« I get a mysterious package. Ideas about it welcomed. | Main | Taoism is playful. Buddhism is serious. I prefer Taoism. »

December 16, 2021

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Many years ago I attended a lecture in Charlottesville VA on the relationship of belief in healing. Swami Satchidananda and Dr. Dean Ornish were there. Ornish told of how recovery from any disease depends on one thing above all else: support from family members. The right doctor, the right medicine or diet, etc. were secondary to having others support you and signify that they believed in your recovery.

Also important said Ornish was belief itself. He told of one of his patients who had cancer and somehow came up with the belief that he'd eat his way into recover. So this guy was eating 5 big meals a day and lo and behold his cancer disappeared. I'm skeptical of anecdotal medical stories, but given Ornish is a real doctor I believe his account.

A similar story I heard was from a guy at a 12 step meeting in Arizona. He told of how he'd been in a car wreck that killed his brother and left him paralyzed. He asked the doctor if there was any chance he'd walk again, and the doc say no way. Somehow this guy took on the belief that if he worked at his recovery as hard as he could he would walk again. He told the doc this and the doc repeated, no way, no how. But the guy persevered, worked hard, and regained his ability to walk. I believe his story.

One of James Joyce's contemporaries said that "life is plastic, it's whatever you make it to be." This is true to some degree, not absolutely of course, but still true. Bruce Springsteen grew up poor but just sold his songs for $500 million dollars. I was reading Steve Van Zandt's bio the other day and he tells of how he had to convince Bruce to be a star. So many examples exists of how belief creates reality.

It only works if you believe.

"I'm skeptical of anecdotal medical stories, but given Ornish is a real doctor I believe his account."


Tendzin, you say you’re “skeptical of anecdotal medical stories”, but I’m afraid it’s clear that you’re not. This is interesting, actually, in that, going by what you say here, you seem not to realize why exactly anecdotal accounts are a fundamentally unsound basis of arriving at conclusions, no matter how tentative, about whatever it is we’re considering. And this is probably worth highlighting here, because no doubt many others, like you, similarly don’t clearly understand this principle at all, obvious enough though it is.

It seems the part you are “skeptical” about is the veracity of what that doctor reported. Might the doctor simply have been lying, for whatever reasons? Or maybe he wasn’t being deliberately dishonest, but perhaps his memory was playing tricks on him, as sometimes happens? And sure, this too is something to be careful about, absolutely; but that’s kind of trivial. The real issue with anecdotal accounts is selection bias.

Like, if I would start telling people that if only they bought lottery tickets by first chanting my name mentally, then sending to me as mark of their devotion and respect the value of the equivalent of the price of the tickets purchased (as well as promising solemnly to pay in to me a tithe of the actual amount won), and further, every day till the draw, the first thing they’d have to do on leaving their bed in the morning would be to stand up straight and stretch their arms out as far as they can and then shout out “Glory be to”, followed by my name, five times, as loudly as possible.

Now say if, somehow, a large enough number of people did start following this bizarre routine, then, over a year or two of doing this, simple probability suggests that one or two of them may well win a large amount of money, maybe even a jackpot. And bingo! There you have it, anecdotal “evidence” that praying to Appreciative Reader in the prescribed format and serving him by sending money to him can result in all sorts of wonderful things. And quite possibly someone will have this to say, much like you did: “I don’t believe in anecdotal accounts, but this friend of mine, he prayed to AR, and lo and behold, he draws five numbers! And he’s my friend, he wouldn’t lie to me, and I believe his account.”

This is, in a word, selection bias. You’re looking at that minuscule proportion of people --- in fact, a sample size of exactly one! --- who’ve had some ailment, and did whatever the heck they did, and got good/miraculous results. You’re not looking at what the number is of people who might also have got similarly good/miraculous results without having done this at all; and you’re also not looking counting the numbers of people who did carry out this piece of woo, whatever it is, but who did not get the desired miraculous result. This blinkered vision and understanding, that’s what selection bias is all about, in this context.

