The dangers of homeopathy and food alternatives

[pedrodelavega]

Oh ignorance, how much havoc do you do to weak spirits?

Oh condescension, ...

Already seen too! placebos have the same percentages of successes or failures WHATEVER THERAPY USED .

You break open doors. The question is not there: Which therapy has a significantly higher success rate than a placebo?

[Janic]

Compassion or sentimentality?

Empathy for animals depends on their degree of resemblance to us. So towards mammals, we sympathize. But not to the tuna that dies on the deck of a boat. Those, we do not hear them. But not sure that their suffering is less than that of a calf slaughtered properly in a slaughterhouse.

this is why a food mode should not be based on any sensitivity whatsoever but on scientific knowledge (for fans of all science) as much as on biological mechanisms not distorted by successive cultures.

Je think that vegetarianism has many reasons. The one which consists in refusing to eat animals out of compassion is inconsistent

.
Except that to think it is not scientific and out of any personal experience which alone makes it possible to make the distinction. It is only a simple mental abstraction (not even intellectual!)
concerning the fact: " The one which consists in refusing to eat animals out of compassion is inconsistent "this reflection is totally, how to say ... incoherent". Indeed that adults kill and dismember (with their natural tools like other animals), namely their only teeth, the animals they consume and we will talk about the inconsistency in question! How many of these make their offspring of independent feeding age do it (like other animals)? While any child will without any emotion bite the apple picked from the apple tree at this age!

Between eating pork, and eating carrot, via snail or frying, there are all degrees from one to the other.

Elementary my dear Watson!

Knowing in addition that the animal / plant distinction is uncertain ,.

As?

the threshold decided to eat / not to eat one or the other can only be the result of an arbitrary and necessarily unfair choice.

any food mode is necessarily an arbitrary choice depending on the culture of the moment. The sensitive souls who cry over the death of their darling kitty, remain unmoved in front of the steak on their plate, so it is iniquitous according to your speech, but not to take oneself for an omnivore. Inconsistency of the human mind!

[Janic]

Janic wrote:
Oh ignorance, how much havoc do you do to weak spirits?

Oh condescension, ...

not condescension, but simply observation. Do you consider that your children's teacher shows condescension towards these easily malleable (and therefore weak) children under an influence that should not be questioned, especially when the latter ignores everything about his subject?

Janic wrote:
Already seen too! placebos have the same pass or fail percentages regardless of the therapy used.

You break open doors. The question is not there: Which therapy has a significantly higher success rate than a placebo?

the question is badly put. Indeed, if 90% are under the effect of placebo, and therefore achieve undeniable therapeutic success, it is the placebo which becomes superior to all the rest. But as nobody really knows in advance what percentage will be under this effect and this whatever therapy is used, it is the latter which will be superior to him! Elementary my dear Watson!

[eclectron]

Vegetarianism is fashionable. He even has his extremists, the followers of veganism. This movement motivated by moral, religious or cultural reasons (devious because it is against nature) would have us believe also, a story of a semblance of rationality, that vegetarianism would be the solution to the deplorable eating habits of our modernity and an ecological solution. making animal husbandry obsolete, as if man himself were not also the object of ecology.
Because man has always eaten meat since he left to colonize the world, which still leads us to more than 2 million years. Aside from the lack of diversity of a diet that is too meaty and the excesses of large amounts eaten, meat has never been a problem. On the contrary, it is beneficial to humans by increasing the necessary diversity of the inputs we need.

The two facts recounted here confirm that the unqualified promoters of all these incoherent alternatives are criminally limited. Unconsciousness is not an excuse.

yes it's true eating meat is cultural and unnatural
Ah, was that not the point of the initial point?

Some loose facts to ponder:

-Does a child catch a rabbit or other small animal to eat it raw?
A young of a carnivore will attempt to do so.

-The only "scientific-cultural" argument in favor of meat is vitamin B12.
Vitamin B12 which is found in the soil and therefore the deficiency for vegans comes from too washed, too clean vegetable food.

-the echinococcosis parasite considers our digestive system as that of rodents (predated host) and not as that of carnivores (predatory host)

-Populations in India are perfectly adapted to veganism from birth to death, their intestines harboring the bacteria secreting vitamin B12 in the right place.
this is not the case for the majority of the world population, but it shows that it is still possible for humans.

-animal proteins are better assimilated? yes, as long as we eat meat.
when we stop eating meat, the plant proteins are better and better assimilated by the body, just that it goes as easy as possible when there is meat. scientifically proven.

