Now Frying Pan Fascists Want To Steal Your Steak

Scientists Warn ‘Red Meat Can Be Lethal’, it is not only unhealthy but can increase the risk of death, according to a major US study:

Now you quickly get to the nature of this science in the line above. “can increase the risk of death”. Unscientific, scaremongering BOLLOCKS. We are all going to die, forget the delusional belief among scientists that they can immunise us against death, nobody lives for ever. So the risk of death is 100%, it cannot get any higher, it will not get any lower. Therefore you should read reports of this type of research with the appropriate degree of scepticism.

New research carried out in the USA and published today demonstrates eating red meat regularly, especially processed meats dramatically increases the risk of death from heart disease and cancer. Each additional daily serving of processed red meat, equivalent to one hot-dog or two rashers of bacon, raised the chances of dying by a fifth. Data from 121,342 men and women taking part in two large US health and lifestyle investigations were analysed to produce the findings, published in the journal Archives of Internal Medicine.

Now note the vagueness and obfuscatory tactics here. The do not say red meat eaters will die at 60 instead of 80. What they do appear to be saying is that for every ten people who eat red meat, twelve will die. The premise is irrational.

The study claims researchers found that cutting red meat out of the diet led to significant benefits but here again we see the way the issue is clouded in an attempt to manipulate readers. They find a problem with processed meat which in fact is not confined to red meat but, as has been known for years there is a problem with all highly processed foods, red or white meats, fats and they reduce it to appear as it it only applies to the food hate symbol of the limp wristed vegetarian Nazi party (“healthy low fat spreads” are the most dangerous things you can eat apart from the kind of stuff that comes in bottles with a skull and crossbones on the label).

Replacing red meat with fish, poultry, or plant-based protein foods contributed to a longer life, the study says although many other studies have shown vegetarians do not live significantly longer than red meat eater. Nuts are said to reduce the risk of dying by 20% – making a case for swapping roast beef for nut roast.

The studies monitored the progress of their participants for more than 20 years and gathered information about diet. In total, scientists documented 23,926 deaths including 5,910 from heart disease and 9,364 from cancer. Senior author Professor Frank Hu, from Harvard School of Public Health in Boston, said: “This study provides clear evidence that regular consumption of red meat, especially processed meat, contributes substantially to premature death.

“On the other hand, choosing more healthful sources of protein in place of red meat can confer significant health benefits by reducing chronic disease morbidity (illness) and mortality.”

Funny how the results of these studies carried out by leftie academics always affirm the moral prejudices of leftie academics and serve to advance their control freak agenda, don’t you think. When you read that cancer prevention charity the World Cancer Research Fund recommends that people avoid processed meat entirely and limit their consumption of red meat to 500g a week it’s easy to see the hand of health fascism at work. In fact the biggest problem we have with western dies now is the result of scientists meddling with so much of the food we eat for the sole purpose of boosting corporate profits. It is not the meat in processed meats, the ground grain in bread or cakes nor the oil in processed fats that does the harm, it is the added chemicals, the colourings, artificial flavourings, preservatives etc. Look at the list of ingredients on a pack of processed meat, a savoury snack, a pack of breakfast cereal. Food is not the problem, science is the problem.

Dr Rachel Thompson, the charity’s deputy head of science, said: “This study strengthens the body of evidence which shows a link between red meat and chronic diseases such as cancer and heart disease. The research itself seems solid and is based on two large-scale cohort studies monitored over a long period of time.”

And when you look at the length of time it becomes clear we are not talking about people living ten of five years less on average but a few weeks less. Ah well as the old saying goes, torture data long enough and it will tell you whatever you want it to.

We know that many other studies show there is no higher risk in eating red meat and that such results as are offered by this latest farrago can easily be obtained by manipulating data. Cult of Scienceology followers reading this will accuse The Daily Stirrer of being anti science. We are not, we are anti-pseudoscirntific-bullshit. And we are not the only ones..The study’s findings were challenged by Dr Carrie Ruxton from the Meat Advisory Panel , an expert body funded by the meat industry.

She said: “This US study looked at associations between high intakes of red meat and risk of mortality, finding a positive association between the two. However, the study was observational, not controlled, and so cannot be used to determine cause and effect. “The authors’ conclusion that swapping a portion of red meat for poultry or fish each week may lower mortality risk was based only on a theoretical model.

In other words, other lifestyle factors that could have ben significant were factored out of the study. And again we see the common preference of modern, politicised scientists for working with theoretical models rather than reality.