And that is precisely why properly controlled studies are important. That is precisely why statistically significant results off of those properly controlled studies are important, because we need to root out biases of this kind. And that is precisely why basing your conclusions on anecdotal “evidence” is never a good idea.

Sure, if some anecdotal account impresses you, then you can think of it as maybe a good subject for further study, for further experimentation. That’s perfectly rational, that desire to corroborate a hunch. But to go beyond that, and to prematurely attribute, no matter how tentatively, some magical woo --- be it some dead-on-the-cross legend from long ago, or the momma of said legend, or some spiritually-powerful guru, or even for that matter abracadabra-hocus-pocus “subconscious-mind” pseudoscience --- is utterly, utterly fallacious.

(Which, mind you, is not to rule out the subconscious playing a role in healing. It is not to rule out “powers of the mind”, or whatever. The point is, if any of this does really play a bona fide role in healing, then that will be captured statistically in properly controlled studies; and if it isn’t so reflected in experimental results under proper control, then this kind of magical thinking is nothing but hokum, and that’s all there is to it.)

"It only works if you believe."

Posted by: Spence Tepper | December 18, 2021 at 06:19 AM

------------------


That's a joke, right? It's very witty, if so, and funny as well, given the context. But if not, then ...


It only works if you believe.

Ergo, (a) If it's worked, then clearly your belief was sincere; and (b) If it didn't work, then clearly your belief was wanting.


P.S. That maxim/motto works, quite literally, if you throw in the middle step, which would be application. If belief is what gets one to apply oneself fully, then, in as much as that belief facilitated the sincere application that led to the desired results, then sure, belief did "work", if indirectly. If that's what's meant to be conveyed, then that makes sense. But in that case it is important to emphasize the middle step, because otherwise a bald statement like that is open to gross misinterpretation.

Hi Appreciative
You wrote
"P.S. That maxim/motto works, quite literally, if you throw in the middle step, which would be application. If belief is what gets one to apply oneself fully, then, in as much as that belief facilitated the sincere application that led to the desired results, then sure, belief did "work", if indirectly. If that's what's meant to be conveyed, then that makes sense. But in that case it is important to emphasize the middle step, because otherwise a bald statement like that is open to gross misinterpretation."

In Biblical scholarship, as one example, Faith actually means the prescribed practice.

" If you have faith" means the practice of prayer.

In terms of the Placebo effect, which is very real, hard science, it only works if you believe the placebo is an actual treatment, not in fact a sugar pill.

https://www.health.harvard.edu/mental-health/the-power-of-the-placebo-effect


It only works if you believe.

@AR

I noted the stories were anecdotal, and cited Dr. Dean Onish as someone I tend to believe -- not believe absolutely. I tend to believe Ornish because a) he's a doctor, and b) because he doesn't have a reputation for telling tall tales, c) his story isn't a one-off but was part of a larger study he conducted that indicated evidence of a relationship between belief and healing.
https://www.jweekly.com/2001/01/12/dean-ornish-says-faith-can-boost-health/

That is, I'm not saying that anecdotal testimony must be believed, but nor am I saying that anecdotes are necessarily lies.

I'm sensing an idea that we can't say anything about anything unless it's founded on indisputable facts, or rather, official opinion (I'll resist the temptation to cite contemporary examples of how this fetish for facts is a blight on today's society). I don't believe that's the rule. Doctors has long shared anecdotal stories with the public, and there's nothing wrong with anecdotal stories as along as they're presented accurately and qualified as unusual events.

Dr Ornish, is a medical pioneer: The first scientist to prove that diet, in particular plant - based diet, and lifestyle changes, could reverse heat disease.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1973470/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9863851/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20205683/

"I'm not saying that anecdotal testimony must be believed, but nor am I saying that anecdotes are necessarily lies."


..........Fair enough, Tendzin. If that's all you're saying --- that such and such happened, and you think the doctor wasn't lying or otherwise mistaken in reporting it --- and if you are not packing in any broader implications beyond just that bald observation/opinion --- then that's reasonable enough, sure.

