Discussion:
US doctors in India to promote vegetarianism
(too old to reply)
Kevin Saldanha
2008-01-26 16:29:45 UTC
Permalink
Dear Santosh and others,
From the article quoted 'The combined budgets for 15 of the leading
animal protection organizations exceeded $115 million in 1994' .. sour
grapes compared to the livestock budget and it's lobbying for
subsidies with goes into the billions. A telling graphic at this link
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=11&year=2007&base_name=how_subsidies_change_your_worl
and a link to a Wikipedia entry from there on agricultural subsidies
for livestock production is quite informative on how much the
livestock industry influences agricultural policy and consumer
choices.

The following quote from the same article demonstrates the degree to
which religious thought has influenced public policy in the US.
"Developed by the USDA, the Basic Four Food Group system is actually
based on traditions rooted in the Old Testament. Kosher dietary law
scholars Regenstein and Regenstein of Cornell note that the Biblical
(and Moslem) four food groups are:
MEAT. (Yiddish: fleishig); Without meat in the diet iron
deficiency becomes widespread (animal iron is 5 times as absorbable as
plant iron).
DAIRY. (Yiddish: milchig); Eliminating dairy foods increases risk
of osteoporosis. Even non-physician Colin Campbell confirmed this from
his work in China 3 weeks after his service as a spokesman for PCRM at
their "let's eat only plant foods" news conference.
NEUTRAL (mainly plant). (Hebrew: parve or pareve.)
In 1956 the USDA divided the plant group into two: grains and
fruits-vegetables. PCRM goes extreme by dividing the Biblical plant
group into four, and telling people to forget about the meat and dairy
groups. Their 4-food group model not only increases the risk of anemia
and osteoporosis, it guarantees severe blood and nervous system damage
because nothing that grows out of the ground contains vitamin B12.
UNACCEPTABLE. (Yiddish: traif); included pork, shellfish, blood, etc."

Unfortunately, the lobby groups for the 'religion' of Science (
Quackbusters and NCAHF ) have lost credibility with the mainstream
legal system in the US (
http://www.quackpotwatch.org/opinionpieces/for_quackbuster.htm )

Sincerely,

Kevin Saldanha
Mississauga, ON.
======================
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 11:13:09 -0800 (PST)
From: Santosh Helekar <chimbelcho at sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: [Goanet] US doctors in India to promote vegetarianism

I forgot to mention this in my separate post on
vegetarianism. Please beware of Neal Barnard and his
so-called "Physician's Committee For Responsible
Medicine (PCRM)". It has been pointed out by others
that his advice is questionable, and is based on
selective information and misinformation about health
and nutrition. Please see the following link for more
on this:

http://www.ncahf.org/articles/o-r/pcrm.html

Cheers,

Santosh
--
http://2008goanconvention.com
http://www.multiculturalcanada.ca/ecp/content/goans.html
Santosh Helekar
2008-01-26 18:33:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevin Saldanha
Unfortunately, the lobby groups for the 'religion'
of Science (Quackbusters and NCAHF ) have lost
credibility with the mainstream legal system in the
US
Post by Kevin Saldanha
(http://www.quackpotwatch.org/opinionpieces/for_quackbuster.htm
)
Dear Kevin,

So now you have stopped relying on science as well? Do
you believe petty lawsuits settle scientific issues?
Are you willing to vouch for the credibility of the
above website, its authors and the unscientific
treatments they promote?

Your answers to these questions would be instructive.

Cheers,

Santosh
Kevin Saldanha
2008-01-28 04:13:16 UTC
Permalink
Dear Santosh,

The reason that I initially posted the piece that was the subject of
this thread is to demonstrate how far this nation of (predominantly?)
vegetarians has aped the meat-eating gluttony of the west (led by our
Portuguese ex-colony) when US doctors have to tour the country
promoting vegetarianism as a healthier alternative to coronary bypass
surgery and insulin dependence. Naturally, the medical profession
would be putting themselves out of business by recommending healthier
lifestyles ;-)

My LIFE is dependent on science but not to the extent that I have to
close my mind to the possibility that there are still unexplored
areas. Unlike jc, I DONT take scientist's data on faith because, if I
doubt it, I have all the tools necessary to verify it myself. Just
because science has not elucidated the mechanisms of alternative
therapies doesn't mean that they have to be discounted out of hand. I
don't use any of them in my practice because I am scientifically
inclined against them but will, on occasion, refer clients to local
alternative practitioners when I am out of options. Acupuncture was
derided until it was scientifically shown that the endorphins it
produced could explain it's temporary beneficial effects. However,
concepts like phlegm and the (triple?)afterburner as well as the
energy meridians do not yet and may never will have scientific
explanations. The benefit of practicing meditation cannot be
scientifically explained but has been scientifically quantified.

Mainstream medicine (speaking of murky waters) would be well advised
to adopt the holistic approach instead of prescribing a pill for every
ailment that fits the list of textbook diagnoses. However, these
days, doctors are more inclined to prescribe the pill for fear of
litigation if they do not, even if it's a sugar pill.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1700079,00.html It is
no wonder that many good doctors are looking to expand their practices
to include law.

Scientists and those who depend on science professionally have come to
revere it as the Holy Grail. I have a deep respect for science and
live my life based on it's inferences, but know that there is much we
still have to learn and have tried to avoid being sucked into it's
vortex of arrogance. I am disgusted with quackery just as much as I
am disgusted by the materialism of modern medicine. I do not condone
the exploitation of (sometimes terminally) ill patients.

I posted the link to the outcome of the lawsuit against Quackbusters
because there are always two sides to every story... and the spin
masters are getting better and better every day. Reading the two
sites (Quackbusters and Quackpotwatch) are as interesting as the
debates here on GoaNet.

As a Secular Humanist, I am aware that the perception of wellbeing is
just as important as being physically well. Cancer patients have
extended their lifespans and remission rates with positive attitudes
and in some cases, yes, even prayer. Vegetarianism, as FN has
mentioned, is satisfying for the body as well as the 'soul' (and
before anyone jumps down my throat for using that nebulous term, I am
referring to the 'mental attitude'). I am not advocating veganism for
meat-eaters as long as they are mindful of the ramifications of their
gustatory preferences. I feel that public perceptions about
meat-eating today are where they were about smoking 50 years ago.

Sincerely,

Kevin Saldanha
Mississauga, ON.
==================
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 10:33:02 -0800 (PST)
From: Santosh Helekar <chimbelcho at sbcglobal.net>

Dear Kevin,

So now you have stopped relying on science as well? Do
you believe petty lawsuits settle scientific issues?
Are you willing to vouch for the credibility of the
above website, its authors and the unscientific
treatments they promote?

Your answers to these questions would be instructive.

Cheers,

Santosh
--
http://2008goanconvention.com
http://www.multiculturalcanada.ca/ecp/content/goans.html
Santosh Helekar
2008-01-28 20:10:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevin Saldanha
I posted the link to the outcome of the lawsuit
against Quackbusters because there are always two
sides to every story... and the spin masters are
getting better and better every day. Reading the two
sites (Quackbusters and Quackpotwatch) are as
interesting as the debates here on GoaNet.
Dear Kevin,

A reasonable argument can be made for the role of
particular kinds of harmless, untested, faith-based
alternative treatments in chronic diseases that may
sometimes be resistant to well-tested, evidence-based
rational treatments. I have made this argument here on
several occasions in the past (please see the
archives). I have also made the argument that
alternative therapies should be subjected to the same
kind of rigorous validation procedures as modern
scientific therapies. And when one does this, they
would no longer be alternative. They would be part of
the armamentarium of modern evidence-based human and
veterinary medicine.

However, this is not the issue that I am concerned
about in your recent missives. What I am concerned
about is highlighted by your quote above, and your
citation of two questionable sources in this forum to
support your case for vegetarianism.

I submit to you that in recommending these sources as
"mainstream" and authentic you have not adequately
exercised your powers of critical inquiry and
dispassionate rational thinking. If you had done so,
you would have noted that these sources provide
misleading information regarding health and nutrition,
and have irrational anti-establishment agendas.

For example, the author of the book you have
recommended claims that milk and dairy products cause
a host of diseases including bronchial asthma,
diabetes, and breast and prostate cancers (Please see
http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.227/news_detail.asp).

His group is against all human and veterinary
biomedical research involving animals, and opposes
non-profit humanitarian organizations such as American
Heart Association, the American Cancer Society, St.
Jude Children?s Research Hospital, the American
Foundation for AIDS Research, the Christopher Reeve
Paralysis Foundation, the American Red Cross and March
of Dimes.

As Jose pointed out earlier, the other source acts as
a publicist for various quack remedies including
magical cures for AIDS and cancer, and fake electrical
devices that supposedly kill parasites, bacteria and
viruses. The website Quackpotwatch.org
(http://www.quackpotwatch.org/) you refer to above
claims that there is a worldwide conspiracy to
suppress these "cures", and that professional
scientists and physicians who expose them as frauds,
are part of that conspiracy.

I question your judgment in implying in the above
quote that the two sides, namely those who expose
health-related fraud and the litigant who sues and
campaigns against them are making equally valid
claims. If you believe that reason and evidence rather
than faith can settle all disputes in the real world
then this has got be a good test case for such a
settlement. I hope you recognize this fact, and show
some consistency in your rationality.

Cheers,

Santosh
Kevin Saldanha
2008-01-29 18:20:27 UTC
Permalink
Dear Santosh,

It appears my near fanatical adoration of Dr. Neal Barnard and his
recommendations to the Indian public to revert to vegetarianism to
save their lives has affected "your powers of critical inquiry and
dispassionate rational thinking"... to use your words. He bucks the
current 'mainstream' medical mantra with his statements which give us
cause to pause.

The question at hand, without scientifically microdissecting the
arguments for and against, is whether a vegetarian diet is healthier
than the 'Atkins' diet, towards which the affluent Indian population
is currently heading. I think moderation is the key and a vegetarian
diet rich in 'ghee' would be just as unhealthy which is why he
promotes veganism.

Whatever the arguments used by either side to push their own agenda,
is the consumer better served by his advice or not? Are the current
methods by which we derive animal proteins the most humane? Are all
the scientific investigations on lab animals essential? Can we be
more humane as a society without affecting our health?

You can get shrill about his opposition to non-essential animal
experimentation by those institutions you quoted. How much of the
money donated to these so-called 'non-profit humanitarian
organizations' actually benefits society?

