Originally posted by Eladar
Simply because you don't like the outcome and it doesn't fit with your paradigm does not mean the study isn't valid. Open your mind and try to figure out why it is that the study turned out as it did. Perhaps your view isn't complete and perhaps there are things found in meat that are important and you simply do not know about.
Simply because you don't like the outcome
Not true. I wouldn't particular like nor dislike the study's conclusion if only it was true. What I don't like is merely that it is nonsense.
and it doesn't fit with your paradigm does not mean the study isn't valid.
Straw man. The study is invalid because of the evidence against it from previous studies.
Open your mind and try to figure out why it is that the study turned out as it did.
-yes, it was probably funded by the meat industry else was simply flawed and biased from the start.
Perhaps your view isn't complete and perhaps there are things found in meat that are important and you simply do not know about.
...And probably not because the EVIDENCE suggests otherwise. Can you give me a specific example of such a thing that, say, soya doesn't have, and that would account for the conclusion of that study?
One of the study's many flaws is that it providing absolutely no biological explanation for why being vegetarian would be so devastating to health. It even very strongly and clearly implied, without even giving the vaguest hint of an explanation of why this would be so, that not eating meat can make you mentally ill! -what? -how exactly does that work? that is pretty absurd. Would you concede that such a drastic claim demands an explanation?
So it couldn't be more obvious that the study was motivated to persuade people to eat meat (or perhaps it is just general hatred of vegetarianism by meat eaters ) hence my conclusion that the study probably was funded by the meat industry and they would obviously say and give any rubbish to justify such a claim!
It was clearly unscientific for several reason. One of them being the vagueness of some of their statements and another reason is that it didn't even say how many people where studied in this study -for all we know, it was just ten people!
In fact, they gave absolutely no statistics on the numbers of people that had various ailments in their study -that by it self is extremely suspicious and should set alarm bells ringing in your head for the obvious reason why they gave no such specific numbers is because either those numbers don't add up to their claims or they simply don't exist!