Apologies if I read more into what you'd said than you'd intended --- as it seems I did!

"In Biblical scholarship, as one example, Faith actually means the prescribed practice.

" If you have faith" means the practice of prayer."


..........Heh, well, while that's all good and fine, as far as the principle I'd invoked; but that specific example of yours doesn't work. Not because the principle fails, but because your particular example does.

As far as your specific example, and as it applies specifically to it: Sure, faith may not directly work. But in this case, it does not even work indirectly, unless it can be shown that "the prescribed practice", or "the practice of prayer" actually is any use at all. I think we were discussing, a while back, a study which showed that prayer was useless in effecting cures.

As far as the incidental calming and otherwise beneficient effects of meditation, okay, sure, that I do grant you. Provided that "side-effect", as it were, is what is being invoked, and not some other miraculous effect of the prayer or the meditation.


----------


"In terms of the Placebo effect, which is very real, hard science, it only works if you believe the placebo is an actual treatment, not in fact a sugar pill."


..........Couldn't read that link, Spence, somehow it didn't open at my end.

Agreed, placebos and nocebos are indeed a thing.

In this instance I'm happy to defer to your technical expertise in the field of pharmacology, broadly speaking: but are you aware of any research where belief per se has been shown as the deciding factor?

Let me make my question clear: Say you're testing drug D or maybe treatment protocol T; and you have four groups, one which is given the actual experimental drug or treatment, and knows it; another that is given it, but don't know it; yet another that isn't given it, but believe they do; and a fourth that is neither given it nor led to believe they do. Or some such arrangement, where what is put to the test is specifically belief itself. To your knowledge, has there been any such test that conclusively shows the effect of belief on placebo?

If there has been such, then like I said I'm willing to defer to your technical expertise, and knowledge of the kind of thing I described.

If there hasn't, though, then placebo serves merely as a catch-all for all unidentified factors that haven't been controlled for; and it does not speak to belief per se, at least not exclusively, and perhaps not at all.

"Dr Ornish, is a medical pioneer: The first scientist to prove that diet, in particular plant - based diet, and lifestyle changes, could reverse heat disease."


..........Ha ha, that's snidely put! (I use the word "snidely" as a compliment in this instance --- if a snide one!)

So Tendzin, look what Spence has produced from under his hat! Apparently your Ornish, or Onish, or whatever, has produced evidence --- I don't know if it is "anecdotal" or whether it is the result of controlled studies and statistically significant, Spence can clarify that! --- that plant-based diets can reverse heart disease. Are you, then, willing to concede this to Spence, as far as your disagreement with him, that I've read in other earlier threads, about the benefits of a vegetarian diet?

Hi Appreciative
You wrote
"..........Heh, well, while that's all good and fine, as far as the principle I'd invoked; but that specific example of yours doesn't work. Not because the principle fails, but because your particular example does."

I am not seeing this AR. Which example are you pointing to?
Your comment was that belief must include action. I was simply pointing out that as far as Faith is concerned it is always synonymous with action.

You wrote

" Say you're testing drug D or maybe treatment protocol T; and you have four groups, one which is given the actual experimental drug or treatment, and knows it; another that is given it, but don't know it; yet another that isn't given it, but believe they do; and a fourth that is neither given it nor led to believe they do. Or some such arrangement, where what is put to the test is specifically belief itself. To your knowledge, has there been any such test that conclusively shows the effect of belief on placebo?"

Yes, in fact nearly all drug treatment regimens include Placebo and non - Placebo control groups. This is in part because there is an understanding often seen in medical research that the Placebo effect is real, if subtle.