I still put my implicit faith in science to resolve these issues but
we need to look past some of our prejudices to see the bigger picture.
I do not practice alternative medicine but have seen it's effects on
animals who, for the most part, do not succumb to the placebo effect.
I have no explanation for this anecdotal evidence but know that it
cannot be quantified by 'mainstream' double-blind studies so essential
to our 'one-track' medical system today. I would not pursue
alternative therapies myself but should I criticize someone who takes
daily vitamin supplements as a quackpot?

Sincerely,

Kevin Saldanha
Mississauga, ON.
=========================
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 12:10:53 -0800 (PST)
From: Santosh Helekar <chimbelcho at sbcglobal.net>

I question your judgment in implying in the above
quote that the two sides, namely those who expose
health-related fraud and the litigant who sues and
campaigns against them are making equally valid
claims. If you believe that reason and evidence rather
than faith can settle all disputes in the real world
then this has got be a good test case for such a
settlement. I hope you recognize this fact, and show
some consistency in your rationality.

Cheers,

Santosh
--
http://2008goanconvention.com
http://www.multiculturalcanada.ca/ecp/content/goans.html
Santosh Helekar
2008-01-31 14:08:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevin Saldanha
It appears my near fanatical adoration of Dr. Neal
Barnard and his recommendations to the Indian public
to revert to vegetarianism to save their lives has
affected "your powers of critical inquiry and
dispassionate rational thinking"... to use your
words.
Dear Kevin,

I hope you recognize that belief in something or
somebody out of near fanatical adoration or simply
because of anecdotal evidence does not constitute
dispassionate rational thinking. That such a belief
should be subjected to a critical examination.

Cheers,

Santosh
Kevin Saldanha
2008-01-26 16:29:45 UTC
Permalink
Dear Santosh and others,
From the article quoted 'The combined budgets for 15 of the leading
animal protection organizations exceeded $115 million in 1994' .. sour
grapes compared to the livestock budget and it's lobbying for
subsidies with goes into the billions. A telling graphic at this link
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=11&year=2007&base_name=how_subsidies_change_your_worl
and a link to a Wikipedia entry from there on agricultural subsidies
for livestock production is quite informative on how much the
livestock industry influences agricultural policy and consumer
choices.

The following quote from the same article demonstrates the degree to
which religious thought has influenced public policy in the US.
"Developed by the USDA, the Basic Four Food Group system is actually
based on traditions rooted in the Old Testament. Kosher dietary law
scholars Regenstein and Regenstein of Cornell note that the Biblical
(and Moslem) four food groups are:
MEAT. (Yiddish: fleishig); Without meat in the diet iron
deficiency becomes widespread (animal iron is 5 times as absorbable as
plant iron).
DAIRY. (Yiddish: milchig); Eliminating dairy foods increases risk
of osteoporosis. Even non-physician Colin Campbell confirmed this from
his work in China 3 weeks after his service as a spokesman for PCRM at
their "let's eat only plant foods" news conference.
NEUTRAL (mainly plant). (Hebrew: parve or pareve.)
In 1956 the USDA divided the plant group into two: grains and
fruits-vegetables. PCRM goes extreme by dividing the Biblical plant
group into four, and telling people to forget about the meat and dairy
groups. Their 4-food group model not only increases the risk of anemia
and osteoporosis, it guarantees severe blood and nervous system damage
because nothing that grows out of the ground contains vitamin B12.
UNACCEPTABLE. (Yiddish: traif); included pork, shellfish, blood, etc."

Unfortunately, the lobby groups for the 'religion' of Science (
Quackbusters and NCAHF ) have lost credibility with the mainstream
legal system in the US (
http://www.quackpotwatch.org/opinionpieces/for_quackbuster.htm )

Sincerely,

Kevin Saldanha
Mississauga, ON.
======================
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 11:13:09 -0800 (PST)
From: Santosh Helekar <chimbelcho at sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: [Goanet] US doctors in India to promote vegetarianism

I forgot to mention this in my separate post on
vegetarianism. Please beware of Neal Barnard and his
so-called "Physician's Committee For Responsible
Medicine (PCRM)". It has been pointed out by others
that his advice is questionable, and is based on
selective information and misinformation about health
and nutrition. Please see the following link for more
on this:

http://www.ncahf.org/articles/o-r/pcrm.html

Cheers,

Santosh
--
http://2008goanconvention.com
http://www.multiculturalcanada.ca/ecp/content/goans.html
Santosh Helekar
2008-01-26 18:33:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevin Saldanha
Unfortunately, the lobby groups for the 'religion'
of Science (Quackbusters and NCAHF ) have lost
credibility with the mainstream legal system in the
US
Post by Kevin Saldanha
(http://www.quackpotwatch.org/opinionpieces/for_quackbuster.htm
)
Dear Kevin,

So now you have stopped relying on science as well? Do
you believe petty lawsuits settle scientific issues?
Are you willing to vouch for the credibility of the
above website, its authors and the unscientific
treatments they promote?

Your answers to these questions would be instructive.

Cheers,

Santosh
Kevin Saldanha
2008-01-28 04:13:16 UTC
Permalink
Dear Santosh,

The reason that I initially posted the piece that was the subject of
this thread is to demonstrate how far this nation of (predominantly?)
vegetarians has aped the meat-eating gluttony of the west (led by our
Portuguese ex-colony) when US doctors have to tour the country
promoting vegetarianism as a healthier alternative to coronary bypass
surgery and insulin dependence. Naturally, the medical profession
would be putting themselves out of business by recommending healthier
lifestyles ;-)

My LIFE is dependent on science but not to the extent that I have to
close my mind to the possibility that there are still unexplored
areas. Unlike jc, I DONT take scientist's data on faith because, if I
doubt it, I have all the tools necessary to verify it myself. Just
because science has not elucidated the mechanisms of alternative
therapies doesn't mean that they have to be discounted out of hand. I
don't use any of them in my practice because I am scientifically
inclined against them but will, on occasion, refer clients to local
alternative practitioners when I am out of options. Acupuncture was
derided until it was scientifically shown that the endorphins it
produced could explain it's temporary beneficial effects. However,
concepts like phlegm and the (triple?)afterburner as well as the
energy meridians do not yet and may never will have scientific
explanations. The benefit of practicing meditation cannot be
scientifically explained but has been scientifically quantified.

Mainstream medicine (speaking of murky waters) would be well advised
to adopt the holistic approach instead of prescribing a pill for every
ailment that fits the list of textbook diagnoses. However, these
days, doctors are more inclined to prescribe the pill for fear of
litigation if they do not, even if it's a sugar pill.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1700079,00.html It is
no wonder that many good doctors are looking to expand their practices
to include law.

Scientists and those who depend on science professionally have come to
revere it as the Holy Grail. I have a deep respect for science and
live my life based on it's inferences, but know that there is much we
still have to learn and have tried to avoid being sucked into it's
vortex of arrogance. I am disgusted with quackery just as much as I
am disgusted by the materialism of modern medicine. I do not condone
the exploitation of (sometimes terminally) ill patients.

I posted the link to the outcome of the lawsuit against Quackbusters
because there are always two sides to every story... and the spin
masters are getting better and better every day. Reading the two
sites (Quackbusters and Quackpotwatch) are as interesting as the
debates here on GoaNet.

As a Secular Humanist, I am aware that the perception of wellbeing is
just as important as being physically well. Cancer patients have
extended their lifespans and remission rates with positive attitudes
and in some cases, yes, even prayer. Vegetarianism, as FN has
mentioned, is satisfying for the body as well as the 'soul' (and
before anyone jumps down my throat for using that nebulous term, I am
referring to the 'mental attitude'). I am not advocating veganism for
meat-eaters as long as they are mindful of the ramifications of their
gustatory preferences. I feel that public perceptions about
meat-eating today are where they were about smoking 50 years ago.

Sincerely,

Kevin Saldanha
Mississauga, ON.
==================
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 10:33:02 -0800 (PST)
From: Santosh Helekar <chimbelcho at sbcglobal.net>

Dear Kevin,

So now you have stopped relying on science as well? Do
you believe petty lawsuits settle scientific issues?
Are you willing to vouch for the credibility of the
above website, its authors and the unscientific
treatments they promote?

Your answers to these questions would be instructive.

Cheers,

Santosh
--
http://2008goanconvention.com
http://www.multiculturalcanada.ca/ecp/content/goans.html
Santosh Helekar
2008-01-28 20:10:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevin Saldanha
I posted the link to the outcome of the lawsuit
against Quackbusters because there are always two
sides to every story... and the spin masters are
getting better and better every day. Reading the two
sites (Quackbusters and Quackpotwatch) are as
interesting as the debates here on GoaNet.
Dear Kevin,

A reasonable argument can be made for the role of
particular kinds of harmless, untested, faith-based
alternative treatments in chronic diseases that may
sometimes be resistant to well-tested, evidence-based
rational treatments. I have made this argument here on
several occasions in the past (please see the
archives). I have also made the argument that
alternative therapies should be subjected to the same
kind of rigorous validation procedures as modern
scientific therapies. And when one does this, they
would no longer be alternative. They would be part of
the armamentarium of modern evidence-based human and
veterinary medicine.

However, this is not the issue that I am concerned
about in your recent missives. What I am concerned
about is highlighted by your quote above, and your
citation of two questionable sources in this forum to
support your case for vegetarianism.

I submit to you that in recommending these sources as
"mainstream" and authentic you have not adequately
exercised your powers of critical inquiry and
dispassionate rational thinking. If you had done so,
you would have noted that these sources provide
misleading information regarding health and nutrition,
and have irrational anti-establishment agendas.

For example, the author of the book you have
recommended claims that milk and dairy products cause
a host of diseases including bronchial asthma,
diabetes, and breast and prostate cancers (Please see
http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.227/news_detail.asp).

His group is against all human and veterinary
biomedical research involving animals, and opposes
non-profit humanitarian organizations such as American
Heart Association, the American Cancer Society, St.
Jude Children?s Research Hospital, the American
Foundation for AIDS Research, the Christopher Reeve
Paralysis Foundation, the American Red Cross and March
of Dimes.

As Jose pointed out earlier, the other source acts as
a publicist for various quack remedies including
magical cures for AIDS and cancer, and fake electrical
devices that supposedly kill parasites, bacteria and
viruses. The website Quackpotwatch.org
(http://www.quackpotwatch.org/) you refer to above
claims that there is a worldwide conspiracy to
suppress these "cures", and that professional
scientists and physicians who expose them as frauds,
are part of that conspiracy.

