Grand Slam 3/Grand Slam 3.iso/047/health01.arj/SCIARG-3

Text File | 1995-06-16 | 52KB | 774 lines

@ P E
                                    Laurie Forti
                                    PO Box 402666
                                    Miami Beach, FL
                                      33140-0666

                                     [phone]
                                     (305)UOK-HELP

W1w1
   Scientific Arguments Against Eating

     Meat And Other Animal Products
W0w0MlQd

    There are many valid and convincing arguments against the currently popular
global practice of human consumption of animal corpses and other animal products that
are based on philosophical, ethical, religious, or spiritual grounds.S01T  Although
these may be very useful for an individual to convince him/herself to change lifelong
culturally conditioned eating patterns, these arguments are generally not useful in
attempting to discuss these important issues with others because ethical
considerations are an intensely personal construct and people with opposing belief
systems will insist that they have an inherent right to determine their own
individual ethical model and conduct.  E.g., even though murdering other humans is
generally considered wrong in "civilized" societies, governments throughout human
history have convinced their citizens that organized mass murder, war, is not only
the best way to resolve conflict, but that it is also ethically correct.  Further,
individuals will argue that you have no right to attempt to change their personal
choices in lifestyle or their ethical, philosophical, or spiritual belief systems.
And they are right.  In addition, people's ethics are generally self determined by
highly emotional and irrational processes and therefore cannot be approached with,
or changed by, logic.  The current presentation is designed to attempt to appeal to
people's intellect through a collection of scientifically sound arguments against
these practices.  Most consumers of animal products will usually incorrectly claim
that their choices are based on rationality; however, the information presented here
will give them cause to do some serious thinking and reappraisal of their belief
systems by presenting scientific facts not generally known in mundane consciousness
and a logical analysis of those facts.  It will also help those who have made their
choices on truly ethical, humane, or compassionate grounds to strengthen the validity
of same with solid scientific information.

    The information presented here will be divided into two main blocks: those
considerations of the human consumption of animal products as they were in the
preindustrial, unpolluted world, and those issues related to toxicity caused by
industrial chemistry in the recent past.


Pw1          The Preindustrial Pristine Worldw0
M
    No one knows, and we can never know, exactly why, when, or where individual
members of the human species started eating animal flesh.  The most logical
assumption would be that it was a response to avoid starvation due to the absence of
local vegetation resulting from being in an intensely cold environment, and seeing
natural carnivores capture and eat their prey.  Since it is generally agreed that the
human species evolved in a tropical or semitropical environment, the immediate
question is how did those humans get into areas, possibly those covered with snow or
ice, such that there was not enough vegetation to supply their normal food?  Two
possibilities are migration by curiosity into the colder areas during the warm season
and getting trapped there by the winter without the understanding of the relationship
between latitude and temperature nor the relationship between temperature and food
supply, or a cataclysmic event whereby the thin crust of the planet shifted on its
core and this abruptly transported groups of humans into the colder areas.S02T


Pw1          The Human Instinct Argumentw0
M
    There would be no argument about the fact that human babies are supposed to eat
human milk exclusively for several months, or years, at the beginning of its life.
All animal species have a diet quite specific for that species, and all members of
that species eat exactly the same material(s) or classes of materials.  Further, any
animal species, including the human, is programmed for its highly specific diet at
the genetic level, for this is where the instructions for all biochemical processes
are coded; thus, each species instinctually knows exactly what to eat.  The enormous
variation in cultural diets around the planet clearly indicates that humans, in
general, have lost touch with their instincts.  The enormous destructive behaviors of
humans globally indicate that toxicity due to eating incorrectly has, indeed, caused
the human species to go quite insane and out of control.  The probability of the
destruction of all life on the planet by a variety of human activities is now quite
high and continually increasing, is frequently discussed in the public media, and is
a direct result of our losing contact with Life, itself.  Interestingly, those who
intentionally detoxify their bodies generally develop a strong commitment to, and
identification with, Nature.

    The problem with humans and their diet, however, is that because they have an
intellect they can make choices; further, they can make wrong choices; worse yet,
individual wrong choices get adopted by others and are institutionalized by cultural
transmission.  This process of culture replacing and overwhelming natural instinct
for the choice of foodstuffs has led directly to the rampant acute and degenerative
disease epidemics seen in the human species all over the entire planet.  Other
effects of the incorrect selection of human food are widespread human acute and
degenerative diseases, global malnutrition and starvation, high rates of infant
mortality, widespread deforestation, irreparable and continuing losses of enormous
amounts of topsoil on a global basis, falling water tables, climate changes, major
contributions to the greenhouse effect of global warming, and rising oceans.  By
acculturation, humans have lost touch with their dietary, and other, instincts.

    Fortunately, the human baby, before it is bludgeoned into cultural conformity by
severely misguided culture-robot parents, retains awareness of its instincts, at
least until it becomes so toxic, because it is forced to eat incorrectly, that the
toxins have reduced its awareness of natural instinctual signals to the vanishing
point as they are swamped out by the increasingly painful signals of an increasingly
toxic body.  The immense differences between breast-fed babies and the unfortunate
cow milk/formula babies are dramatic to anyone having the opportunity to observe
them.  That the bovine beverage babies are in almost constant intense pain is
undeniable.  It is quite unfortunate for the human species that this is considered
"normal".