" For years, a placebo effect was considered a sign of failure. A placebo is used in clinical trials to test the effectiveness of treatments and is most often used in drug studies. For instance, people in one group get the actual drug, while the others receive an inactive drug, or placebo. The participants in the clinical trial don’t know if they receive the real thing or the placebo. This way, the researchers can measure if the drug works by comparing how both groups react. If they both have the same reaction — improvement or not — the drug is deemed not to work."

https://www.health.harvard.edu/mental-health/the-power-of-the-placebo-effect

" The “gold standard” for testing interventions in people is the “randomized, placebo-controlled” clinical trial, in which volunteers are randomly assigned to a test group receiving the experimental intervention or a control group receiving a placebo (an inactive substance that looks like the drug or treatment being tested). Comparing results from the two groups suggests whether changes in the test group result from the treatment or occur by chance.

The placebo effect is a beneficial health outcome resulting from a person’s anticipation that an intervention will help. How a health care provider interacts with a patient also may bring about a positive response that’s independent of any specific treatment.

Research supported by NCCIH has explored several aspects of the placebo effect. One study identified a genetic marker that may predict whether someone will respond to a placebo, another supported the idea that placebo responses may occur outside of conscious awareness, and a third suggested that placebos may be helpful even if patients know they’re receiving placebos."

https://www.nccih.nih.gov/health/placebo-effect

It works if you believe.

Now, as to the question, how effective is it?
It is confounded with spontaneous remission, but may in fact be a part of remission.

Consider spontaneous remission rates in breast cancer. It is difficult to measure but has been estimated at 22%.

https://www.verywellhealth.com/spontaneous-remission-of-lung-cancer-a-rare-miracle-3971875

Of course, the cure / survival rate of formal breast cancer treatment is much higher, about 90%.

https://www.cancer.org/cancer/breast-cancer/understanding-a-breast-cancer-diagnosis/breast-cancer-survival-rates.html

How does belief influence the Placebo effect? There we only have frequently cited anecdotal evidence.

And that anecdotal evidence is that belief is a critical and important part of every treatment.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/gymaq4/the-bizarrely-effective-way-placebos-change-our-bodies


It always helps to believe, whatever the treatment. Even when there is no clear treatment.


"I am not seeing this AR. Which example are you pointing to?
Your comment was that belief must include action. I was simply pointing out that as far as Faith is concerned it is always synonymous with action."


...........That's right, I did say that belief or faith might actuate effort and application; but I'm afraid while you did produce an example, that example was flawed as far as the specifics. Because the "effort" or "application" you discuss is, in this case, prayer. And no, prayer has never been shown to work. You may remember a discussion we'd had in these pages, where we'd talked about a study aimed at testing the power of third-party prayer, and that fell flat on its face.

Meditation, yes. But meditation is different than prayer. So that if someone takes to meditation specifically to pursue those beneficent psychosomatic effects, sure, then in that particular situation I'd concede that yes, you do have a point. But of course, that's very specific, and isn't open to generalization. And nor does it have anything to do with prayer per se.


----------


"Yes, in fact nearly all drug treatment regimens include Placebo and non - Placebo control groups. This is in part because there is an understanding often seen in medical research that the Placebo effect is real, if subtle. (...)
(...) The placebo effect is a beneficial health outcome resulting from a person’s anticipation that an intervention will help. How a health care provider interacts with a patient also may bring about a positive response that’s independent of any specific treatment."


Yes, placebo is a positive response that's independent of any specific treatment, sure. And we accept the validity of the treatment provided it significantly outstrips placebo.

What I was asking is whether it is actually the case that it is the patient's "anticipation that the intervention will help" that was the deciding factor. Has that, specifically, actually been tested?

If it has, then sure, I'm willing to accept it, absolutely. But if not --- if that anticipation itself, if that belief (in the intervention) --- isn't what has been tested, via some protocol (of the kind that I gave an example of), then all that placebo represents is a catch-all for every uncontrolled variable in there. We'd still accept the treatment only if the treatment outstripped placebo; but that would not be to say that placebo is the result of anticipation that the intervention will work, or belief in the intervention, or any such thing. To conclude that would be simply reaching, and entirely unsubstantiated --- unless that is specifically what has been tested for.