I question your judgment in implying in the above
quote that the two sides, namely those who expose
health-related fraud and the litigant who sues and
campaigns against them are making equally valid
claims. If you believe that reason and evidence rather
than faith can settle all disputes in the real world
then this has got be a good test case for such a
settlement. I hope you recognize this fact, and show
some consistency in your rationality.

Cheers,

Santosh
Kevin Saldanha
2008-01-29 18:20:27 UTC
Permalink
Dear Santosh,

It appears my near fanatical adoration of Dr. Neal Barnard and his
recommendations to the Indian public to revert to vegetarianism to
save their lives has affected "your powers of critical inquiry and
dispassionate rational thinking"... to use your words. He bucks the
current 'mainstream' medical mantra with his statements which give us
cause to pause.

The question at hand, without scientifically microdissecting the
arguments for and against, is whether a vegetarian diet is healthier
than the 'Atkins' diet, towards which the affluent Indian population
is currently heading. I think moderation is the key and a vegetarian
diet rich in 'ghee' would be just as unhealthy which is why he
promotes veganism.

Whatever the arguments used by either side to push their own agenda,
is the consumer better served by his advice or not? Are the current
methods by which we derive animal proteins the most humane? Are all
the scientific investigations on lab animals essential? Can we be
more humane as a society without affecting our health?

You can get shrill about his opposition to non-essential animal
experimentation by those institutions you quoted. How much of the
money donated to these so-called 'non-profit humanitarian
organizations' actually benefits society?

I still put my implicit faith in science to resolve these issues but
we need to look past some of our prejudices to see the bigger picture.
I do not practice alternative medicine but have seen it's effects on
animals who, for the most part, do not succumb to the placebo effect.
I have no explanation for this anecdotal evidence but know that it
cannot be quantified by 'mainstream' double-blind studies so essential
to our 'one-track' medical system today. I would not pursue
alternative therapies myself but should I criticize someone who takes
daily vitamin supplements as a quackpot?

Sincerely,

Kevin Saldanha
Mississauga, ON.
=========================
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 12:10:53 -0800 (PST)
From: Santosh Helekar <chimbelcho at sbcglobal.net>

I question your judgment in implying in the above
quote that the two sides, namely those who expose
health-related fraud and the litigant who sues and
campaigns against them are making equally valid
claims. If you believe that reason and evidence rather
than faith can settle all disputes in the real world
then this has got be a good test case for such a
settlement. I hope you recognize this fact, and show
some consistency in your rationality.

Cheers,

Santosh
--
http://2008goanconvention.com
http://www.multiculturalcanada.ca/ecp/content/goans.html
Santosh Helekar
2008-01-31 14:08:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevin Saldanha
It appears my near fanatical adoration of Dr. Neal
Barnard and his recommendations to the Indian public
to revert to vegetarianism to save their lives has
affected "your powers of critical inquiry and
dispassionate rational thinking"... to use your
words.
Dear Kevin,

I hope you recognize that belief in something or
somebody out of near fanatical adoration or simply
because of anecdotal evidence does not constitute
dispassionate rational thinking. That such a belief
should be subjected to a critical examination.

Cheers,

Santosh
Kevin Saldanha
2008-01-26 16:29:45 UTC
Permalink
Dear Santosh and others,
From the article quoted 'The combined budgets for 15 of the leading
animal protection organizations exceeded $115 million in 1994' .. sour
grapes compared to the livestock budget and it's lobbying for
subsidies with goes into the billions. A telling graphic at this link
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=11&year=2007&base_name=how_subsidies_change_your_worl
and a link to a Wikipedia entry from there on agricultural subsidies
for livestock production is quite informative on how much the
livestock industry influences agricultural policy and consumer
choices.

The following quote from the same article demonstrates the degree to
which religious thought has influenced public policy in the US.
"Developed by the USDA, the Basic Four Food Group system is actually
based on traditions rooted in the Old Testament. Kosher dietary law
scholars Regenstein and Regenstein of Cornell note that the Biblical
(and Moslem) four food groups are:
MEAT. (Yiddish: fleishig); Without meat in the diet iron
deficiency becomes widespread (animal iron is 5 times as absorbable as
plant iron).
DAIRY. (Yiddish: milchig); Eliminating dairy foods increases risk
of osteoporosis. Even non-physician Colin Campbell confirmed this from
his work in China 3 weeks after his service as a spokesman for PCRM at
their "let's eat only plant foods" news conference.
NEUTRAL (mainly plant). (Hebrew: parve or pareve.)
In 1956 the USDA divided the plant group into two: grains and
fruits-vegetables. PCRM goes extreme by dividing the Biblical plant
group into four, and telling people to forget about the meat and dairy
groups. Their 4-food group model not only increases the risk of anemia
and osteoporosis, it guarantees severe blood and nervous system damage
because nothing that grows out of the ground contains vitamin B12.
UNACCEPTABLE. (Yiddish: traif); included pork, shellfish, blood, etc."

Unfortunately, the lobby groups for the 'religion' of Science (
Quackbusters and NCAHF ) have lost credibility with the mainstream
legal system in the US (
http://www.quackpotwatch.org/opinionpieces/for_quackbuster.htm )

Sincerely,

Kevin Saldanha
Mississauga, ON.
======================
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 11:13:09 -0800 (PST)
From: Santosh Helekar <chimbelcho at sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: [Goanet] US doctors in India to promote vegetarianism

I forgot to mention this in my separate post on
vegetarianism. Please beware of Neal Barnard and his
so-called "Physician's Committee For Responsible
Medicine (PCRM)". It has been pointed out by others
that his advice is questionable, and is based on
selective information and misinformation about health
and nutrition. Please see the following link for more
on this:

http://www.ncahf.org/articles/o-r/pcrm.html

Cheers,

Santosh
--
http://2008goanconvention.com
http://www.multiculturalcanada.ca/ecp/content/goans.html
Santosh Helekar
2008-01-26 18:33:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevin Saldanha
Unfortunately, the lobby groups for the 'religion'
of Science (Quackbusters and NCAHF ) have lost
credibility with the mainstream legal system in the
US
Post by Kevin Saldanha
(http://www.quackpotwatch.org/opinionpieces/for_quackbuster.htm
)
Dear Kevin,

So now you have stopped relying on science as well? Do
you believe petty lawsuits settle scientific issues?
Are you willing to vouch for the credibility of the
above website, its authors and the unscientific
treatments they promote?

Your answers to these questions would be instructive.

Cheers,

Santosh
Kevin Saldanha
2008-01-28 04:13:16 UTC
Permalink
Dear Santosh,

The reason that I initially posted the piece that was the subject of
this thread is to demonstrate how far this nation of (predominantly?)
vegetarians has aped the meat-eating gluttony of the west (led by our
Portuguese ex-colony) when US doctors have to tour the country
promoting vegetarianism as a healthier alternative to coronary bypass
surgery and insulin dependence. Naturally, the medical profession
would be putting themselves out of business by recommending healthier
lifestyles ;-)

My LIFE is dependent on science but not to the extent that I have to
close my mind to the possibility that there are still unexplored
areas. Unlike jc, I DONT take scientist's data on faith because, if I
doubt it, I have all the tools necessary to verify it myself. Just
because science has not elucidated the mechanisms of alternative
therapies doesn't mean that they have to be discounted out of hand. I
don't use any of them in my practice because I am scientifically
inclined against them but will, on occasion, refer clients to local
alternative practitioners when I am out of options. Acupuncture was
derided until it was scientifically shown that the endorphins it
produced could explain it's temporary beneficial effects. However,
concepts like phlegm and the (triple?)afterburner as well as the
energy meridians do not yet and may never will have scientific
explanations. The benefit of practicing meditation cannot be
scientifically explained but has been scientifically quantified.

Mainstream medicine (speaking of murky waters) would be well advised
to adopt the holistic approach instead of prescribing a pill for every
ailment that fits the list of textbook diagnoses. However, these
days, doctors are more inclined to prescribe the pill for fear of
litigation if they do not, even if it's a sugar pill.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1700079,00.html It is
no wonder that many good doctors are looking to expand their practices
to include law.

Scientists and those who depend on science professionally have come to
revere it as the Holy Grail. I have a deep respect for science and
live my life based on it's inferences, but know that there is much we
still have to learn and have tried to avoid being sucked into it's
vortex of arrogance. I am disgusted with quackery just as much as I
am disgusted by the materialism of modern medicine. I do not condone
the exploitation of (sometimes terminally) ill patients.

I posted the link to the outcome of the lawsuit against Quackbusters
because there are always two sides to every story... and the spin
masters are getting better and better every day. Reading the two
sites (Quackbusters and Quackpotwatch) are as interesting as the
debates here on GoaNet.

As a Secular Humanist, I am aware that the perception of wellbeing is
just as important as being physically well. Cancer patients have
extended their lifespans and remission rates with positive attitudes
and in some cases, yes, even prayer. Vegetarianism, as FN has
mentioned, is satisfying for the body as well as the 'soul' (and
before anyone jumps down my throat for using that nebulous term, I am
referring to the 'mental attitude'). I am not advocating veganism for
meat-eaters as long as they are mindful of the ramifications of their
gustatory preferences. I feel that public perceptions about
meat-eating today are where they were about smoking 50 years ago.

Sincerely,

Kevin Saldanha
Mississauga, ON.
==================
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 10:33:02 -0800 (PST)
From: Santosh Helekar <chimbelcho at sbcglobal.net>

Dear Kevin,

So now you have stopped relying on science as well? Do
you believe petty lawsuits settle scientific issues?
Are you willing to vouch for the credibility of the
above website, its authors and the unscientific
treatments they promote?

Your answers to these questions would be instructive.

Cheers,

Santosh
--
http://2008goanconvention.com
http://www.multiculturalcanada.ca/ecp/content/goans.html
Santosh Helekar
2008-01-28 20:10:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevin Saldanha
I posted the link to the outcome of the lawsuit
against Quackbusters because there are always two
sides to every story... and the spin masters are
getting better and better every day. Reading the two
sites (Quackbusters and Quackpotwatch) are as
interesting as the debates here on GoaNet.
Dear Kevin,

A reasonable argument can be made for the role of
particular kinds of harmless, untested, faith-based
alternative treatments in chronic diseases that may
sometimes be resistant to well-tested, evidence-based
rational treatments. I have made this argument here on
several occasions in the past (please see the
archives). I have also made the argument that
alternative therapies should be subjected to the same
kind of rigorous validation procedures as modern
scientific therapies. And when one does this, they
would no longer be alternative. They would be part of
the armamentarium of modern evidence-based human and
veterinary medicine.

