The Abomination of Desolation

Chapter 2: The Wages of Sin



For the wages of sin is death, but the favourable gift of Elohim is everlasting life in Messiah יהושע our Master. Romans 6:23


A lot of what we have to say about the law of sin and death has been covered in the previous chapter, particularly in regards to humans being natural herbivores, and that disease and premature death (that is, death before the age of about 120) result from a combination of environmental factors and poor decisions about diet. Now we need to substantiate these claims so that it does not remain subject to doubt, because most of what we have to say is not already established as fact, even in the medical and academic communities. For now, our focus is on the medical/scientific angle, because facts need to be grounded in empirical observation, without which there is neither certainty of belief nor concise transmission of thought. Using this knowledge as our foundation, we will then move on to the arguments from Scripture to show how the eating of flesh is indeed a sin in God’s eyes, although this should already be quite obvious by then.

It goes without saying that people die, and that animals do, too. The Bible attests that this is not the ideal, and attributes our fallen state to sin. So whatever causes sickness and death can rightly be said to be sin. If it was not mankind’s decision to eat meat that was responsible for our fallen state, though it is unnatural to us, then it would be something else, or nothing at all, and we would not be in our fallen state. As it is, there is no other focus for the nature of sin in Scripture, because the Bible’s attention is on the major cause almost exclusively, with secondary attention given to the related sins of man-on-man violence, pride, greed, spiritual fornication, etc.

Fundamentally, it is assumed that if we were to refrain from this sin, we would live longer and prosper more, but that as long as we keep doing it, we will die sooner and prosper less. What we are looking at here is karmic law, such as we would expect if we really believed that the wages of sin is death, and without which, we have no real cause to believe it. There is a clear association between the killing of the nonhuman victims and the eventual, premature deaths of the human culprits.

While our health depends on numerous factors, and not every disease has the same cause as any other, all diseases other than those caused by excess exposure to poison or mutagens (e.g. radiation) can be (and are naturally) prevented by our immune systems, which means that all disease is attributable to a weak immune system. That being said, a cursory overview will show that human immunodeficiency results from malnutrition (i.e., poor diet), and that the worst diet is the diet of death. This has been demonstrated over and over by medical research, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The only argument is over what actually constitutes a poor diet.

Achieving outstanding health is not complicated. The human body already knows how to be healthy. All you have to do is give your body outstanding nutrition so that it has the building materials it needs to heal disease and rebuild itself from the inside out. You must also avoid all of the foods and food ingredients that cause disease. Today, more than 95% of all chronic disease is caused by food choice, toxic food ingredients, nutritional deficiencies and lack of physical exercise. Mike Adams38

The most obvious terminal autoimmune disease which results from long-term malnutrition is cancer, and the leading cause of premature death in First World nations is heart disease. Therefore, the simplest way to demonstrate our thesis is to focus on these two types of disease, which in Western nations claim more lives by far than all others put together. Though the focus is on cancer as one of the most easily preventable, but yet the most pervasive and one of the most deadly autoimmune diseases, it should be remembered that cancer is just one of many autoimmune diseases, and that they are all essentially the same in terms of their cause and means of prevention. Either way, in order for our premise to be considered true beyond a reasonable doubt, it needs to be established by clinical study—and indeed it is.

In 2007, the American Institute for Cancer Research published its second review of the major studies on food, nutrition, and cancer prevention. Cancers of the esophagus, lung, pancreas, stomach, colorectum, endometrium and prostate were linked to red meat and processed meat consumption.39 In 2012, the World Cancer Research Fund published its review of over 7000 clinical studies covering links between meat and cancer. Its conclusion is that processed meat is too dangerous for human consumption, and consumers should limit red meat consumption to no more than 300 g (11 oz) per week, very little if any of which is to be processed.40

As of 2013, the largest study ever conducted in the United Kingdom comparing the rates of heart disease between vegetarians and meat-eaters, published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, states that vegetarians have a 32% reduced risk of heart disease.41 (This is statistically significant in that the primary factor in heart disease is consumption of milk and dairy, so ovo-lacto vegetarians are more likely to develop heart disease than strict vegetarians are.) Similar 10-year studies in the UK and Germany have found that meat-eaters have a 40% higher risk of developing cancer.42,43,44 After a 12-year study, the British Journal of Cancer found that vegetarians are up to 45% less likely to develop cancers of the blood.45 Studies conducted by Harvard University have found that meat-eaters are about 3 times as likely to get cancer of the colon or prostate than those who rarely eat meat.46,47,48

These statistics are universal, and do not depend solely on whether or not the meat has additives or comes from animals that consume genetically modified feed, or on our respective blood types, or on any other factor, but rather on the physiology of the human anatomy. For instance, one Japanese study has shown that affluent women who eat meat daily have an 8.5 times higher risk of developing breast cancer than poorer women who rarely or never eat meat.49 It is the poor who do not have access to “better” (more expensive) food; such a huge disparity between rich and poor can only be accounted for by our own physiology. When it comes to atherosclerosis (which causes heart disease, the primary cause of death in developed countries), the greatest risk factor by far is serum low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, which you only get from consuming meat and dairy products. Moreover, this starts a lot earlier than you might think.

Atherosclerotic changes always appear in the coronary arteries decades before coronary heart disease (CHD) is clinically recognized, and is directly linked to the amount of LDL cholesterol in the blood stream.50 The risk of developing advanced lesions can be offset by a low-fat diet, most effectively when it is started at an early age (7 months to 5 years). The risk increases between the ages of 7 and 11.51 The first grossly visible atherosclerotic lesions (those that can be seen by the naked eye), called fatty streaks, are present in virtually all children in developed countries by the age of 10.52,53

If you are reading this, are over the age of 10, and have not been a vegan your whole life, you have heart disease. This means your diet is already killing you, and given enough time, will certainly result in your premature death unless something else gets you first. In fact, it is likely that something else will. Atherosclerosis is not the only thing presently killing you, and while invasive medical treatment may buy you some more time, the only way for you to save yourself and extend your life to something approaching your natural lifespan is to change your diet.

Well-known physician and author John McDougall has determined that Steve Jobs had cancer at the age of 24 (due to exposure to mutagens), but that his strict vegetarian diet kept him alive until the age of 56, though a normal person would have died much sooner.54 In spite of this, his diet has been used as evidence to the contrary by his own doctors, who contributed to his death by their negligence in endeavoring to understand his disease, and therefore treat it properly. This is a typical feature of the anti-vegan diet propaganda: whatever it is thought can be used against it will be, but never from a scientific perspective. When a world-famous epidemiologist publishes his peer-reviewed research and then goes on to defeat the argument of a college student who sets up a blog to try to debunk his findings, he eventually gives up trying to explain how she is wrong because she is so divorced from reality that she cannot even be educated to the point of having a basic understanding of the subject, yet later on his retreat is invoked in formal debate as proof that his conclusions are wrong, as though the half-century of international government-sponsored research which he has directed merits nothing but a flippant dismissal, for no other reason than that meat-eaters do not like the fact that God made it so that they will inevitably die for their sins. (This is a true depiction of real events.)

Although the nature of degenerative disease is complex (and we will do our best to explain it from a holistic perspective, once the requisite particulars are examined), reducing the argument to show what the dietary causes for disease are is quite simple, because several major factors have already been isolated by clinicians, and the mechanics are understood well enough that someone who follows a specific diet plan can avoid disease progression with >99% certainty. (That is not to say that diseases which are already existent in genetic changes to the organism can be cured with this measure of certainty, only that they will not get worse.) For instance, cancer progression has been shown to have an absolute dependency on methionine. Methionine is an essential amino acid, meaning it is not produced by the body, so it has to be consumed. The most obvious way to stop the progression of cancer, therefore, is dietary methionine restriction, i.e. adopting a plant-based diet.55

Even though the reader already has everything he needs to know how to stop cancer in its tracks, short of determining which plant foods are high in protein, there is still much more we can say about this. Oncologists attempt to isolate risk factors to identify the causes of different types of cancer, and their research is not without its results. If it were true that ingesting animal proteins really causes cancer, which is our base claim, then we would expect to see oncological research to evidence an increased risk among people who are involved with the slaughtering, packaging and cooking processes, due to the excess inhalation of blood particles. As a matter of fact, people who work in the meat and seafood industries are indeed far more likely to develop cancers, lymphomas and leukemias. Simply growing up on a livestock farm puts you at greater risk, while growing up on a farm without animals actually reduces it.56

Furthermore, not all cancer deaths are solely attributable to protein or to specific amino acids. Anyone who is exposed to an animal’s blood is also exposed to that animal’s endogenous retroviruses. Poultry exposure is the worst in this regard57 (and 99% of the animals killed for human consumption are chickens). Several studies have found that exposure to poultry oncogenic (cancer-causing) viruses increases the risk of death from liver and pancreatic cancers. One study of 30,000 poultry workers attempted to put this idea to the test, and found that people who ever kill chickens or birds at work are about 9 times as likely to develop pancreatic or liver cancer.58

To put this figure into perspective, the next associated risk factor for pancreatic cancer is smoking cigarettes; smoking for up to 50 years only doubles the risk.59 The next associated risk factor for liver cancer is drinking alcohol; consuming 2 to 4 drinks per day increases the risk by about 40%, while consuming more than 4 drinks per day about triples it.60 That is, smoking every day for 50 years increases the risk of developing pancreatic cancer 200%, while slaughtering chickens increases it almost 900%, and consuming more than 4 alcoholic drinks per day increases the risk of developing liver cancer 300%, while slaughtering chickens increases it more than 900%. So it is a wonder that people even talk about other disease markers when the elephant in the room is staring right at us.

The obvious conclusion is that dietary fats (especially saturated fats, which are found in all meat and dairy products) cause every type of cancer, because they activate a specific mechanism in the human body after these cancers have been initiated (which generally happens from exposure to things we cannot avoid). Take breast cancer and prostate cancer, for example. The dietary fats in meat and dairy products increase the production of estrogen (the female sex hormone), which leads to breast cancer in women, and of testosterone (the male sex hormone), which leads to prostate cancer in men. It really is that simple, except that there are several mechanisms activating different types of cancers all at once. Even small changes in the amounts of fats consumed have been shown by the Journal of the National Cancer Institute to reduce the level of estradiol (a principal estrogen) in young girls by up to 30%.61

That the growth hormones in meat and dairy products have a profound effect on humans is evident in the fact that most children in Western countries (where consumption of these products has been on a gradual increase for about 100 years) hit puberty much sooner than in previous generations, and obesity (linked to heart and cardiovascular disease) has become a rampant problem even among preadolescents. Furthermore, it is not all fats that pose a risk. The National Institutes of Health-AARP Diet and Health Study observed half a million participants and found that pancreatic cancer is associated with consumption of red meat and dairy products, but not with fats from plant foods.62 Another massive study by Harvard University has had the same result in relation to breast cancer.63

In short, consumption of animal-based proteins damages the human body, whereas vitamin-rich plant-based foods contain antioxidants which enhance the immune system’s ability to fight disease. To be fair, however, even if all diseases with metabolic causes are induced by eating animal proteins, there are certainly other diseases than those which have been found to have metabolic causes, and there are other factors that cause humans to get sick and die. For instance, if a person is not physically active, then his body will store the complex carbohydrates he eats as fat molecules. Reducing the caloric intake of complex carbohydrates will therefore tend to keep his weight down and reduce his risk of cardiovascular disease. However, in order for him to be healthy, he will need to eat what his body is designed to eat and get a moderate amount of regular exercise. A healthy diet and exercise promote good health; if this is not still common sense, as it once was, then surely the common standard has been changed to accommodate an untenable position in response to the fact that scientific data do not support it.

In order for something to be shown to be true, it only needs to be proved once. After that the burden of proof is on the other side to demonstrate how the proof or its conclusion is flawed. We could invoke thousands of clinical studies to prove the point. What we have taken here is the expert analysis of mainstream academia and the institutes most invested in honestly determining the factors of life-threatening disease, which are so afraid of getting it wrong that they are reluctant to even come to any conclusions, according to the rule of modern scientific skepticism.

These statistics and the conclusions of each of the studies show the differences between vegetarians and meat-eaters only, irrespective of other significant factors such as caloric intake, total fat vs. saturated fat intake, or consumption of dairy products and foods with a high glycemic load. (Eating high glycemic index foods has been shown to increase the risk of cancer threefold, and these are categorically vegetarian, and sometimes even vegan, though vegans are typically conscious about their health enough to be likely to avoid them.) So it should be obvious that equivalent statistics for health-conscious vegans would be even more anomalous if they were available.

In the course of our research, before we had even worked out the mechanics of it, we had already followed the disease markers to discover that animal-based foods have already been implicated in the pathogenesis of every disease in one way or another—even those of a genetic nature, on account of the association between diet and both gene mutation and gene activation. Our early examination of the associations between animal proteins and disease in the established medical journal publications yielded links with Alzheimer’s, atherosclerosis and other cardiovascular diseases linked to obesity or high cholesterol, insulin resistance and insulin deficiency (Type I and Type II diabetes, respectively), rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, cognitive impairments linked to hypertension, macular degeneration, formation of stones in the liver, kidneys and gall bladder, and many others. While research continues, the case is already closed on every one of these associations; they have passed into acceptance and are not subject to debate; the reader is at liberty to investigate these associations for himself.

Furthermore, these diseases can be stopped and reversed, even in their later stages, as surely as they can be prevented altogether, by detoxification and transition to a healthy plant-based diet. So the inevitable conclusion is that the human body was designed to perish if it eats the wrong foods, and the wrong foods are animal proteins (especially fats), and to a lesser extent processed carbohydrates and fatty oils cooked beyond their flash points. The additives which have adverse health effects and are often used as scapegoats are just additives; they make you more susceptible to particular diseases, but are not actually the cause of disease. The idea that a huge segment of our society would even seek such scapegoats rather than simply being honest with itself, though the scientific literature already supports the inevitable conclusion, and though our very lives all hang in the balance, goes to show how far removed we are from repentance and from the kingdom of heaven.

One may ask how it can be that only animal fats cause the production of cancer-causing hormones, while the fats and proteins in plant-based foods do not. (We do not mean to suggest that an overabundance of plant fats is healthy, only that it does not cause the same measure of inflammation that animal fats do in lesser quantities.) First of all, these proteins do not just cause cancer, but all disease. This needs to be understood clearly in order for our thesis to be established. Cancer is the reference point because it is the disease which is studied the most, owing to the fact that it affects so many people and that it is often the cause of their death (and much suffering), but the means of prevention and the cure (which are the same) are both already widely known, so research is aimed at discovery of a treatment which allows for the cause to persist.64

Secondly, with only a few exceptions, plant fats are easier for your body to break down into their constituent amino acids, as they are typically unsaturated, and therefore less stable. This determines how they are absorbed and reconstituted by the body to produce various proteins, including hormones and other enzymes. Having the right amounts of dietary amino acids is critical to health, as too many of one will cause disease (as we have already seen with methionine), and having too little may lead to diseases resulting from chronic deficiencies. It just so happens that the right amounts of the right combinations are attainable only through a plant-based diet, though supplements can help to reduce the likelihood of developing a chronic deficiency for meat-eaters and vegetarians alike. Either way, the exact amount of protein that is needed for growth is about what you would expect from a typical vegan diet, and any more than this will proportionally increase your risk of developing diseases due to your body’s failure to process it.65

Moreover, while the process of how diseases develop is not already known by most people within the medical/academic establishment, it is actually so simple that anyone who has received a passing grade in high school biology should be able to understand it at some level, provided that the psychological barriers are removed. Unfortunately, the fact that the establishment has failed to accept and instruct us on this all-important issue means we cannot simply defer to it and move on, so it is incumbent upon us to explain it. We say this to the shame of every physician and everyone who gets paid to do clinical research in the field of pathology. Those who know the truth and have chosen to remain silent have sold their souls for the sake of their careers, and have therefore betrayed their oaths as physicians, and the confidence of the patients who have put their lives in their hands.

We, the authors, are not physicians, and our educational background in medicine and pathology is autodidactic; our competence even to relate this information is sorely lacking, and we regret that it has come to this. However, we realize that there are major incentives not to spend years studying these issues, and not to accept the inevitable conclusions. We understand that most people dread the idea of having perspective, or even a little objectivity, because the truth hurts. But the truth is, you are going to die if you do not accept these conclusions, and no incentive that your ego can muster in defense of its delusions can possibly outweigh that incentive. So keep that in mind as you read the following explanation, for which we are heavily reliant on Robert Cohen’s Milk: The Deadly Poison,66 which ought to have put an end to the entire dairy industry by now, if the general public had any sense about it.

First of all, there are some very good arguments that can be made from scientific studies to suggest correlations between factors other than animal proteins and various diseases, such as smoking cigarettes and lung cancer, or elevated cholesterol levels and heart disease. We are not disputing the validity of any of these risk factor associations. However, they are only risk factors, not the actual causes of any diseases, and we have already demonstrated how the more serious risk factors (by far) are ingestion and inhalation of animal proteins.

This is true across the whole spectrum of disease (even infectious disease, as far as it pertains to immunological response), for numerous reasons, so anyone who wants to draw an inference from statistics to evidence a trend is obligated to make the association between eating animal proteins and developing diseases which normally have other causes attributed to them. The statistics we have already picked out prove the point, but they can hardly be said to apply to the general population, as not everyone is exposed to the amount of blood that meat factory workers are. Nevertheless, the trends are the same for anyone who eats meat or dairy, albeit at a reduced risk. (Again, the risk is proportional to the amount of exposure. A vegetarian who works at a meat factory will still be more likely to develop cancer than a meat-eater who does not.)

Any time that fats are implicated in the onset of disease, animal proteins are unquestionably the primary if not the sole suspect. The same goes for cholesterol. We all know that bacon is loaded with fat and cholesterol, so in order to show that it is all animal foods which are to blame, a simple demonstration is appropriate. Consider that a single, large chicken egg (50 g) contains 211 mg, or 70% of the recommended daily value, of cholesterol. Consider that a single glass of milk has as much fat as 3 slices of bacon,67 and that the amount of dairy in the average American diet is equivalent in fat to 11 slices of bacon and in cholesterol to 53 slices daily.68 By the time the average American is 52, he or she has consumed in milk and dairy products the equivalent cholesterol of 1 million slices of bacon.69

Women who drink milk are more than 3 times as likely to develop ovarian cancer than those who do not.70 Men who drink whole milk are about 2.5 times as likely to develop prostate cancer than those who do not.71 Whole milk drinkers are also twice as much at risk of developing lung cancer over those who do not drink any milk.72 These statistics are important, because they demonstrate that ovo-lacto vegetarians are still at risk, while vegans are not. In fact, it is actually milk and dairy which are much more responsible for disease than meat, not only due to its chemical nature, but also because of the amounts consumed. The protein content of human milk is about the lowest (0.9%) in mammals,73 which ought to be the first clue that our bodies are not designed to intake much protein (especially fat)—ever, at any stage of life. More to the point, it ought to indicate that we are not meant to drink the breast milk of other mammals.

Furthermore, the facts that are meant to support the opposite premise (that milk is safe, or even healthy) are lies, and reinforced by profit-driven marketing ploys. For instance, the term ‘lowfat milk’ is an oxymoron, and ‘skim milk’ is grossly misleading. “Lowfat” milk actually contains 24-33% fat as calories.74 “2%” is just as misleading, as it pertains to weight rather than content; it is 87% water by weight, which means it is still more than 15% fat by solid weight.75 Likewise, it might be said that whole milk is only 3.5% fat, but this actually turns out to be about 27% fat by solid weight.76

Even most drugs are not as disastrous to human health as meat and dairy, as we have already hinted. Some will say that alcohol is the main disease culprit in heavy drinkers, but give no account to the milk and dairy in their diets. Alcohol consumption certainly does contribute to poor health, but for the average individual it is practically negligible as a risk factor compared to meat and dairy. Consider the following statistics.

According to the Food Consumption, Prices and Expenditures, 1996, Statistical Bulletin Number 928, published by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the average American consumed 24 gallons of beer in 1994. That works out to just under 8 1/2 ounces of beer per day per person. Total milk and dairy products consumed per capita in 1994 equaled 26 ounces per day, more than triple the amount of beer. One 12 ounce glass of beer contains 144 calories and no fat. On the other hand, a 12 ounce glass of milk contains 300 calories and 16 grams of fat. It seems that beer is taking a bad rap. Protruding stomachs on overweight people should be called milk bellies, not beer bellies. Robert Cohen77

Ultimately, the reason our conclusion is so hard for most people to accept is that our society has been thoroughly indoctrinated (i.e. brainwashed) into accepting that milk “does a body good,” which is an outright lie, by the powerful money interests of the agricultural industry, through aggressive advertising campaigns and political bribes. This is why, when confronted with the truth about dairy being the number one killer in First World countries, the normal reaction is to defend it. Mothers who give it to their kids are particularly susceptible to the insidious marketing influences, as the advertisements are designed by psychologists to embed subliminal (and often not-so-subliminal) sexual suggestions from an early age (i.e. to make self-conscious women think they will be more attractive if they drink milk, even though it actually causes skin blemishes and obesity, etc.), as well as constant, repetitive appeals to the emotional attachment of motherhood in lieu of any factual data or scientific reasoning.

A typical mother will get very angry when confronted with the fact that she is feeding her children the instruments of their death, because it is seen not for the means of salvation that it is, but as an attack against her personal character, as it necessarily means she is a bad mother. A typical father, on the other hand, will dump the milk or research and defer to scientific opinions rather than simply lashing out or dismissing the threat. Though they are susceptible to other arguments and marketing tactics, the same arguments typically do not hold sway over men and women. As a result, there are more vegetarian women in the United States, but more vegan men. (Indeed, whey supplements are targeted at men as surely as milk is targeted at women, but this was only ever an afterthought to the dairy industry at large, as whey is a waste product of milk production.)

The truth is, women tend to be more susceptible to force and to emotional appeals than men, which makes them more susceptible to marketing tactics devised by psychologists. The dairy industry knows this all too well, having heavily invested itself into subversive marketing strategies many decades ago, and has accordingly laid out a few arguments which make no sense, but are simple enough to be mindlessly repeated by stay-at-home mothers who know virtually nothing of nutritional science, and certainly not enough to see through the fallacies. Examples of this include the notion that a child needs milk for its calcium content (or meat for its iron), or that the only alternative (as if it is assumed that any kind of milk is actually necessary at all, when the only liquid which is necessary is water), is soy milk, which is high in estrogen, and estrogen is inherently bad for children—the implication being, ironically, that a cow’s lactation is not. Indeed, the fallacy of this reasoning is self-evident when one considers that the alleged safety of cow’s milk is predicated on the false notion that hormones and enzymes are destroyed by digestive processes, which should theoretically also render soy products safe for consumption. Yet soybeans are one of nature’s almost-perfect foods, so the estrogen factor is the only thing that soy products can even be faulted for, and then only in cases of pregnant or nursing mothers, and in adolescents, so it is evident that the real reason the dairy industry has fashioned soy as its scapegoat (and that the meat industry has fashioned gluten as its) is that it is a legitimate threat to it, being a much safer and much more nutritious alternative.

Now, we have made some rather serious allegations of criminal misconduct, spread across a group of people which easily numbers into the thousands. Yet we are merely stating facts which have been reported and substantiated by others. Lawsuits against the dairy industry have forced it to revise its marketing strategies or be held accountable for false advertising. So this is not a matter of us putting our slant on it, and nothing we have said so far should even be controversial.

Apart from all this, we still need to address the obvious question of how it came to be that liquid death was ever successfully marketed by private entrepreneurs as a near perfect food and accepted as such by the public without any scientific substantiation whatsoever. We also need to ask and answer the questions of why this was done and what is wrong with it in the first place, making it nature’s perfect killer, the cause of all degenerative disease and of most premature deaths. The simple answer is that milk is environmentally specific,78 and that to drink the milk of a different species is to cause an allergic reaction rather than to nourish the body, which is what same-species milk is designed to do. This is essentially the same argument which we will cover later in regards to animal flesh, but it is more evidently the case that milk and dairy products are actually what kill those who consume them, if only because of the sheer volume of intake or the differences in how it affects metabolism and stomach pH.

According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), in 1995, the average American ate 394 lbs. of vegetables, 121 lbs. of fresh fruit, 192 lbs. of flour and cereal products, 193 lbs. of meat, poultry and fish, and 584 lbs. of milk and dairy. That works out to 4 lbs. of food per day, about 40% of which was dairy.79 However, this does not actually account for how much milk was required to produce various dairy products. As we have pointed out, the milk that people consume is 87% water, so putting milk and dairy (concentrated milk) into the same category of amount of consumption is statistically dishonest and misleading.

It takes 21.2 lbs. of milk to make a single pound of butter. According to these statistics, the average American consumed 4.5 lbs. of butter, i.e. 95.4 lbs. of milk, or about 91 lbs. that are unaccounted for, on top of the 584 lbs. that are accounted for. Likewise, it takes 10 lbs. of milk to make 1 lb. of hard cheese.80 It takes 12 lbs. of milk to make 1 lb. of ice cream, 2.1 lbs. of milk to make 1 lb. of evaporated milk, 11 lbs. of milk to make 1 lb. of non-fat milk, and 7.4 lbs. of milk to make 1 lb. of dry whole milk. When the amounts of these products are converted back to milk, the 584 lbs. of dairy products which the average American consumed in 1995 turns out to be 932.05 lbs. of milk, which is more than half the total American diet by weight.81 Given that the proteins in milk foster cancer growth and excess hormone production (as they are designed to do) more than others, hopefully you can see now why we are calling it “nature’s perfect killer” and “liquid death.”

According to this data, it took 2.55 lbs. of milk to supply the average American’s daily intake in 1995. The USDA only accounted for 416 million lbs. per day in 1995, when there are actually 663 million, according to Cohen. The rest (more than a third) goes into other products as milkfat.82 This statistic is staggering: the implication is that while more than half of the average American’s diet by weight is milk, more than another third of the total milk consumed is in products considered non-dairy, and is not accounted for in the milk and dairy category.

The kind of buying power which accounts for half the United States’ food production is what accounts for the fact that government regulation is virtually nonexistent. The US government uses taxpayers’ monies to subsidize research into increasing the efficiency of milk production, to pay for the animals’ feed, to compensate the agricultural industry’s financial shortcomings (thus effectively destroying the free market),83 to throw it at the general public, especially by doling it out in schools and through the phony educational resources created by the dairy industry itself, such as the Food Guide Pyramid, and then again to buy up the enormous surplus of the product. Even where regulations exist, they are arbitrarily fixed to meet the needs of the industry rather than to regulate it, and are still practically never enforced except where it concerns health-conscious grassroots attempts to obviate the system, such as the FDA’s notorious raids of stores selling unpasteurized dairy products. In contrast to this Orwellian police state nonsense, farmers are prohibited by law from selling milk taken just after the birth of a calf due to elevated hormone levels—a real cause for concern—but the USDA never even checks the milk much less the farms for compliance.84 (Right after birth is when all mammals produce the most milk by far, so farmers have a lot of incentive not to comply.) Even where concerns are raised over whether the milk is treated with antibiotics, or with Monsanto’s recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH, a.k.a. recombinant bovine somatotropin or rBST), the USDA and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) make no effort to ensure compliance in the case of the former, and there is no way of testing the milk to determine the latter, so without any accountability from either agency, even the USDA’s “organic” certification for milk is a joke, and anyone who wants to get real organic milk not only has to go outside the law to get it, but also has to trust the farmer they are getting it from completely—and that farmer is, by definition, a confidence artist and a criminal.

But these are just a few things that have caused concern among milk-drinkers and meat-eaters. Sickness of the animals is another real cause for concern. Animal feed is supplemented with bone meal, blood meal and ground body parts (slaughterhouse waste).85 Needless to say, cannibalizing herbivores are going to produce unhealthy lactations and menstruations (i.e. eggs), as if these were not unhealthy and disgusting enough already. The USDA knows this, and has accordingly set the tolerance for white blood cells (pus) in milk at a thoroughly nauseating level of 1 to 1.5 million cells per milliliter.86 This pus is the smoking gun that shows bovine leukemia virus infection, a fact which is hidden both by the wide use of antibiotics on dairy cows, and by the efforts of whole/raw milk advocates to draw attention away from the rampant leukemia among dairy cows by focusing on hormone treatments intended to get them to produce more milk (i.e. Monsanto milk) and on the antibiotics themselves which are necessary due to this treatment.

Put simply, all pooled milk in the US is contaminated by the bovine leukemia virus (BLV). It is mostly destroyed by pasteurization, but even pasteurized milk has historically made hundreds of thousands sick due to cross-contamination by raw milk. It survives and has been detected in two-thirds of raw milk samples,87 so the threat of a leukemia epidemic from this kind of contamination is obviously a major concern, especially considering that virtually all species of mammals exposed to the bovine leukemia virus do develop leukemia. The virus can infect human cells in vitro, and there is evidence of human antibody formation of BLV,88 so this is not simply a theory or a matter of fear-mongering, but a very grave reality.

Moreover, leukemia is far from being the only health concern associated with BLV in humans. A 2002 study of 211 women found that BLV DNA was nearly 3 times as likely to be found in the breast tissue of subjects with breast cancer than those without.89 The researchers extrapolated their data to reach the conclusion that “if our sample is representative of all cases and controls, these data indicate that 39% of all breast cancer cases are attributable to BLV infection.”90 Given the amount of attention heaped specifically on breast cancer, not to mention the scientific community’s well-funded continuing failure to identify its cause, one would think this hypothesis would have been seized upon and tested thoroughly. Instead it has languished, and we cannot help but surmise that the implication of dairy products and the influence of the dairy establishment have both played no small part in this development.

BLV is mostly a concern for children because children are typically forced to drink cow’s milk and adults are not. (This is more a matter of drinking whole/raw milk rather than eating dairy products, as dairy products tend to be produced and sold lawfully after the milk has been pasteurized.) Leukemias and lymphomas (blood cancers) are the leading cause of death in children aged 2 to 14. However, in spite of the attention this fact draws to childhood leukemias and lymphomas, they are also a major concern for adults, as well. Leukemia is basically the result of excessive ingestion of animal proteins leading to a thoroughly compromised immune system. Leukemia rates are higher where dairy consumption is higher, and also among veterinarians and dairy farmers,91 due, no doubt, to their exposure to the bovine leukemia virus and to other animal retroviruses.

The pervasive presence of BLV in cow milk ought to lead any rational person to question the safety of its consumption, even with assurances of the virus’ attenuation through pasteurization. Nevertheless, there are organizations currently promoting organic, raw milk, dairy and meat products for health reasons, even going so far as to scandalously fabricate evidence to suit their profit-motivated agenda, while casually dismissing the myriad of facts which detract from it and hypocritically disparaging soy products as a leading alternative on the basis of only slightly less questionable evidence. The foremost of these is the Weston A. Price Foundation (WAPF), a leading advocate for the legalization and consumption of raw milk.

WAPF’s demonization of plant products is the hallmark of this organization. Yet their standards for doing so are simply not applied to animal products anywhere in their literature, which is no surprise to us, considering how even a cursory investigation into milk and meat inevitably leads to the exact opposite conclusions than the one they advocate.92 The foundation’s president and co-founder Sally Fallon was, as recently as 2005, altogether ignorant of the mere existence of BLV, much less the danger it poses to anyone consuming the live, unattenuated virus in the raw milk her organization advocates.93 Nor has this insight (by way of objection, not proactive inquiry) altered the organization’s advocacy efforts in the least; their website’s FAQ page (the only place where we could find any mention of bovine leukemia on their entire website) answers a hypothetical mother concerned about the presence of live bovine leukemia virus in raw milk as follows:

Please show me this website where they say that drinkers of raw milk have more leukemia. This is a completely unsupported statement! There have been no studies of drinkers of raw milk in the US for over 60 years. Milk from pastured cows is perfectly safe to drink. These cows do not have leukemia. But I would not drink raw milk from confinement cows. Weston A. Price Foundation94

This sheer denial in the face of insurmountable evidence is the official policy of the leading advocate of raw milk. It should go without saying that this answer is far from reassuring, considering its hysterical tone, lack of substantiation and outlandish claims. Observe that several years after being informed, Fallon takes no accountability for her misinformation and still does not even seem to have a basic education in the subject on which she claims to possess sufficient expertise to overrule safety guidelines established by the scientific and medical communities. It is not even a question of whether cows have “more” leukemia, but rather bovine leukemia virus, which only actually results in leukemia in about 5% of cases. (This is very simple: Humans do not get leukemia from cows having leukemia; they get it from the bovine leukemia virus being transmitted through bovine milk.) However, to make money from unsuspecting mothers by declaring that a food is safe for her children because they only have a 1 in 20 chance of developing a terminal illness from a viral infection is not just absurd and grossly negligent; it is also criminal.

If any correlation can be shown between any food and any type of cancer (including leukemia) in animal test subjects, before it even reaches the consumer, then it does not meet the FDA’s safety standards, as set forth by the US Congress, and is automatically outlawed. Only the Surgeon General can overrule this statute by mandating warning labels on certain products with their positive associations listed. In the cases of alcohol and cigarettes, both known to contain carcinogens which are far less dangerous than meat and milk, every state in the country has age restrictions to keep them out of the hands of children. Yet unscrupulous authors like Sally Fallon and Joel Salatin make money selling books and making celebrity appearances by championing known human carcinogens, and advocating the legalization of their illicit and most dangerous forms, and then marketing their material to unsuspecting mothers of young children, the way the dairy industry itself did until it was finally sued for false advertising and had to change its slogan from “It does a body good” to “Got Milk?”

Yet for all the attention we could give to leukemia, it is not the only major cause for concern, nor even the gravest. Milk causes brain degeneration, and ultimately spongiform encephalopathy (Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease or CJD in humans).95 The bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE, a.k.a. Mad Cow Disease) is transmitted through milk as well as meat, and is incurable and 100% fatal. By the late 1990s, Alzheimer’s deaths had been shown by autopsies to have been caused by CJD,96 a fact which has been corroborated and established since about 2008 by the discovery of the prion (i.e. the infectious protein) responsible for it. The role which the prion plays in the development of Alzheimer’s is by interacting with amyloid-beta (or Aβ, the protein which is the main component of plaques in Alzheimer’s cases), causing plaques to damage brain cells,97 which basically implies that neurodegenerative diseases result from a combination of presence of animal proteins in the blood stream and brain or spinal inflammation. The inflammation is caused by serum proteins, leading to degenerative disease (encephalopathy or nervous system disorder, or both), and the disease is exacerbated by further inflammation from prions that determine which type of neurodegenerative disease will form, based, presumably, on factors such as where they attach, how long they are there, immunological responses (especially plaque formations) and the shapes of the prions.

So anyone drinking any milk or consuming any flesh of any animal with spongiform encephalopathy is at risk of causing encephalopathy to himself. (All transmissible spongiform encephalopathies are, by definition, caused by prions.) The implications of this are enormous, and extend well beyond simply causing brain degeneration by eating brain matter. At first, the scientists who discovered the connection between CJD and Alzheimer’s did not even believe it, citing that it is “too bizarre that these two diseases would share this common protein.”98 Of course, it actually makes perfect sense, as they are closely related: the differences between different types of neurodegenerative disorders can be accounted for by the factors listed above, but not by any differences in what causes the inflammation, and the disorders themselves are the result of the presence of the same foreign pathogens, except in the case that someone has been hit on the head too many times. Put simply, there is not a virus for CJD and one for Alzheimer’s and one for Parkinson’s, etc.—all are caused by years of inflammation by dietary animal proteins.

We hardly see what is so bizarre about science backing up the claims of Scripture. This demonstrates how slothful those in the medical establishment are to accept them, though they have all the evidence they could possibly need. Even so, this is just the beginning of where further research will lead them. More recently (2012), Parkinson’s disease and Lou Gehrig’s disease were associated with CJD, even though the researchers are still looking for evidence that it is transmissible to humans.99 Although red meat has typically been implicated in BSE (and rightly so), a case of CJD was reported in 1997 with a vegetarian as the victim,100 which clearly implicates dairy, though technically the incubation period is up to three decades, so we would have to know for how long the victim was a vegetarian and then account for other factors before this could be taken as conclusive.

In spite of this, and in spite of their recognition of meat as the primary means of infection, scientists have failed to recognize milk as another means (other than meat) of BSE (and therefore other neurodegenerative disease) transmission to humans, owing to the mistaken belief that all proteins are destroyed in the stomach, or at least before absorption into the blood stream. Instead, they speculate that humans acquire prion diseases by coming into contact with remains of dead animals, or with urine, saliva, “other body fluids,” or even soil.101 The implication of all this, obviously, is that milk (especially homogenized or raw cow milk) is a much greater risk factor for prion disease than meat is—and the threat of BSE transmission from red meat has already created widespread panic. The further implication is that what you are feeding your newborn now could very well kill her by the age of 30 via a disease typically thought to afflict the elderly, even if she survives the leukemia virus infection.

The case of the mad cow has not been exaggerated in the press, in fact, in many cases, the situation is much worse than has been told. Cows are being fed diseased sheep, chickens and other cows. These cows are then slaughtered, wrapped in plastic, priced and put out in your local grocery store as harmless for human consumption. Of these cows, 80 percent have the bovine leukemia virus and 50 percent have the bovine immunodeficiency virus—the animal equivalent of AIDS [sic: HIV]. We are drinking milk and eating cheese with lymphocytes that are loaded with the proviral DNA of these viruses. It is only common sense that when consuming a fluid that has been emitted from an animal, or the actual flesh itself, we the consumers, are at risk for whatever ailed the animal. …

Despite increasing anecdotal (circumstantial) evidence linking bovine leukemia virus and bovine immunodeficiency virus to potential human health risks, the USDA has steadfastly refused to check slaughtered meat, milk and dairy products to see if they contain antibodies to these retroviruses. It seems that they just do not want to scare the milk consumer. Every day, Americans consume beef and dairy products from cows, some of which are infected with bovine leukemia virus and cow AIDS virus, without any assurance that the products are safe. Virgil Hulse102

To make matters worse, or perhaps to simply evidence why this is the case, the FDA and the USDA are both run by the same private corporations which have gained a virtual monopoly on US agriculture. This, too, is a major cause for concern, and has caused a constant public outcry, but we hold that every nation deserves the government it gets. The real issue is not over the ethics of labeling or not labeling genetically modified organisms (GMOs), but of animal farming itself. The FDA would not be run by a company like Monsanto if Americans did not buy the products of said company, whether before or after its initiatives to dominate the global food markets. The decline in public health and the apathy over reform are just the natural outgrowths of the industries of a system based on wholesale exploitation and murder—certainly no worse than the general public deserves or has actively sought and intentionally brought about. It is the innocent, tortured animals who have no choice in the matter who are the victims, not the self-centered, psychopathic humans who want a supposedly purer brand of death to suit their murderous appetites.

In any case, the American government is not going to act in the interest of the American people any time soon, because it simply does not care, and has a long track record of showing itself not to. Those who understand this well enough to raise concerns over chemtrails and nuclear radiation leakage (from Fukushima) really ought to consider that the same government which is tasked with covering up the means of your slow death is owned and operated by the agricultural industry, and you have already invited it into your home. In fact, unless you are a bona fide vegan, you have been so trusting of it that you pay it a visit when you open your refrigerator door, or your cupboard and pantry.

Anyone who has enough sense to question what he is told ought to consider that the FDA and USDA regularly thwart even the smallest attempts to establish alternatives to the status quo, even at local levels. With this in mind, the fact that WAPF and similar organizations constitute the controlled opposition ought to be immediately apparent in that they are not penalized or persecuted either for their crimes or for encouraging their followers to engage in criminal behaviors. After all, they are merely marketing what the establishment is selling. The local stores selling their unpasteurized yogurt, on the other hand, serve no benefit to the establishment. Busting them just gives the public a reason to think the FDA is doing its job.

The same goes for the “paleo” fad: this kind of paradigm does not simply create itself out of thin air, but develops as a response to the growing awareness and concern over information which would otherwise have people making significant changes to how they spend their incomes, and which ultimately has the capacity to undermine the authority of the government itself, as the government is theoretically charged with protecting the citizenry, but in reality only exists to keep it misinformed and otherwise oppressed. The fact that safety precautions do so little to render products safe for consumption begs the question of conspiracy and collusion between producers and government officials. After all, it is not as though the government is unaware of the scientific research—it has funded it!

Robert Kradjian, a surgeon from the San Francisco area, addresses the ineffectiveness of safety precautions and other issues (such as the proposed solution espoused by the controlled opposition) in the famous open letter to his followers, as quoted by Cohen:

Let’s just mention the problems of bacterial contamination. Salmonella, E. coli, and staphylococcal infections can be traced to milk. In the old days tuberculosis was a major problem and some folks want to go back to those times by insisting on raw milk on the basis that it’s “natural.” This is insanity! A study from UCLA showed that over a third of all cases of salmonella infection in California, 1980-1983 were traced to raw milk. That’ll be a way to receive good old brucellosis again and I would fear leukemia, too. (More about that later). In England and Wales where raw milk is still consumed, there have been outbreaks of milk-borne diseases. The Journal of the American Medical Association (251: 483, 1984) reported a multi-state series of infections caused by Yersinia enterocolitica in pasteurized whole milk. This is despite safety precautions. Robert Kradjian103

As for why milk itself is extremely counterproductive to nutrition and overall health, Kradjian examined the available evidence and reported his findings as a “horror story.” According to Kradjian, there was no evidence in the early 1990s from the medical archives that milk is an excellent food, and a plethora of research evidencing the fact that it causes a multitude of diseases.

I believe that there are three reliable sources of information. The first, and probably the best, is a study of nature. The second is to study the history of our own species. Finally we need to look at the world’s scientific literature on the subject of milk.

Let’s look at the scientific literature first. From 1988 to 1993 there were over 2,700 articles dealing with milk recorded in the “Medicine” archives. Fifteen hundred of these had milk as the main focus of the article. There is no lack of scientific information on this subject. I reviewed over 500 of the 1,500 articles, discarding articles that dealt exclusively with animals, esoteric research and inconclusive studies.

How would I summarize the articles? They were only slightly less than horrifying. First of all, none of the authors spoke of cow’s milk as an excellent food, free of side effects and the “perfect food” as we have been led to believe by the industry. The main focus of the published reports seems to be on intestinal colic, intestinal irritation, intestinal bleeding, anemia, allergic reactions in infants and children as well as infections such as salmonella. More ominous is the fear of viral infection with bovine leukemia virus or an AIDS-like virus as well as concern for childhood diabetes. Contamination of milk by blood and white (pus) cells as well as a variety of chemicals and insecticides was also discussed. Among children, the problems were allergy, ear and tonsillar infections, bedwetting, asthma, intestinal bleeding, colic and diabetes. In adults, the problems seemed centered more around heart disease and arthritis, allergy, sinusitis, and the more serious questions of leukemia, lymphoma and cancer. …

Milk is not just milk. The milk of every species of mammal is unique and specifically tailored to the requirements of that animal. For example, cow’s milk is very much richer in protein than human milk. Three to four times as much. It has five to seven times the mineral content. However, it is markedly deficient in essential fatty acids when compared to human mothers’ milk. Mothers’ milk has six to ten times as much of the essential fatty acids, especially linoleic acid. (Incidentally, skimmed cow’s milk has no linoleic acid.) It simply is not designed for humans.

Food is not just food, and milk is not just milk. It is not the proper amount of food but the proper qualitative composition that is critical for the very best in health and growth. Biochemists and physiologists—and rarely medical doctors—are gradually learning that foods contain the crucial elements that allow a particular species to develop its unique specializations.

Clearly, our specialization is for advanced neurological development and delicate neuromuscular control. We do not have much need of massive skeletal growth or huge muscle groups as does a calf. Think of the difference between the demands made on the human hand and the demands made on a cow’s hoof. Human newborns specifically need critical material for their brains, spinal cord and nerves.

Can mother’s milk increase intelligence? It seems that it can. In a remarkable study published in the Lancet during 1992 (Vol. 339, pp. 261-264), a group of British workers randomly placed premature infants into two groups. One group received a proper formula, the other group received human breast milk. Both fluids were given by stomach tube. These children were followed up for over 10 years. In intelligence testing, the human milk children averaged 10 IQ points higher! Well, why not? Why shouldn’t the correct building blocks for the rapidly maturing and growing brain have a positive effect?

In the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (1982) Ralph Holman described an infant who developed profound neurological disease while being nourished by intravenous fluids only. The fluids used contained only linoleic acid—just one of the essential fatty acids. When the other, alpha linoleic acid, was added to the intravenous fluids the neurological disorders cleared.

In the same journal five years later, Bjerve, Mostad and Thorsen, working in Norway found exactly the same problem in adult patients on long term gastric tube feeding.

In 1930, Dr. G.O. Burr in Minnesota working with rats found that linoleic acid deficiencies created a deficiency syndrome. Why is this mentioned? In the early 1960s pediatricians found skin lesions in children fed formulas without the same linoleic acid. Remembering the research, the addition of acid to the formula cured the problem. Essential fatty acids are just that and cow’s milk is markedly deficient in these when compared to human milk. Robert Kradjian104

Anecdotal evidence of viral and bacterial infections aside, there are a plethora of reasons why cow milk is even more toxic to the human body than meat or other species’ milk, which all converge on the conclusion that milk and dairy products induce an autoimmune response. That is, many symptoms of disease are evidence of the toxicity of cow milk to humans, whether or not the cause is formally recognized on a case-by-case basis. Three-fourths of the human race cannot digest lactose,105 the main carbohydrate of cow milk, a condition commonly known as lactose intolerance. Knowing this, it is folly to suppose that it is healthy to the other quarter of our species. Frank Oski, the late chief of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and senior editor of Principles and Practices of Pediatrics, the standard textbook for pediatrics training in the US, explained that the difference is not so much that children lose the ability to digest lactose when they are weaned, by some unknown mechanism, but that they should not be drinking the milk of another species to begin with, because our bodies are not suited to it at any age.

At least 50 percent of all children in the United States are allergic to cow’s milk, many undiagnosed. Dairy products are the leading cause of food allergy, often revealed by diarrhea, constipation, and fatigue. Many cases of asthma and sinus infections are reported to be relieved and even eliminated by cutting out dairy. The exclusion of dairy, however, must be complete to see any benefit. Frank Oski106

By one month of age, most formula-fed infants develop two or more symptoms of allergic rejection to cow milk proteins.107 About 50-70% of these infants develop rashes or other skin symptoms, 50-60% develop gastrointestinal symptoms, and 20-30% develop respiratory symptoms.108 Furthermore, it causes constipation and has a significant and adverse effect on the developing immune system,109 which is to say that it leads to autoimmune diseases acquired right from infancy.

Most of us are well aware as children of the application of casein as glue, though not of its use or its origin, or even its name, but the image of a cow on the label of any Elmer’s Glue bottle is not for nothing. Casein, the main protein in cow milk, is a primary cause of mucous and congestion.110 The sticky, clogging effect which it has in mucous production in the bronchial tubes is what causes asthma.111 Other allergic symptoms of milk consumption include earaches, headaches, Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS), gas, bloating, diarrhea, indigestion, and hives.112 Clinically, the diseases which it induces are more severe: hemoglobin loss, childhood diabetes, heart disease, halitosis, atherosclerosis, arthritis, kidney stones, mood swings, depression, irritability, and allergies.113

As it is primarily forced on children by parents who do not suspect that it causes disease, and as the correlation between milk consumption and the early onset of these diseases is so clear, the main concern which many responsible physicians have about milk is its administration to children, and with advising parents not to give in to marketing tactics and other social pressures. The American Academy of Pediatrics officially withdrew its longstanding endorsement of milk after world-famous pediatrician Benjamin Spock shocked the world by recanting his position that milk is a near perfect food, which he had held for half a century by that time.114 This was a big deal; throughout his life, Spock’s book Baby and Child Care sold more copies than any other book except the Bible. Just weeks after his death, the seventh edition of Baby and Child Care finally caught up with scientific research and recommended parents feed their children a strict vegetarian diet, a fact which, although completely based on the evidence which Spock had examined, greatly upset the rest of the medical establishment.115

Spock himself had become a strict vegetarian for health reasons, a fact which extended his life several years and enabled him to walk again after having been invalided. By the following year he had already made it his purpose to share his newfound understanding of nutrition, but soberly lamented that the truth of the matter is the bane of the monetary interests controlling our society.

We now know that there are harmful effects of a meaty diet. Children can get plenty of protein and iron from vegetables, beans and other plant foods that avoid the fat and cholesterol that are in animal products. Benjamin Spock116

I want to pass on the word to parents that cow’s milk from the carton has definite faults for some babies. Human milk is the right one for babies. A study comparing the incidence of allergy and colic in the breast-fed infants of omnivorous and vegan mothers would be important. I haven’t found such a study; it would be both important and inexpensive. And it will probably never be done. There is simply no academic or economic profit involved. Benjamin Spock117

Remarkably, although the American Academy of Pediatrics promptly withdrew its endorsement of cow milk for children under 2, it failed to overcome the economic incentives and to withdraw support for all persons of all ages, and it continued to recommend whole milk despite failing to come up with any reason for the decision, even as a baseless pretense. Oski summed up the position of concerned pediatricians in the journal Pediatrics.

Why give it at all—then or ever? In the face of uncertainty about many of the potential dangers of whole bovine milk, it would seem prudent to recommend that whole milk not be started until the answers are available. Isn’t it time for these uncontrolled experiments on human nutrition to come to an end? …

It is my thesis that whole milk should not be fed to the infant in the first year of life because of its association with iron deficiency anemia (milk is so deficient in iron that an infant would have to drink an impossible 31 quarts a day to get the RDA of 15 mg), occult gastrointestinal bleeding, and various manifestations of food allergy. I suggest that unmodified whole bovine milk should not be consumed after infancy because of the problems of lactose intolerance, its contribution to the genesis of atherosclerosis, and its possible link to other diseases. Frank Oski118

The American Academy of Pediatrics now advises against giving cow milk to children under 1,119 yet has failed to cite any justification for the cutoff in spite of the fact that lactose intolerance usually occurs after weaning, and the fact that Spock (who had influenced the Academy to make this decision) actually forbade dairy products after the age of 2 but not before. The Academy’s decision is largely owing to the fact that infants under 1 are at risk of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), which is almost universally thought by pediatricians to be an allergic reaction to milk hormones which causes bronchial wall inflammation, similar to asthma.120 As if that is not enough reason to simply outlaw it once and for all, and to charge parents whose children die of SIDS with negligent homicide (as a young vegan couple were imprisoned in France for the death of their child due to alleged B12 deficiency), there is more. Infants drinking formula from cow milk are 14 times more likely to die from diarrhea-related complications and 4 times more likely to die of pneumonia than are breast-fed babies.121

Perhaps the greatest fear among concerned parents is childhood diabetes, which is really no different from the other types. Such parents will do well to recognize that the cause of diabetes is basically imbibing cow milk. Milk proteins stimulate the production of antibodies which, in turn, destroy the insulin-producing pancreatic cells.122 (In other words, insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus is caused by milk/dairy protein antibodies damaging or destroying the cells which produce insulin.) The introduction of cow milk in babies 3 months and younger often results in complete insulin deficiency, which demonstrates an absolute cause and effect relationship.123 This type of diabetes often leads to blindness, kidney disease and heart disease.124

Simply put, diabetes is insulin resistance (the cells blocking insulin) due to malnourishment, or insulin deficiency (the cells not taking in insulin) due to damage to the pancreatic cells which produce it, due to malnourishment. Insulin, a peptide endocrine hormone (meaning it is produced in one gland to be used elsewhere in the body), is released in order to enable the body’s cells to convert glucose (a simple sugar) into energy. The first of the two phases of insulin release is triggered when blood glucose level is increased by the absorption of plant foods into the blood stream, without which the body becomes malnourished and will eventually die.125 In other words, eating plant foods (the source of glucose) facilitates insulin secretion and insulin reception, which are vital to every aspect of metabolism and cell survival. The role of animal proteins in insulin deficiency will be discussed further on.

During the second insulin release phase, glucose enters the insulin-producing beta cells, triggering the cells’ allowance of calcium into them and forcing the insulin out. This is essentially how calcium is removed from the bloodstream by pancreatic cells, starting a cascade to other cells in the body which take in the calcium and glucose from the blood stream delivered by the insulin. If the glucose cannot make it in due to insulin resistance or deficiency, the calcium remains in the bloodstream and finds its way to deposit locations where it is bonded (by casein—remember, casein is glue) with LDL cholesterol (which is conspicuously absent from plant foods) to form arterial plaques, thus contributing to atherosclerosis, and therefore heart disease. (This is essentially why LDL is indirectly associated with heart disease, but why no cause and effect relationship can be demonstrated. Cholesterol only forms arterial plaques when it is bonded with calcium and certain proteins. All three are present in abundance in cow milk.) Furthermore, osteoporosis, or the weakening of the bones due to depletion of calcium from cells, is due to poor calcium absorption. (The body automatically compensates by drawing it out of the cells, just as it compensates for glucose deficiency when it is not being fed carbohydrates, by synthesizing it from stored glycogen.)

The body needs magnesium (virtually absent in meat and dairy, and in abundance in leafy green vegetables, as the central atom of chlorophyll molecules) to absorb calcium. Without it, the body only absorbs about 25%; the rest is used to build atherosclerotic plaques, and leads to kidney stones, arthritis and pseudogout.126 So diabetes, atherosclerosis and osteoporosis are all direct results of consuming animal proteins rather than plant foods.

Although one in four women in America will have clinically diagnosed osteoporosis at some point, humans are the only animals with an osteoporosis problem.127 This plainly shows that we are not eating what we were designed to eat, like every other species on Earth does. Atherosclerosis alone accounts for the two leading causes of death in the United States (heart attacks and strokes). Diabetes would certainly be a competitor as well, but for the fact that insulin is synthesized and administered to diabetics—from pig serum.128

The other major life-threatening health concern for most people, of course, is cancer. All cancer cells rely on a growth hormone called insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) to grow, and result from an error in cellular replication.129 Cancer initiation occurs when cells die from exposure to toxins or radiation and are replaced by cancer cells. Genetic mutations, including those brought about metabolically, are caused by mRNA transcription failure when new cells are created. The toxic agents which bring about these changes are called mutagens. After the process has been initiated, hormones cause foci and tumors by causing those cells to replicate quickly, before the immune system can dispose of them.

Mutagens cause changes to the DNA that can affect the transcription and replication of the DNA, which in severe cases can lead to cell death, called necrosis. All genetic mutations are inherently harmful; those that cause cancer or are thought to cause or contribute to its genesis are called carcinogens. A mutagen produces mutations in the DNA, and deleterious mutation can result in aberrant, impaired genes, or loss of function for a particular gene. Accumulation of mutations may then lead to cancer.130 Changes in genetic expression are the smoking gun for proving that genetic mutations, including those brought about metabolically, cause cancer.

There are several types of mutagens, most of which are toxic substances, but radiation, as well as infectious viruses and bacteria, can also cause mutations by disrupting genetic functions. All carcinogens cause DNA damage and reduce the efficiency of the body’s DNA repair systems. Our main concern here is reactive oxygen species (ROS), which are DNA reactive chemicals which cause cell damage and have mutagenic properties. ROS form as a natural by-product of the normal metabolism of oxygen and have important roles in cell signaling.131

Following apoptosis (programmed cell death, which often results from ROS damage), dying cells need to be disposed of before their remains can spill out and damage other cells. The immune system’s mechanism for engulfing the dead cell remains is called phagocytosis. Phagocytes then take them up into the surrounding tissues in a process called efferocytosis, which is comparable to dead cell burial. Defects in apoptotic cell clearance are usually associated with impaired phagocytosis of macrophages (a type of phagocyte which basically eats up dead cell debris and foreign pathogens in order to protect other cells). Accumulation of apoptotic cell remains causes (or rather, characterizes) autoimmune disorders.132

Put simply, metabolically-initiated cancers develop as a result of faults in apoptotic cell clearance due to elevated levels of oxidative stress (that is, more than the individual cells can handle, and more than the immune system can compensate for), leading to cell death, followed by transcription errors in new replacement cells. There are more stages of cancer than this one, as we will describe later, but for now it suffices to describe the initiation. In fact, all stages of cancer are caused by ingestion of animal proteins; initiation is the only one which can be caused by other factors. (Our supposition regarding the role of phagocytosis is that autoimmune deficiency caused by metabolic factors increases the chances of apoptotic cell remains damaging other cells. We do not claim to know whether apoptotic cell debris has a direct effect on transcription failure, but this would explain how damaged cell DNA from dead cells finds its way into surrounding cells.)

In plants, electron transport chains (ETCs) extract energy from sunlight in photosynthesis. In other organisms, energy is extracted from plants (and other organisms) by way of redox reactions, such as the oxidation of sugars, in a process called respiration. In mitochondria (the parts of the cell which do the work to synthesize the energy), the conversion of oxygen to water is required to generate the proton gradient needed to generate energy as adenosine triphosphate (ATP) through hydrogen oxidation.133 Electrons which do not run the whole course of the ETC can leak to oxygen, resulting in the formation of free-radical superoxide.134 The free radicals superoxide and nitric oxide (the “killer” molecule produced from the amino acid arginine by macrophages if they do not produce regenerative ornithine molecules instead) and their reaction products regulate many processes, such as control of vascular tone and therefore blood pressure. They also play a key role in the metabolism of various biological compounds.135

The long term effects of ROS are the results of damage to DNA, which causes aging. Severe oxidative stress can cause cell death and even moderate oxidation can trigger apoptosis, while more intense stresses may cause necrosis.136 Oxidative stress is thought to be involved in the development not just of cancer, but of atherosclerosis, heart failure, myocardial infarction (heart attack), fragile X syndrome, sickle cell disease, lichen planus, vitiligo, autism, and others.137

Basically, superoxide is produced by the body’s immune system in large quantities by the enzyme NADPH oxidase for use in oxygen-dependent killing mechanisms of invading pathogens, including cancer cells. Mutations in the gene coding for the NADPH oxidase cause an immunodeficiency syndrome called chronic granulomatous disease (CGD), characterized by extreme susceptibility to infection. Cumulative oxidative stress and disrupted mitochondrial respiration have been strongly implicated in the pathogenesis of neurodegenerative diseases such as Lou Gehrig’s disease (MND or ALS), Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease and Huntington’s disease. This explains why vegans have better mental faculties than omnivores, as we will see from differences in ROS factors in a moment.

Oxidative stress is largely responsible for cardiovascular disease, as oxidation of LDL in the vascular endothelium is a precursor to plaque formation. It also plays a role in the ischemic cascade, including both strokes and heart attacks, due to oxygen reperfusion injury following hypoxia. It has also been implicated in both diabetes and chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), and contributes to tissue injury following irradiation and hyperoxia (and is therefore crucial to carcinogenesis). Along with its role in carcinogenesis, it also promotes cancer proliferation, invasiveness and metastasis.138

In animal studies, oxidative stress has been implicated in the pathogenesis of cardiomyopathy (heart disease), neurodegenerative diseases, lactic acidosis, reduced lifespan, liver cancer, muscle atrophy, cataracts, thymic involution (the shrinking of the thymus, an integral part of the immune system, a condition which is severely aggravated by hormonal activity), haemolytic anemia, and a very rapid age-dependent decline in female fertility.139 The harmful effects of ROS are typically damage to DNA, lipid peroxidation (oxidations of polyunsaturated fatty acids in lipids), oxidations of amino acids in proteins, and oxidatively inactive specific enzymes by oxidation of co-factors. Fatty acids and amino acids are thus the active agents of oxidative stress.140

ROS are not inherently bad for the body; they are constantly generated and eliminated by the body and are required to drive regulatory pathways. Under ideal metabolic conditions, cells control ROS levels by balancing ROS generation and elimination, but under oxidative stress conditions, excessive ROS can damage cellular proteins, lipids and DNA, leading to fatal lesions in cells that contribute to carcinogenesis. This is evidenced by the fact that cancer cells exhibit greater ROS stress than normal cells do, partly due to oncogenic stimulation, increased metabolic activity and mitochondrial malfunction,141 all of which can and often do result from poor nutrition by way of consumption of animal proteins, as evidenced by the fact that fatty acids and amino acids are the agents of oxidative stress. So when meat-eaters say “Where will (or do) you get your protein?” when you tell them you are a vegan, they may as well be saying “Where will you get your cancer?” In fact, oxidative stress can be induced externally as surely as internally, which demonstrates how fragile we really are; both exogenous and endogenous ROS have been shown to enhance proliferation of cancer cells.142

Signal transduction is a mechanism in which the cell responds to a signal from its environment (usually a hormone) by activating several proteins and enzymes that will give a response to the signal. An example of this is insulin reception, which is stimulated by insulin acting on the class II receptor tyrosine kinase (RTK). (RTKs are the cell receptors.) Feedback mechanism can entail either positive or negative feedback from the cell. In negative feedback, the pathway is inhibited and the final result of the pathway is reduced or limited. In positive feedback, the transduction pathway is promoted and stimulated to produce more of the thing which the signal was designed to stimulate production of.143

The function of a signal transduction pathway is based on extra-cellular signaling that in turn creates a response which causes other subsequent responses, creating a chain reaction called a cascade. During the course of signaling, the cell uses each response for accomplishing some kind of purpose.144 When electrons leak and create reactive oxygen species accidentally, they essentially become purposeless, and the body does not know what to do with them. The ROS become Trojan horses; the body largely accepts them as parts of itself and allows them to function normally, even though they will only bring calamity to the cells if they are not disposed of properly. After growth factor stimulation of RTKs (which we will discuss in a moment), ROS can trigger activation of signaling pathways involved in cell migration and invasion. This is how cancer proliferates.145

Autocrine signaling (in which a cell secretes a hormone or chemical messenger that binds to autocrine receptors on that same cell, leading to changes in the cell) plays multiple critical roles in cancer activation, and in providing self-sustaining growth signals to tumors.146 Without autocrine production of growth and survival factors (i.e. IGF-1), called autocrine agents, the tumors would neither grow nor survive. Normally, the Wnt signaling pathway leads to stabilization of β-catenin through inactivation of a protein complex containing the tumor suppressors APC and Axin. Degradation of the autocrine Wnt signaling pathway via mutations in APC and Axin allows the growth of tumors via the growth factor (IGF-1) and growth hormone (GH) pathways.147 This is critical to understanding how tumors develop, and what the role of animal proteins is in cancer proliferation.

The Wnt signaling pathway also plays a major role in the pathogenesis of diabetes, atherosclerosis, osteoporosis and other diseases. Insulin causes upregulation of glucose transporters in the cell membrane in order to increase glucose uptake from the blood, a process which is partially mediated by activation of Wnt/β-catenin signaling, which can increase a cell’s sensitivity to insulin. In particular, Wnt10b is a Wnt protein shown to increase this sensitivity in skeletal muscle cells.148 In other words, Wnt/β-catenin signaling increases efficiency of glucose metabolism, as it is designed to do, while failure results in muscular dystrophy.

The noncanonical Wnt/calcium pathway regulates calcium release from the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) in order to control intracellular calcium levels. Malfunction of this pathway due to chemical imbalances or to degeneration may therefore lead to hypercalcemia or hypocalcemia.149 Wnt signaling is involved in insulin sensitivity, so malfunctioning of its pathway has been implicated in the development of Type II diabetes. More importantly, Wnt signaling is also a strong activator of mitochondrial biogenesis, which leads to increased production of ROS. ROS-induced damage can cause the development of acute hepatic insulin resistance, or injury-induced resistance. Mutations in Wnt signaling-associated transcription factors are also linked to increased susceptibility to Type II diabetes.150

The insulin transduction pathway is influenced by fed and fasting states, stress levels, and by other hormones. When carbohydrates are consumed, digested and absorbed, the pancreas senses the rise in blood glucose concentration and releases insulin to promote an uptake of glucose from the blood stream. When insulin binds on the cellular insulin receptor, it leads to a cascade of processes that promote the usage of or (less commonly) the storage of glucose in the cell.151 The glucose that is isolated is sent to the mitochondria to make ATP, while excess glucose is stored in the cell as glycogen, the cell’s energy reserve.152

As glucose increases, production of insulin increases, which thereby increases the utilization of the glucose, which maintains the glucose levels in an efficient manner and creates an oscillatory behavior.153 It is perfectly evident from this that insulin’s role is more of promoting the usage of glucose in the cells rather than neutralizing or counteracting it.154 What this means, essentially, is that the only foods which are fit for human consumption for turning fuel into energy are those with glucose (i.e. plant foods), while an abundance of fats, fatty acids and amino acids decrease metabolic efficiency while simultaneously enabling the pathogenesis of every degenerative disease. All that remains to be shown is the role which growth factors play in disrupting the metabolism of glucose, and which foods contain or stimulate the production of these hormones, in order to diagnose the cause of all non-infectious disease.

This diagnosis and its prognosis are even direr than they first appear on the surface due to the general failure to recognize the onset of disease prior to the manifestation of obvious symptoms. Obesity by itself is proof positive of the late stages of degenerative disease, not a “risk factor,” as it results from metabolic deficiency, which results, in turn, from eating the wrong things. Consider, therefore, that one out of three Americans over the age of 20 is clinically obese, and two out of three are overweight.155

On November 8, 1994, the New York Times published a story (written by Gina Kolata) which revealed:

1)There is good reason to believe that many very early cancers never become clinically significant.

2) Although 1 percent of women between the ages of 40 and 50 are diagnosed with breast cancer, autopsy studies reveal that 39 percent of women in that age group have breast cancer.

3) 46 percent of men between the ages of 60 and 70 have prostate cancer although only 1 percent are clinically diagnosed.

4) Virtually all people over 50 have thyroid tumors.

5) Cancerous tumors are the ones that have somehow thrown off the usually tight genetic controls on unwanted growth.
Robert Cohen156


If the average life expectancy with modern medicine is about 80 years,157 then clearly we are a long way off from the 120-year lifespan, much less the near-1000 lifespan that our ancestors attained, and everyone across the board dies prematurely. If practically everyone over the age of 50 has a thyroid tumor, then clearly the common factor is poor regulation of endocrine hormones intended to aid metabolism, due to chronic malnutrition and chronic inflammation due to allergic reactions, and therefore to degenerative disease.

Hormones attach to and work on certain types of cells or cell parts to elicit specific responses from them, in a process called binding. Some of these hormones (the human growth hormone and the adrenal hormone epinephrine in particular) have harmful effects when produced in abundance, but the body compensates for this by producing other hormones to keep them in balance. Animal products can affect the pituitary gland and the hypothalamus, which may lead to poor growth and development, and although there are other factors to consider for human growth and development, diet is by far the most important.

In spite of the dairy industry’s success in convincing everyone that milk is needed for growth, most people do not even reach their genetic height. Stress is another important factor that is known to cause variation in the levels of GH and IGF-1 in circulation, and animal products are known to increase stress levels, along with these growth hormones.158 As we said earlier, an increase in meat and dairy consumption has been associated with premature onset of adolescence, for instance, in a University of Brighton study published in the journal Public Health Nutrition.159 Elevated estrogen levels, from consumption of dairy especially, increase the risk of cancer and also lead to the early closure of growth plates.

Basically, every hormone which has negative side effects in abundance has an inhibiting hormone designed to prevent damage to the body, and every hormone which does not have negative side effects does not have an inhibitor. These hormones which the body is designed to not let run amok are temporary measures, often emergency response mechanisms, but with some exceptions. (Corticotropin deficiency, for instance, can cause hypoglycemia and hepatitis.) Ideally, they should be virtually absent from the bloodstream, especially in adults. So the inhibiting hormones are evidence of which hormones you do not want in your body. The adult inhibiting hormones are:

Somatostatin, the antagonist of growth hormone-releasing hormone (GHRH, a.k.a. growth-hormone-releasing factor or GHRF).

Dopamine, the inhibitor of prolactin (PRL, a.k.a. luteotropic hormone or LTH), best known for its role in lactation.

Glucocorticoids (GCs), the inhibitors of corticotropin-releasing hormone (CRH), the body’s response to stress and depression, known especially for its role in Alzheimer’s.

Anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH), or Müllerian inhibiting factor or Müllerian inhibiting hormone, the inhibitor or thyrotropin-releasing hormone (TRH) and therefore another inhibitor of prolactin, as well as of thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH).

Galanin, which modulates and inhibits action potentials in neurons, such as insulin release in pancreatic beta cells.

Inhibin, the inhibitor of follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), a glycoprotein which regulates the body’s development, growth, pubertal maturation and reproductive processes—inhibin also therefore effectively inhibits testosterone, though testosterone increase is not known to be inherently harmful to the body, even though it certainly could be considered to be harmful to the mind and soul as a major factor in aggression.

Progestogens, which basically inhibit lactation and other reproductive functions outside the context of pregnancy (which they maintain and regulate), but this is an oversimplification.

Secosteroid, the active form of vitamin D3, which increases absorption of calcium and phosphate from the gastrointestinal tract and kidneys, while therefore inhibiting release of parathyroid hormone (PTH). When blood calcium level is too low, PTH causes it to increase by targeting bone, the intestines and the kidneys. Secosteroid is therefore integral to the prevention of osteoporosis and other concerns related to calcium or phosphate deficiency.

There are other secondary counter-regulatory functions besides these (e.g., insulin secretion is regulated both by glucagon and by epinephrine), but the major inhibiting functions are basically why the inhibiting hormones exist. These inhibiting hormones all perform necessary functions that are essential to overall health. The hormones which they inhibit do the same, but the role of the inhibiting hormones is to keep the others in proper balance. Too much of any of these hormones is what causes degenerative disease. So let us briefly examine the functions of the inhibited hormones in order to show how proper balance is necessary for health, and how imbalances induced by diet lead to disease and death.

Glucagon is released by alpha cells in the pancreas when glucose levels in the blood are low, in order to stimulate the liver to release glucose to the blood stream, a process called gluconeogenesis. It also works with epinephrine (adrenaline) to stimulate the breakdown of glycogen stores to create glucose, a process called glycogenolysis. This is the effect of malnutrition (poor glucose nourishment) which leads to diabetes.

Insulin is released by beta cells in the pancreas when glucose and amino acid levels in blood are rising. It increases the rate of glucose uptake and metabolism. As insulin and glucagon are antagonists, hyposecretion due to malnutrition results in diabetes.

Parathyroid hormone is produced by the chief cells of the thyroid gland. When calcium levels in the blood fall to dangerous levels, it causes an increase by targeting bone, the intestines and the kidneys, which leads to osteoporosis. Hyperparathyroidism results in hypercalcemia, and hypoparathyroidism results in hypocalcemia. Hypoparathyroidism may become irreversible due to chronic magnesium deficiency (i.e. absence of leafy green vegetables in diet); PTH is inhibited by both hypomagnesemia and hypermagnesemia. (This is why many omnivores suffer from severe bone wasting and most develop thyroid tumors later in life.)

Calcitonin is produced by the parafollicular cells of the thyroid gland in response to rising calcium levels in the blood. It depresses calcium levels by inhibiting bone matrix resorption and enhancing calcium deposit in bone. As parathyroid hormone and calcitonin are antagonists, calcitonin prevents and counteracts osteoporosis.

Somatotropic hormone, or somatotropin or growth hormone (GH), stimulates growth of all body tissues, especially skeletal muscle and bone. It may act directly, or indirectly via insulin-like growth factors (IGFs) by mobilizing fats, stimulating protein synthesis and inhibiting glucose uptake and metabolism. Secretion is stimulated by growth hormone-releasing hormone (GHRH), which is inhibited, in turn, by growth hormone-inhibiting hormone (GHIH), or somatostatin. Hypersecretion causes gigantism in children and acromegaly in adults, and hyposecretion in children causes pituitary dwarfism.

Somatostatin, or growth hormone-inhibiting hormone (GHIH), is the inhibitor and antagonist of GHRH, and therefore of GH, as well as of glucagon, and of thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH). As an overactive or underactive thyroid means poor long-term metabolic regulation, somatostatin is the most important hormone in the body, and by far the most essential to disease prevention. It also reduces smooth muscle contractions and blood flow within the intestine, inhibits release of insulin from beta cells and glucagon from alpha cells, and suppresses the exocrine secretory action of the pancreas. Beyond this, somatostatin also suppresses release of gastrin, cholecystokinin (CCK), secretin, motilin, vasoactive intestinal peptide (VIP), gastric inhibitory polypeptide (GIP), and enteroglucagon in the gastrointestinal system, while lowering gastric emptying rates. (The amount of time that food spends in the gastrointestinal system for reasons other than constipation is a clear indication of how nutritious it is. The longer it stays there, the more useful it is to the body in terms of vitamin and mineral absorption. Foods that are toxic lower pH, in order that they can be digested quickly, because they need to be processed quickly; somatostatin is evidently designed to neutralize the hormonal effects of animal proteins in order to make them digestible, as it is induced by low pH. In other words, your body produces it as an autoimmune response when acidic foods are absorbed into the blood stream. Eating alkaline fruits and vegetables increases metabolic efficiency, thereby eliminating both the need to produce somatostatin, and the diet-induced growth factors it is designed to work against, which are in meat and dairy products. Conversely, it also fails in its task when milk is consumed, because milk buffers gastric pH, so the growth factors both in milk and in meat digested at the same time as milk counteract the body’s normal secretion of somatostatin. This is one of the main reasons that milk is the perfect pathogen, because it circumvents the body’s main immune response and delivers its toxicity with very little hormonal inhibition.)

Glucocorticoids are a class of steroid hormones produced in the adrenal cortex that regulate the metabolism of glucose and stimulate gluconeogenesis. They are part of the feedback mechanism in the immune system that turns immune activity (inflammation) down. Consequently, they are used as over-the-counter medications to treat inflammation brought about by allergies (especially food allergies). However, this use is counterproductive to health, and actually contributes to disease by weakening the immune system rather than aiding autoimmune response mechanisms. (This is exactly the point of administration; in the minds of those taking medications, treatment of the symptoms obviates the need to remove the cause of the illness. For some odd reason, this is seen as preferable to removing the poison that the body rejects.) Like calcitonin, glucocorticoids inhibit glucose uptake in muscle and adipose tissue and stimulate fat breakdown in adipose tissue. (In other words, it causes the body to focus its immunological and digestive efforts on the source of the harm to itself—namely, the animal proteins—by switching from glucose metabolism to glucose synthesis from stored fats.)

Epinephrine, a.k.a. adrenaline, is another adrenal hormone which, like glucocorticoids, act on nearly all body tissues, along with its previously discussed role as a neurotransmitter. High levels of epinephrine cause smooth muscle relaxation in the airways, leading (temporarily) to greater muscle strength, but also to contraction of the smooth muscle that lines most arterioles, thus posing a risk for those with arteries that are already constricted by plaque buildup. (This is why someone can have a heart attack by being frightened.) Epinephrine’s binding to receptors triggers a number of metabolic changes, ranging from inhibition of insulin secretion by the pancreas to stimulation of glycogenolysis in the liver and muscle, and of glycolysis in muscle, as well as inhibition of glucagon secretion in the pancreas, among other things. Together, these effects lead to increased blood glucose and fatty acids, providing substrates for energy production within cells throughout the body. Put another way, epinephrine has roughly the same effect on the whole body (especially muscles) as glucagon does on the liver, and is an emergency response to produce energy quickly in survival situations to compensate for sharp increases in energy output.

These are the main hormones that are inhibited by other hormones, and therefore the ones we would expect to see as disease markers when levels are persistently elevated. (Epinephrine, for example, can cause high blood pressure, which is associated with coronary heart disease.) Now, we have mentioned the importance of growth factors in the pathogenesis of diseases (and especially of the proliferation of tumors) several times. The most important of these are the human growth hormone (GH) and its proxies, the insulin-like growth factors (IGFs), especially IGF-1. IGFs are named for their shape, which resembles that of insulin, and which enables them to interact with insulin receptors on cells, albeit at a much reduced capacity compared to insulin. Every enzyme is like a complex key designed to fit with a specific lock (a protein) to which it binds; every hormone (which is an enzyme) is like a key designed to fit the lock of the receptors of the body’s cells. IGFs essentially trick the insulin receptors because of their insulin-like shapes, leading to all kinds of metabolic complications.

Local production of IGFs, which takes place in the liver, appears to be important for producing acute metabolic and long-term, growth-promoting effects. In vivo, bolus injections of IGF-1 and IGF-2 cause insulin-like effects on glucose homeostasis and metabolism, but no effect on lipid synthesis.160 These IGFs function primarily as a tumor progression factor via the autocrine and endocrine mechanisms discussed above.161 IGF-BP (IGF binding protein) activity is significantly higher in cancer extracts, suggesting that higher IGF-BP activity in cancer tissue is involved in regulating growth of thyroid papillary carcinoma cells.162 MCF-7 (the most famous and widely studied breast cancer) cells proliferate in response to nanomolecular concentrations of IGF-1 and IGF-2.163

GH and its agents do not discriminate between cells; they cause all cells (including cancer cells) to reproduce.164 Children and adolescents are more at risk because their bodies produce more growth hormones. (Drinking milk as a child means greatly accelerated cancer growth, which is essentially why children tend to be so susceptible to leukemia.) Get cancer from eating the wrong things or from prolonged exposure to toxic chemicals (oxidative stress), and you cause tumors by adding growth hormones to the mix; stop growth hormones, and you stop tumor growth, and therefore the threat of cancer, altogether. Antioxidants are not even necessary: simply fasting can slow (if not stop) rapid cancer proliferation.

As we have said, hormones are complex chemical compounds designed to carry out specific functions. So it would be truly remarkable if any hormone was found to exist as identical between two or more species. In fact, the only one known to exist that is the same between multiple species is the growth hormone of humans, which we have in common with cows. When we drink cow milk, we are taking the most powerful growth hormone which our bodies naturally produce,165 just as if we were drinking human milk, except that it is a hormone designed to turn a 90-pound calf into a 800-pound cow in just 13 months.166 This, in a nutshell, is why so many people are obese.

Bovine somatotropin (BST) or bovine growth hormone (BGH) is mediated by IGF-1 and IGF-1 receptors in humans. As IGF-1 is identical in cows and humans, it is assumed that that IGF-1 which allows BGH to bind/function in cows does the same in humans. So the fact that the growth hormone (BST) intended to turn a calf into a cow binds when it is ingested by humans accounts not only for obesity in humans, but also for diseases related to elevated hormonal levels, particularly breast cancer and prostate cancer.167

Clark Grosvenor (an endocrinologist) published a review of known hormones and growth factors in milk for the Endocrine Society in 1982: pituitary, hypothalamic, pancreatic, thyroid, parathyroid, adrenal, gonadal and gut hormones (plus growth factors).168 Evidence of corticosteroids was discovered in milk in 1956; since then hundreds of other proteins and steroid hormones, estrogen, progesterone and calcitonin have been detected. The function of IGF-1 was discovered in 1978.169 This is probably when Monsanto got the idea to increase milk production by creating their recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST or rBGH), which was first submitted for FDA approval in 1988.

IGF-1 is a primary mediator of the effects of GH. Production of IGF-1 occurs in the liver and is stimulated by GH, and can be retarded by undernutrition, growth hormone insensitivity, lack of GH receptors, or failures of the downstream signaling pathway.170 Although it binds to the insulin receptor, as to its own (IGF1R), its potency for activation is only about one tenth that of insulin.171 So clearly it was not actually designed for that purpose.

The fact that IGF-1 signaling has a role in aging is clearly understood, though the details of this role are not. In vitro experiments show that reducing signaling can extend lifespans in many organisms, and this is thought to be the reason why calorie restriction produces anti-aging effects.172 Fasting can reduce IGF-1 levels rapidly and dramatically,173 which is undoubtedly the hidden meaning behind Yahshuah’s remark in Matthew 17:21 and Mark 9:29, which we will examine later.

The role of IGF-1 signaling in cancer and diabetes is also inferred from the fact that people with Laron syndrome (dwarfism) have remarkably low rates of both;174 it was previously thought that administration of IGF-1 might cure Laron syndrome, but people with this genetic disposition do not even have the necessary receptors for growth factors to stimulate. Osteogenic sarcoma typically occurs during adolescent growth spurts and is dependent on signaling through IGF-1 receptors in vitro survival and proliferation.175 The fact that it works with other hormones to produce tumors is well-accepted and unchallenged by physicians and researchers; for instance, IGF-1 has been shown to facilitate ovarian cancer proliferation, interacting with estradiol to regulate it.176 When glucagon and GH are combined with rBGH, they augment increased levels of IGF-1 up to twelvefold.177

The induction of IGF-1 with dexamethasone triggers a 29.5-fold increase in IGF-1 secretion.178 Dexamethasone is a synthetic glucocorticoid, which, as we have described, is a steroid produced by the adrenal cortex to regulate metabolism of glucose. Dexamethasone is used to treat inflammation from allergies (i.e. to combat the body’s immunoreactive attempts to purge itself of food particle pathogens). It is also used in high doses to treat cancer, and to mitigate the side effects of anticancer drugs.179 Does the huge increase in IGF-1 secretion suggest that eating the flesh of slaughtered animals who are terribly frightened and struggle to break free at the end of their lives, and whose bodies are therefore full of adrenal hormones, greatly increases the risk factor of IGF-1 consumption from milk? If nothing else, it suggests that the drugs used to treat the symptoms of the disease actually aggravate the effects of its cause exponentially.

IGF-1 had been implicated as being critically involved in the aberrant growth of human breast cancer cells as early as 1991. IGF-2 has also been implicated by many studies as having an autocrine regulatory function in breast cancer. One study found a tenfold increase in cancerous mRNA levels in breast cancer cells treated with IGF-1.180 By the late 1990s, it had been observed to play a significant role in the proliferation of pancreatic cancer cells, and the regulation of glucose metabolism in central nervous system tumors, human colorectal tumors and colon carcinoma cell lines.181 IGF-1 produced locally by thymic and bone marrow cells has been implicated in B- and T-cell lymphopoiesis.182 It has also been shown to lower hemoglobin counts.183

The transcription of IGF-2 genes leads to the production of significant amounts of IGF-2, which stimulate the proliferation of MSRCT (cancerous growths) by interaction with IGF-1 receptors on the cells.184 IGF-2 acts as an autocrine growth and motility factor in human rhabdomyosarcoma cell lines. (All tumor specimens examined expressed the gene for IGF-2, and this expression was localized to the tumor cells and not to surrounding stroma.)185 IGF-2 has been associated with hepatocellular carcinoma (the most common type of liver cancer, usually resulting from viral hepatitis infection or cirrhosis),186 and has been clearly implicated as a growth factor in Wilms' tumorigenesis.187

The biological effects of IGF-1 are initiated by its binding to the IGF-1 receptor, which is able to transduce mitogenic and metabolic signals, supporting the hypothesis that the IGF-1 receptor is involved in the development of diabetic vascular complications.188 Only the unbound IGFs seem to have any role in pathogenesis; comparing the amount of unbound IGFs to disease rates would be virtually impossible without examining a wide range of people’s diets with a wide range of factors, but this would provide the clearest indication of its exact function in the pathogenesis of each disease that we would then have. The most important cross-segment for this type of study would obviously be lifelong vegans. Nutritional studies that do factor in data from vegans never adequately account for the duration of lifestyle, nor even for how strict the diet actually is.

Age certainly plays a role in IGF-1 levels, as they are inversely proportional to age. One study found that 20-30 year old males have 950 ng/L while 60-year-olds have 410 ng/L.189 Another found that plasma levels of IGF-1 are highest in 12-year-old girls and 14-year-old boys, with concentrations reaching 2 to 3 times those in adults.190 In other words, the body produces exactly what it needs for growth spurts. This debunks the notion that milk benefits children and adolescents and establishes that it is harmful for the same reason.

In spite of all this, neither GH nor IGF-1 is inherently destructive or disease-producing, nor are they at all naturally out of proportional balance for health. Rather, they are, like all endogenous hormones, part of the body’s self-regulatory systems. The only thing that really matters in terms of hormonal balance (other than stress factors) is exogenous intake. It is the dairy industry and all the people who mindlessly repeat its marketing slogans who believe (or at least profess) that the body does not naturally produce what it needs to sustain itself when sufficient amounts of water and the right foods are consumed, and that we need to throw it out of balance by overconsumption of these disease agents.

That being said, the amount of IGF-1 in humans is about 500,000 ng. A 12-ounce glass of milk has about 3000 ng.191 The number of nanograms of free and unbound IGF-1 (meaning the amount which has the potential to affect the body’s delicate hormonal balance) is actually equal to the same amount contained in a 12-ounce glass of “organic” milk.192 That means there are 3000 ng of free IGF-1 molecules in the human body out of a total of 500,000, yet the FDA, when declaring its decision to approve Monsanto’s rBGH, decided that the amount of IGF-1 in cow milk is biologically insignificant.193

The premise (or, rather, the excuse) for this line of reasoning, which has been repeated by the establishment again and again since the early 1990s, is that the digestive process breaks down the proteins, so they are not absorbed into the blood stream. This is, of course, patently absurd and, if it were true, would totally defeat the purpose of rBGH administration, not to mention the animal farming industry as a whole. After all, the same reasoning could just as easily be applied to humans, who have the exact same growth hormone as cows, yet no one except the FDA and Monsanto will say that human breast milk has no growth effect on humans, which they only do because admitting that it does is tantamount to admitting the contradiction. Most of us were told, when we were children, to drink our milk because we needed it to help us grow, because that is exactly what the dairy industry told our parents, and what they told them to tell us.

The reason that the notion that milk proteins are not absorbed into the blood stream (upon which the presumed safety of drink cow milk is entirely predicated) is so absurd is that drinking milk coats the stomach and changes the gastric pH from about 1.8-2.0 to about 6, which causes proteins (as well as bacteria) to survive stomach digestion.194 Animal studies have proved this; in rat experiments, the amount of IGF-1 mRNA in the liver was positively associated with dietary casein and negatively associated with a protein-free diet.195 With milk buffering the gastric pH, hormones of all types survive digestive processes. Consequently, IGF levels in the body may actually increase from drinking a single glass of milk as much as ninefold.196 Advocates of organic milk would have us believe that conventional milk would be perfectly safe for human consumption if not for Monsanto’s addition of rBST and other things such as antibiotics, but the actual difference in IGF-1 levels between organic and conventional is negligible: 2.73 ng/mL in organic versus 3.12 ng/mL in conventional.197

Furthermore, fat molecules in homogenized milk further protect hormones from breakdown.198 There is a correlation between nations which homogenize milk and death rates from degenerative heart disease,199 suggesting that homogenized milk is even worse than regular milk. The reason for this is that fat molecules become one-tenth their original size during homogenization and are therefore more resistant to digestion.200 This suggests that the difference between the toxicological effects of animal fats and the medicinal effects of plant fats is probably reducible to changes in pH, if not sheer quantity or even type. (If fats from fruits and vegetables enter the blood stream along with carbohydrates due to increased pH, then they should not be toxic because they should not change hormones the way IGF-1 and other factors do.) Fats such as caseins (the main proteins in milk), decreased size of fat globules (as a result of homogenization) increasing cellular permeability, and lowering of gastric pH all contribute to hormonal survival and activity.201

Milk was clearly designed so that it would inhibit enzymatic breakdown, in order to give nursing infants of every species exactly what they need to grow. As such, it is also the integral part, where flesh is the contingent part, of the recipe for death, because it is the vehicle for a wide range of biological pathogens, from bacteria and acids to exogenous hormones. So perhaps God knew what he was doing after all when he gave his law to the Israelites and told them that they needed to obey it in order to live. Maybe it was the role which milk plays in protecting other proteins from digestion which caused God to tell the Israelites not to cook a young goat in its mother’s milk (Deuteronomy 14:21). Then again, that particular command obviously has to do with the utter cruelty of that act, and we only even mention it because Jews and Christians cannot seem to comprehend that God detests murder altogether, even without such blatant moral atrocities as that one.

The substantiation to show that consumption of meat and dairy products is responsible for all degenerative diseases in humans was fairly difficult for us to come up with on our own, though that is what we inferred and concluded from the evidence we examined. It was not until the latter stages of the present book’s composition (the rest had already been written) that we delved into this matter deeply enough to find that it had already been covered by the scientific literature, albeit from the myopic perspective of demonizing homogenized milk specifically. The reason for this is that this is still considered scientific heresy, for no other apparent reason than that it would put a lot of pharmaceutical companies and hospitals out of business if it were ever to come to light, not to mention its impact on agriculture.

The main body of literature focuses on the role of a certain enzyme called xanthine oxidase (XO), which is a by-product of oxidation, and therefore already identifiable as a cancer agent. Correlations have been made between consumption of bovine milk xanthine oxidase (BMXO) and atherosclerosis, and between homogenization and the same.202 Presence of BMXO antibodies proves milk proteins survive digestion and are absorbed into the blood stream, contrary to the prevailing wisdom of the dairy industry and the FDA.203 Not only that, but it also proves that the human body treats BMXO as a toxin, which should be obvious anyway, considering that humans are lactose intolerant.

According to the literature concerning XO’s role in pathogenesis, XO causes oxidative stress damage in plasmogen, which is an integral structural and functional component of cell membranes. Plasmogen comprises up to 40% of the protein-lipid bilayer enveloping cells outside the digestive tract, and is abundant in heart muscle, white matter brain cells, the myelin sheath of nerves (including neural axons), skeletal muscle, skin and connective tissue, eye lens and seminal fluid. Its relative absence from the liver, the gall bladder, the bile duct and the inner lining of the small intestine is attributed to endogenous XO activity.204

Lack of plasmogen has been associated with myocardial infarction, and the pain of a heart attack is thought to be the manifestation of enzymatic action on the phospholipid-rich myelin sheath of sensory nerve endings in the heart.205 That is to say that the same thing which causes neurodegenerative disease is also responsible for the pain of a heart attack. The heart attack itself is commonly induced by atherosclerosis. If we apply the same logic to other maladies, then the damage which XO does to the myelin sheath of other nerve endings is clearly implicated in all types of pain, such as in toothaches brought about from a combination of osteoporosis and bacteria infestation.

Xanthine oxidase is a main generator of reactive oxygen species during inflammation, and is therefore already linked to about 50 individual illnesses, including all the ones we have described.206 Humans consume this enzyme in organ meats like liver and kidney (which are also prized by meat-eaters for their B12 content), but cooking inactivates it. The primary dietary source of active XO is cow milk and its derivatives. One liter of cow milk contains 120 to 180 mg of XO.207

Practically all milk consumed by humans is homogenized. The homogenization process traps XO between the concentric layers of membranes of milk fat liposomes, thereby shielding them from stomach acids, and then, when they are absorbed into the blood stream, from immune system antibodies. Normally, white blood cells destroy XO and other pathogens by phagocytosis, and this function is performed everywhere in the body.208 The body’s failure to combat the antigens is therefore due mostly to overload. This would imply a proportional increase of inflammation (and therefore earlier onset of disease) with the amount of milk consumed, and especially with the amount of homogenized milk consumed.

A single glass of homogenized milk (240 ml, or about 8 fl. oz.) is all it takes to neutralize an average amount of hydrochloric acid in the stomach, creating a pH of about 6 (almost neutral, and completely ineffective for digestion). This leaves 75-90% of the XO ingested intact and active upon entering the small intestine.209 Even less inflammatory substances, ingested regularly at lower levels, are likely to cause chronic inflammation, so it is no wonder that everyone who drinks milk experiences acute inflammation and that everyone who drinks it regularly has chronic inflammation.

People who experience inflammatory flare-ups, or parents who see them in their children, may think that the problem is resolved once the inflammation dies down, but in fact the flare-ups are only signs of chronic inflammation, during which the cell membranes are at greater risk of quick destruction. Naturally, such episodes will be more indicative of chronic inflammation in a case where the individual is not reacting to a known food allergy. Furthermore, lesions can be either internal or external, and there is no reason to assume that problems with the bowels and kidneys (such as occult gastrointestinal bleeding or elevated levels of ketone bodies—both clear indicators of chronic inflammation resulting from consumption of animal proteins instead of plant proteins and carbohydrates) are not evidence of internal lesions. The good news is that chronic inflammation can be healed, assuming that the poison is removed from the body, as oxidative stress happens in cycles which are interspersed with healing. The bad news is that the body’s way of healing oxidative stress is by smooth muscle cell proliferation, plaque buildup and scar formation, all of which interfere with organ and tissue functions, resulting in degenerative disease (especially atherosclerosis).210

Inflammation is only the end of the process of stress or irritation; it is just a symptom of disease. Before any inflammatory flare-up there is a whole cascade of processes at the cellular level. This is why hormones play such a large part in degenerative disease, and why it is so important to let the inflammation do its work to heal the body and allow it to purge itself of the pathogen, rather than taking hormone-suppressing (anti-inflammation) drugs, which can only exacerbate the problem. (Indeed, this is what glucocorticoid medications are designed to do.) Without the triggered release of certain hormones initiated by the cascade, the metabolic catalysts are largely ineffective.

Before XO can break down plasmogen, it needs the help of another enzyme called phospholipase A2 (PLA2). PLA2 is stored in human cells, but must be activated before it can break down plasmogen and then allow XO to do the same, thereby leading to degenerative disease. PLA2 is activated by a combination of calcium and the adrenal hormones epinephrine and norepinephrine.211 The activated PLA2 and XO then work together to eat away at the plasmogen in the myelin sheaths of nerves which otherwise insulate them and protect them from damage.

Plasmogen depletion is most strongly associated with cardiovascular disease. It has been observed that the heart almost always stops beating during a heart attack because of electrical malfunction rather than a diminished oxygen supply due to the clogging of arteries.212 This necessarily implies that the leading cause of death is plasmogen degeneration due to a diet inclusive of animal products.

Plasmogen depletion is also the cause for many other diseases. In the myelin sheath of nerves it is the cause of multiple sclerosis. For example, in the brain’s white matter, it leads to cognitive decline in all individuals, and in some cases, the full range of neurodegenerative diseases (encephalopathies) such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s. Under the skin, it can result in psoriasis or lupus, which are only exaggerated types of chronic inflammation, as we have already described it. In the joints, it leads to pseudogout and arthritis, which are exacerbated by plaque buildup resulting from high calcium intake and poor absorption, and from scar formation resulting from further inflammation.213

The real question, then, for pinpointing the dietary cause for disease, is a matter of quantity. One could argue that xanthine oxidase and phospholipase A2 are both prevalent in the body already, and that there is therefore no substantial correlation between milk or dairy products and degenerative disease. So we must turn to the numbers to demonstrate that the body produces what it needs, and that any excess of anything which is already dangerous to begin with is what leads to deterioration.

To reiterate the point that one species’ milk is not fit for another’s, the evidence in the case of humans who drink cow milk is overwhelmingly negative. Cow milk contains 103.9 ImU/ml of XO, while human milk has 7.3 ImU/ml (about fifteen times less). Its activity is up to twenty times lower, owing to the relatively low amounts of molybdenum in human milk. While some might take this to mean that it is only cow milk which is responsible for disease, it is, in fact, the increase in pathogens, as we have described. So while other forms of milk are certainly less destructive to human health, the fact that they are indeed destructive is what matters. That being said, the quantity of XO is 10.7 ImU/ml in goat milk, and 9.9 ImU/ml in ewe milk214—still higher than human milk, and humans should not be drinking human milk after weaning, either.

As far as the hormones are concerned, it has been demonstrated that bovine milk xanthine oxidase activity is stimulated by androsterone and testosterone, and inhibited by certain estrogens, as well as progesterone.215 The result is that men are more susceptible to degenerative disease than women, before menopause, and that after menopause the risk factors tend to even out (which accounts for why elderly women are more susceptible to osteoporosis than younger women). XO activity is further exacerbated by metals such as molybdenum and iron (found in milk and meat, respectively, as well as in high-protein plant foods, particularly legumes), and by sterols, including vitamins D2 (sunlight-derived) and D3 (animal- or plant-derived).216

As for phospholipase A2, which is required to activate the xanthine oxidase and produce the negative results, this enzyme is actually secreted by the pancreas in order to initiate glycolysis or gluconeogenesis. The purpose of pancreatic sPLA2 is to promote inflammation by catalyzing the first step of a pathway used to break down phospholipids.217 As well as being the essential components of dietary fats, phospholipids are also a common food additive in the form of lecithin, which is also found in foods that have an impact on hormonal levels, such as eggs and soybeans. Consumption of animal fats stimulates secretion of sPLA2, which is secreted to break down the proteins; too much secretion inevitably causes breakdown of the body’s own cells.

Secretion of sPLA2 leads to inflammation (as intended) and to thrombogenecity, or development of blood clots. Sterols (including cholesterol) are produced to prevent the phospholipids from packing together, thus enabling the formation of arterial plaques which they are actually designed to prevent (in smaller quantities, and when calcium is properly absorbed, and in the absence of binding proteins which counteract this—casein in particular), while corticosteroids are secreted to regulate metabolism. On top of its role with XO in plasma depletion, increased levels of sPLA2 are associated with inflammatory diseases and their effects, such as coronary artery disease and acute coronary syndrome, as well as acute respiratory distress syndrome, and progression of tonsillitis, asthma and ocular surface inflammation (dry eye).218

Based on extensive study, it has been determined that death rates from coronary heart disease positively correlate to milk, country-by-country.219 However, it is not just milk under our microscope; all animal proteins are to blame for disease. The secretion of sPLA2 is what starts the disease cascade, and this is only induced by malnutrition, either from eating nothing (which cannot possibly produce the effects of inflammation, but can still become a problem once eating is resumed, depending on what is eaten), or from eating a low-carbohydrate diet (any diet wherein less than 20% of total calories are from carbohydrates), specifically. What it all comes down to is not getting enough plant food in your diet, with the risk being dramatically increased by the consumption of animal proteins. Even endogenous XO has the capacity to harm you only if you are not eating plant foods, and only if your blood sugar is low enough to stimulate gluconeogenesis (the body’s last-ditch effort to save itself from starvation, which also happens to be how it gets rid of stored fat); otherwise it is inert.

So the fact that absorption of animal proteins causes the secretion of the specific hormones necessary for triggering immunological response mechanisms, and thus for the pathogenesis of degenerative disease, leading to premature aging and death, is evidence not just of the fact that the body treats every instance of the consumption of animal products as a threat to its own life, but also that it is a threat—that we are designed to get sick and die if (and only if) we eat them. While the actual significance of this may not be readily apparent, it does answer the question of how and why the only people shown in Scripture to suffer from plagues (meaning, inflammation flare-ups sufficient enough to produce lesions) are those who refuse to conform to God’s expectations concerning their diets. In summary, there is a way of eating which nourishes life, and a way of eating which brings about death.

The Way of Life: When you eat low-protein alkaline plant-based foods, stomach acids and digestive enzymes work with saliva to break down food macromolecules so they can be absorbed by the small intestine. Excess is pushed as solid waste through the intestines quickly and efficiently as dietary fiber, increasing metabolic efficiency and the absorption of more nutrients (vitamins and minerals, via colonic fermentation) into the blood stream. Phagocytes clean up the pathogens and unwanted bacteria from the blood stream. The rise in blood glucose level triggers the secretion of insulin, which inhibits glucagon secretion and transports the glucose to the cells, where it is converted into energy. The rise in blood calcium levels triggers the secretion of calcitonin, which inhibits parathyroid hormone secretion and transports calcium to the cells, where it is deposited in bone. The secosteroid cholecalciferol (vitamin D3) is metabolized in our skin (from 7-dehydrocholesterol) when exposed to sunlight, thus aiding further absorption of calcium and phosphate from the gastrointestinal tract. Calcium absorption also stimulates insulin secretion in the pancreas, a process which is further aided by dietary magnesium, particularly from the chlorophyll of green plants. Dietary nitric oxide from green plants nourishes and sustains cells, preventing cell damage and programmed cell death. Pathogens neutralized by phagocytes and excess nutrients are both filtered out of the blood stream through the liver and kidneys, a process which is facilitated by adequate hydration. Absence of pathogens and acidic compounds keeps the blood pH neutral rather than provoking an inflammation response, which keeps the blood stream clean, and the body in good health.

The Way of Death: When you eat high-protein acidic animal-based foods, acidity causes bacteria to multiply greatly, causing mouth diseases and wearing down of tooth enamel prior to digestion. Stomach acids and digestive enzymes are unable to adequately break down food molecules quickly and efficiently, leading to bloating, and to constipation or diarrhea. Acidic compounds which survive stomach digestion are absorbed by the small intestine, lowering blood pH and causing the organs to compensate by releasing certain chemicals to produce acid-base homeostasis (which, though seen as perfectly normal and healthy, is essentially a fallback mechanism which enables us to survive short-term malnutrition). Excess remains in the intestines as solid waste until ingestion of dietary fiber and carbohydrates compensate for decrease in metabolic efficiency. Lack of dietary fiber prevents absorption of nutrients (vitamins and minerals) into the blood stream. Phagocytes attempt to clean up the pathogens (especially triglycerides) and bacteria from the blood stream, but are inundated, leading to increased production of both white blood cells, causing inflammation, and therefore autoimmune disease, and of several hormones, and therefore other degenerative diseases. The rise in blood triglyceride (cholesterol) levels triggers the release of phospholipase A2, which is secreted to break down the proteins by destroying cholesterol bonds. Increased PLA2 levels initiate damage to the cholesterol membranes of cells throughout the body, particularly along the arterial walls as cholesterol plaques, causing inflammation damage, a process which is greatly exacerbated by dietary xanthine oxidase, contributing to oxidative stress, and therefore carcinogenesis. Severe oxidative stress causes signaling pathway damage, leading to all types of degenerative diseases and metabolic problems, as well as immune system failure, as phagocytes cannot compensate for the extra burden, leading to the out-of-control spread of apoptotic cell debris and therefore tumorigenesis, a process which is greatly exacerbated by the presence of dietary growth factors. Oxidative stress is greatly exacerbated by dietary deficiencies that lead to nitric oxide signaling problems, as well as increased oxidative stress (and therefore carcinogenesis), as free radical superoxide damage is not compensated for. Damage to signaling pathways used to fight off tumor growth causes reperfusion injuries (heart attacks, ischemic strokes) from NO after ischemic periods induced by atherosclerosis, and causes free radical NO to react with superoxide and form peroxynitrite, greatly exacerbating oxidative stress. Damage to the insulin pathway leads to Type II diabetes, while damage to the calcium pathway leads and to a disruption of calcium homeostasis (i.e. either hypercalcemia or hypocalcemia). Dietary magnesium deficiency and iron excess both further inhibit calcium absorption, leading to osteopenic states which, if left uncorrected, result in osteoporosis; excess calcium remains in the blood stream until it bonds to arterial walls or is deposited somewhere else, unless the levels are low enough that adequate hydration allows it to be filtered through the kidneys (otherwise it leads to pseudogout and arthritis). Cholesterol, an essential structural component in all human cell membranes, is utilized in the body’s attempts to heal inflammation damage from PLA2 by depositing at the inflamed areas, where it bonds with blood calcium to form arterial plaque, therefore causing atherosclerosis. Dietary growth factors (GH and IGFs) greatly exacerbate tumorigenesis and inflammation, contributing to immunodeficiency, and therefore the pathogenesis of all infectious and degenerative diseases, a process which is inhibited by several immunological mechanisms, particularly the release of somatostatin, which works against the toxicological and inflammatory effects of growth factors. Other hormones trigger the secretion of several endogenous hormones intended to compensate both for inflammation damage and metabolic inefficiency, especially epinephrine (adrenaline), which inhibits insulin secretion and stimulates glycogenolysis in the liver and glycolysis (as well as glycogenolysis) in muscle tissue, and glucocorticoids, which work to regulate inflammation initiated by dietary proteins. The fall in blood glucose level triggers the secretion of glucagon which, in order to conserve what it can of the existing available energy, inhibits insulin secretion (with the help of epinephrine, in some tissues). These metabolic changes promote a catabolic state in order to compensate for the lack of dietary sources, tapping into the emergency fuel reserves by initiating gluconeogenesis in the liver and (with the help of epinephrine) glycogenolysis elsewhere. Dietary magnesium deficiency causes hypoparathyroidism, as well as hypercalcemia, a process which is exacerbated by excess dietary iron intake; parathyroid hormone (PTH) imbalances lead to thyroid tumors, as well as inhibiting the secretion of calcitonin, which is needed to compensate for bone calcium depletion. Toxic overload from various mutagens/carcinogens in conjunction with excess dietary proteins causes phagocytes to fail to neutralize pathogens, and organs fail both to filter excess waste and to utilize nutrients from the blood stream, causing further inflammation, and leading to the formation of stones, to (metabolic, lactic or renal) acidosis, and to hyperketonemia (ketosis or ketoacidosis), and therefore Type I diabetes, and eventually death. Prions which are not filtered out eventually work their way to the nervous systems, leading to rapidly progressive neurodegenerative diseases for which there are no cures, and which are thus universally fatal.

