance agenda.

    • Athelstan permalink
      February 10, 2019 6:08 pm

      “zoo keeper”

      I do believe some of ’em if not all of ’em, and from a line stretching back to the likes of mengele to lysenko, Sweden and its eugenics programme. Horrifically, pervasively now seeping into western medics minds. ‘zoo keepers’ is how think deem themelves ubermensche diktating to the ‘rest’ of society, so high is their own esteem and in a hubris of self estimation about their own abilities and ‘Liverpool pathway’ anybody?

      Trouble brews, we all know what happens when men make themselves Gods, after a lot of lies, idiot policy and death caused by insane ambition – thence comes Nemesis.

    • bobn permalink
      February 11, 2019 10:29 am

      Regarding ‘lessen the suffering of animals’. Many animals are only born because they will be eaten. If we dont eat them then they wont be born and their quality of life will be zero – they wont have one. So to give a good quality of life they must be born and ultimately eaten. Its just a matter of giving them good welfare and a painless (non-halal/kosher!) death. keep eating from the free range.

  4. February 10, 2019 1:32 pm

    Unfortunately, this report is also incorrect. It states:
    “The EAT diet is also deficient in Vitamin B12, which can only be obtained from animal foods.”
    This is not true; B12 is also obtained from oily fish such as salmon, trout and tuna, and in dairy products and eggs – see here:
    https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/vitamin-b12-foods

    • Geoffb permalink
      February 10, 2019 1:36 pm

      Vegans cannot eat any of these.

      • February 10, 2019 5:18 pm

        You’re right. Strictly, so are eggs and dairy. I’ll get my coat …

    • Sara Hall permalink
      February 10, 2019 2:12 pm

      So salmon, trout and tuna aren’t animals then?

    • John F. Hultquist permalink
      February 10, 2019 4:44 pm

      And here I thought Salmon were animals.

      • Athelstan permalink
        February 10, 2019 6:09 pm

        fishy, very fishy.

    • Phoenix44 permalink
      February 11, 2019 11:01 am

      Pretty sure fish are animals!

  5. mikewaite permalink
    February 10, 2019 1:58 pm

    Paul , you ask why Lancet put its name to this shoddy document . Could it be the expected influence on Lancet editorial policy of Christiana Figueres, recently elected to an ediorial chair?
    Her opinion of meat eaters is well known ;
    https://www.raconteur.net/sustainability/christiana-figueres-food-production
    See for example this extract from her interview:

    -“Ms Figueres proposes what she calls “three provocative ideas”. The first is
    , to finance the reforestation of degraded lands. She concedes that there are problems with this idea, but reiterates that we need to be thinking “not just outside the box, but without it”.

    Secondly, she says, we should all be vegetarians and restaurants should treat meat eaters like smokers, by making them eat outside, because meat is “bad for the planet and our health”. “Very, very provocative, but why not?” she asks. ….

    Lastly, Ms Figueres says global fertiliser companies should take food waste and return it to the soil. “Instead of wasting food, fertiliser companies should be thinking about how it can be gathered and reused,” she says.”- (This last is what Trafford council, and probably many others, already do with our domestic food waste!)

  6. Broadlands permalink
    February 10, 2019 2:22 pm

    All animal-life depends on plants for food and oxygen. It is a balance between photosynthesis and respiration…the carbon cycle. Eating vegetation is destructive of solar-induced CO2 sequestration and must therefore create harm to the global environment. Planting solar farms and inedible trees where vegan’s get food should solve the problem?

  7. February 10, 2019 2:42 pm

    There is a solid discussion of the flaws in the EAT-Lancet study by Georgia Ede MD at Psychology Today. Her article https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/diagnosis-diet/201901/eat-lancets-plant-based-planet-10-things-you-need-know?fbclid=IwAR27fGVAJpQkAkTrpQkclMqNvSm6WUroG1qIfC0UfT7yDX8vvtqK3vKCQBQ

    “The EAT-Lancet report has the feel of a royal decree, operating under the guise of good intentions, seeking to impose its benevolent will on all subjects of planet Earth. It is well worth challenging the presumed authority of this group of 37 “experts,” because it wields tremendous power and influence, has access to billions of dollars, and is likely to affect your choices, your health, and your checkbook in the near future.

    Capitalizing on our current public health and environmental crises, the EAT-Lancet Commission pronounces itself as the authority on the science of nutrition, exploits our worst fears, and seeks to dictate our food choices in accordance with its members’ personal, professional and possible commercial interests.