However, this is not the issue that I am concerned
about in your recent missives. What I am concerned
about is highlighted by your quote above, and your
citation of two questionable sources in this forum to
support your case for vegetarianism.

I submit to you that in recommending these sources as
"mainstream" and authentic you have not adequately
exercised your powers of critical inquiry and
dispassionate rational thinking. If you had done so,
you would have noted that these sources provide
misleading information regarding health and nutrition,
and have irrational anti-establishment agendas.

For example, the author of the book you have
recommended claims that milk and dairy products cause
a host of diseases including bronchial asthma,
diabetes, and breast and prostate cancers (Please see
http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.227/news_detail.asp).

His group is against all human and veterinary
biomedical research involving animals, and opposes
non-profit humanitarian organizations such as American
Heart Association, the American Cancer Society, St.
Jude Children?s Research Hospital, the American
Foundation for AIDS Research, the Christopher Reeve
Paralysis Foundation, the American Red Cross and March
of Dimes.

As Jose pointed out earlier, the other source acts as
a publicist for various quack remedies including
magical cures for AIDS and cancer, and fake electrical
devices that supposedly kill parasites, bacteria and
viruses. The website Quackpotwatch.org
(http://www.quackpotwatch.org/) you refer to above
claims that there is a worldwide conspiracy to
suppress these "cures", and that professional
scientists and physicians who expose them as frauds,
are part of that conspiracy.

I question your judgment in implying in the above
quote that the two sides, namely those who expose
health-related fraud and the litigant who sues and
campaigns against them are making equally valid
claims. If you believe that reason and evidence rather
than faith can settle all disputes in the real world
then this has got be a good test case for such a
settlement. I hope you recognize this fact, and show
some consistency in your rationality.

Cheers,

Santosh
Kevin Saldanha
2008-01-29 18:20:27 UTC
Permalink
Dear Santosh,

It appears my near fanatical adoration of Dr. Neal Barnard and his
recommendations to the Indian public to revert to vegetarianism to
save their lives has affected "your powers of critical inquiry and
dispassionate rational thinking"... to use your words. He bucks the
current 'mainstream' medical mantra with his statements which give us
cause to pause.

The question at hand, without scientifically microdissecting the
arguments for and against, is whether a vegetarian diet is healthier
than the 'Atkins' diet, towards which the affluent Indian population
is currently heading. I think moderation is the key and a vegetarian
diet rich in 'ghee' would be just as unhealthy which is why he
promotes veganism.

Whatever the arguments used by either side to push their own agenda,
is the consumer better served by his advice or not? Are the current
methods by which we derive animal proteins the most humane? Are all
the scientific investigations on lab animals essential? Can we be
more humane as a society without affecting our health?

You can get shrill about his opposition to non-essential animal
experimentation by those institutions you quoted. How much of the
money donated to these so-called 'non-profit humanitarian
organizations' actually benefits society?

I still put my implicit faith in science to resolve these issues but
we need to look past some of our prejudices to see the bigger picture.
I do not practice alternative medicine but have seen it's effects on
animals who, for the most part, do not succumb to the placebo effect.
I have no explanation for this anecdotal evidence but know that it
cannot be quantified by 'mainstream' double-blind studies so essential
to our 'one-track' medical system today. I would not pursue
alternative therapies myself but should I criticize someone who takes
daily vitamin supplements as a quackpot?

Sincerely,

Kevin Saldanha
Mississauga, ON.
=========================
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 12:10:53 -0800 (PST)
From: Santosh Helekar <chimbelcho at sbcglobal.net>

I question your judgment in implying in the above
quote that the two sides, namely those who expose
health-related fraud and the litigant who sues and
campaigns against them are making equally valid
claims. If you believe that reason and evidence rather
than faith can settle all disputes in the real world
then this has got be a good test case for such a
settlement. I hope you recognize this fact, and show
some consistency in your rationality.

Cheers,

Santosh
--
http://2008goanconvention.com
http://www.multiculturalcanada.ca/ecp/content/goans.html
Santosh Helekar
2008-01-31 14:08:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevin Saldanha
It appears my near fanatical adoration of Dr. Neal
Barnard and his recommendations to the Indian public
to revert to vegetarianism to save their lives has
affected "your powers of critical inquiry and
dispassionate rational thinking"... to use your
words.
Dear Kevin,

I hope you recognize that belief in something or
somebody out of near fanatical adoration or simply
because of anecdotal evidence does not constitute
dispassionate rational thinking. That such a belief
should be subjected to a critical examination.

Cheers,

Santosh
Kevin Saldanha
2008-01-26 16:29:45 UTC
Permalink
Dear Santosh and others,
From the article quoted 'The combined budgets for 15 of the leading
animal protection organizations exceeded $115 million in 1994' .. sour
grapes compared to the livestock budget and it's lobbying for
subsidies with goes into the billions. A telling graphic at this link
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=11&year=2007&base_name=how_subsidies_change_your_worl
and a link to a Wikipedia entry from there on agricultural subsidies
for livestock production is quite informative on how much the
livestock industry influences agricultural policy and consumer
choices.

The following quote from the same article demonstrates the degree to
which religious thought has influenced public policy in the US.
"Developed by the USDA, the Basic Four Food Group system is actually
based on traditions rooted in the Old Testament. Kosher dietary law
scholars Regenstein and Regenstein of Cornell note that the Biblical
(and Moslem) four food groups are:
MEAT. (Yiddish: fleishig); Without meat in the diet iron
deficiency becomes widespread (animal iron is 5 times as absorbable as
plant iron).
DAIRY. (Yiddish: milchig); Eliminating dairy foods increases risk
of osteoporosis. Even non-physician Colin Campbell confirmed this from
his work in China 3 weeks after his service as a spokesman for PCRM at
their "let's eat only plant foods" news conference.
NEUTRAL (mainly plant). (Hebrew: parve or pareve.)
In 1956 the USDA divided the plant group into two: grains and
fruits-vegetables. PCRM goes extreme by dividing the Biblical plant
group into four, and telling people to forget about the meat and dairy
groups. Their 4-food group model not only increases the risk of anemia
and osteoporosis, it guarantees severe blood and nervous system damage
because nothing that grows out of the ground contains vitamin B12.
UNACCEPTABLE. (Yiddish: traif); included pork, shellfish, blood, etc."

Unfortunately, the lobby groups for the 'religion' of Science (
Quackbusters and NCAHF ) have lost credibility with the mainstream
legal system in the US (
http://www.quackpotwatch.org/opinionpieces/for_quackbuster.htm )

Sincerely,

Kevin Saldanha
Mississauga, ON.
======================
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 11:13:09 -0800 (PST)
From: Santosh Helekar <chimbelcho at sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: [Goanet] US doctors in India to promote vegetarianism

I forgot to mention this in my separate post on
vegetarianism. Please beware of Neal Barnard and his
so-called "Physician's Committee For Responsible
Medicine (PCRM)". It has been pointed out by others
that his advice is questionable, and is based on
selective information and misinformation about health
and nutrition. Please see the following link for more
on this:

http://www.ncahf.org/articles/o-r/pcrm.html

Cheers,

Santosh
--
http://2008goanconvention.com
http://www.multiculturalcanada.ca/ecp/content/goans.html
Santosh Helekar
2008-01-26 18:33:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevin Saldanha
Unfortunately, the lobby groups for the 'religion'
of Science (Quackbusters and NCAHF ) have lost
credibility with the mainstream legal system in the
US
Post by Kevin Saldanha
(http://www.quackpotwatch.org/opinionpieces/for_quackbuster.htm
)
Dear Kevin,

So now you have stopped relying on science as well? Do
you believe petty lawsuits settle scientific issues?
Are you willing to vouch for the credibility of the
above website, its authors and the unscientific
treatments they promote?

Your answers to these questions would be instructive.

Cheers,

Santosh
Kevin Saldanha
2008-01-28 04:13:16 UTC
Permalink
Dear Santosh,

The reason that I initially posted the piece that was the subject of
this thread is to demonstrate how far this nation of (predominantly?)
vegetarians has aped the meat-eating gluttony of the west (led by our
Portuguese ex-colony) when US doctors have to tour the country
promoting vegetarianism as a healthier alternative to coronary bypass
surgery and insulin dependence. Naturally, the medical profession
would be putting themselves out of business by recommending healthier
lifestyles ;-)

My LIFE is dependent on science but not to the extent that I have to
close my mind to the possibility that there are still unexplored
areas. Unlike jc, I DONT take scientist's data on faith because, if I
doubt it, I have all the tools necessary to verify it myself. Just
because science has not elucidated the mechanisms of alternative
therapies doesn't mean that they have to be discounted out of hand. I
don't use any of them in my practice because I am scientifically
inclined against them but will, on occasion, refer clients to local
alternative practitioners when I am out of options. Acupuncture was
derided until it was scientifically shown that the endorphins it
produced could explain it's temporary beneficial effects. However,
concepts like phlegm and the (triple?)afterburner as well as the
energy meridians do not yet and may never will have scientific
explanations. The benefit of practicing meditation cannot be
scientifically explained but has been scientifically quantified.

Mainstream medicine (speaking of murky waters) would be well advised
to adopt the holistic approach instead of prescribing a pill for every
ailment that fits the list of textbook diagnoses. However, these
days, doctors are more inclined to prescribe the pill for fear of
litigation if they do not, even if it's a sugar pill.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1700079,00.html It is
no wonder that many good doctors are looking to expand their practices
to include law.

Scientists and those who depend on science professionally have come to
revere it as the Holy Grail. I have a deep respect for science and
live my life based on it's inferences, but know that there is much we
still have to learn and have tried to avoid being sucked into it's
vortex of arrogance. I am disgusted with quackery just as much as I
am disgusted by the materialism of modern medicine. I do not condone
the exploitation of (sometimes terminally) ill patients.

I posted the link to the outcome of the lawsuit against Quackbusters
because there are always two sides to every story... and the spin
masters are getting better and better every day. Reading the two
sites (Quackbusters and Quackpotwatch) are as interesting as the
debates here on GoaNet.

As a Secular Humanist, I am aware that the perception of wellbeing is
just as important as being physically well. Cancer patients have
extended their lifespans and remission rates with positive attitudes
and in some cases, yes, even prayer. Vegetarianism, as FN has
mentioned, is satisfying for the body as well as the 'soul' (and
before anyone jumps down my throat for using that nebulous term, I am
referring to the 'mental attitude'). I am not advocating veganism for
meat-eaters as long as they are mindful of the ramifications of their
gustatory preferences. I feel that public perceptions about
meat-eating today are where they were about smoking 50 years ago.

