Surely, all the past warning by vegans against consuming too much proteins, as being bad for bones, especially animal proteins, must have been based on something? Something must have happened in the environment...
Recently published:
Biomarker-calibrated protein intake and bone health in the Women's Health Initiative clinical trials and observational study
Quotes [my comments added in square brackets]:
AbstractHeretic
Background: The effects of dietary protein on bone health are controversial.
[Really? I was under an impression that it has all been 'proven' long ago by a scientist from Cornell...]
Conclusions: Higher biomarker-calibrated protein intake within the range of usual intake was inversely associated with forearm fracture and was associated with better maintenance of total and hip BMDs.
These data suggest higher protein intake is not detrimental to bone health in postmenopausal women.
[This is using double-negative form to weaken a perceived impact of the statement. Under 'normal' circumstances, a scientist would have simply stated: "We found that eating more protein improves bone density and reduces probability of some types of bone fractures in postmenopausal women"]
(P.S. Thanks JC for the link!)
4 comments :
Yes Stan. I see the scientific double speak now. I was a slow learner(so naive, I thought the idea of science was to discover the truth), but I see it now (well for a few years now). Some of these scientists are holding on for dear life it seems. They write their paper with the mantra of "Must not upset anybody important with my conclusions"
Thanx.
You are welcome, thanks!
I would recommend to look also at the amount of data fudging going on in relation to the global "warming" climate theory. See my past posting. I found a combination of a money hungry academics willing to do "anything" for money, on one hand, and a politicians seeking justification for what they intend to do, on the other hand, to be the most corruption generating environment. Academia is probably the least trustworthy institution of the society, more so than banking in my humble opinion.
Heretic
Yes Stan,
I am already sceptical of man-made global warming, or, at the very least, sceptical of the supposed end of the world-type scenarios they are predicting. I remember a few years ago dragging a friend to see "An Incovenient Truth", and I remember thinking that we have to fix things. "We cannot continue to 'pollute'the planet with CO2" I said . I was totally taken in at the time. Funnily enough, my older and maybe more world-weary friend did not seem as impressed by the film as I was! :) ...I will check out your past postings on this again.
I do think though, that alot of the scientists are in a jam. They know the corruption that is there, but it's the usual story, isn't it? - if you want to get ahead in your career (or maybe just to be able to keep your job), then you had better be willing to play the game - and by their rules. :(
Stan, if you have time at some stage (and the inclination), I would like your view on our banking system. In particular, fractional reserve banking. In your opinion, do banks actually have the legal right to lend 9X or 10X their deposit reserves out, and to get it back with interest?
Basically, do they have the legal right to make money out of thin air and then lend it out?
Remember, answer me only if you have the time and inclination at the moment. I can always do some more googling :).
Hi Michael,
I used to think that the fractional banking system (with too high a leverage of lending to reserve capital ratio) was the main problem, and that the monetary system based upon debt as the main collateral, was the other big problem. I have changed that view due to a very interesting insight I received a couple of months ago:
A dialogue between the Market and myself
Basically, the fractional reserve banking system is part of the problem not because it is "fractional reserve" but because the act of incorporation of the banks, and the supportive action of governments allow those institutions to live forever!
If you allow any entity to live forever, it eventually takes over an entire ecosystem killing everything else like a cancer and then it itself dies in a catastrophic collapse. It is one of the Laws Of Nature.
As for the global warming theory, I think it would be very beneficial for the Earth environment to warm up a bit because it is currently (meaning recently in the geological time scale, the last few hundred thousand years) hovering on the verge of an ice age.
More glaciers = death of the biosphere.
Higher global average temperatures means more oceanic evaporation, more humidity, less deserts, more arable land, more tropical forests and a much higher diversity of life.
Best regards,
Stan (Heretic)
Post a Comment