    The human baby, as it develops enough to consume solid food, will always choose
sweet juicy fruit if given free choice of a variety of "foods".  This is undeniable
evidence that this species is fruitarian by design and nature.  Those who do serious
dietary work, and move beyond the masking effects of cooking and the toxicity of high
protein diets, always come to this conclusion.  This indicates that, as we detoxify
our diets and therefore our bodies by intelligent choice of dietary input, we have
the ability to reestablish awareness of our instincts, and (re)develop "body wisdom",
the ability to feel various signals the body creates in response to various "foods".
Various references to the raw food literature are given in the Bibliography.

    The intentional addition of enormous amounts of processed sugar, other
sweeteners, and bright fruit-like artificial colors and flavors in commercial "foods"
designed for consumption by children indicates that the junk food industry also knows
that we are fruitarians.  The human "sweet tooth" is legendary!  Unfortunately, processed
sugar and food additives have devastated the health, and the futures, of the children
of industrial nations.

    As the human child develops a full set of teeth and physical mobility, it does
NOT run around the neighborhood, killing and eating small animals raw, as a natural
carnivores would. Your pet dog or cat may occasionally bring home a little dead
animal to eat, or a few body parts, or bones; it is highly unlikely that your son or
daughter does this, however.  Is anything more than this simple, powerful, and
obvious fact really necessary to prove conclusively that the human species is simply
not designed, intended, or equipped by Nature to eat animal flesh??

    Consider an important banquet at the United Nations where Heads of States and
their First Ladies from all over the planet are invited.  The men are dressed in fine
tuxedos or their magnificent cultural regalia, the women in splendid gowns and
expensive jewelry.  They have come to discuss the important economic, political, and
ethical issues of the day.  The fate of the world is in the hands of these
sophisticated and powerful world leaders.  Small animals are released into the crowd
which then attacks them viciously, tears the animals to pieces with their bare hands
and teeth, and eats them raw with warm blood dripping on their fine clothes.  After
dinner, the guests then resume their sophisticated social and political discussions.
Is this not what they really are doing behind the sanitary mask of cooking???


Pw1          The Anatomical/Physiological/Morphological Argumentw0
M
    Religious fundamentalism aside, science has classified the human species with
the other Primates, and has recently discovered that human genes are about 99%
identical to those of the chimpanzee.  We are also physiologically most similar to
the chimp, which also has the reputation of being the most intelligent of the
nonhuman Primates.  So, the chimp's diet would be a logical place to start to
determine what the natural human diet is.

    Goodall, in a masterpiece on chimpanzees,S03T gives a two-year average chimp
diet as:
                   Item                 %

                   Fruit               59
                   Leaves              21
                   Seeds                9
                   Blossoms             5
                   Meat                 1.5
                   Insects              0.7
                   Misc.                4

    Since chimps learn behaviors by imitation very easily, perhaps the hunting and
consumption of small animals, birds, and insects by some members of various groups
was learned from other more ferocious species, such as the baboon.  The fact that
some members did, while most did not, consume flesh probably indicates that this
behavior was more learned than a response to an inherent dietary need.  Humans
display exactly this same pattern of behavior, and in the human, it is most certainly
learned.  Certainly, one could not use the inclusion of such an extremely small
amount of animal flesh in a very few of the chimps diet as a good argument that
humans should consume as large amounts as self-styled human carnivores do in their
own diets, anymore than the chimps' eating of insects would convince a human to eat
same.  Other infrequent bizarre dietary habits such as eating feces, or scraps of
food in feces, would also not easily transfer to the human who claimed some degree of
sophistication.  Chimps were also seen to eat dirt from time to time, presumably for
the mineral content.  Also, they would visit a salt-lick provided by the researchers
proving that the chimps could also be addicted to salt, as humans are.  Obviously,
mineral salt (the only source of which is the evaporation of sea water) is not a
natural part of the diet of any land-based animal since all free salt on the surface
of the planet has long since been washed into the sea by rainfall.

    If one would want to use the anatomical similarities of chimp and human to
support the thesis that their diets should be very similar, as we see in other
closely related species, and if we eliminate blossoms, meat, insects, and
miscellaneous from the above list, we deduce that a good approximation for a human
diet would be: totally raw, consisting of fruit = 66%, leaves (vegetables) = 24%,
nuts/seeds = 10%.  Indeed, experience of raw fooders indicates that this is an
excellent entry level diet.

    It is blatantly obvious that humans simply do not have the anatomical equipment
that natural carnivores have.  Take off your clothes and stand in front of a
full-length mirror.  No sharp pointed teeth to tear raw flesh like the canine,
feline, alligator, or shark.  No claws to capture, hold, or kill prey animals.  No
sharp beak or talons.  We are so slow in running compared to most other animal
species that we simply could not chase and capture any animals but the very slowest.
The meat eaters' response to this is usually: "We have intelligence and can make
tools to trap and/or kill animals..."  That doesn't work, for tool making is a rather
recent activity, so what did we eat for millions of years before we developed
this ability??

    One of the simplest approaches to truth is to ask the die-hard [and they do die
hard!] human meat eaters if he or she does capture their own prey, kill it with their
bare hands, and eat it raw still dripping blood like the true natural carnivores
do.  This question cuts through the superficial pseudointellectual ego right to the
emotional essence of the matter. They usually react with revulsion and horror at
hearing this concept, and proudly proclaim that they are not so [inhuman, disgusting,
brutal, uncivilized, violent, gross, etc...].  Then you point out that something
inherently human in them is responding to the ugly truth of the matter, and that
they really are agreeing that humans are NOT carnivores, by nature.

