Politics and science tend to mix in detrimental ways. We always lose when politics tries to influence science. If science is honest, we always win when science influences politics.
It is not political that one very specific amino acid, present in animal protein, has been found to be a positive catalyzer of cancer development. It is a scientific fact. If the person involved in the discovery of such fact has links to any kind of political organizations, the scientific fact remains valid. It doesn’t sound intelligent in any way, to discard a fact encountered through the application of plain, good, valid science, just because the person who did the study votes for political party A or B or C.
PCRM is not the only institution in our modern world that contains names that will deny having ever signed to be part of it. AMA, more in agreement with the establishment stream, will probably include names that never specifically signed to be members. Our societies are incredibly complicated and require lots of efforts with information systems in order to keep lists up-to-date.
If Dr. Campbell were a dishonest person, we would know by now. I have seen how those things work. Sometimes, the agents ordered to make a specific personality look bad in the eyes of the general public, deny participating after meeting the personalities they would have been supposed to discredit. Dr. Esselstyn is another person, another doctor, who has been successful in substituting surgical intervention with 100% plant based diets. More than 200 individuals have been able to skip bypasses by following a strict, 100% plant based diet under the supervision of Dr. Esselstyn and his wife. They have tried myriads of ways to discredit him, until they meet them.
It is incredibly eloquent, coming from AMA, to state officially, in 2004, that milk, after all, will not be actively endorsed or discouraged. The “milk panic” perhaps had a real reason to be. Take a look at what they are now saying from the Harvard School of Medicine about what they endorse as “healthy sources of protein”. Also, try not to miss how they have — I would say, shyly — begun to lower the pitch on “milk mustaches”, once proudly shown by celebrities — at least one of them now dead from a rather typical chronic disease of the kind white robe bearers elegantly show perplexed faces, while presenting to the insurance companies giant receipts for their “professional time”.
Slowly, but solidly, something is happening that hasn’t been made public. In the years to come we will see insurance bills being lowered if you declare to be on a 100% plant food diet, while, of course, they will have found ways to analyze your blood and check if you’re declaring the truth. It is so much lower in cost to die from old age, in your sleep on your home bed, than it is to die after lengthy, futile surgical interventions and “intensive care”.
How does a diet rich in animal stuff make your lifestyle better than a diet rich in plant food? It can only be understood if you haven’t tasted the gourmet dishes that are being prepared progressively in more and more homes and restaurants all over the world.
Some arguments in these debates tend to be so empty in real content, especially those aimed at defending a stubbornly withheld meat diet.
It isn't easy to jump to 100%-plant-food lifestyles: our culture is not organized for such diet. You will need to be very careful about including a real symphony of plant food products, all of them requiring specific treatment — from picking it and eating it, to cooking it after lengthy or complicated processes. We have said it a zillion times: not because we don’t die on the spot after we drink a glass of milk or enjoy a melted cheese, or feel in heaven with juicy beef in our mouths, it means that we can base our diet on such products; they all contain an amino acid that simply, isn’t adequate at all for at least 1 in 3 individuals, in a short time; and, in a longer time, it will also harm the other 2. How? By triggering the progressive formation of degenerative and chronic diseases. These are incredibly expensive to treat — using stupidly futile processes. Moreover, we all carry their high costs on our backs.
The tobacco industry invested enormous amounts of money to try to “prove” that cigarette smoking wasn’t bad at all. What has happened in the end?
“I am not going to give up my lifestyle…” Fine, but bear in mind that your decision is affecting you, your beloved ones, your friends, your neighbors, the whole species!
Undoubtedly, we are a stubborn species of habits! We need to learn to accept change when it is mandatory for the good of all of us!
No comments:
Post a Comment