No we are definitely not born meat eaters but opportunists who have developed a culture of meat eater.

I have been without it for quite a few years, without any deficiency or need for vitamin B12 supplement (checked every year).

Yes, it is quite cultural to refuse the suffering of sensitive animals for the sake of an equally cultural taste pleasure.
Sensitivity to living things increases by no longer eating meat, but to see it, you have to stop eating it ...

Everyone will find arguments to justify their cultural practice ... but it is obvious that giving vegetable milk instead of breast milk to a child is against nature. Does that justify eating meat?
No report!

the right question being: would we be able to kill the animal we eat?
In the event that our survival is at stake, probably yes.
In a situation of abundance and food choices, sensitive souls refuse to do so.
I claim the status of sensitive soul and so much the better that there are more and more.
This is not a cliché, a meaty man is quicker to violence.
Friends hunters, greetings.

Finally, I know very well that all this talk is useless, each one having his convictions and will not change, each one will justify his cultural pleasures by "scientific rationality".

[Janic]

eclectron hello
overall I share your point of view, obviously. However, the VGs tend to take more or less of the arguments held by the industries of the bidoche. Thereby: "-Populations in India are perfectly adapted to veganism from birth to death, their intestines harboring the bacteria secreting vitamin B12 in the right place. "until then it's okay!
this is not the case for the majority of the world population, but it shows that it is still possible for humans. There it does not go any more, it is even contradictory with what you write further: "I have been without it for quite a few years, without any deficiency or need for vitamin B12 supplement (checked every year). "
or why this would not be possible for the majority of the world population, since you (and me too among others) are doing the opposite proof. The reason is elsewhere! Namely that this population is automatically supplemented with synthetic B12 (including vegans) which no longer encourages the body to produce it in a vicious circle from which few have the will to come out to demonstrate precisely that it is is possible. but the industries of the bidoche have hammered the opposite so much that even VGs let themselves be taken in by this erroneous speech (to say the least!)

-animal proteins are better assimilated? yes, as long as we eat meat.

just like anything that has been transformed. indeed it is only after cooking that the digestive chemistry is simplified from certain angles ... up to the intestines, where the system is reversed because the waste of assimilation / disassimilation comes to oppose the previous simplification.

when we stop eating meat, the plant proteins are better and better assimilated by the body, just that it goes as easy as possible when there is meat. scientifically proven.

it is not so simple. Indeed, some people make the mistake of suddenly stopping to eat junk food for philosophical, ecological or health reasons, by switching without transition to an exclusively vegetable diet at the risk of causing assimilation disorders by insufficient change of the flora. intestinal (especially large meat eaters) For others it is rare that they do not consume plants and therefore the digestive flora is already prepared for this change. So what promotes better assimilation of plants (and still not just any and in any form, but I will not complicate the subject) in a consumer of meat, it is the separation of the two products that are digestively upset, which is easily seen when each is eaten in separate meals.
A final point, unfortunately misunderstood by many VGs and especially some vegans, is the qualitative dimension of food, which has been widely discussed in the topics devoted to this part.
For the rest, it goes without saying that we can only speak intelligibly about things that we practice.

[izentrop]

-Populations in India are perfectly adapted to veganism from birth to death, their intestines harboring the bacteria secreting vitamin B12 in the right place.
this is not the case for the majority of the world population, but it shows that it is still possible for humans.

Studies say the opposite

The case of Indians is often mentioned, because very many of them are vegetarians (they are not vegan, so they still consume some dairy products). And at first glance, all is well with them. At first glance only, because when studies are carried out, it is quite the opposite that emerges.

As a reminder, the argument “I'm doing very well” or “They are doing very well” is not admissible (here or elsewhere) with regard to B12, because there is an asymptomatic deficiency, which is not less dangerous: “The absence of symptoms is not a security, because the risk of mortality increases considerably, all causes combined, with a specificity for heart attacks, strokes, TIAs, thromboses, etc. ".

Indian populations who are vegetarians present specific risks of vitamin B12 deficiency. The conclusions of the studies are as edifying as the irresponsibility of the Indian health authorities in this regard:
• Two-thirds of the 700 mothers who took part in the Pune study had a deficiency (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2100429/). The study demonstrates, among other things, a sad causal link between maternal deficiency and abnormal adiposity in children (followed over 6 years).
• About 30% of children born to urban families in South India experience intrauterine delays, that is, during pregnancy, with the only remedy being early detection of vitamin B12 deficiency (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16404414).
• 75% of Asian Indians show metabolic signs of vitamin B12 deficiency (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11470726).
• 84% of urban populations in North India are deficient in vitamin B12 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12083316).
• The predictable prevalence of vitamin B12 deficiency in vegetarian populations has been confirmed in India and elsewhere (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4055802/). This is not a surprise.