    Further, you can challenge them that IF they REALLY believe that humans are
flesh eaters, or that they really need flesh, that they henceforth demonstrate the
courage of their convictions by consuming their corpses in exactly that manner.
Sometimes the response is: "Argh!  How can you say such a thing!"  My response
is: "I'm only saying it, but you are doing it!"  This approach cuts
through the ego, which has been culturally conditioned to blithely accept such
practices without thinking about them at allS04T, and triggers an intuitive and
correct reaction from our human essence that realizes the inhuman act of eating
animal flesh for what it really is.  This tactic, or using the phrase "dead, rotting,
animal corpse" frequently, instead of the euphemism "meat", is useful for those whom
either do not have, or refuse to use, an intellect.  This will create a subconscious
memory trace, and conceptual link, in the individual that can never be denied, and it
will have long-term subtle effects even if it is seemingly ignored in the discussion.

    The obvious question is: how can humans, who would otherwise consider themselves
highly civilized, educated, refined, and compassionate, blithely participate in such
brutal, horrific behavior that is so totally repugnant to their inherent
sensibilities?  The answer lies in the division of labor and the masking effects of
food preparation.  In earlier times, all members of the family participated in, if
not the hunt itself, the butchering and preparing of the animal corpse for
consumption, so they had intimate firsthand knowledge of the reality of flesh foods.
Since we are much more sophisticated now, we pay others to do the murder, and we pay
others to hack up the cadaver.  It is doubtful that today's refined homemaker would
kill and butcher any animal.  Since it comes from the store wrapped in sanitary
little packages, its grisly identity is masked.  Cooking and spicing further masks
the true identity and ghastly origin of our delectable fleshy morsels.  Actually, raw
flesh has no taste whatsoever, and the cooking process and spices and/or condiments
are totally responsible for those favorite tastes. (Burning, i.e., cooking of proteins
and fats, and its chemical and carcinogenic effects, will be discussed further in the
sections: The No-Cooking Argument and The Meat Eating Causes Cancer Argument)

    Most of the natural land-based carnivores walk on four legs, have tails, have
more than two nipples, do not have sweat glands distributed over their bodies, cool
themselves by panting rather than sweating, have sharp teeth for tearing (NOT
chewing) flesh, and have an intestinal tract that is short when compared to their
body length.  The implications of intestinal tract length and the digestion of flesh
will be discussed in detail in the section: The Biochemical Argument.

    Although four human teeth are popularly misnomered "canine", they are not
anywhere as sharp or long as natural canine teeth, and they have a reasonably
rectangular cross section compared to an elliptical cross section of real canines.
The Macrobiotic theory, that since 4 out of 32 human teeth are sharp, 4/32ds, or 1/8
of the human diet should be animal flesh, although curious, is obviously false.

    Further details of anatomical comparisons of various carnivores, herbivores,
gramivores, and omnivores vs. humans are given in Food Fit For ManS05T.


Pw1          The Protein Paranoia Argumentw0
M
   Industrial countries in general, and the US in particular, have been the victims
of massive pro-protein propaganda.  How this started is unknown, just as how the
human species started eating animal flesh is unknown, but perhaps the commoner's
blood-lust was exacerbated by the fact that in the Good Old Days, the Kings
prohibited the peasants from hunting the "best" animals, and the peasants, as usual
when denied something, reacted by wanting it even more: e.g., the prohibition of
alcohol.  Thus, eating large quantities of animal flesh became a status symbol, a
symbol of conspicuous affluence, just as being overweight is in some cultures.  TV
commercial time is saturated with ads for tobacco (until recently), animal burgers,
chicken parts, dairy products, alcohol, junk food, and their resulting need for
"remedies": toxic patent "medicines", all of which have a devastating effect on human
health and longevity.  Ads for healthful foods, such as fruits and vegetables, are
virtually nonexistent.  Obviously, items that destroy health must have a higher
profit margin than healthful items to support this blitz of advertising.  (The
average 30 second ad on prime time cost $300,000 - $500,000 to run, exclusive of
production costs.)

    Even "vegetarians" bring a protein lust with them into their new lifestyle --
the legacy of decades of conditioning by the advertising industry.  They are
continually asked: "Where do you get your protein??"  Well, how much protein does the
human need, anyway??

    The easiest way to understand what our true needs for protein are is to consider
the human baby.  Protein is used for construction and maintenance of tissue; it is
not used for energy, except under emergency conditions.  The human infant is growing
new tissue at the most rapid rate of its entire life; therefore, its protein needs
are at the maximum of its entire life!  What does Nature provide for its protein
needs??  Human milk is a liquid with a protein content of 1.1%.  Yes, 1.1% of its
total diet is enough protein to support the most rapid growth rate, and its highest
protein needs of its entire life!  Upon reaching adult size, protein intake is
necessary only to support maintenance, not additional growth; therefore, adult
protein needs are even less!  This can be adequately supplied with fruits and
vegetables, as shown in the chart below, without resorting to concentrated
sources: nuts/seeds, "seed cheese", beans, tofu, miso, "texturized vegetable protein"
(TVP), etc.  The fact that humans cannot digest concentrated protein from any
source, and the consequences of eating concentrated protein, is discussed further in
the section: The Biochemical Argument, below.

