In Praise of Red Meat By Mrs Vera West

     Nothing fills the gut better than a plate of red meat with plenty of vegetables to wash the divine food down. Of course, eating red meat, indeed, any meat, has come under attack in recent times from crazed feral Greenies, furry vegans and other vectors of the modern regime. But despair not, for not all red meat news is bad, or “red.” First, comes methodological problems in meat research, or at least the critique of meat:
  https://apnews.com/968e18606fba4a3c8084d2c83e0ffe56

“A team of international researchers recently rattled the nutrition world by saying there isn’t enough evidence to tell people to cut back on red or processed meat, seemingly contradicting advice from prominent health experts and groups including the American Cancer Society and American Heart Association. …The dispute lays bare problems with nutrition research long acknowledged in the scientific world: Nutrition studies are almost never conclusive, and whatever supposed risk and benefits there are to any food are often oversimplified. “People like bumper sticker guidance,” said Dr. Walter Willett, a professor of nutrition at Harvard who has led studies tying meat to bad health. Now health experts are wrestling with how solid scientific findings should be before guidance is issued, how to address biases that might skew conclusions and whether the pleasure we get from eating should be considered. The scrutiny is likely to spill over to other dietary advice as obesity becomes an ever more critical public health concern, and people become increasingly frustrated with flip-flopping messages.

MEAT TWO WAYS
The papers analyzed past studies on red and processed meat and generally corroborated the links to cancers, heart disease and other bad health outcomes. But they said the chance of any benefit from eating less of them appeared small or negligible. For every 1,000 people, for instance, cutting back on red meat by three servings a week was linked to seven fewer deaths from cancer. For some other health measures, like strokes, the difference was smaller or nonexistent. What’s more, the researchers said there’s little certainty meat was the reason for the differences. Uncertainty is common in nutrition research. Many studies about food and health are based on links researchers make between people’s health and what they say they eat. But that doesn’t prove one causes the other. If a thin person loves cereal and eats it nearly every day, for instance, that doesn’t mean cereal is the reason they’re thin.

  https://www.theguardian.com/food/2019/sep/30/research-red-meat-poses-no-health-risk?CMP=share_btn_fb&fbclid=IwAR2giIMf5iGFbYGFUtS5Rkh9EzGaMUz2exO9VH294Gn8gq051mgz2d3Olfo
  https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-7520483/You-DONT-need-cut-red-meat-scientists-claim-huge-controversial-study.html
  https://www.zerohedge.com/political/another-narrative-collapse-eating-meat-not-ritualistic-suicide

“…the demonization of red meat cuts to the heart of the political con job that is modern cultural Marxism and its supposed moral high ground. You can see this in the response to the landmark study just completed that concluded there is no perceivable risk from eating red meat as opposed to anything else. It immediately provoked apoplexy akin to doctors prescribing hemlock to treat eczema. “Based on the research, we cannot say with any certainty that eating red or processed meat causes cancer, diabetes or heart disease,” said Bradley Johnston, an associate professor at Dalhousie University in Canada who co-led the review published on Monday in the Annals of Internal Medicine journal. However, in what amounts to a scientific food fight, experts from Harvard, Yale, Stanford and elsewhere, including one of the review authors, said guidelines that could lead people to eat more red and processed meats were irresponsible. They asked in a letter to the journal that it “pre-emptively retract publication” of the papers pending further review. I can’t wait until the study comes out comparing those on a carnivore diet to vegan one. That’s the study no one in power wants to see the results of. We’re at the overwhelming evidence stage of the benefits of not eating like our dinner eats and these guys are trying to hold back the dam and force the truth under the rug. Because they can’t give up the dream, man.

Veganism and ethical vegetarianism are inextricably bound up with the push towards modern forms of social control. They are religions based on the mistaken, inherently Marxist, belief that humanity is a virus that needs to be contained. Vegetarians claim a moral high ground they can’t support as an extension of an ideology built on the guilt of being alive, of denying their basic humanity as predators. It is another false narrative designed to rob you of your reason physically as well as psychologically, since diet affects both in a vicious feedback loop of auto-immune disorders which are entirely avoidable, just like the donuts in the break room. And the idea that you can just go to the gym and burn that donut off is simply ignorant of how the body actually functions. Calories in do not just equal calories out. The body doesn’t treat a teaspoon of sugar the same way it treats an ounce of bacon grease. If you think that, then you aren’t just ignorant, at this point, you are being willfully obtuse. We don’t have a bathtub metabolism anymore than we have Keynes’ idea of a bathtub economy. Reducing our food intake to the same gross generalization that we do the economy via GDP is not only stupid but antithetical to truth. The idea that calories are just calories is, literally meaningless. It strips out all meaning as to how specific molecules are utilized by the body and for what purpose. Just like reducing the economy to gross spending also strips out the meaning about what we spent the money on and how it was utilized.”

     I like that, even though the article does get a bit raw after that last quoted sentence. It is spot on in relating the diet debate to the wider political context, seen most clearly with the climate change fanatics attack upon red meat. It was never about hard science and always about political correctness, since men particularly like red meat, something probably grounded in evolution … you know, savage  hairy Harry cave men, toxic masculinity in the dark primeval  past. Thus, I intend to enjoy the indescribably joy of eating red meat, until I become no more than red meat, or is it white meat?