Dear Santosh, It appears my near fanatical adoration of Dr. Neal Barnard and his recommendations to the Indian public to revert to vegetarianism to save their lives has affected "your powers of critical inquiry and dispassionate rational thinking"... to use your words. He bucks the current 'mainstream' medical mantra with his statements which give us cause to pause.
The question at hand, without scientifically microdissecting the arguments for and against, is whether a vegetarian diet is healthier than the 'Atkins' diet, towards which the affluent Indian population is currently heading. I think moderation is the key and a vegetarian diet rich in 'ghee' would be just as unhealthy which is why he promotes veganism. Whatever the arguments used by either side to push their own agenda, is the consumer better served by his advice or not? Are the current methods by which we derive animal proteins the most humane? Are all the scientific investigations on lab animals essential? Can we be more humane as a society without affecting our health? You can get shrill about his opposition to non-essential animal experimentation by those institutions you quoted. How much of the money donated to these so-called 'non-profit humanitarian organizations' actually benefits society? I still put my implicit faith in science to resolve these issues but we need to look past some of our prejudices to see the bigger picture. I do not practice alternative medicine but have seen it's effects on animals who, for the most part, do not succumb to the placebo effect. I have no explanation for this anecdotal evidence but know that it cannot be quantified by 'mainstream' double-blind studies so essential to our 'one-track' medical system today. I would not pursue alternative therapies myself but should I criticize someone who takes daily vitamin supplements as a quackpot? Sincerely, Kevin Saldanha Mississauga, ON. ========================= Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 12:10:53 -0800 (PST) From: Santosh Helekar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I question your judgment in implying in the above quote that the two sides, namely those who expose health-related fraud and the litigant who sues and campaigns against them are making equally valid claims. If you believe that reason and evidence rather than faith can settle all disputes in the real world then this has got be a good test case for such a settlement. I hope you recognize this fact, and show some consistency in your rationality. Cheers, Santosh -- http://2008goanconvention.com http://www.multiculturalcanada.ca/ecp/content/goans.html