    How does orthodox "nutritional science", with its massive funding by the food
processing cartels, come up with its recommendations for recommended daily allowances
(RDA's), specifically for protein??

    One method of evaluating the "quality" of protein is called the "Protein
Efficiency Ratio (PER) and is defined as the weight gain of a growing animal divided
by its protein intake. Although it is a proximate measure of protein quality when
conducted under specific conditions, it has been criticized because only the
amount of protein consumed above maintenance is used for growth.  Furthermore, the
PER varies with food intake.  This ratio finds use with small animals, and has been
employed also in infant studies."S06T  A little bit of thinking shows the fallacies
here.  First of all, results based on studies of animals other than human offer very
little useful information that can be applied to the human, because the biochemistry
and dietary needs of different species are quite different.  Rat nutrition simply
does NOT apply to humans any more than the research on the effects of LSD on spiders
could be extrapolated to humans.  This kind of "research" may generate lucrative
grants for universities, and generate numerous PhD's, but it is useless for any
understanding of real human dietary issues.

    Further, when one considers weight gain, it does NOT relate to optimum health
whatsoever.  Conversely, obesity is known to be quite detrimental to health, so why
should rapid weight gain be equated to dietary usefulness?  Cow's milk, since it is
designed for an animal that gains ~1000 pounds in its first year WILL produce more
rapid growth in the human infant (that is supposed to grow ~13 pounds in the first
year) than human milk, because its concentrations of protein and calcium are about
3-4 times that of human milk, casein is 7 times that of human milk, minerals are 3.4
times as much, and growth hormones relating to cow growth are present.  Obviously,
over feeding any organism by a factor of 4 or more WILL produce rapid "growth", i.e.,
obesity, but no intelligent person could possibly consider this as healthy
growth, or as any indication of the "superior" nutritive quality of bovine beverage
over human milk for human infants.

    Indeed, the cow-fed human baby is always grotesquely obese, lethargic, ill
tempered, plagued by rashes, suffers constant digestive problems, cries a lot, slow
to learn, and smelly.  The PER concept is a holdover from the post-WWII mentality of
mindless consumerism: more, more, more is always better, better, better.  The PER
concept, and other orthodox nutritional dogma based on similarly flawed "logic", has
led to this society consuming enormous amounts of indigestible proteins and other
"foods" which cannot be properly digested and used by the body.  Thus, large
quantities of these materials are stored in the body as partially digested material
and toxins that the body tries to eliminate by such grossly misunderstood phenomena
as "colds" and "flus".  The body's efforts to eliminate these stored toxins are
misinterpreted as "disease", and highly poisonous pharmaceuticals are used to
suppress the body's efforts at self-cleansing and self-healing.  More detailed
analysis of this deleterious process of interfering with natural bodily cleansing
processes, and a simple technique of permanently eliminating "colds", "flus", and
"allergies" from one's life, are given in the present author's article: Beyond
Vegetarianism:  How To Permanently Eliminate "Colds/Flus" by Simple Dietary Change.

    This erroneous way of looking at reality, considering ONLY quantity while always
ignoring quality, has led exactly to the global ecological disasters that
currently threaten the continued existence of all Life on this planet.  There are
QUANTITATIVE and QUALITATIVE aspects to all situations; both must be fully
considered, otherwise, disaster is inevitable.

    One way orthodox nutritional pseudoscience uses to determine protein "needs" is
called Nitrogen Balance.  Since nitrogen is part of the amino acids from which all
proteins are made, and since nitrogen is much easier to measure in the lab than
protein is, the theory is that one should consume enough (protein) nitrogen so that
the amount eaten equals the amount excreted. (This is similar to the Gatorade
philosophy: eat your excretions.)  Therefore, there are no net gains or net losses
and your tissues are maintained.  They place people on a reduced-protein, or
protein-free, diet and then measure the nitrogen excreted over a few days and then
assume that since this represents the amount of protein lost, it also represents
the amount one should have eaten over the same time period in order to maintain a
steady weight.  Simple and obvious; right?  Wrong!  Unfortunately, orthodox
nutritionists do not know that enormous amounts of protein-based mucus and toxins are
stored in the average high-protein meat/egg/dairy cooked food eaters' body, or that
putting them on what is essentially a fast will trigger a self-cleansing process that
will cause large amounts of nitrogen-rich mucus and toxins to be eliminated from the
body.  As a result, the protein needs of the human being are grossly overestimated.

    Anyone with any serious experience with dietary change, or fasting, knows that
enormous quantities of debris are eliminated with any positive changes in diet, and
these eliminations are highly accelerated during a fast.  (A fast is consuming only
water, and taking enemas to help clean the colon of waste material to prevent severe
autointoxication.)  In addition, large quantities are eliminated at first; and as the
body cleans itself, the mucus excretions will slow markedly.  As the nutritional
Nitrogen Balance experiments generally do not last long enough for the body to become
clean enough to allow determination of its true protein needs, the amounts
estimated by this method are far in excess of our true needs.