Sincerely,

Kevin Saldanha
Mississauga, ON.
==================
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 10:33:02 -0800 (PST)
From: Santosh Helekar <chimbelcho at sbcglobal.net>

Dear Kevin,

So now you have stopped relying on science as well? Do
you believe petty lawsuits settle scientific issues?
Are you willing to vouch for the credibility of the
above website, its authors and the unscientific
treatments they promote?

Your answers to these questions would be instructive.

Cheers,

Santosh
--
http://2008goanconvention.com
http://www.multiculturalcanada.ca/ecp/content/goans.html
Santosh Helekar
2008-01-28 20:10:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevin Saldanha
I posted the link to the outcome of the lawsuit
against Quackbusters because there are always two
sides to every story... and the spin masters are
getting better and better every day. Reading the two
sites (Quackbusters and Quackpotwatch) are as
interesting as the debates here on GoaNet.
Dear Kevin,

A reasonable argument can be made for the role of
particular kinds of harmless, untested, faith-based
alternative treatments in chronic diseases that may
sometimes be resistant to well-tested, evidence-based
rational treatments. I have made this argument here on
several occasions in the past (please see the
archives). I have also made the argument that
alternative therapies should be subjected to the same
kind of rigorous validation procedures as modern
scientific therapies. And when one does this, they
would no longer be alternative. They would be part of
the armamentarium of modern evidence-based human and
veterinary medicine.

However, this is not the issue that I am concerned
about in your recent missives. What I am concerned
about is highlighted by your quote above, and your
citation of two questionable sources in this forum to
support your case for vegetarianism.

I submit to you that in recommending these sources as
"mainstream" and authentic you have not adequately
exercised your powers of critical inquiry and
dispassionate rational thinking. If you had done so,
you would have noted that these sources provide
misleading information regarding health and nutrition,
and have irrational anti-establishment agendas.

For example, the author of the book you have
recommended claims that milk and dairy products cause
a host of diseases including bronchial asthma,
diabetes, and breast and prostate cancers (Please see
http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.227/news_detail.asp).

His group is against all human and veterinary
biomedical research involving animals, and opposes
non-profit humanitarian organizations such as American
Heart Association, the American Cancer Society, St.
Jude Children?s Research Hospital, the American
Foundation for AIDS Research, the Christopher Reeve
Paralysis Foundation, the American Red Cross and March
of Dimes.

As Jose pointed out earlier, the other source acts as
a publicist for various quack remedies including
magical cures for AIDS and cancer, and fake electrical
devices that supposedly kill parasites, bacteria and
viruses. The website Quackpotwatch.org
(http://www.quackpotwatch.org/) you refer to above
claims that there is a worldwide conspiracy to
suppress these "cures", and that professional
scientists and physicians who expose them as frauds,
are part of that conspiracy.

I question your judgment in implying in the above
quote that the two sides, namely those who expose
health-related fraud and the litigant who sues and
campaigns against them are making equally valid
claims. If you believe that reason and evidence rather
than faith can settle all disputes in the real world
then this has got be a good test case for such a
settlement. I hope you recognize this fact, and show
some consistency in your rationality.

Cheers,

Santosh
Kevin Saldanha
2008-01-29 18:20:27 UTC
Permalink
Dear Santosh,

It appears my near fanatical adoration of Dr. Neal Barnard and his
recommendations to the Indian public to revert to vegetarianism to
save their lives has affected "your powers of critical inquiry and
dispassionate rational thinking"... to use your words. He bucks the
current 'mainstream' medical mantra with his statements which give us
cause to pause.

The question at hand, without scientifically microdissecting the
arguments for and against, is whether a vegetarian diet is healthier
than the 'Atkins' diet, towards which the affluent Indian population
is currently heading. I think moderation is the key and a vegetarian
diet rich in 'ghee' would be just as unhealthy which is why he
promotes veganism.

Whatever the arguments used by either side to push their own agenda,
is the consumer better served by his advice or not? Are the current
methods by which we derive animal proteins the most humane? Are all
the scientific investigations on lab animals essential? Can we be
more humane as a society without affecting our health?

You can get shrill about his opposition to non-essential animal
experimentation by those institutions you quoted. How much of the
money donated to these so-called 'non-profit humanitarian
organizations' actually benefits society?

I still put my implicit faith in science to resolve these issues but
we need to look past some of our prejudices to see the bigger picture.
I do not practice alternative medicine but have seen it's effects on
animals who, for the most part, do not succumb to the placebo effect.
I have no explanation for this anecdotal evidence but know that it
cannot be quantified by 'mainstream' double-blind studies so essential
to our 'one-track' medical system today. I would not pursue
alternative therapies myself but should I criticize someone who takes
daily vitamin supplements as a quackpot?

Sincerely,

Kevin Saldanha
Mississauga, ON.
=========================
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 12:10:53 -0800 (PST)
From: Santosh Helekar <chimbelcho at sbcglobal.net>

I question your judgment in implying in the above
quote that the two sides, namely those who expose
health-related fraud and the litigant who sues and
campaigns against them are making equally valid
claims. If you believe that reason and evidence rather
than faith can settle all disputes in the real world
then this has got be a good test case for such a
settlement. I hope you recognize this fact, and show
some consistency in your rationality.

Cheers,

Santosh
--
http://2008goanconvention.com
http://www.multiculturalcanada.ca/ecp/content/goans.html
Santosh Helekar
2008-01-31 14:08:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevin Saldanha
It appears my near fanatical adoration of Dr. Neal
Barnard and his recommendations to the Indian public
to revert to vegetarianism to save their lives has
affected "your powers of critical inquiry and
dispassionate rational thinking"... to use your
words.
Dear Kevin,

I hope you recognize that belief in something or
somebody out of near fanatical adoration or simply
because of anecdotal evidence does not constitute
dispassionate rational thinking. That such a belief
should be subjected to a critical examination.

Cheers,

Santosh
Kevin Saldanha
2008-01-26 16:29:45 UTC
Permalink
Dear Santosh and others,
From the article quoted 'The combined budgets for 15 of the leading
animal protection organizations exceeded $115 million in 1994' .. sour
grapes compared to the livestock budget and it's lobbying for
subsidies with goes into the billions. A telling graphic at this link
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=11&year=2007&base_name=how_subsidies_change_your_worl
and a link to a Wikipedia entry from there on agricultural subsidies
for livestock production is quite informative on how much the
livestock industry influences agricultural policy and consumer
choices.

The following quote from the same article demonstrates the degree to
which religious thought has influenced public policy in the US.
"Developed by the USDA, the Basic Four Food Group system is actually
based on traditions rooted in the Old Testament. Kosher dietary law
scholars Regenstein and Regenstein of Cornell note that the Biblical
(and Moslem) four food groups are:
MEAT. (Yiddish: fleishig); Without meat in the diet iron
deficiency becomes widespread (animal iron is 5 times as absorbable as
plant iron).
DAIRY. (Yiddish: milchig); Eliminating dairy foods increases risk
of osteoporosis. Even non-physician Colin Campbell confirmed this from
his work in China 3 weeks after his service as a spokesman for PCRM at
their "let's eat only plant foods" news conference.
NEUTRAL (mainly plant). (Hebrew: parve or pareve.)
In 1956 the USDA divided the plant group into two: grains and
fruits-vegetables. PCRM goes extreme by dividing the Biblical plant
group into four, and telling people to forget about the meat and dairy
groups. Their 4-food group model not only increases the risk of anemia
and osteoporosis, it guarantees severe blood and nervous system damage
because nothing that grows out of the ground contains vitamin B12.
UNACCEPTABLE. (Yiddish: traif); included pork, shellfish, blood, etc."

Unfortunately, the lobby groups for the 'religion' of Science (
Quackbusters and NCAHF ) have lost credibility with the mainstream
legal system in the US (
http://www.quackpotwatch.org/opinionpieces/for_quackbuster.htm )

Sincerely,

Kevin Saldanha
Mississauga, ON.
======================
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 11:13:09 -0800 (PST)
From: Santosh Helekar <chimbelcho at sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: [Goanet] US doctors in India to promote vegetarianism

I forgot to mention this in my separate post on
vegetarianism. Please beware of Neal Barnard and his
so-called "Physician's Committee For Responsible
Medicine (PCRM)". It has been pointed out by others
that his advice is questionable, and is based on
selective information and misinformation about health
and nutrition. Please see the following link for more
on this:

http://www.ncahf.org/articles/o-r/pcrm.html

Cheers,

Santosh
--
http://2008goanconvention.com
http://www.multiculturalcanada.ca/ecp/content/goans.html
Santosh Helekar
2008-01-26 18:33:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevin Saldanha
Unfortunately, the lobby groups for the 'religion'
of Science (Quackbusters and NCAHF ) have lost
credibility with the mainstream legal system in the
US
Post by Kevin Saldanha
(http://www.quackpotwatch.org/opinionpieces/for_quackbuster.htm
)
Dear Kevin,

So now you have stopped relying on science as well? Do
you believe petty lawsuits settle scientific issues?
Are you willing to vouch for the credibility of the
above website, its authors and the unscientific
treatments they promote?

Your answers to these questions would be instructive.

Cheers,

Santosh
Kevin Saldanha
2008-01-28 04:13:16 UTC
Permalink
Dear Santosh,

The reason that I initially posted the piece that was the subject of
this thread is to demonstrate how far this nation of (predominantly?)
vegetarians has aped the meat-eating gluttony of the west (led by our
Portuguese ex-colony) when US doctors have to tour the country
promoting vegetarianism as a healthier alternative to coronary bypass
surgery and insulin dependence. Naturally, the medical profession
would be putting themselves out of business by recommending healthier
lifestyles ;-)

My LIFE is dependent on science but not to the extent that I have to
close my mind to the possibility that there are still unexplored
areas. Unlike jc, I DONT take scientist's data on faith because, if I
doubt it, I have all the tools necessary to verify it myself. Just
because science has not elucidated the mechanisms of alternative
therapies doesn't mean that they have to be discounted out of hand. I
don't use any of them in my practice because I am scientifically
inclined against them but will, on occasion, refer clients to local
alternative practitioners when I am out of options. Acupuncture was
derided until it was scientifically shown that the endorphins it
produced could explain it's temporary beneficial effects. However,
concepts like phlegm and the (triple?)afterburner as well as the
energy meridians do not yet and may never will have scientific
explanations. The benefit of practicing meditation cannot be
scientifically explained but has been scientifically quantified.

