Debating rules applied

[AndrewK788]

I'll admit, I haven't read in depth through this thread, but my initial reaction is this: science is all fine and good, but don't always hang your hat on it. There are, after all, those that claim science has disproved the existence of God.

I don't necessarily mean this topic specifically, just a general caution.

 

[JonMiller]

There are, after all, those that claim science has disproved the existence of God.

No sane scientist would claim that.

Not even the heavily atheistic ones (like Dawkins) claim that.

JM
(I think, I haven't actually read one of his books)

 

[RND]

But feel free to continue to dig yourself deeper, few will look at your words as very wise however.

RC. You suggested that there is firm knowledge in how leprosy is spread. The Encarta article seems to suggest differently.

has good evidence to know the spread of the disease and even knows how to treat the disease.

Today scientists know that leprosy is not easily transmitted, but they are still not sure how it is spread from person to person.

Where's the disconnect coming from?

So if you feel like presenting the evidence for leprosy caused by pigs I would eagerly await your scientific examination. I mean you must have some good evidence surely better then the current science about respiratory droplets or spread like so many other bacteria via contact through respiration, mucus membranes and broken skin.

Actually, I've never said nor suggested that leprosy is obtained from eating swine. Neither apparently have the scientist's in that they have apparently not come to a conclusionas to how it is spread.

Was the word "may" that confussing RC? Was the surety of the statement "do not know for certain." seem ambiguous or vague?

"Today scientists know that leprosy is not easily transmitted, but they are still not sure how it is spread from person to person. Nasal droplets released when a person with untreated lepromatous disease sneezes may contain large numbers of leprosy bacteria. Conceivably, these released bacteria could infect a new person who inhales the droplets, or the bacteria could invade through a cut or abrasion in the person’s skin. Scientists suspect that these processes may be the primary means of spreading the disease, but do not know for certain.

 

[RND]

RND,

I'm really enjoying your style!

Thanks mva1985! I've been paying attention to your posts as well and enjoy them much.

 

[JohnT]

I've never found any scientific evidence in any of the literature that says that eating pork is directly related to the disease of leprosy. So as a scientist you would have to say that to do so would be making assertions or speculations that were not based on the available evidence. However, it's been my experience that the evaluation of the available evidence does not always tell us the whole story. New discoveries regarding diseases and man's physiology are found every year in research.

If this disease is indeed caused by a mycobacterium infection then it's very possible that eating poorly cooked pork could contribute or even cause the onset of this disease. Most adventists are already aware of the famous trichina problem with pork but it would not surprize me at all to find substantial quatitites of mycobacterium Leprae or salmonella typhamurium present in rare or poorly cooked pork either. A complete study would need to be done to scientifically determine this but it does make sense based on what I know about microbiology. God Bless Jim Larmore

Finally, a SDA scientist replies! Thank you!

The OP had the challenge to scientifically validate via peer-reviewed material the 108 years-old statement of EGW.

No one has supplied that level of rigorous study to the consumption of properly cooked pork, and any of the alleged proofs are anecdotal, or on web sites of those having an obvious agenda.

However, the etiologies of "scrofula, leprosy, and cancerous humors" have each been discovered.

Scrofula in adults is most often caused by the bacteria Mycobacterium tuberculosis.

National Institute of Health site medlineplus/ency/article/001354.htm

Leprosy is caused by the organism Mycobacterium leprae. It is not very contagious (difficult to transmit)

Same site medlineplus/ency/article/001347.htm

We also know that the pathogenesis of mycobacterium Leprae is largely external, and spread via DIRECT CONTACT and DISPERSEMENT like coughing and sneezing, but not neat eating any assertion that contamination comes or COULD COME from any other source has no scientific validity. The disease has been thoroughly vetted and sequenced (pun on genome project intended).

And we all know that there are various carcinogenic compounds that each lead do different types of cancerous tumors. In this case avoidance of the hazards is often seen as the best possible way to avoid getting the disease. However, there is also a genetic predisposition component in carcinoma that can not be overlooked. Unfortunately there are some families that have a predisposition to cancers also.