You get me, right? I know and accept placebo. What I don't know is whether placebo has actually been shown to be a function of belief or anticipation or whatever. It's not that I'm saying it isn't so; but to my (limited) knowledge that hasn't been shown, and so I'm not prepared to accept it without evidence merely because it appears plausible. On the other hand, and like I said, if you can directly address this, and assure me that belief per se has indeed been addressed in studies and shown to be the deciding factor, then okay, given your particular expertise, I'm willing to accept that.

"https://www.nccih.nih.gov/health/placebo-effect"


..........Thanks for that link, Spence.

That's what the Q&A vid with Dr Ted Kaptchuck brings out: that placebo is basically a way to capture all of those variables that haven't been directly and overly and clearly measured. A catch-all, so to say, for all untested variables.

People are given to saying that it is the patient's belief in the treatment that triggers it, but it would be fallacious to believe that merely because it appears plausible. What I was asking is, has it actually been shown, via controlled studies, that it is this belief of the patient that is the triggering factor? If it has, then I'm prepared to accept it; but if not, then while I do accept placebos, obviously, but I don't in that case accept that it is a function of belief. And I'm asking you to clearly and unambiguously address that specific point, with a "Yes it's belief, and here's the study that shows that", or a "No it hasn't been shown to be belief", or else a "Sorry, don't really know".

Sorry, typo: I meant, "OVERTLY and clearly measured", not "overly".

Which all means that belief isn't magic at all.
And that speaks to the nasty habit of cynics and Atheists of labeling things that have not been tested as being false.

And yet science is beginning to establish the health benefits of belief. Including religious belief in all those things Atheists label as patently rediculous.

But it works because of belief.

https://www.nami.org/Blogs/NAMI-Blog/December-2016/The-Mental-Health-Benefits-of-Religion-Spiritual

"For example, researchers at the Mayo Clinic concluded, “Most studies have shown that religious involvement and spirituality are associated with better health outcomes, including greater longevity, coping skills, and health-related quality of life (even during terminal illness) and less anxiety, depression, and suicide. Several studies have shown that addressing the spiritual needs of the patient may enhance recovery from illness.”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicolefisher/2019/03/29/science-says-religion-is-good-for-your-health/?sh=4dd2cf043a12

It only works if you believe.

Hi AR
You wrote
"I know and accept placebo. What I don't know is whether placebo has actually been shown to be a function of belief or anticipation or whatever."

What is behind the Placebo effect?

In general it is purely the belief that the treatment is real, combined with the hope of its effectiveness.

" The placebo effect is defined as a phenomenon in which some people experience a benefit after the administration of an inactive "look-alike" substance or treatment. This substance, or placebo, has no known medical effect. Sometimes the placebo is in the form of a pill (sugar pill), but it can also be an injection (saline solution) or consumable liquid.

"In most cases, the person does not know that the treatment they are receiving is actually a placebo. Instead, they believe that they are the recipient of the real treatment. The placebo is designed to seem exactly like the real treatment, yet the substance has no actual effect on the condition it purports to treat.

"Placebo vs. Placebo Effect
It is important to note that a "placebo" and the "placebo effect" are different things. The term placebo refers to the inactive substance itself, while the term placebo effect refers to any effects of taking a medicine that cannot be attributed to the treatment itself.

https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-the-placebo-effect-2795466

"Fast facts on placebos
The placebo effect has been measured in thousands of medical experiments, and many doctors admit to regularly prescribing placebos.
Drug companies must show that their new drugs work better than a placebo before the drugs are approved.
Placebos have been shown to affect a range of health conditions.
The color of a tablet can alter the strength of its placebo effect, and larger pills induce a stronger effect than smaller pills.
Some believe the self-healing properties of the placebo effect can be explained by evolutionary biology."
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/306437

Atheists dismiss the value of religous belief on the basis that God cannot be proven, entirely ignoring all the evidence of the favorable effects of belief, which have been scientifically proven.

That is like dismissing the very real placebo effect by criticizing the sugar pill.

It is false thinking.

Spence, we're doing that thing again, where you keep repeating the same thing again and again, without addressing the specific question I'm asking you to clarify.