Mainstream medicine (speaking of murky waters) would be well advised
to adopt the holistic approach instead of prescribing a pill for every
ailment that fits the list of textbook diagnoses. However, these
days, doctors are more inclined to prescribe the pill for fear of
litigation if they do not, even if it's a sugar pill.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1700079,00.html It is
no wonder that many good doctors are looking to expand their practices
to include law.

Scientists and those who depend on science professionally have come to
revere it as the Holy Grail. I have a deep respect for science and
live my life based on it's inferences, but know that there is much we
still have to learn and have tried to avoid being sucked into it's
vortex of arrogance. I am disgusted with quackery just as much as I
am disgusted by the materialism of modern medicine. I do not condone
the exploitation of (sometimes terminally) ill patients.

I posted the link to the outcome of the lawsuit against Quackbusters
because there are always two sides to every story... and the spin
masters are getting better and better every day. Reading the two
sites (Quackbusters and Quackpotwatch) are as interesting as the
debates here on GoaNet.

As a Secular Humanist, I am aware that the perception of wellbeing is
just as important as being physically well. Cancer patients have
extended their lifespans and remission rates with positive attitudes
and in some cases, yes, even prayer. Vegetarianism, as FN has
mentioned, is satisfying for the body as well as the 'soul' (and
before anyone jumps down my throat for using that nebulous term, I am
referring to the 'mental attitude'). I am not advocating veganism for
meat-eaters as long as they are mindful of the ramifications of their
gustatory preferences. I feel that public perceptions about
meat-eating today are where they were about smoking 50 years ago.

Sincerely,

Kevin Saldanha
Mississauga, ON.
==================
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 10:33:02 -0800 (PST)
From: Santosh Helekar <chimbelcho at sbcglobal.net>

Dear Kevin,

So now you have stopped relying on science as well? Do
you believe petty lawsuits settle scientific issues?
Are you willing to vouch for the credibility of the
above website, its authors and the unscientific
treatments they promote?

Your answers to these questions would be instructive.

Cheers,

Santosh
--
http://2008goanconvention.com
http://www.multiculturalcanada.ca/ecp/content/goans.html
Santosh Helekar
2008-01-28 20:10:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevin Saldanha
I posted the link to the outcome of the lawsuit
against Quackbusters because there are always two
sides to every story... and the spin masters are
getting better and better every day. Reading the two
sites (Quackbusters and Quackpotwatch) are as
interesting as the debates here on GoaNet.
Dear Kevin,

A reasonable argument can be made for the role of
particular kinds of harmless, untested, faith-based
alternative treatments in chronic diseases that may
sometimes be resistant to well-tested, evidence-based
rational treatments. I have made this argument here on
several occasions in the past (please see the
archives). I have also made the argument that
alternative therapies should be subjected to the same
kind of rigorous validation procedures as modern
scientific therapies. And when one does this, they
would no longer be alternative. They would be part of
the armamentarium of modern evidence-based human and
veterinary medicine.

However, this is not the issue that I am concerned
about in your recent missives. What I am concerned
about is highlighted by your quote above, and your
citation of two questionable sources in this forum to
support your case for vegetarianism.

I submit to you that in recommending these sources as
"mainstream" and authentic you have not adequately
exercised your powers of critical inquiry and
dispassionate rational thinking. If you had done so,
you would have noted that these sources provide
misleading information regarding health and nutrition,
and have irrational anti-establishment agendas.

For example, the author of the book you have
recommended claims that milk and dairy products cause
a host of diseases including bronchial asthma,
diabetes, and breast and prostate cancers (Please see
http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.227/news_detail.asp).

His group is against all human and veterinary
biomedical research involving animals, and opposes
non-profit humanitarian organizations such as American
Heart Association, the American Cancer Society, St.
Jude Children?s Research Hospital, the American
Foundation for AIDS Research, the Christopher Reeve
Paralysis Foundation, the American Red Cross and March
of Dimes.

As Jose pointed out earlier, the other source acts as
a publicist for various quack remedies including
magical cures for AIDS and cancer, and fake electrical
devices that supposedly kill parasites, bacteria and
viruses. The website Quackpotwatch.org
(http://www.quackpotwatch.org/) you refer to above
claims that there is a worldwide conspiracy to
suppress these "cures", and that professional
scientists and physicians who expose them as frauds,
are part of that conspiracy.

I question your judgment in implying in the above
quote that the two sides, namely those who expose
health-related fraud and the litigant who sues and
campaigns against them are making equally valid
claims. If you believe that reason and evidence rather
than faith can settle all disputes in the real world
then this has got be a good test case for such a
settlement. I hope you recognize this fact, and show
some consistency in your rationality.

Cheers,

Santosh
Kevin Saldanha
2008-01-29 18:20:27 UTC
Permalink
Dear Santosh,

It appears my near fanatical adoration of Dr. Neal Barnard and his
recommendations to the Indian public to revert to vegetarianism to
save their lives has affected "your powers of critical inquiry and
dispassionate rational thinking"... to use your words. He bucks the
current 'mainstream' medical mantra with his statements which give us
cause to pause.

The question at hand, without scientifically microdissecting the
arguments for and against, is whether a vegetarian diet is healthier
than the 'Atkins' diet, towards which the affluent Indian population
is currently heading. I think moderation is the key and a vegetarian
diet rich in 'ghee' would be just as unhealthy which is why he
promotes veganism.

Whatever the arguments used by either side to push their own agenda,
is the consumer better served by his advice or not? Are the current
methods by which we derive animal proteins the most humane? Are all
the scientific investigations on lab animals essential? Can we be
more humane as a society without affecting our health?

You can get shrill about his opposition to non-essential animal
experimentation by those institutions you quoted. How much of the
money donated to these so-called 'non-profit humanitarian
organizations' actually benefits society?

I still put my implicit faith in science to resolve these issues but
we need to look past some of our prejudices to see the bigger picture.
I do not practice alternative medicine but have seen it's effects on
animals who, for the most part, do not succumb to the placebo effect.
I have no explanation for this anecdotal evidence but know that it
cannot be quantified by 'mainstream' double-blind studies so essential
to our 'one-track' medical system today. I would not pursue
alternative therapies myself but should I criticize someone who takes
daily vitamin supplements as a quackpot?

Sincerely,

Kevin Saldanha
Mississauga, ON.
=========================
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 12:10:53 -0800 (PST)
From: Santosh Helekar <chimbelcho at sbcglobal.net>

I question your judgment in implying in the above
quote that the two sides, namely those who expose
health-related fraud and the litigant who sues and
campaigns against them are making equally valid
claims. If you believe that reason and evidence rather
than faith can settle all disputes in the real world
then this has got be a good test case for such a
settlement. I hope you recognize this fact, and show
some consistency in your rationality.

Cheers,

Santosh
--
http://2008goanconvention.com
http://www.multiculturalcanada.ca/ecp/content/goans.html
Santosh Helekar
2008-01-31 14:08:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevin Saldanha
It appears my near fanatical adoration of Dr. Neal
Barnard and his recommendations to the Indian public
to revert to vegetarianism to save their lives has
affected "your powers of critical inquiry and
dispassionate rational thinking"... to use your
words.
Dear Kevin,

I hope you recognize that belief in something or
somebody out of near fanatical adoration or simply
because of anecdotal evidence does not constitute
dispassionate rational thinking. That such a belief
should be subjected to a critical examination.

Cheers,

Santosh
Kevin Saldanha
2008-01-26 16:29:45 UTC
Permalink
Dear Santosh and others,
From the article quoted 'The combined budgets for 15 of the leading
animal protection organizations exceeded $115 million in 1994' .. sour
grapes compared to the livestock budget and it's lobbying for
subsidies with goes into the billions. A telling graphic at this link
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=11&year=2007&base_name=how_subsidies_change_your_worl
and a link to a Wikipedia entry from there on agricultural subsidies
for livestock production is quite informative on how much the
livestock industry influences agricultural policy and consumer
choices.

The following quote from the same article demonstrates the degree to
which religious thought has influenced public policy in the US.
"Developed by the USDA, the Basic Four Food Group system is actually
based on traditions rooted in the Old Testament. Kosher dietary law
scholars Regenstein and Regenstein of Cornell note that the Biblical
(and Moslem) four food groups are:
MEAT. (Yiddish: fleishig); Without meat in the diet iron
deficiency becomes widespread (animal iron is 5 times as absorbable as
plant iron).
DAIRY. (Yiddish: milchig); Eliminating dairy foods increases risk
of osteoporosis. Even non-physician Colin Campbell confirmed this from
his work in China 3 weeks after his service as a spokesman for PCRM at
their "let's eat only plant foods" news conference.
NEUTRAL (mainly plant). (Hebrew: parve or pareve.)
In 1956 the USDA divided the plant group into two: grains and
fruits-vegetables. PCRM goes extreme by dividing the Biblical plant
group into four, and telling people to forget about the meat and dairy
groups. Their 4-food group model not only increases the risk of anemia
and osteoporosis, it guarantees severe blood and nervous system damage
because nothing that grows out of the ground contains vitamin B12.
UNACCEPTABLE. (Yiddish: traif); included pork, shellfish, blood, etc."

Unfortunately, the lobby groups for the 'religion' of Science (
Quackbusters and NCAHF ) have lost credibility with the mainstream
legal system in the US (
http://www.quackpotwatch.org/opinionpieces/for_quackbuster.htm )

Sincerely,

Kevin Saldanha
Mississauga, ON.
======================
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 11:13:09 -0800 (PST)
From: Santosh Helekar <chimbelcho at sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: [Goanet] US doctors in India to promote vegetarianism

I forgot to mention this in my separate post on
vegetarianism. Please beware of Neal Barnard and his
so-called "Physician's Committee For Responsible
Medicine (PCRM)". It has been pointed out by others
that his advice is questionable, and is based on
selective information and misinformation about health
and nutrition. Please see the following link for more
on this:

http://www.ncahf.org/articles/o-r/pcrm.html

Cheers,

Santosh
--
http://2008goanconvention.com
http://www.multiculturalcanada.ca/ecp/content/goans.html
Santosh Helekar
2008-01-26 18:33:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevin Saldanha
Unfortunately, the lobby groups for the 'religion'
of Science (Quackbusters and NCAHF ) have lost
credibility with the mainstream legal system in the
US
Post by Kevin Saldanha
(http://www.quackpotwatch.org/opinionpieces/for_quackbuster.htm
)
Dear Kevin,

So now you have stopped relying on science as well? Do
you believe petty lawsuits settle scientific issues?
Are you willing to vouch for the credibility of the
above website, its authors and the unscientific
treatments they promote?