    To the best of my knowledge, there has never been a human clinical trial designed to test the health effects of simply removing animal foods from the diet, without making any other diet or lifestyle changes such as eliminating refined carbohydrates and other processed foods. Unless and until such research is conducted demonstrating clear benefits to this strategy, the assertion that human beings would be healthier without animal foods remains an untested hypothesis with clear risks to human life and health. Prescribing plant-based diets to the planet without including straightforward warnings of these risks and offering clear guidance as to how to minimize them is scientifically irresponsible and medically unethical, and therefore should not form the basis of public health recommendations.”

    My synopsis with an additional objection : https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2019/01/21/climate-ideology-bad-nutritional-advice/

  8. Jules permalink
    February 10, 2019 4:06 pm

    Superb, well done.

  9. John F. Hultquist permalink
    February 10, 2019 4:41 pm

    Many years ago (45 ?) we were invited to dinner by a couple with 2 young boys. We did not know in advance they only served vegan stuff.
    Their “butter”, for example, was a puréed yellow squash (I think).

    They and the 2 boys looked under-nourished (malnourished). If I knew then what I know now I would have reported them to Child Welfare or County Health services. The parents did not have the knowledge or money to carry this thing off.

    In contrast, we know a medical technician. Her son decided he wanted to be vegan (favorite teacher indoctrination – I think). She researched the issue, and had the money to accommodate him. She was not pleased – she had other uses for the time and money. Still, he was her only child at the time and so she did it.

    My personal regime: eat what I like, work and play hard. Getting the activity is a bit tough when there is a cold blizzard happening, but this will pass. We are about 10 days into a 20 day nasty patch of weather.

    • Adam Gallon permalink
      February 10, 2019 5:55 pm

      My stepdaughter announced she was going veggie one day. “OK, fine, but you’re cooking for yourself.” Lasted about 3 days, IIRC.

    • alexei permalink
      February 11, 2019 2:06 am

      @ John H – at least a foot of snow in my Seattle garden too and more coming down. -16º last night. Certainly doesn’t feel anything like global warming…. can’t remember a winter like it here, though experienced 1963 in Paris with icicles inside the apartment.

      A lonely rather sad-looking humming bird has taken up residence under my verandah, zealously guarding the feeder, spending much of his energy chasing away rivals.

  10. Adam Gallon permalink
    February 10, 2019 5:54 pm

    El-Beeb was pushing the “No more than 2 sausages or 3 thin slices of ham a day” theme on the national news today.

    • John F. Hultquist permalink
      February 10, 2019 7:30 pm

      I’ll take 2 of these please.

      • Saighdear permalink
        February 10, 2019 7:49 pm

        #MeToo, with 2 eggs please. Buttered toast and a Large cup of tea with Milk n sugar -2 spopon will do, Stirred, not frothed

  11. Athelstan permalink
    February 10, 2019 6:19 pm

    Anti pig products, another angle and we all know the provenance of such.

    Man is omnivorous, meat and dairy products, were, was a vital requirement for early mankind, i’ve said it before on here, fire and the ability to process and cook meat was an existential factor, a great leap in our progression farming and keeping domestic herds the next great leap and a massive step.

    Berries and nuts to vegans, they are just the chaff.

  12. Jon Scott permalink
    February 10, 2019 6:34 pm

    Another one! WHO is peer reviewing this stuff put forward to the Lancet? It used to be a serious journal. The dangerous left are infiltrating all aspects of scientific endevour and there MUST be money behind this. Be clear, this is a cancer with a political agenda uppermost in their minds not the good of the public at large. I was highly suspicious of the rubbish spouted in the last paper you pointed to from the Lancet because it suddenly turned into a climate believers rant not a doctors concern for the welfare of people. I have my own theory on what is going on which is that there are “activists” mateying up to scientists across a broad spectrum of disciplines and enticing them to have their boring paper “sexed up with climobabble” with promises of easy future funding if they do. A snout in the 2 trillion dollar troff is enough to turn anyone to the dark side.
    A simple check for anyone to know if a claimed scientific study is just that. Very simply, if there is ANY sign of emotional language then it is NOT science. Science is all about the method, not the results. Science is dispassionate, science is conservative by nature. If sweeping claims are made without any reference to hard data then it is NOT science you are reading but politically motivated activist twaddle.

  13. February 10, 2019 9:29 pm

    If [red] meat was bad, the Inuit people would have been gone long time ago. The traditional food they eat are seal meal, seal oil and fish. No vegetables.