The Indian health authorities prefer to direct their efforts towards the enrichment of animal milk (at levels unfortunately very insufficient, given current knowledge), and probably towards the consumption of animal flesh (these practices are developing in India). The economic issues are not necessarily underlying. Perhaps it is simply incompetence.

As a reminder, in Great Britain, a study revealed that around 0,4% of omnivores were deficient in B12, against 7% of vegetarians and 52% of vegans (other vegans supplemented each other).

All this obviously does not end with an apology for the omnivorous diet, quite the contrary. Veganism has an ethical purpose, and this is why it is important to inform rather than deny the problem. It is quite possible to be a vegan in excellent health, as long as you supplement yourself with B12. There are vegan supplements, therefore ethical, and inexpensive, there are also different dosages, so that everyone can navigate.

P.-S. When you are vegan, you must also take care of your calcium intake (525 mg minimum per day).

Italy: emotion following the death of a child after an otitis treated with homeopathy http://www.europe1.fr/international/ita ... ie-3343190

[eclectron]

@Janic and Izentrop,

There it does not go any more, it is even contradictory with what you write further: "I have been without it for quite a few years, without any deficiency or need for vitamin B12 supplement (checked every year). "
or why this would not be possible for the majority of the world population, since you (and me too among others) are doing the opposite proof.

My concern is that I retain things but not the sources to prove and it gave me to seek to prove what I already know to be true ...
In fact every human being has vitamin B12 in abundance in the large intestine, where it cannot be absorbed, in short it is useless!
I said of and no all Indians, even among Indians vegetarians or vegans, so only some Indian populations have a genetic mutation and therefore area in the digestive system where vitamin B12 is secreted et absorbed, it is a little higher than the large intestine.
These are exceptions but it exists.
Not screwed up to find a source to prove it to you but it is so.
Izentrop is strong to find links, he will find one proving my statements and another contradicting them.
This is what is good with the Internet. It seems to me to have heard it on the radio or TV, that I do not know any more.

For my part, I do not eat animal meat that I consider sensitive but I am not vegan, far from it.
So I eat eggs, fish (which I would be able to kill myself, even if I don't like that much) and all that is seafood and dairy products as well.
With this diet I do not have deficiencies in B12 since there are some in the protein products that I eat.
Nothing contradictory in my remarks, without wanting to contradict you.

[Macro]

I have been without it for quite a few years, without any deficiency or need for vitamin B12 supplement (checked every year).

It's called: Follow a diet under medical control

Personally I eat everything and my last blood test goes back to .... Remember more .... And my visits to the doctor since 5 years is only once / year for my medical visit for sport (climbing ) ...

the right question being: would we be able to kill the animal we eat?

It's up to you to see ... I don't have any concerns about slaying a pig from time to time ... We do this as a family of three generations around the bowls with the good smells of fat onions spices it's a great moment of joy and conviviality ... You want me to put some pictures

Finally, I know very well that all this talk is useless, each one having his convictions and will not change, each one will justify his cultural pleasures by "scientific rationality".

Personally, I'm as stupid as a vegetable ... So scientific rationality is already two words that I have trouble understanding .... Me, I simply say everything is good in the pig


And for the homeopathy ... I took arnica for my post-escalation pain .... I stopped ... I'm still hurting ... No more not me ...

[izentrop]

My apologies Eclectron,
My quote did not represent your complete intervention.
As you know, I am always on the lookout for the exceptional case which passes for a generality and you have clearly given the reason why you are not deficient.

[eclectron]

It's called: Follow a diet under medical control

If you want but we give the chips to all those who deviate from the French cultural norm, which is to eat meat and say to vegetarians "Be careful you are all going to die!"
Being careful by nature, I check every year that all is well and all is well.

the right question being: would we be able to kill the animal we eat?

It's up to you to see ... I don't have any concerns about slaying a pig from time to time ... We do this as a family of three generations around the bowls with the good smells of fat onions spices it's a great moment of joy and conviviality ... You want me to put some pictures

that's exactly what I was saying, you cannot force or convince someone to become sensitive to the suffering of another being.
it is you who sees, or does not see in this case

Man has the choice and the possibility of doing without meat.
So it remains a personal choice but yes it is not easy to go against the majority cultural practices of his country, practices that I have followed for decades without asking myself any questions or having any qualms.