Your answers to these questions would be instructive.

Cheers,

Santosh
Kevin Saldanha
2008-01-28 04:13:16 UTC
Permalink
Dear Santosh,

The reason that I initially posted the piece that was the subject of
this thread is to demonstrate how far this nation of (predominantly?)
vegetarians has aped the meat-eating gluttony of the west (led by our
Portuguese ex-colony) when US doctors have to tour the country
promoting vegetarianism as a healthier alternative to coronary bypass
surgery and insulin dependence. Naturally, the medical profession
would be putting themselves out of business by recommending healthier
lifestyles ;-)

My LIFE is dependent on science but not to the extent that I have to
close my mind to the possibility that there are still unexplored
areas. Unlike jc, I DONT take scientist's data on faith because, if I
doubt it, I have all the tools necessary to verify it myself. Just
because science has not elucidated the mechanisms of alternative
therapies doesn't mean that they have to be discounted out of hand. I
don't use any of them in my practice because I am scientifically
inclined against them but will, on occasion, refer clients to local
alternative practitioners when I am out of options. Acupuncture was
derided until it was scientifically shown that the endorphins it
produced could explain it's temporary beneficial effects. However,
concepts like phlegm and the (triple?)afterburner as well as the
energy meridians do not yet and may never will have scientific
explanations. The benefit of practicing meditation cannot be
scientifically explained but has been scientifically quantified.

Mainstream medicine (speaking of murky waters) would be well advised
to adopt the holistic approach instead of prescribing a pill for every
ailment that fits the list of textbook diagnoses. However, these
days, doctors are more inclined to prescribe the pill for fear of
litigation if they do not, even if it's a sugar pill.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1700079,00.html It is
no wonder that many good doctors are looking to expand their practices
to include law.

Scientists and those who depend on science professionally have come to
revere it as the Holy Grail. I have a deep respect for science and
live my life based on it's inferences, but know that there is much we
still have to learn and have tried to avoid being sucked into it's
vortex of arrogance. I am disgusted with quackery just as much as I
am disgusted by the materialism of modern medicine. I do not condone
the exploitation of (sometimes terminally) ill patients.

I posted the link to the outcome of the lawsuit against Quackbusters
because there are always two sides to every story... and the spin
masters are getting better and better every day. Reading the two
sites (Quackbusters and Quackpotwatch) are as interesting as the
debates here on GoaNet.

As a Secular Humanist, I am aware that the perception of wellbeing is
just as important as being physically well. Cancer patients have
extended their lifespans and remission rates with positive attitudes
and in some cases, yes, even prayer. Vegetarianism, as FN has
mentioned, is satisfying for the body as well as the 'soul' (and
before anyone jumps down my throat for using that nebulous term, I am
referring to the 'mental attitude'). I am not advocating veganism for
meat-eaters as long as they are mindful of the ramifications of their
gustatory preferences. I feel that public perceptions about
meat-eating today are where they were about smoking 50 years ago.

Sincerely,

Kevin Saldanha
Mississauga, ON.
==================
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 10:33:02 -0800 (PST)
From: Santosh Helekar <chimbelcho at sbcglobal.net>

Dear Kevin,

So now you have stopped relying on science as well? Do
you believe petty lawsuits settle scientific issues?
Are you willing to vouch for the credibility of the
above website, its authors and the unscientific
treatments they promote?

Your answers to these questions would be instructive.

Cheers,

Santosh
--
http://2008goanconvention.com
http://www.multiculturalcanada.ca/ecp/content/goans.html
Santosh Helekar
2008-01-28 20:10:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevin Saldanha
I posted the link to the outcome of the lawsuit
against Quackbusters because there are always two
sides to every story... and the spin masters are
getting better and better every day. Reading the two
sites (Quackbusters and Quackpotwatch) are as
interesting as the debates here on GoaNet.
Dear Kevin,

A reasonable argument can be made for the role of
particular kinds of harmless, untested, faith-based
alternative treatments in chronic diseases that may
sometimes be resistant to well-tested, evidence-based
rational treatments. I have made this argument here on
several occasions in the past (please see the
archives). I have also made the argument that
alternative therapies should be subjected to the same
kind of rigorous validation procedures as modern
scientific therapies. And when one does this, they
would no longer be alternative. They would be part of
the armamentarium of modern evidence-based human and
veterinary medicine.

However, this is not the issue that I am concerned
about in your recent missives. What I am concerned
about is highlighted by your quote above, and your
citation of two questionable sources in this forum to
support your case for vegetarianism.

I submit to you that in recommending these sources as
"mainstream" and authentic you have not adequately
exercised your powers of critical inquiry and
dispassionate rational thinking. If you had done so,
you would have noted that these sources provide
misleading information regarding health and nutrition,
and have irrational anti-establishment agendas.

For example, the author of the book you have
recommended claims that milk and dairy products cause
a host of diseases including bronchial asthma,
diabetes, and breast and prostate cancers (Please see
http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.227/news_detail.asp).

His group is against all human and veterinary
biomedical research involving animals, and opposes
non-profit humanitarian organizations such as American
Heart Association, the American Cancer Society, St.
Jude Children?s Research Hospital, the American
Foundation for AIDS Research, the Christopher Reeve
Paralysis Foundation, the American Red Cross and March
of Dimes.

As Jose pointed out earlier, the other source acts as
a publicist for various quack remedies including
magical cures for AIDS and cancer, and fake electrical
devices that supposedly kill parasites, bacteria and
viruses. The website Quackpotwatch.org
(http://www.quackpotwatch.org/) you refer to above
claims that there is a worldwide conspiracy to
suppress these "cures", and that professional
scientists and physicians who expose them as frauds,
are part of that conspiracy.

I question your judgment in implying in the above
quote that the two sides, namely those who expose
health-related fraud and the litigant who sues and
campaigns against them are making equally valid
claims. If you believe that reason and evidence rather
than faith can settle all disputes in the real world
then this has got be a good test case for such a
settlement. I hope you recognize this fact, and show
some consistency in your rationality.

Cheers,

Santosh
Kevin Saldanha
2008-01-29 18:20:27 UTC
Permalink
Dear Santosh,

It appears my near fanatical adoration of Dr. Neal Barnard and his
recommendations to the Indian public to revert to vegetarianism to
save their lives has affected "your powers of critical inquiry and
dispassionate rational thinking"... to use your words. He bucks the
current 'mainstream' medical mantra with his statements which give us
cause to pause.

The question at hand, without scientifically microdissecting the
arguments for and against, is whether a vegetarian diet is healthier
than the 'Atkins' diet, towards which the affluent Indian population
is currently heading. I think moderation is the key and a vegetarian
diet rich in 'ghee' would be just as unhealthy which is why he
promotes veganism.

Whatever the arguments used by either side to push their own agenda,
is the consumer better served by his advice or not? Are the current
methods by which we derive animal proteins the most humane? Are all
the scientific investigations on lab animals essential? Can we be
more humane as a society without affecting our health?

You can get shrill about his opposition to non-essential animal
experimentation by those institutions you quoted. How much of the
money donated to these so-called 'non-profit humanitarian
organizations' actually benefits society?

I still put my implicit faith in science to resolve these issues but
we need to look past some of our prejudices to see the bigger picture.
I do not practice alternative medicine but have seen it's effects on
animals who, for the most part, do not succumb to the placebo effect.
I have no explanation for this anecdotal evidence but know that it
cannot be quantified by 'mainstream' double-blind studies so essential
to our 'one-track' medical system today. I would not pursue
alternative therapies myself but should I criticize someone who takes
daily vitamin supplements as a quackpot?

Sincerely,

Kevin Saldanha
Mississauga, ON.
=========================
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 12:10:53 -0800 (PST)
From: Santosh Helekar <chimbelcho at sbcglobal.net>

I question your judgment in implying in the above
quote that the two sides, namely those who expose
health-related fraud and the litigant who sues and
campaigns against them are making equally valid
claims. If you believe that reason and evidence rather
than faith can settle all disputes in the real world
then this has got be a good test case for such a
settlement. I hope you recognize this fact, and show
some consistency in your rationality.

Cheers,

Santosh
--
http://2008goanconvention.com
http://www.multiculturalcanada.ca/ecp/content/goans.html
Santosh Helekar
2008-01-31 14:08:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevin Saldanha
It appears my near fanatical adoration of Dr. Neal
Barnard and his recommendations to the Indian public
to revert to vegetarianism to save their lives has
affected "your powers of critical inquiry and
dispassionate rational thinking"... to use your
words.
Dear Kevin,

I hope you recognize that belief in something or
somebody out of near fanatical adoration or simply
because of anecdotal evidence does not constitute
dispassionate rational thinking. That such a belief
should be subjected to a critical examination.

Cheers,

Santosh
Kevin Saldanha
2008-01-26 16:29:45 UTC
Permalink
Dear Santosh and others,
From the article quoted 'The combined budgets for 15 of the leading
animal protection organizations exceeded $115 million in 1994' .. sour
grapes compared to the livestock budget and it's lobbying for
subsidies with goes into the billions. A telling graphic at this link
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=11&year=2007&base_name=how_subsidies_change_your_worl
and a link to a Wikipedia entry from there on agricultural subsidies
for livestock production is quite informative on how much the
livestock industry influences agricultural policy and consumer
choices.

The following quote from the same article demonstrates the degree to
which religious thought has influenced public policy in the US.
"Developed by the USDA, the Basic Four Food Group system is actually
based on traditions rooted in the Old Testament. Kosher dietary law
scholars Regenstein and Regenstein of Cornell note that the Biblical
(and Moslem) four food groups are:
MEAT. (Yiddish: fleishig); Without meat in the diet iron
deficiency becomes widespread (animal iron is 5 times as absorbable as
plant iron).
DAIRY. (Yiddish: milchig); Eliminating dairy foods increases risk
of osteoporosis. Even non-physician Colin Campbell confirmed this from
his work in China 3 weeks after his service as a spokesman for PCRM at
their "let's eat only plant foods" news conference.
NEUTRAL (mainly plant). (Hebrew: parve or pareve.)
In 1956 the USDA divided the plant group into two: grains and
fruits-vegetables. PCRM goes extreme by dividing the Biblical plant
group into four, and telling people to forget about the meat and dairy
groups. Their 4-food group model not only increases the risk of anemia
and osteoporosis, it guarantees severe blood and nervous system damage
because nothing that grows out of the ground contains vitamin B12.
UNACCEPTABLE. (Yiddish: traif); included pork, shellfish, blood, etc."