    With regard to protein requirements, Albanese and Orto admit that although "The
study of human protein requirements has engaged the interest of scientists for scores
of years ... definitive requirements have not been established to the satisfaction of
many."  They lament that the Nitrogen Balance method "has frequently been studied,
but this actually seems to be a rather unreliable indicator of satisfactory protein
intake."  Further, "the quantities of protein necessary to maintain nitrogen
equilibrium vary according to the nutritional status of the subject.  When the
protein stores were exhausted even small amounts of absorbed N(itrogen) were
sufficient to produce a positive N-balance.  Likewise it was found that, in patients
on rice diets, nitrogen equilibrium could be maintained with small quantities of
protein -- quantities which would not seem to be conducive to good health."  "... the
sum of all present data, including the National Research Council's recommended daily
allowances, 'represent little more than intelligent guesswork as to the quantities of
protein which will amply cover man's needs.'"S07T  Apparently none of the
researchers cited are aware of the fact that Asians, half the size of American
soldiers, can easily pick up and carry a 50-gallon barrel of gasoline and carry it
away into the hills, a feat the Americans can simply not duplicate.S08T

    "The effect of total starvation (i.e., fasting) on nitrogen excretion has
been studied several times.  One report shows that a voluntarily starving healthy
woman excreted during the first few days of starvation an average of 6 to 8 grams of
nitrogen, and then in the next days, up to the 26th day, 4.26 gm, and still later 2
to 3 gm daily. ... The progressive reduction of nitrogen excretion, as seen in
starvation, semi-starvation, or protein-free diets, occurs not only because the
easily available protein fractions of the body are progressively exhausted but
probably because of adaptation to the low food intake or low protein supply."S09T
Strangely, if the body really did adapt to this reduced protein intake, higher
intake is obviously not necessary.  If, for example above the 2-3 gm/day represents
the body's true protein needs, after excess protein-based waste material was
eliminated, then the daily protein needs would be: P=N x 6.25, = 2.5 x 6.25 = 15.6
grams/day, considerably less than the RDA's "intelligent guesswork" of 64 grams/day
for a woman.  This amount could be supplied by about 3 pounds of fruits and
vegetables.

    Significantly, Albanese and Orto admit that "efficiency of protein utilization
is diminished when caloric intake is low or protein intake excessive".S010T  This is
additional evidence that a high protein diet is wasteful and self-defeating.  As one
gains experience with a low protein diet, one comes to understand that concentrated
proteins, i.e., those greater than about 1%, cannot be digested properly, and that
one is much healthier with proteins supplied by fruits and vegetables.



P                            PROTEIN CONTENT OF FOODS
M                                     and stomach commodities


PERCENT
PROTEIN

   0     |fruit 0.5-1.5
         |                                 |                    HUMAN MILK 1.1%
   2        |   rice: brown 2.5/white 2.0  |vegetables 0.5-3.5
            |sprouts 2-4                   |                    cow milk 3.5
   4        |

   6

   8     beans (cooked) 8
                   |
  10               |                   |
                   |                   |n
  12               |m                  |
            eggs   |                   |u
  14     |         |e                  |
         |c        |                   |t
  16     |h        |a                  |
         |e        |                   |
  18     |e        |t                  |s
         |s        |                   |
  20     |e        |         |         |e
                   |m        |f        |
  22               |         |         |e
                   |e        |i        |
  24               |         |         |d
                   |a        |s        |
  26               |         |
                   |t        |h
  28               |         |
                   |
  30               |


NOTES:
    Although meat, fish, eggs, cheese, beans, and nuts/seeds are claimed to be "good sources" of protein by orthodox nutrition,
these claims are based ONLY on the quantity of protein (actually, nitrogen) present and totally ignore the toxins in, and inherent
indigestibility of, these substances due to their high concentration and cooking, and several other critical facts:
    1>   The human body has absolutely NO physiological, anatomical, or biochemical similarity to ANY natural carnivore, all of
which eat their flesh freshly killed and raw.  The human body is most similar to the fruit and leaf eating primates, the diet of
which is 59% fruit, 21% leaves, 9% seeds, 5% blossoms.
    2>   That the high temperature of cooking changes the molecular structure of protein (breaks hydrogen bonds, changes the
tertiary structure, creates sulfur cross linking) to the extent that it becomes indigestible.  This indigestible protein putrefies
(rots) in the intestines and produces highly toxic compounds responsible for the offensive fecal and body odor of cooked
concentrated protein eaters.
    3>   That cooking fat or protein produces some of the most carcinogenic and mutagenic compounds known; the amounts increase with
increasing temperature and time.
    4>   That the human baby, when its protein requirements are at the MAXIMUM of its entire life because of maximum tissue growth
rate, gets adequate protein from human milk with its 1.1% protein content.  The adult body, not growing, requires even less; thus,
is NOT designed to digest higher concentrations.  Therefore, a raw fruit and vegetable diet will supply adequate protein for
humans.
    5>   That about 70% of the adult protein requirement for tissue maintenance comes from internal recycling of amino acids.
@ E l Qd


Pw1          The Biochemical Argumentw0
M
    In chemistry, there are several factors that influence how fast a specific
chemical reaction proceeds: temperature, concentration of reactants, and if a
catalyst is present or not.  In general, the higher the temperature, the faster the
reaction; the higher the concentration, the faster the reaction; and catalysts
accelerate the reaction also.  In the process of digestion, highly material-specific
(e.g., protein-specific or starch-specific) enzymes act as catalysts, accelerate
digestive processes, and allow them to proceed at body temperature.  Enzymes are
invariably proteins and usually accelerate reaction rates by a factor of at least 10
million.S011T

    The digestion of proteins in the human stomach is accomplished by the aid of the
enzyme, pepsin, which is most active at a highly acidic pH (~2).  Natural carnivores do
not chew their flesh into small pieces, they just tear it into chunks small enough to
be swallowed, and rely on their highly specialized digestive system to do its work.
Snakes, many birds, and many fish swallow their prey whole.  Since humans have
protein specific digestive juices that are about one-tenth as concentrated as those
of natural carnivores, this means that the digestion of flesh would proceed one-tenth
as fast, and therefore take ten times as long to be completed. Humans, therefore,
simply do not have the natural apparatus necessary to properly digest concentrated
proteins, and thus do not thoroughly digest concentrated proteins from any source
(meats, poultry, fish, eggs, cheeses, beans, nuts, seeds, "seed cheese", tofu,
texturized vegetable protein, etc.).  Since humans cannot properly digest
concentrated proteins, these rot and putrefy in the intestines producing the
characteristic "rotten egg" odor of hydrogen sulfide, HS12TS.  This is produced by
the putrefaction of sulphur containing amino acids.  HS12TS is one of the most
toxic gases known and produces the characteristic odor of flatulence.  The well know
effects of eating "beans, beans, the musical fruit ..." are ample and undeniable
evidence that cooked, concentrated proteins are not digestible by the human.

    The opportunity for putrefaction and fermentation of partially digested
concentrated proteins is increased markedly because of the long intestinal tract of
the human vs. the natural carnivore.  The carnivore is equipped with a very short
intestinal tract such that its contents are removed from the body in a short time.
Even with all the unique techniques that enable natural carnivores to quickly digest
their food and quickly evacuate its residues, their excrement is foul smelling which
indicates that total digestion and assimilation of flesh is not even achieved by
these specialized animals.

    The human, unfortunate enough to be culturally programmed to eat concentrated
proteins from any source, not only does not properly digest them, but because of
the relatively long length of the human intestines (5-6 times body length in the
human, 30ft human vs. 3-6ft carnivore) these putrefying masses remain in the body a
long time and thus their highly toxic by-products are absorbed into the body from the
slow moving fecal mass.  This process is called "autointoxication".  It is made worse
by the fact that concentrated proteins tend to slow motility through the human
intestines also, i.e., they produce constipation.  It is not uncommon for an extreme
high protein eater to have only one bowel movement per week!!  High protein eaters
tend also to eat a low fiber diet that only compounds this problem.  Some side
effects of this constipation and autointoxication are the well-known belligerent
attitude and sexual frenzyS012T of the human carnivore.  The common "morning
erection", gleefully misinterpreted as being a sign that one is a "great lover", is a
direct result of internal pressure due to constipation.  Like healthy babies,
animals, and humans eating a raw fruit and vegetable diet, one should have a full
evacuation immediately after every meal.

    Autointoxication is the reason for the highly offensive fecal, urine, body,
perspiration, and breath odors of human meat eaters and even high protein
vegetarians.  This creates the lucrative markets for mouth washes, spiced tooth
pastes, breath mints and chewing gums, oral sprays, deodorants and deodorant soaps,
antiperspirants, compulsive showering, feminine sprays, odor-eater shoe inserts, and
was probably the original motivation for perfumes.  Argentines eat a very high animal
protein diet and brag about their national per capita consumption of soap.

    Since constipation, autointoxication, various common digestive disturbances, and
numerous other "disease" symptoms are caused by consuming cooked, concentrated
proteins, this practice creates the lucrative market for laxatives, headache
remedies, anti-diarrhetics, and a vast array of "cold/flu" medicines.  Since
headaches are generally caused by a toxic, clogged colon or pressure of gases in
same, the easiest, safest, drugless approach is to take an enema with plain water
that is slightly above body temperature.


Pw1          The Deadly Dairy Argumentw0
M
    A list of arguments against eating cow's milk and dairy products:

    1>  Different species:  cows and humans are not the same species, and their
digestive apparatus and chemistry is very different.  Cows grow up to eat grass;
humans to eat fruit. The chemistry of cow milk vs. human is: (PRO=protein,
CHO=carbohydrate, Ca=calcium, P=phosphorus, Na=sodium, K=potassium, VitA=vitamin A.
etc. Cas=casein, Lac=lactose, Min=minerals, human values normalized to 1.0)

              PRO  CHO  FAT  Ca   P    Na   K    VitA VitC Cas Lac Min
    cow       3    0.5  0.9  3.6  6.6  3    2.8  0.6  0.2  6.8 0.7 3.4
    human     1    1    1    1    1    1    1    1    1    1   1   1