Yes, as you say, "placebo refers to the inactive substance", while "placebo effect refers to any effect of taking a medicine that cannot be attributed to the treatment itself".

In other words, the placebo effect is a catch-all term that is being used to quantify every variable that hasn't been measured separately.

Those variables can be very many. Belief in the intervention is one such possible variable. So, has this specific variable, namely, belief in the intervention, been actually shown, specifically, to be responsible for all of, or even a significant portion of, the placebo effect? That is my very clear question.

If it has, then just say so, clearly and unambiguously, and if possible provide me with a reference --- if you can't, then, given your expertise, I'll accept it if you simply give me your word that that's so, but you can't recall the specific research.

But if not, then your saying this --- "What is behind the Placebo effect? ... In general it is purely the belief that the treatment is real, combined with the hope of its effectiveness." --- is simply unsubstantiated reaching.

Hi AR
You wrote
"Apparently your Ornish, or Onish, or whatever, has produced evidence --- I don't know if it is "anecdotal" or whether it is the result of controlled studies and statistically significant, Spence can clarify that! --"

It's hard, replicated research over the last thirty years...

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1973470/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9863851/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20205683/

Hi AR
You wrote
"In other words, the placebo effect is a catch-all term that is being used to quantify every variable that hasn't been measured separately."

Not exactly. In the earlier links the authors describe control groups with and without the use of placebos.

The use of a sugar pill, the use of a treatment pill, and the use of no pill, for example.

Some research, as cited above in the links re placebo effect, has shown that there are small but significant improvements in the Placebo group that are not in the no placebo - no treatment group.

The difference can't be in the sugar pill. It has to do with the psychology of the patient, influenced to believe they were receiving a real treatment.

Now, it is entirely possible that the no treatment group also has some faith or belief that has nothing to do with the formal treatment.

But the psychology of actually believing you are receiving a tangible cure, even when there is no actual promise of results, affects results.

What are the psychological mechanisms behind this? We don't know yet.

Belief, however, works. It has its effect, well documented.

Lovely. As you know, I'm a vegetarian myself, and I'm to happy to learn that!

(That is, I'm happy to remain a vegetarian for ethical reasons even at some cost to my health. If you tell me that it has been shown, via bona fide research, that my ethical choice of vegetarianism is indeed good for my health as well, well then that's a bonus I'm very happy to accept.)


----------


That said, and despite being a vegetarian myself, I'm going to play Devil's Advocate, and take Tendzin's side in this discussion. And point out to you that in as much as an omnivorous diet includes everything vegetarian, and then some, to that extent the omnivorous diet offers you everything the vegetarian diet does, and then some. A judiciously chosen omnivorous diet cannot possibly be worse for health than a judiciously chosen vegetarian diet, simply because the latter is a subset of the former; and the superset, the omnivorous diet,in as much as it offers additional options that a vegetarian diet doesn't, is probably optimally situated.

That said, and like I said before, my vegetarianism is an ethical choice. I'm happy to remain vegetarian even if that means my health is less than absolutely optimally taken care of. But absolutely, God bless Dr Whatsisname if he can show that us vegetarians are being benefited for our ethical choices with better health than the amoral meat-eating philistine!


.


PS ---- I kid. I don't actually think "meat-eaters" are amoral. They are entitled to their dietary choices, as much as I am to mine. Just a joke, or at least an attempt at one, that turn of phrase.

"The use of a sugar pill, the use of a treatment pill, and the use of no pill, for example"


..........Yes, but what kind of specific ailment does this sort of thing address? Something tangible, like maybe cancer, or AIDS, or even the common cold? If that kind of tangible results are observed, then that's very cool, and impressive!

If it's merely with things like, you know, pain, and fatigue, and general things like that, then that's both more plausible and at the same time less impressive. More plausible, because the perception of pain fatigue et cetera is clearly subjective; and less impressive for the same reason. Nevertheless it's still all good, because absolutely, for the person afflicted with chronic pain, pain is a very big deal indeed, and whatever can help this person is surely a good thing.


----------


"What are the psychological mechanisms behind this? We don't know yet."