Unfortunately, the lobby groups for the 'religion' of Science (
Quackbusters and NCAHF ) have lost credibility with the mainstream
legal system in the US (
http://www.quackpotwatch.org/opinionpieces/for_quackbuster.htm )

Sincerely,

Kevin Saldanha
Mississauga, ON.
======================
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 11:13:09 -0800 (PST)
From: Santosh Helekar <chimbelcho at sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: [Goanet] US doctors in India to promote vegetarianism

I forgot to mention this in my separate post on
vegetarianism. Please beware of Neal Barnard and his
so-called "Physician's Committee For Responsible
Medicine (PCRM)". It has been pointed out by others
that his advice is questionable, and is based on
selective information and misinformation about health
and nutrition. Please see the following link for more
on this:

http://www.ncahf.org/articles/o-r/pcrm.html

Cheers,

Santosh
--
http://2008goanconvention.com
http://www.multiculturalcanada.ca/ecp/content/goans.html
Santosh Helekar
2008-01-26 18:33:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevin Saldanha
Unfortunately, the lobby groups for the 'religion'
of Science (Quackbusters and NCAHF ) have lost
credibility with the mainstream legal system in the
US
Post by Kevin Saldanha
(http://www.quackpotwatch.org/opinionpieces/for_quackbuster.htm
)
Dear Kevin,

So now you have stopped relying on science as well? Do
you believe petty lawsuits settle scientific issues?
Are you willing to vouch for the credibility of the
above website, its authors and the unscientific
treatments they promote?

Your answers to these questions would be instructive.

Cheers,

Santosh
Kevin Saldanha
2008-01-28 04:13:16 UTC
Permalink
Dear Santosh,

The reason that I initially posted the piece that was the subject of
this thread is to demonstrate how far this nation of (predominantly?)
vegetarians has aped the meat-eating gluttony of the west (led by our
Portuguese ex-colony) when US doctors have to tour the country
promoting vegetarianism as a healthier alternative to coronary bypass
surgery and insulin dependence. Naturally, the medical profession
would be putting themselves out of business by recommending healthier
lifestyles ;-)

My LIFE is dependent on science but not to the extent that I have to
close my mind to the possibility that there are still unexplored
areas. Unlike jc, I DONT take scientist's data on faith because, if I
doubt it, I have all the tools necessary to verify it myself. Just
because science has not elucidated the mechanisms of alternative
therapies doesn't mean that they have to be discounted out of hand. I
don't use any of them in my practice because I am scientifically
inclined against them but will, on occasion, refer clients to local
alternative practitioners when I am out of options. Acupuncture was
derided until it was scientifically shown that the endorphins it
produced could explain it's temporary beneficial effects. However,
concepts like phlegm and the (triple?)afterburner as well as the
energy meridians do not yet and may never will have scientific
explanations. The benefit of practicing meditation cannot be
scientifically explained but has been scientifically quantified.

Mainstream medicine (speaking of murky waters) would be well advised
to adopt the holistic approach instead of prescribing a pill for every
ailment that fits the list of textbook diagnoses. However, these
days, doctors are more inclined to prescribe the pill for fear of
litigation if they do not, even if it's a sugar pill.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1700079,00.html It is
no wonder that many good doctors are looking to expand their practices
to include law.

Scientists and those who depend on science professionally have come to
revere it as the Holy Grail. I have a deep respect for science and
live my life based on it's inferences, but know that there is much we
still have to learn and have tried to avoid being sucked into it's
vortex of arrogance. I am disgusted with quackery just as much as I
am disgusted by the materialism of modern medicine. I do not condone
the exploitation of (sometimes terminally) ill patients.

I posted the link to the outcome of the lawsuit against Quackbusters
because there are always two sides to every story... and the spin
masters are getting better and better every day. Reading the two
sites (Quackbusters and Quackpotwatch) are as interesting as the
debates here on GoaNet.

As a Secular Humanist, I am aware that the perception of wellbeing is
just as important as being physically well. Cancer patients have
extended their lifespans and remission rates with positive attitudes
and in some cases, yes, even prayer. Vegetarianism, as FN has
mentioned, is satisfying for the body as well as the 'soul' (and
before anyone jumps down my throat for using that nebulous term, I am
referring to the 'mental attitude'). I am not advocating veganism for
meat-eaters as long as they are mindful of the ramifications of their
gustatory preferences. I feel that public perceptions about
meat-eating today are where they were about smoking 50 years ago.

Sincerely,

Kevin Saldanha
Mississauga, ON.
==================
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 10:33:02 -0800 (PST)
From: Santosh Helekar <chimbelcho at sbcglobal.net>

Dear Kevin,

So now you have stopped relying on science as well? Do
you believe petty lawsuits settle scientific issues?
Are you willing to vouch for the credibility of the
above website, its authors and the unscientific
treatments they promote?

Your answers to these questions would be instructive.

Cheers,

Santosh
--
http://2008goanconvention.com
http://www.multiculturalcanada.ca/ecp/content/goans.html
Santosh Helekar
2008-01-28 20:10:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevin Saldanha
I posted the link to the outcome of the lawsuit
against Quackbusters because there are always two
sides to every story... and the spin masters are
getting better and better every day. Reading the two
sites (Quackbusters and Quackpotwatch) are as
interesting as the debates here on GoaNet.
Dear Kevin,

A reasonable argument can be made for the role of
particular kinds of harmless, untested, faith-based
alternative treatments in chronic diseases that may
sometimes be resistant to well-tested, evidence-based
rational treatments. I have made this argument here on
several occasions in the past (please see the
archives). I have also made the argument that
alternative therapies should be subjected to the same
kind of rigorous validation procedures as modern
scientific therapies. And when one does this, they
would no longer be alternative. They would be part of
the armamentarium of modern evidence-based human and
veterinary medicine.

However, this is not the issue that I am concerned
about in your recent missives. What I am concerned
about is highlighted by your quote above, and your
citation of two questionable sources in this forum to
support your case for vegetarianism.

I submit to you that in recommending these sources as
"mainstream" and authentic you have not adequately
exercised your powers of critical inquiry and
dispassionate rational thinking. If you had done so,
you would have noted that these sources provide
misleading information regarding health and nutrition,
and have irrational anti-establishment agendas.

For example, the author of the book you have
recommended claims that milk and dairy products cause
a host of diseases including bronchial asthma,
diabetes, and breast and prostate cancers (Please see
http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.227/news_detail.asp).

His group is against all human and veterinary
biomedical research involving animals, and opposes
non-profit humanitarian organizations such as American
Heart Association, the American Cancer Society, St.
Jude Children?s Research Hospital, the American
Foundation for AIDS Research, the Christopher Reeve
Paralysis Foundation, the American Red Cross and March
of Dimes.

As Jose pointed out earlier, the other source acts as
a publicist for various quack remedies including
magical cures for AIDS and cancer, and fake electrical
devices that supposedly kill parasites, bacteria and
viruses. The website Quackpotwatch.org
(http://www.quackpotwatch.org/) you refer to above
claims that there is a worldwide conspiracy to
suppress these "cures", and that professional
scientists and physicians who expose them as frauds,
are part of that conspiracy.

I question your judgment in implying in the above
quote that the two sides, namely those who expose
health-related fraud and the litigant who sues and
campaigns against them are making equally valid
claims. If you believe that reason and evidence rather
than faith can settle all disputes in the real world
then this has got be a good test case for such a
settlement. I hope you recognize this fact, and show
some consistency in your rationality.

Cheers,

Santosh
Kevin Saldanha
2008-01-29 18:20:27 UTC
Permalink
Dear Santosh,

It appears my near fanatical adoration of Dr. Neal Barnard and his
recommendations to the Indian public to revert to vegetarianism to
save their lives has affected "your powers of critical inquiry and
dispassionate rational thinking"... to use your words. He bucks the
current 'mainstream' medical mantra with his statements which give us
cause to pause.

The question at hand, without scientifically microdissecting the
arguments for and against, is whether a vegetarian diet is healthier
than the 'Atkins' diet, towards which the affluent Indian population
is currently heading. I think moderation is the key and a vegetarian
diet rich in 'ghee' would be just as unhealthy which is why he
promotes veganism.

Whatever the arguments used by either side to push their own agenda,
is the consumer better served by his advice or not? Are the current
methods by which we derive animal proteins the most humane? Are all
the scientific investigations on lab animals essential? Can we be
more humane as a society without affecting our health?

You can get shrill about his opposition to non-essential animal
experimentation by those institutions you quoted. How much of the
money donated to these so-called 'non-profit humanitarian
organizations' actually benefits society?

I still put my implicit faith in science to resolve these issues but
we need to look past some of our prejudices to see the bigger picture.
I do not practice alternative medicine but have seen it's effects on
animals who, for the most part, do not succumb to the placebo effect.
I have no explanation for this anecdotal evidence but know that it
cannot be quantified by 'mainstream' double-blind studies so essential
to our 'one-track' medical system today. I would not pursue
alternative therapies myself but should I criticize someone who takes
daily vitamin supplements as a quackpot?

Sincerely,

Kevin Saldanha
Mississauga, ON.
=========================
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 12:10:53 -0800 (PST)
From: Santosh Helekar <chimbelcho at sbcglobal.net>

I question your judgment in implying in the above
quote that the two sides, namely those who expose
health-related fraud and the litigant who sues and
campaigns against them are making equally valid
claims. If you believe that reason and evidence rather
than faith can settle all disputes in the real world
then this has got be a good test case for such a
settlement. I hope you recognize this fact, and show
some consistency in your rationality.

Cheers,

Santosh
--
http://2008goanconvention.com
http://www.multiculturalcanada.ca/ecp/content/goans.html
Santosh Helekar
2008-01-31 14:08:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevin Saldanha
It appears my near fanatical adoration of Dr. Neal
Barnard and his recommendations to the Indian public
to revert to vegetarianism to save their lives has
affected "your powers of critical inquiry and
dispassionate rational thinking"... to use your
words.
Dear Kevin,

I hope you recognize that belief in something or
somebody out of near fanatical adoration or simply
because of anecdotal evidence does not constitute
dispassionate rational thinking. That such a belief
should be subjected to a critical examination.

Cheers,

Santosh

Loading...