    Since the calf increases its body weight some 800-1000 pounds in the first year,
while the human puts on about 16-20 pounds in the same time, obviously cow's milk is
too highly concentrated in protein and bone building minerals for human consumption.
Since cow milk is too concentrated for the human digestive system, and the wrong
chemical composition, it is not digested properly; this being the reason for the
smelly stools, constant digestive distress, constant discharge of nasal mucus, gross
obesity, and unhealthy rate of growth of the human child unfortunate to be fed cow
milk.  Pasteurization lowers digestibility. Human milk has 1.1% protein vs. 3.5% for
the cow, so humans fed cow milk are over eating by a factor of 3; thus, the fat baby
syndrome which is mistakenly misinterpreted as a sign of a healthy baby.
Homogenization exacerbates this. Worse yet, cow milk contains 7 times as much of a
protein called casein, from which casein glue is made.  Carpenters glue houses
together with casein glue.  Casein is also the chief constituent of cheese and is
used in making plastics, paints, and adhesives.  The continuing battle with nasal
mucus and "colds and flus" experienced by dairy product consumers suggests that this
protein is indigestible by humans and is periodically discharged from the body by
these processes. The folk knowledge of the indigestibility by humans of bovine milk
is demonstrated by the use of rennet to make cheeses more digestible, and by the use
of bacterial cultures in fermented milk products, such as yoghurt, kefir, sour milk,
etc.  Why would an intelligent person intentionally put bacteria in food and let it
rot???  To make it easier to eat, of course!!  The bacteria partially eat the
indigestible long chain protein molecules and thus make dairy a little less obnoxious
to the human digestive system, unless we think of the countless billions of bacteria
and their excrement so consumed.

    2>  Other serious dangers are created by industrial, medical, and food
processing "progress".  These include the contamination of cow milk with farm
chemicals (such as pesticides, herbicides, fertilizer runoff, radioactive strontium
from atomic bomb tests, etc.) and feeding animals growth hormones (DES) and
antibiotics, genetic manipulation to convert bovines to milk factories, poor feeding
and environmental conditions producing sick animals (some 80% of beef cattle have
liver cancer).  Unfortunately, pesticides tend to be fat soluble, so meat eaters'
mothers' milk has MORE DDT in it than that which is allowed by "pure food" standards.
It would be illegal to carry mothers' milk across state lines if it were in any other
container.

    3>  Ecological considerations.  No other species consumes the milk of another
species.  Animals consume milk only until they have teeth developed enough to eat
their adult diet.  No animal consumes milk throughout its adult life.  Large amounts
of plant protein are wasted by running plants through cows to produce essentially
indigestible cow milk protein.  Economic waste: as MUCH more human usable proteins,
sugars, and carbohydrates can be produced by planting fruit and nut trees in the same
area necessary to grow animal food, these trees stabilizing the ecosystem while
VEGETABLE AND GRAIN CROPS DESTROY IT.

    4>  Animal rights.  The issues of poor health, slavery and mistreatment are well
known. The genetic issue, that of developing unnatural physiological atrocities to
serve human purposes, is generally ignored by animal rights activists.

    5>  Ovarian Cancer.  Science News, Vol. 136, No.4, p 52, JUL 22, 1989 reports
a study that suggests that women who eat yogurt and other dairy products may face an
increased risk of ovarian cancer that rises with the amount of dairy products
consumed.  Avoiding dairy products may help prevent ovarian cancer, especially in
those women who inherit a "flawed enzyme" that poorly metabolizes a certain dairy
sugar - galactose.  Galactose forms in the small intestine of those who consume dairy
products that contain the milk sugar lactose.  However, yogurt and cottage cheese
already contain galactose because of the use of bacterial cultures in their
production.  Women who ate yogurt at least once a month were nearly twice as likely
to develop ovarian cancer as women who reported less yogurt consumption.  Eating
cottage cheese at least once a month also elevated the risk of ovarian cancer, the
research team reported in the JUL 8 Lancet.

    6>  Contaminated dairy.  A multistate outbreak of 164 cases of diarrhea caused
by two unusually virulent strains of Salmonella was traced to the eating of
contaminated mozzarella cheese manufactured at a plant in Minnesota and then
distributed nationwide.  The bacteria remained alive throughout the shelf-life of
the cheese and it was concluded that "cheese and other similar food items may be
more common sources of apparently sporadic salmonella infections than previously
thought".S050T

    A study reviewed 458 cases of Clampylobacter enteritis (affects including
diarrhea, abdominal cramps, vomiting, general malaise) over a ten year period among
1013 people who drank raw cow's milk.  Many of these cases developed in young
children.S051T

    7>  Dairy products are the leading cause of 'food allergies', which may
manifest in the forms of bloating, intestinal gas, cramps, diarrhea, constipation,
vomiting, headaches, fatigue, rashes, asthma, and more.S054T  Lactose intolerance
affects over two-thirds of Native Americans, and Americans of African, Mexican,
Jewish, and Asian ancestry, and as many as 5-15% of those from European ancestry.S055T

    Colic, a common manifestation of cow's milk allergy in human infants, is a form
of digestive upset affecting 20% of babies.  Even in breast-fed infants, toxic cow
milk proteins can be transferred to the infant through the mother's milk, and
removing dairy products from the mother's diet often eases the effect on the
child.S056, 57T

    8>  Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS)  About 85% of infants dying from SIDS are
bottle-fed babies.S058, 59T  Allergic infants may become sensitized to a milk
protein whole being fed, and later while asleep, they may cough up some partially
digested milk, inhale it, and go into an allergic shock that stops their breathing.
Food-borne bacteria such as Listeriosis, Salmonella, and Yersina entercolitica have
been isolated from cow's milk and dairy products have caused illness and many deaths.S060T
A Centers for Disease Control (CDC) investigation has traced cases of listerosis to
the eating of soft cheeses.S061T  The CDC now recommends that the elderly, pregnant
women, and individuals with weak immune systems avoid soft cheeses, such as
Mexican-style and feta.S062T  Not only can dairy products not be adequately pasteurized
during the manufacturing process to kill pathogenic micro-organisms, but
disease-causing organisms can be introduced after pasteurizationS063T, and in the
home.

    9>  Farm chemical contamination.  Because complex organic chemicals tend to be
fat-soluble and thus concentrate in animal fat, various environmental contaminants,
such as pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, agricultural runoff, and various drugs
given to farm animals, including antibiotics and the new bovine growth hormone, can
become concentrated in cow's milk and beef.  Drug residues in milk have caused
allergic reactions in people that are penicillin-sensitiveS064T, and they even may
contribute to the rapidly growing problem of the creation of antibiotic-resistant
microorganisms.  A General Accounting Office study found that the FDA's testing and
regulation of drugs in the dairy industry is inadequate.  The tests the FDA uses do
not have the minimal capability to detect various drugs used in cows by the dairy
industry.S065T

    10>  Vitamin D Toxicity.  There is also poor regulation of Vitamin D content of
milk.  This vitamin is manufactured in adequate amounts by the human body when the
skin is exposed to sunlight.  It does not occur in many foods, and because a
deficiency can occur and cause rickets, a bone disease in children, Vitamin D is
added to milk.  Recent investigations of Vitamin D toxicity from drinking cow's milk
indicates that the dairy industry is careless in monitoring levels of the vitamin.
Only 29% of the samples of 13 brands of milk, and none of a sample of 5 brands of
infant's formula, contained Vitamin D in the range of 80-120% of the value stated on
the label.

    11>  Diabetes, anemia, and milk.  Cow milk proteins seem to be a source of
diabetes in childrenS066T, and insulin dependent diabetes is directly correlated
with cow's milk consumption in different countriesS067T, while children who are not
exposed to cow's milk products early in life have a substantial lower risk of
diabetes.  Researchers from Canada and Finland found that cow's milk was implicated
in all of 142 diabetic children they studied.  A cow's milk protein, named bovine
serum albumin, differs enough from human proteins to cause the human body to produce
antibodies which later attack and destroy insulin-producing beta cells in the
pancreas.  When the diabetes was diagnosed, every one of the 142 children had high
levels of the antibodies to the cow protein.  Non-diabetic children may have the same
antibodies, but at low levels.  The diabetes which starts in childhood
(insulin-dependent diabetes) is a leading cause of blindness, and contributes to
heart disease, kidney problems, and amputations resulting from poor circulation.
This report indicates that such diabetes is the result of a combination of genetic
predisposition and exposure to cow's milk during childhood.  Diabetes becomes evident
when 80-90% of the insulin-producing beta cells are destroyed.

    The American Academy of Pediatrics now recommends that infants under a year of
age not receive whole cow's milk.S068T  The Academy's main concern was not
diabetes, but rather iron deficiency anemia, which is more likely when the child is
on a dairy-rich diet.  Cow's milk is very low in iron, an infant would have to drink
31 quarts a day to reach the RDA, but cow's milk has the tendency to push iron-rich
foods out of the diet.  Milk actually causes loss of blood from the intestinal tract,
which can eventually can reduce the body's stores of the mineral.  The exact
mechanism is unknown, but the bovine albumin produces an immunological reaction which
leads to loss of blood.  Pasteurization does not eliminate this problem.S069T

    Although cow's milk does contain some calcium, and the dairy industry
excessively emphasizes this in its advertising, it is not a good source from a
nutritional standpoint as that from kale, broccoli, and green leafy vegetables which
contain calcium in a form that is readily adsorbed by the human body.

    12> Cow's milk, ovarian cancer, and infertility.
    In recent years, cow's milk has been indicated as a contributor to an expanding
list of health problems.  A major specific challenge to the dairy industry is the
fact that the trigger for insulin-dependent diabetes and colic appears to be milk
proteins themselves, rather than milk fat which may be easily removed, and thus skim
milk and baby formula is as health destroying as whole milk.

    Now, there are more reasons to be concerned about the milk sugar, lactose, beyond
the widespread digestive problems called 'lactose intolerance'.  It may very well be
that the intestinal gas, bloating, colic, and smelly stools that frequent human
infants unfortunate enough to be fed milk from another totally unrelated species of
animal, the cow, is clear evidence that only human breast milk should be fed to
humans.  Unfortunately, since cow milk consumption is so common in this culture, as
is the above list of symptoms, that these problems are accepted by the ignorant
culture to be 'normal'.

    Harvard University has found evidence that a break-down product of lactose,
called galactose, can affect the ovaries.  Women with ovarian cancer tend to consume
more dairy products than those without the cancer.S032T

    More recent research by the same investigator indicates that galactose can
produce other severe ovarian difficulties, such as higher rates of infertility among
women who consume more dairy products and have a greater tendency to break down
lactose into galactose.  This effect, apparently due to ovarian damage from
galactose, was particularly evident among women in their later child-bearing
years.S033T

    =    =    =    =    =    =    =    =    =    =    =    =    =    =
    -    -    -    -    -    -    -    -    -    -    -    -    -    -
    .    .    .    .    .    .    .    .    .    .    .    .    .    .

    This is the end of the first third of "Scientific Arguments Against
Eating Meat and Other Animal Products".

For the complete article(s) and printed graphics, send $10, a formatted IBM
compatible floppy, and a double-US-stamped SASE to:

Laurie Forti
POBox 402666
Miami Beach, FL, USA
33140-0666

(Nonresidents of US, please send $15.  Printed articles are $15.)