NONE of the diseases have listed as their etiology the consumption of pork, or pork products. Nor has anyone been able to supply scientific level data on the assertion of EGW, therefore using debating principles, her proposition must fail, for lack of proof: her contention is thus properly labeled null.

In cases like this, the absence of evidence of the positive MUST be construed as the evidence of absence on two levels:

1) Each of those diseases have been studied scientifically, and there is no causal relationship to the consumption of pork established in any of them.

2) The reverse of that has also been studied, and while there are obviously well-established studies available on the effect of eating (mostly unregulated) and uncooked/undercooked pork, and trichinosis there has not been established any sort of causal relationship scientifically established with the consumption of properly prepared pork.

No one has provided proof of what EGW stated. That is a fair and accurate assessment.

Using the same sort of debating, stating that the affirmative position must provide proof of the assertion, not vice-versa, it is now possible to examine other EGW statements as to their validity, either scientifically and/or historically, and I invite others to do likewise.

 

[RND]

No one has provided proof of what EGW stated. That is a fair and accurate assessment.

Actually, that's not a completely fair and accurate statement. It was been shown in this thread that there have been many studies that have made a strong, peer-reviewed connection between beef and pork consumption and cancer.

Is it possible that EGW relayed the best and most reliable information of the day regarding scrofula and leprosy? Sure, you bet. Does that negate 100% the fact the swine is not a desireable food fit for consumption? Hardly. We must look to the Bible for our answer there.

I find in remarkable that in her day and age she was able to accurately conclude that eating meat products, not just pork, can lead to cancer.

What if in twenty years we do indeed find that pork is responsible for scrofula and leprosy? Would the powerful Pork industry and Pork lobby have a reason to keep such things quite? Would they have a justifiable reason to hide the truth and obfuscate the studies that may have even led to such conclusions?

Using the same sort of debating, stating that the affirmative position must provide proof of the assertion, not vice-versa, it is now possible to examine other EGW statements as to their validity, either scientifically and/or historically, and I invite others to do likewise.

I think that is a fair and reasonable position to take.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

but do not know for certain.

I currently have a cold, I do not know for certain how I acquired the virus. Medical science cannot say for certain how I acquired the virus. Certainty is not something Science offers in most cases. When they talk about transmission of cold virus they list common methods because science deals in percentages and statistics rather then certainty. Many people smoke all their lives and do not die of lung cancer. In an open system with many factors certainty is not something we find at least not among responsible researchers.

Evidence leads us to suggest causes not to declare we are certain of the causes. It is why in diagnosis in the medical field we frequently report that something is consistent with said disease or physiological process. Merely saying that we don't know something with certainty does not mean that we don't have good evidence to suggest we know the cause nor is it the answer for those who insert that if we cannot say something in complete certainty that any speculation can be inserted. That of course would not be scientific or logical.

 

[RND]

I currently have a cold, I do not know for certain how I acquired the virus. Medical science cannot say for certain how I acquired the virus. Certainty is not something Science offers in most cases. When they talk about transmission of cold virus they list common methods because science deals in percentages and statistics rather then certainty. Many people smoke all their lives and do not die of lung cancer. In an open system with many factors certainty is not something we find at least not among responsible researchers.

Evidence leads us to suggest causes not to declare we are certain of the causes. It is why in diagnosis in the medical field we frequently report that something is consistent with said disease or physiological process. Merely saying that we don't know something with certainty does not mean that we don't have good evidence to suggest we know the cause nor is it the answer for those who insert that if we cannot say something in complete certainty that any speculation can be inserted. That of course would not be scientific or logical.

And this changes the fact that science does not know how for certain how leprosy is transmitted how exactly?

BTW, science does know how the common cold is transmitted.

Acute viral nasopharyngitis (common cold)

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

And this changes the fact that science does not know how for certain how leprosy is transmitted how exactly?

BTW, science does know how the common cold is transmitted.

Acute viral nasopharyngitis (common cold)

I am sorry it appears you are not capable of scientific thought. Just because we know the common modes of transmission of the cold virus does not give any certainty in regards to how a particular person got a particular cold virus. Likewise we do not have certainty with the leprosy bacterium though they have identified the likely modes of transmission.