  14. February 10, 2019 10:10 pm

    Gunhild Stordalen, speaking at the EAT Stockholm Food Forum in 2016:
    https://sites.google.com/site/mytranscriptbox/2016/20160621_gs

    “Next, the politicians, welcome to you – yes, you’re elected on a short-term basis so I can’t or won’t blame you for the past, but too often your predecessors have been scared off for fear of losing the votes of junk-food lovers or the support of companies with narrow outlooks. You know, those votes have a cost, a cost for human health, for the environment, so now you must find the courage to lead, to take your voters where they need to go and make the industry help them get there, act for all generations, including your own.”

    So yes, politicians, please feel free to ignore the wishes of those who elected you. Those ignorant deplorables just don’t know what’s good for them. We do – listen to us instead! Take your voters where they need to go – that “need”, of course, being defined by us, at EAT.

    • Phoenix44 permalink
      February 11, 2019 11:04 am

      A nasty, privileged fascist who thinks her own opinions are so superior to any others that she has the right -perhaps the obligation – to impose them on the entire world.

      No different from Stalin or Mao.

      “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience….To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”

  15. roger permalink
    February 10, 2019 11:42 pm

    Ever since Tony Blair decided to deify and grossly overpay doctors and their minions, they have developed delusions of grandeur and clamoured to interfere in our lives in many areas, bizarrely under the guise of saving the NHS money, presumably in order to further enlarge their salaries.
    When I was forty they decided that I and thousands of other should take cholesterol lowering drugs daily if over a certain reading. and steadily over the past forty years they have considerably lowered the threshold for chemical interference, causing more pain and suffering than provable lives saved, and extended their administrations to millions.
    Forty years later after refusing their unwelcome attention………HELLO !!

    • yonason permalink
      February 11, 2019 5:38 am

      Yes, not only very unnecessary, but as you write “causing more pain and suffering than provable lives saved.” See video I linked to below.

    • Saighdear permalink
      February 11, 2019 8:31 am

      Oooof! yes, well, er em…… dare I say that ALL ( if nost most) of our Contr9olling deity aregrossly overpaid? Legal infrastructure included? …. On the bbe this morning … a sking to be made illegal to injure a Police Dog or Horse too…. and when a ( the ) robot comes hovering….. what then? No plastic Peashooter straws, no elastoplastic catapults, Sticks n stones.

    • HotScot permalink
      February 11, 2019 9:27 am

      roger

      Statins are by far and away the most profitable pharmaceutical even invented.

      A friend with a family history of heart disease takes them daily. He says he doesn’t get periodic flu symptoms like the rest of us, he wakes up every morning feeling as though he has flu.

      • Derek Buxton permalink
        February 14, 2019 10:23 am

        I was once told to take Statins and did. Until one night I woke in the middle of the night with cramp in evry muscle, very painful. Then I checked the little bit of paper that comes with the pills….”side effects, cramp! So they were stopped as of then, and I told my Doctor why, silence reigned???

      • Saighdear permalink
        February 14, 2019 1:45 pm

        Silence reigned ………… and now you’re flooding the world.
        Yes, I understand all that too
        I have seen herbicides ( Pre-emergence) used for over 40 yrs. Today if a strip of a field is “missed” the resulting growth looks like the accumulated potential germination of weeds from that past decades…. what , scientifically does THAT tell us? Equally Pre-emergence herbicides for TOTAL weed control on Hard paved areas DOES not tell you IF you are wasting your time & Polluting the planet, OR about to kill some weeds ! Just so much (mis)-information amongst possible truth. who DO you believe, regardless of your knowledge. A little learning is a dangerous thing, but we are Educated to take the word of the Scientists ( Legally bound to )…… so many everyday examples: Cigarettes, Alcohol Seatbelts Holding mobile phone i stationary vehicle, etc etc
        If the Hat fits, Wear it.

  16. yonason permalink
    February 11, 2019 5:24 am

    LIES EXPOSED!

    Animal fat is not only harmless, it is essential for good health!

    • yonason permalink
      February 11, 2019 5:28 am

      PS – Start at T=17:29 for what I intended to focus on for this post.

      Of course, if you have time, the whole thing is well worth watching.

  17. Ross Handsaker permalink
    February 11, 2019 7:23 am

    Vegans get their proteins, minerals and vitamins directly from the plants that they eat. The animals we eat process plants, which contain the proteins, minerals and vitamins, through their gut. It might be argued the meat eater gets this second hand (used) food plus the additional toxins resulting from the processing of the plants by the animal. Vitamin B12 is an issue for vegans (can be found as an additive in some foods or as a supplement) while the Sun is the best source of vitamin D.

  18. Bitter@twisted permalink
    February 11, 2019 8:19 am

    Soylent Green?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: