Meat and Sugar

The researchers of the New York Times (I know one, nice guy James) discovered that one of the science  team that said that there is NO LINK between eating meat and cancer and coronary disease - the guy had once done some work for a meat factory or whatever. For the fishwrap HaAretz that proves that the guy is tainted and biased, and the study worthless. More than worthless, it definitely proves that meat does harm to humans eating it. To emphasize the point, on the next page there is a lachrymose article describing the sufferings of a heifer till it is served on the plate.

My wife and daughters are extremists of the meat taboo, so meat is almost unknown in my plate. I reject the idea that any research has to be considered tainted if it is financed by an interested party or any of the team had in the past worked for them. Scientific papers should never be judged on the basis of WHO did it or who financed it. The meat industry has a legitimate reason to investigate fake or tendentious aspersions against it.

Just think logically. Our ancestors and relatives the chimps eat meat. In fact, they hunt Colobus monkeys and eat them raw. Humans hunted animals and eat them roasted. Evolution should have corrected any biological mechanism if meat caused harm to us. Evolution works fast and with precision, anyone who did not profit from meat would not be among our ancestors. From an evolutionary point of view, meat cannot harm us.

The same for sugar. Chimps et al love sweets fruits. Sugar is a natural molecule found everywhere. I do agree that in our evolutionary history, sugar was very scarce and available in small quantities, therefore the super-sweet fruits and cookies must be unhealthy, and pure refined sugar, which is not found in nature, is poison.

(Written while fasting, so it must be true. Or not.).