In any case none of this helps the EGW argument but it does show how many will do whatever they can regardless of the logic to pretend that they have some reason for their acceptance of incorrect data.

 

[RND]

I am sorry it appears you are not capable of scientific thought.

Oh I am. I'm just not able to follow your muddled and convoluted reasoning. I think I'll have to get to know you better. Maybe others here that have better understanding of your 'thought' process could help me out.

Just because we know the common modes of transmission of the cold virus does not give any certainty in regards to how a particular person got a particular cold virus.

Sure it does. It's received from another person by either of the particular modes of transportation available. Generally, we catch a cold from someone that has the cold virus. It's transmitted by the exchange of the cold virus from one to another. Simple.

Likewise we do not have certainty with the leprosy bacterium though they have identified the likely modes of transmission.

But that's just it. While a source has been identified the means of transmission have not been pinpointed. That's what scientist themselves admit. Are you saying they are wrong?

In any case none of this helps the EGW argument but it does show how many will do whatever they can regardless of the logic to pretend that they have some reason for their acceptance of incorrect data.

Hmmm, EGW said that eating pigs leads to cancer. Apparently she had something there. Do you have any medical references, peer-reviewed of course, from that period that conclusively shows that eating swine led to cancer? If not, why not?

Recent studies have backed-up and come to the same conclusions Mrs. White came up to regarding swine and cancer. Was this just a "lucky guess" on her part? If, in the future the same is revealed regarding the source of scrofula and leprosy would that too be a lucky guess?

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Hmmm, EGW said that eating pigs leads to cancer. Apparently she had something there. Do you have any medical references, peer-reviewed of course, from that period that conclusively shows that eating swine led to cancer? If not, why not?

Recent studies have backed-up and come to the same conclusions Mrs. White came up to regarding swine and cancer. Was this just a "lucky guess" on her part? If, in the future the same is revealed regarding the source of scrofula and leprosy would that too be a lucky guess?

Well there is likely no peer reviewed work from her time that says eating pork leads to cancer. But then there is none from today that makes that conclusion either. Excessive fat from meat yes, though excessive fat from any source contributes to cancers. As for a lucky guess she was not saying anything that other health reformers 30 years before her were saying. As for both scorfula and leprosy you may assume whatever you like because there is always more future for you to expect her to be proven right in. And after all when you discard the science you are only left with your speculations anyway. Just don't expect the rest of us to join you.

 

[Jimlarmore]

Omega 3 fatty acids have been shown to contribute to health in many ways especially the cardio-vascular system. I've searched for it and have not found that omega 3 fatty acids have ever been shown to cause or contribute to any form of cancer, so not all fats contribute to cancer.

BTW, flax seed oil is a great source of omega 3 as is Salmon fish oil.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[RND]

Well there is likely no peer reviewed work from her time that says eating pork leads to cancer.

That must mean she was ahead of her time in some aspects then.

But then there is none from today that makes that conclusion either.

Actually, that simply untrue. A casual glance at the history of this thread will show that there are many studies that have linked the risk of cancer to the proportional ingestion of animal flesh, including pork.

Excessive fat from meat yes, though excessive fat from any source contributes to cancers.

Um. So if one doesn't want cancer from ingeting animal fats what would be the logical thing to avoid? Eating the animals?

As for a lucky guess she was not saying anything that other health reformers 30 years before her were saying.

Accept she said it 100 to 130 years before their time. I wonder what those health reformers from 30 years ago used as their inspiration.

As for both scorfula and leprosy you may assume whatever you like because there is always more future for you to expect her to be proven right in.

Indeed. Nothing really to lament on your part though.

And after all when you discard the science you are only left with your speculations anyway. Just don't expect the rest of us to join you.

Hmmmm. You doubt there is any scientific, peer-reviewed papers of EGW's days that clearly show a connection between animal ingestion and cancer, yet EGW surmised (ahead of her time of course) that there was. Was she just ignoring science then or was she ahead of it? Again, maybe it was just a "lucky guess" on her part.