Dr. Ruxton went on to point out this study’s conclusion conflicts with evidence from controlled trials. She pointed out that meat and meat products were significant sources of essential nutrients such as iron, zinc, selenium, B vitamins and vitamin D. So as these are all essential nutrients following the advice of the report would result in people being malnourished. Good work guys.

In the UK, red meat was “critically important” to zinc intake, contributing 32% of the total for men and 27% for women. Red meat also contributed around 17% of total dietary iron intake in the UK.

We give the last word to Dr. Ruxton: “In summary, this paper should not be used to dissuade people from reducing their current intake of red meat when it provides essential nutrients that are required as part of a healthy balanced diet.”

RELATED POSTS:
Frying Pan Fascists
Red Meat Is Part Of Our English Heritage
Food fascists, meat me halfway
Everything they said is bad for you is good

First Thatcher the Milk Snatcher, now Brown the Body Snatcher.

The Government’s plan to solve the shortage of organs available for transplants by presuming assent and licensing the “harvesting” of organs from the newly dead is a real humdinger of a Public Relations disaster. Donation of organs is one thing, harvesting (the very word the medics choose for the business is repulsive) is another.
I have always been ambivalent about organ transplant. It sounds fine to talk of the dead being able to grant the gift of life to somebody suffering terminal or debilitating illness, but the ethical conflicts between the boy-scientist school of medicine who regard everything in terms of how big an intellectual wank it will give them, and the more caring, less selfish kind of medical professionals who understand that the feelings of the deceased’s relatives must be considered. In the light of the government’s proposal, my attitude has now hardened to “what’s attached to me stays attached when I am dead, end of story.”
Attitudes to death do not vary much from culture to culture; whether we believe we will go to meet our maker or got to make friends with the worms, throughout 5000 years of civilisation it has been understood that the bodies of the deceased should be disposed of respectfully. Now as the “science is God” fraternity led by silly Polly Toynbee are already ranting irrationally that we cannot possibly be aware of what happens to our body after death, we are not allowed to have a say, let me point out that the rituals surrounding the disposal of bodies are not developed for the benefit of the dead, but for the comfort of those who survive them.
In casually dissing the feelings of the bereaved, silly Polly who claims to be a humanist, reveals herself as an inhumanist, as despicable as those medics who cannot see any difference in the status of a human patient and a lab rat.

The other ethical issue arises from our knowledge that the Government proposing this plan is money obsessed and there is a lot of money to be made from selling healthy organs. Once a reliable source has been secured, does anybody really think it will be long before Broon the Body Snatcher will be creating a market in harvested organs. Its is easy to see a link here between this proposal and the plans, already well advanced, to marketise the National Blood Service.

What nobody is mentioning is that organ transplant is something of a lottery, well a lot of a lottery. Put together deaths while waiting for a suitable organ and the survival rate following a transplant and, as we are a society obsessed with the bottom line, transplant is not very cost effective. (see statistics availabe at Science Daily http://www.sciencedaily.com/) On top of that there is the question of how many harvested organs are suitable for transplant and whether they are compatible with patients on the waiting list. It is not a simple question of give a liver, save a life. But these ethical questions are never simple, which is why self interested politicians, boy scientists (who tend to be simple minded in the extreme) and bossy, post menopausal, middle class mad old biddys like Polly Toynbee would prefer just to sweep them aside and focus the debate on the highly emotive but misleading issue of “saving lives.”

I have a cunning plan to thwart the dark forces of inhumanism; never having feared death myself (there’s a lot to be said for stoicism) I now intend to live a life of such uinmitigated debauchery my organs will on my demise be totally fubar, useless, not worth the trouble of removing.

The boy scientists and the Polly Toynbees of this world may delude themselves that if unconstrained by ethical considerations or the need to consider people they like to describe as being “ruled by superstition and belief in magic”, one day medical science will be able to abolish death. Is it not then the boy scientists and their supporters who are ruled by belief in magic? We will never abolish death. As the philosopher David Hume said, “It is better to die at sixty five than endure a further ten years on increasing invalidity.”

We should all heed the sentiment. Organ donation must be voluntary. To even consider making it otherwise shows how far along the road to tyranny this government has travelled. But you can bet your life savings this “harvesting will only be done to NHS patients, they’re not gouing to be ripping to shreds corpses belonging to rich families.

COMMENTS on Little Nicky Machiavelli are now moderated for all except friends. If you want to tell me I am an idiot or talking through my arse and can do so wittily, fine. If you wish to challenge my opinions, fine. If you just wish to add something funny or interesting that’s fine too, but if you are a boy scientist and simply want to repeat the boy scientist mantra that because I am not a “scientist” I may not write on topics concerning science, sorry but this blog is not a platform for boring fuckers.