That's kind of what Dr Chuck in the QA video you linked to says, that "research of this kind is still in its infancy" --- meaning, no doubt, that no such conclusion has been reached yet, as far as belief per se.

So that it isn't clear to me how you keep arriving at this again and again, and yet again now: "Belief, however, works. It has its effect, well documented."


Hi AR
You wrote
"A judiciously chosen omnivorous diet cannot possibly be worse for health than a judiciously chosen vegetarian diet, simply because the latter is a subset of the former; and the superset, the omnivorous diet,in as much as it offers additional options that a vegetarian diet doesn't, is probably optimally situated."

" Cannot possibly be worse" is a baseless claim. Your statement presumes that adding meat to an otherwise vegetarian diet can be healthy. But this claim ignores the potential interactions among meat and plant foods.

Results are generally the opposite. There are significant negative effects of flesh foods.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26780279/

A balanced diet of natural, low-to-no-refined foods, with a healthy mix of raw fruits, vegetables and juices follows the research and seems to be best, but each person must find that balance for themselves.

The glory of vegetarianism is simply that you can live a very healthy life without having to kill so many of your brothers and sisters in the kingdom of life.

Keep your killing and carbon footprint small.

Life is so much easier keeping your bills low.

Incidentally, Spence, I found that Dr Chuck's QA video, that you'd linked to, and that I'd been playing on an adjoining tab as I multi-tasked away, has left me with a host of suggested links that lead to further talks on actual research on the effect on health of things like spirituality and meditation and that sort of thing. They all look very interesting, and I've bookmarked the page, so that I can check out some of those suggested links later on.

"The glory of vegetarianism is simply that you can live a very healthy life without having to kill so many of your brothers and sisters in the kingdom of life.

Keep your killing and carbon footprint small."


.........Oh, I agree, myself. That's exactly what I do, and what I fully intend to keep doing!! Fully with you there, Spence.


----------


However, the part where you say: "" Cannot possibly be worse" is a baseless claim. Your statement presumes that adding meat to an otherwise vegetarian diet can be healthy. But this claim ignores the potential interactions among meat and plant foods. ... Results are generally the opposite. There are significant negative effects of flesh foods."

Okay, meat perhaps. But what about fish? Fish is generally considered very healthy.

My point is, carnivores cannot possibly be worse off than us vegetarians, if you only consider the effect on our health. That is a logical impossibility.

And, in as much as there probably are some food items that are not vegetarian --- fish, certainly, maybe even some specific kinds of meat and/or eggs, I don't know, whatever --- that, when judiciously added to one's diet, might benefit one, I suppose to that extent the omnivore is better served, as far as his health. Certainly he cannot possibly be any worse off.

Any case, I'm all for vegetarianism myself. Without intending this to reflect on people with different choices, and speaking only for myself --- simply the thought of killing other living sentient beings, like actually eating babies for a delicacy for Christ sake, is something that makes my stomach turn, and no thanks, I'd happily sacrifice a few years of my life if I need to in order not to descend to that kind of thing!

Remember when Kenneth Copeland exorcised COVID-19 from the US in 2020?

https://youtu.be/0JPRvxTjfOk?t=35

https://youtu.be/6ib2YfAM11E

I just haven't seen any solid evidence that makes this more than a slight possibility,


That is because U close all your receptors frensicly in a hurry when
you even feel you should consider
Such and worse is a hurt ego even when the hurt was false / imaginary
777

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Welcome


  • Welcome to the Church of the Churchless. If this is your first visit, click on "About this site--start here" in the Categories section below.
  • HinesSight
    Visit my other weblog, HinesSight, for a broader view of what's happening in the world of your Church unpastor, his wife, and dog.
  • BrianHines.com
    Take a look at my web site, which contains information about a subject of great interest to me: me.
  • Twitter with me
    Join Twitter and follow my tweets about whatever.
  • I Hate Church of the Churchless
    Can't stand this blog? Believe the guy behind it is an idiot? Rant away on our anti-site.