BTW, I wouldn't dream of having the willingly deaf, dumb and blind to want to follow along. It would be much too much for them to handle.

 

[JohnT]

That must mean she was ahead of her time in some aspects then.

Either that, or else she did not know what she was writing about. Either choice is likely, 50-50. Which is it though?

Actually, that simply untrue. A casual glance at the history of this thread will show that there are many studies that have linked the risk of cancer to the proportional ingestion of animal flesh, including pork

.

That is simply NOT true! I began this thread stating the premise that debating rules need to be applied. There is absolutely NO proof of the positive position offered. It is the obligation of the affirmative to supply the proof of a proposition. There is no such obligation on the negative, for if the positive fails to prove the proposition, it necessarily fails.

In this case, since there is ZERO proofs offered by those supporting EGW's assertion, her assertion must therefore fail using debating principles.

Um. So if one doesn't want cancer from ingesting animal fats what would be the logical thing to avoid? Eating the animals?

This is moot, for there is no proof e.g. peer-reviewed studies attesting to this.

Accept (sic) she said it 100 to 130 years before their time. I wonder what those health reformers from 30 years ago used as their inspiration.

This is also moot for the same reason as stated above

Hmmmm. You doubt there is any scientific, peer-reviewed papers of EGW's days that clearly show a connection between animal ingestion and cancer, yet EGW surmised (ahead of her time of course) that there was. Was she just ignoring science then or was she ahead of it? Again, maybe it was just a "lucky guess" on her part.

It is not a personal doubt on the part of anyone. Rather it is OBJECTIVE FACT that there have been no peer-reviewed studies presented which support her claim that 'EATING PORK CAUSES LEPROSY SCAFOLA AND CANCEROUS HUMORS"

BTW, I wouldn't dream of having the willingly deaf, dumb and blind to want to follow along. It would be much too much for them to handle.

Huh?

I hope that you are not calling those who eat meat, deaf, dumb and blind. Someone might consider that an attack, and report you.

 

[RND]

Either that, or else she did not know what she was writing about. Either choice is likely, 50-50. Which is it though?

Well now, if Mrs. White didn't know what she was talking about when stating that eating animal flesh would lead to cancer it must have been a "lucky guess."

That is simply NOT true! I began this thread stating the premise that debating rules need to be applied. There is absolutely NO proof of the positive position offered. It is the obligation of the affirmative to supply the proof of a proposition. There is no such obligation on the negative, for if the positive fails to prove the proposition, it necessarily fails.

There are links in this thread that have been provided by posters that lead to studies that show conclusively that eating meat leads to higher cancer risks.

In this case, since there is ZERO proofs offered by those supporting EGW's assertion, her assertion must therefore fail using debating principles.

Of the three positions stated that eating pork leads to 1) scrofula 2) leprosy and 3) cancer, it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt by various studies that eating pork products leads to a higher risk of cancer.

I'd say so far she's one out of three. And considering that no one has been able to show that the scientific community advanced any such theories prior to Mrs. White's assertions I'd say that pretty good.

Besides, it may very well be that one day science does lead to a conclusion that eating pork does contribute or causes scrofula or leprosy.

This is moot, for there is no proof e.g. peer-reviewed studies attesting to this.

You're kidding right? Just type in cancer and red meat into a search engine. You'd be amazed at what you'll find.

This is also moot for the same reason as stated above

If you choose to ignore the facts then I'm sure the point is moot.

It is not a personal doubt on the part of anyone. Rather it is OBJECTIVE FACT that there have been no peer-reviewed studies presented which support her claim that 'EATING PORK CAUSES LEPROSY SCAFOLA AND CANCEROUS HUMORS"

Yes, there have been a ton of studies that show that eating pork increases the risks of cancer.

Huh?

Exactly.

I hope that you are not calling those who eat meat, deaf, dumb and blind. Someone might consider that an attack, and report you.

No, I was calling those that willingly ignore the facts as deaf, dumb and blind. And anyone that might consider that an attack should enjoy a glass of whine with their cheeze.

 

[JohnT]

Well now, if Mrs. White didn't know what she was talking about when stating that eating animal flesh would lead to cancer it must have been a "lucky guess."

There are links in this thread that have been provided by posters that lead to studies that show conclusively that eating meat leads to higher cancer risks.

Of the three positions stated that eating pork leads to 1) scrofula 2) leprosy and 3) cancer, it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt by various studies that eating pork products leads to a higher risk of cancer.

I'd say so far she's one out of three. And considering that no one has been able to show that the scientific community advanced any such theories prior to Mrs. White's assertions I'd say that pretty good.

Besides, it may very well be that one day science does lead to a conclusion that eating pork does contribute or causes scrofula or leprosy.

You're kidding right? Just type in cancer and red meat into a search engine. You'd be amazed at what you'll find.

If you choose to ignore the facts then I'm sure the point is moot.

Yes, there have been a ton of studies that show that eating pork increases the risks of cancer.

No, I was calling those that willingly ignore the facts as deaf, dumb and blind. And anyone that might consider that an attack should enjoy a glass of whine with their cheeze.

RND

Are you by any chance a dietitian? I am curious.

Nevertheless, are you aware of the difference between web sites and peer-reviewed studies? The difference is critical to understanding my position, and I am not trying to be a wise guy, nor giving any "attitude", OK?

Anyone who has the software or pays some one to set it up, can create a website. We all know that there is no "accuracy police" on the net, or else some sites would never get up and running. To put it bluntly, any fool can create a website, and many do.

When someone states that something is peer-reviewed, it goes to a much higher level of authentication. In many professional-level publications such as the Journal of the American Medical Association, for example, the ones who submit an article for publication must first be able to do a study, based upon a professional degree, and second be able to create a study that has all the information gathered from the study accounted for; the submitter can not ignore evidence that may disprove the thesis of the study, just to make a point.

Following that, the paper is submitted to a board of peers, who also have the qualifications to judge on the merits of the paper, and if it passes their muster, it is published. When it is published, appearing in print, the effect of that is to place the entire reputation of JAMA on the line, for it says that they reviewed it, and found no fault with the study. Therefore, the reader can assume the scientific veracity of the paper.

No such control exists with the websites.

As such some anti pork sites may be that way because they do not want factory farms nearby. Other anti pork sites may be that way because they want people to eat tofu; and other anti pork websites may be there because they promote the vegan lifestyle.

Can you see where some sites may be anti pork, and have a special agenda? The key is to discover if there is science backing up their claims, and to discover that, we need to discover any peer reviewed studies, or else the wesbite is invalid for any other purpose than to agree with our hunches.

Now, please notice how a word shift changes the nature of the question. Originally I quoted EGW's words asking for comment based on what she actually said EGW wrote

'The eating of pork has produced scrofula, leprosy, and cancerous humors" {RH, June 20, 1899 par. 3}

Here are your words:

Of the three positions stated that eating pork leads to 1) scrofula 2) leprosy and 3) cancer, it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt by various studies that eating pork products leads to a higher risk of cancer

The words I bolded make a significant change from the OP, do you not agree?

Finally, your phrase that I underlined is a phrase taken from the realm of statistics that many people do not understand. That is not a fault-finding statement, for it is used very casually, sometimes . Basically it refers to a correlation greater than 95% of the results happening in one area. For example, if 95% of people who ever smoked developed lung cancer, then it would be proved beyond any shadow of doubt.

Since science has not found such a degree of causality from tobacco products, which we all know contains carcinogenic ingredients, (Ever read the warning label on them?) then for sure, it has not proved "beyond a shadow of a doubt" as you allege that eating pork causes that significant degree of risk.

Are we in agreement as to the level of proof required?

 

[moicherie]

As a human? Yes. But if under inspiration? No.

Do all inspired singers sing in perfect pitch?

 

[RND]

RND

Are you by any chance a dietitian? I am curious.

No. But I am a comsumer of food.

Nevertheless, are you aware of the difference between web sites and peer-reviewed studies? The difference is critical to understanding my position, and I am not trying to be a wise guy, nor giving any "attitude", OK?

Yes, I'm aware of the difference. Are you aware of the difference between a web site that mentions a peer-reviewed study and an actual peer-reviewed study?

Anyone who has the software or pays some one to set it up, can create a website. We all know that there is no "accuracy police" on the net, or else some sites would never get up and running. To put it bluntly, any fool can create a website, and many do.

So the answer then is to distrust EVERYTHING on the web?

When someone states that something is peer-reviewed, it goes to a much higher level of authentication. In many professional-level publications such as the Journal of the American Medical Association, for example, the ones who submit an article for publication must first be able to do a study, based upon a professional degree, and second be able to create a study that has all the information gathered from the study accounted for; the submitter can not ignore evidence that may disprove the thesis of the study, just to make a point.

This is true of the hundreds of medical/scientific journals that are produced worldwide. Or are your critieria only limited to that which is published in the AMA journal?

Following that, the paper is submitted to a board of peers, who also have the qualifications to judge on the merits of the paper, and if it passes their muster, it is published. When it is published, appearing in print, the effect of that is to place the entire reputation of JAMA on the line, for it says that they reviewed it, and found no fault with the study. Therefore, the reader can assume the scientific veracity of the paper.

No such control exists with the websites.

Hmmm, so when a web site such as WebMD publishes an article regarding a peer-reviewed study that's not credible?

You are joking right?

As such some anti pork sites may be that way because they do not want factory farms nearby. Other anti pork sites may be that way because they want people to eat tofu; and other anti pork websites may be there because they promote the vegan lifestyle.

Yes, I can see the alterior motives of WebMD now much clearer. Tell me, are you able to judge the motives of people that produce studies that deal with prok consumption?

For example, what was God's singular motivation in His prohibition against eating swine?

Can you see where some sites may be anti pork, and have a special agenda? The key is to discover if there is science backing up their claims, and to discover that, we need to discover any peer reviewed studies, or else the wesbite is invalid for any other purpose than to agree with our hunches.

Yes, I'm certain WebMD has a specific bias against swine.

Now, please notice how a word shift changes the nature of the question. Originally I quoted EGW's words asking for comment based on what she actually said EGW wrote Here are your words: The words I bolded make a significant change from the OP, do you not agree?

Yes, I agree. Do the words you bolded however detract from the point that it has been proven that there is a link between cancer and eating animal flesh, including pork?

Finally, your phrase that I underlined is a phrase taken from the realm of statistics that many people do not understand. That is not a fault-finding statement, for it is used very casually, sometimes . Basically it refers to a correlation greater than 95% of the results happening in one area. For example, if 95% of people who ever smoked developed lung cancer, then it would be proved beyond any shadow of doubt.

So, if only 49% of those who smoked got lung cancer and 35% got emphysema then could we not conclude that cigarettes are a cause of medical illness? Are you serious?

How about a different breakdown that involves all the things that cigarette smoking HAS BEEN PROVEN to account for such as heart disease, stroke, Tuberculosis, Pneumonia and about 35 to 40 other maladies that range from Acute necrotizing ulcerative gingivitis to Rheumatoid arthritis?

Since science has not found such a degree of causality from tobacco products, which we all know contains carcinogenic ingredients, (Ever read the warning label on them?)

Yes, I'm a ex-smoker, so I have indeed read the warning label on a pack of cigareetes. Your statement that "science has not found such a degree of causality from tobacco products" is laughable.

then for sure, it has not proved "beyond a shadow of a doubt" as you allege that eating pork causes that significant degree of risk.

Are we in agreement as to the level of proof required?

No. Because if I were to agree with what your level of proof requires I would have to live in a world of devoid of logic, reason and common sense.

 

[moicherie]

Under 'inspiration' she wrote about the amalgamation of men and beast and this was interpreted by her husband and others like Uriah Smith to include tribes like the Bushmen of Africa, she never corrected them but the church many years later edited out that racist statement.

 

[JohnT]

Yes, I'm aware of the difference. Are you aware of the difference between a web site that mentions a peer-reviewed study and an actual peer-reviewed study?

Right
However your reliance on Web MD is misplaced, for it cites no peer-reviewed sources, just this disclaimer:

Last Updated: August 26, 2005
This information is not intended to replace the advice of a doctor. Healthwise disclaims any liability for the decisions you make based on this information.

So the answer then is to distrust EVERYTHING on the web?

No, silly, the answer is to EXAMINE whatever you read on the web, That is common sense, don't you agree?

This is true of the hundreds of medical/scientific journals that are produced worldwide. Or are your critieria only limited to that which is published in the AMA journal?

Did I somehow lead you astray when I stated, ; "Some, for example______" Are you doing a SDA Samba here?

Relax, an alliterative joke, but nevertheless it is true true you dance around the issue raised in the OP. No one has EVER produced professional-level (peer reviewed ) studies that support what EGW said.

I stated that JAMA is an EXAMPLE. It could be Lancet, or Dietitian Journal asa other examples. No one has EVER produced professional-level (peer reviewed ) studies that support what EGW said. That is the focus of the OP

Hmmm, so when a web site such as WebMD publishes an article regarding a peer-reviewed study that's not credible?

You are joking right?

I checked the site and searched on "pork". Did you?

I found one article about the dangers of HDL under "pork".

Eating too much saturated fat can cause high cholesterol. You will find this unhealthy fat in foods that come from animals. Beef, pork, veal, milk, eggs, butter, and cheese contain saturated fat. Packaged foods that contain coconut oil, palm oil, or cocoa butter may have a lot of saturated fat. You will also find saturated fat in stick margarine, vegetable shortening, and most cookies, crackers, chips, and other snacks.

Look at the MANY sources of saturated fats. I counted 15 and others, but note that pork is listed as one in 15, and that has to do with triglycerides, but NOT CAUSING LEPROSY AND CANCER as EGW said.

I found ZERO articles about any alleged dangers of eating pork. If there were any real dangers associated with eating pork, is it not likely that WebMD would have an article, since you seem to believe it as having authority?

Yes, I can see the alterior (sic) motives of WebMD now much clearer. Tell me, are you able to judge the motives of people that produce studies that deal with prok consumption?...

Yes, I'm certain WebMD has a specific bias against swine

If you mistakenly believe that WebMD says that eating pork CAUSES cancer then why are there 3 ad links to pork, and 6 different recipes for pork? Is your trust in WebMD substantiated or faltering now?

For example, what was God's singular motivation in His prohibition against eating swine?

It was FOR THE JEWS, BUT NOT FOR ALL PEOPLE. When is the last time you read Acts 10?

Yes, I agree. Do the words you bolded however detract from the point that it has been proven that there is a link between cancer and eating animal flesh, including pork?

Your stating something is not the same as showing proof.

The position of EGW must fail because there is no proof ANYWHERE of that pork-cancer, leprosy scafola link she posited.

So, if only 49% of those who smoked got lung cancer and 35% got emphysema then could we not conclude that cigarettes are a cause of medical illness? Are you serious?

How about a different breakdown that involves all the things that cigarette smoking HAS BEEN PROVEN to account for such as heart disease, stroke, Tuberculosis, Pneumonia and about 35 to 40 other maladies that range from Acute necrotizing ulcerative gingivitis to Rheumatoid arthritis?

Yes, I'm a ex-smoker, so I have indeed read the warning label on a pack of cigareetes. Your statement that "science has not found such a degree of causality from tobacco products" is laughable.

Laugh away.

I also am an ex smoker, but as I stated, in the science of statistics, causality is when you reach the 95% level or > 2 standard deviations. Your statistics, even at 49% do not reach the degree of causality that EGW posited.. We both know that it is foolish to smoke, for there is surely an INCREASED LIKELIHOOD of cancer, COPD and other things from smoking.

However, has there been any similar warning label on pork chops?

No. Because if I were to agree with what your level of proof requires I would have to live in a world of devoid of logic, reason and common sense.

It is not logic, rather science of which I speak.

You are trying futilely to defend EGW 's statement on causality of cancer, etc. It is impossible, for there are no studies proving it.

Even if there was an "increased likelihood" of cancer, etc from eating pork, then there would be a warning label on it, and WebMD would neither have links nor recipes for pork on their website.