Now consider how horse testicles and shots of horse semen hit the human food market at the 2010 Hokitika Wildfoods Festival, where overly enthusiastic (possessed) people began ingesting them to enable their sexual promiscuity. The idea is that “horses are all testosterone, they have hardly any cholesterol, so the idea is you’ll have as much zizz as a stallion for a week afterwards.”220 Notice the irony and sheer stupidity of the implication that horse semen is perfectly safe to drink because it is a negligible source of dietary cholesterol—this is truly representative of the average person’s understanding of disease factors. A good question to ask, following this line of inquiry, would be, “If it’s broken down in the stomach, then why does it have this hormonal effect (the ‘zizz’)?”

In any case, you can you see why God’s sense of justice is that taking the body parts and the very lives of thousands of animals over a lifetime just because you like eating them will kill you in the long run. Diseases are intended to bring about death in proportion with the gravity of the sins which have caused them, by the design of the Creator. While a life expectancy of about 80 years may seem long and good in our modern age, compared to what our ancestors might have expected, such a radically short lifespan testifies to God’s heavy-handed enforcement of his sense of justice. We cannot imagine a scenario where the horses were happy to donate their testicles to humans in order that they could have as much “zizz” as a stallion, or any other scientifically unsound reason. Either way, the fact that humans would do it at all, much less revel in it the way they have at Hokitika, means that they are good for absolutely nothing as far as what has been ordained by the Creator, who only even put us here to look after these magnificent creatures.

Then again, some will say that bodily fluids are different from flesh both in terms of the moral implications of stealing them from an animal and in terms of how ingesting them affects your body, so it is important to stress that we do not see any real difference between the two in either respect. They both entail murder (and the dairy industry is arguably far worse in its treatment of farmed animals leading up to that than the meat industry is), and although they are a bit different in terms of what they actually do to your body, milk and eggs both contain even more cholesterol and hormone content than meat. Milk in particular is liquid animal protein (a fact which makes it the most toxic of them all) combined with simple sugars which our bodies are unable to properly digest.

We have focused on milk here simply because evidence of caseins as disease factors is easy to invoke, but in reality, it is all animal proteins which cause degenerative diseases. Eggs, for example, have likewise been positively associated with diabetes and other diseases.221 So although they are a bit different in terms of what they actually do to your body, we do not distinguish between meat, eggs and dairy, in terms of their overall impact on human health (or in their moral implications). It is more a matter of degree, by percentage of protein intake in a person’s diet, than anything. Dairy cows are sent to slaughterhouses when their milk production starts to decrease, so the same drugs that go into rBST-treated milk are also in red meat and mystery meats like hot dogs and sausages, and this is why many countries have banned the import of these meats from the United States.

For those concerned with whether or not the food is organic, as though the “organic” label will somehow miraculously render it safe, the key issue here is whether or not, and to what extent, the food in question has been genetically altered from its ideal state. Animals have been selectively bred for centuries in order to facilitate premature growth and maximize outputs. Chickens reach full maturity and are slaughtered at just 6 weeks of age. Dairy cows naturally produce about 1 quart per day, compared to the 50 quarts that some farmers are able to extract. Even now, dairy cows in India (where per capita dairy consumption is 3 oz/day) still only produce 3 qts/day on average,222 compared to 24 qts in the US.223 There simply is no such thing as organic meat or dairy products, and any notion to the contrary is wishful thinking at best.

Of course, just as with milk, some (the same people, incidentally) will say that it is only eating certain types of meat that pose a health risk, that it is the additives such as sodium nitrate in processed meat which are solely responsible for the adverse health effects of eating meat, and even take it so far as to say that organic grass-fed animal flesh is necessary for human health. There is no scientific basis for this claim; in the end, all it amounts to is more rationalization to justify an untenable position and a dismissal of the mountains of scientific data that have been collected. No honest person would ever draw this conclusion, because the logic is self-defeating, and the conclusion itself has been thoroughly demolished even outside the context of clinical studies which do not account for the reasoning because it is deliberately made to be unfalsifiable. It is a fact, for example, that people advocating this view will not advocate eating raw or unrefrigerated meat (did our supposed cave men ancestors have freezers?), or livers only (which are practically the only source of most of the nutrients which they say we need to eat meat to attain), even as it is a fact that cooking meat at all, at any temperature, produces carcinogens such as HCAs which are directly linked to all types of cancer, and to heart disease.

Given all the disinformation and focus on the wrong variables, the closest thing we have to a comprehensive analysis which would serve as a conclusive proof that eating animal products leads to every disease known to Man is The China Study, the result of a famous decades-long research project orchestrated by the Chinese Academy of Preventive Medicine and by epidemiologists at Cornell University and Oxford University—most notably T. Colin Campbell, the most accomplished and influential epidemiologist of our time, as well as co-author of The China Study. Readers of the present book are directed to that one as the definitive proof that eating animal proteins in general is counterproductive to human health, but a few remarks may be appropriate here.

According to the conclusions drawn from Campbell’s research, genetic imprints from carcinogens lie dormant when protein is removed, and get expressed (or activated) once again when it is readministered. That is, you can literally turn cancer growth off by removing protein from your diet, and then turn it back on by adding it again, so that it starts progressing right where it left off.224 The implication, of course, is that the consequences of malnutrition are cumulative, and that good health requires constant vigilance in the long term, rather than momentary attention (temporary weight loss programs), like eating a salad once a week in place of the daily hamburger. The safe zone for dietary protein seems to be up to about 10%, based on laboratory studies of rats. Immediately after the necessary requirement of protein is met (12% for body growth), particularly in the 12-14% range, Campbell’s data indicate a huge spike in tumor initiation, so dramatically at the high dose level, that a rat being fed a 20% casein diet can be expected to develop cancer within its 2-year lifespan, with more than 99.9% certainty.

This is statistically significant not only because rats require the same percentage of dietary protein as humans do in order to achieve body growth, but because the same conclusive results from casein (i.e. milk protein) do not pertain to plant proteins, including gluten and soy,225 the common scapegoats of the diet faddists, and because the 12-14% range of protein intake which produced the results is considerably less than the American average of 15-16% (and Americans eat too much, as well).226 The implications are that all excess of dietary protein is carcinogenic and otherwise inherently hazardous to human health, and that the nutritional standard necessarily ought to be limiting, as opposed to the arbitrary and overly inflated suggestion of a minimum requirement that it is. In any case, it is clear enough from the research produced in The China Study that genetic modification to any types of food, whether plant- or animal-based, only has the capacity to initiate cancer by altering cell DNA, and that the promotion and progression of all types of cancers are absolutely dependent on dietary protein, so that cancer growth and metastasis are literally impossible with a low-protein diet. Moreover, the body’s protein needs are sufficiently met at the desired level by the type of strictly plant-based diet that a normal vegan would eat, so it cannot be said that a little animal protein is necessary to augment or complement it—only that a little already constitutes too much.

Unfortunately, the results of the China Study are still not as conclusive as we would like. Only three of the sixty-five Chinese counties observed were seen to have any dairy in their diets at all, and none of them relied primarily on dairy for protein, so the dairy factor (that is, the difference between ovo-lacto vegetarians and those eating plant-based diets) has still never been isolated in a massive clinical study. Nevertheless, the authors have determined that dairy is just as toxic to human health as meat is, and in some cases, perhaps even worse.227 (Our only problem with this notion is that it is not just some cases, but that dairy is actually the main culprit, for reasons other than the protein factor, as we have explained. The point here is that the closest thing we have to a comprehensive and objective study of disease pathology effectively eliminates the main cause from consideration, and still comes to the same conclusions.)

One of the two premises that meat is healthy, in spite of all the scientific data to the contrary, is the mistaken belief that our bodies have evolved to adapt to the diet, which is assumed to have been omnivorous, of our ancestors, who are assumed to have eaten it for at least hundreds of thousands of years. All “paleo” diet fads are predicated on these two assumptions, and on the assumption that if they were eating it, then we must have evolved to adapt to it. Of course, this begs the question of why thousands of generations of our ancestors ate something that they had to adapt to, not to mention why it is in our best interest to eat what they were eating, when the average lifespan of the Neanderthals who survived infancy would be giving us our mid-life crises during puberty.

The argument from evolution ought not bother any Christian, nor even any somewhat reasonable person for that matter, but we have formed a rebuttal in Appendix A nevertheless. The assumption that our supposedly nonhuman ancestors ate meat, and that we are therefore adapted to their diet, is easily debunked by the above remark about cooked meat, because they also assume that our ancestors were not intelligent enough to cook their food until so recently that we have not had enough time to adapt as a species, according to the fundamental assumptions about evolutionary adaptation. Nevertheless, this is addressed in Appendix A.10, too, because it always seems to come up.

The other premise is what vegans regularly refer to as the “protein myth” (also covered in Appendix A.1), or the idea that humans need to ingest substantial amounts of the essential amino acids (which together are called “complete proteins”) for good health, and that the only way (or even just the best way) to do this is to eat animal flesh or fish. It is true that animal proteins can facilitate adrenal activation, which means higher muscle energy output. This is useful for professional athletes and bodybuilders who rely on short bursts of energy to achieve temporary strength increases or hypertrophy (muscle building). However, this effect is also why synthetic steroids are illegal, because they are highly toxic to the body and greatly increase the likelihood of chronic disease. Professional sports competitions regularly test athletes to discover them, because they create more energy output per work performed, making competition unfair to whoever is not using them against someone who is, thereby testing not who is the better athlete, but who is ingesting the most poison. Consuming excessive amounts of animal proteins has the same effect, but neither increases muscle strength or endurance, nor improves overall health or fitness. In fact, the extra amino acid intake means quicker muscle repair, which means weaker muscles by amount of tissue.

Furthermore, fat cells synthesize the enzyme aromatase (called estrogen synthetase), which converts testosterone into estradiol.228 So if you are a man and you eat things which make you obese (i.e. animal proteins, because animal proteins are what block insulin reception), you are emasculating yourself and replacing your own sex hormone with the one which is implicated in the development of the homosexual disposition. Once again, this is exactly why soy products are demonized by the dairy industry; the whole basis for the argument against soy milk as a healthy alternative to cow milk is that it elevates estrogen levels, which is really only even a potential problem for pregnant or nursing mothers, infants, and children around the age of puberty. That is to say that the only substantial argument against the safety of soy milk also applies to cow milk, and more so. Not only that, but those who would drink milk or take whey protein supplements in spite of all these dangers just to build muscle mass would do well to realize that testosterone is almost as essential to hypertrophy as growth factors are. (Every bodybuilder should already know this, and it is self-evident in the differences between male and female bodybuilders.)

Hypertrophy of skeletal muscle tissue actually depends on another growth factor called protein kinase B (PKB, or Akt), as does tissue growth in general. One type of Akt called Akt1 is crucial to cell survival. Akt1 is implicated as a major factor in a large number of cancers;229 when combined with the fact that tumor growth is also absolutely dependent on both IGFs (or GH) and methionine, it is no wonder that greatest risk factor for all types of cancer is the consumption of animal proteins. Furthermore, another PKB called Akt2 is a signaling molecule on the insulin signaling pathway, required to induce glucose transport,230 so once again we can see that our bodies are equipped to handle one thing at a time, and that the thing which causes cancer growth is also a marker for diabetes.

It just so happens that Akt’s primary function is to bind phospholipids (cholesterols). In other words, Akt1, which exists to keep your cells alive, also makes use of dietary cholesterol, and it focuses its attention on disease markers, specifically, every time you eat the foods that inundate your blood stream with phosphorus and fat molecules (i.e. meat, but also lecithin, which is in abundance in eggs, as is cholesterol, and in many packaged foods as an additive—dietary lecithin is a waste by-product, usually from processed soy, which is added to many foods as an emulsifier). The fact that Akt1 binds to phospholipids ought to be an indicator that it is also partly responsible for atherosclerosis; unbound Akt1 molecules have the potential to transport animal proteins, and maybe even prions or cancer cells, which would otherwise die without the help of the Akt.

The Akt1 is reassigned to aid in storing the glucose as adipose tissue, which is to say that it makes you fat, even though it was designed to make you lean and strong. Atk1 imbalance (i.e. too much dietary cholesterol) will lead either to tissue growth (i.e. tumors, especially of the thyroid) or even muscular dystrophy (the exact opposite condition from the one you were hoping for, if your intent was to build muscle mass and strength), and Akt2 deficiency will lead to insulin-resistance diabetes—all so your muscles can be a little bigger, and a little weaker, too, than they would have been if you had done the same exercises to build strength instead of muscle mass. Scientists are not sure about the role of Akt3, but it appears to have something to do with the brain,231 so we assume that it has to do with hormone regulation, and therefore glioblastoma (brain tumor) growth, as well as neurodegeneration, by way of its interaction with the phospholipid bi-layer of brain cells, if not the full range of encephalopathies and neuropathies.

In any case, we can all see that hypertrophy is unnatural, while some of us consider it somewhat grotesque, yet strength is valuable, and comes from energy, which is to say, carbohydrates, not proteins—and carbohydrates are not found in meat and dairy at all. All foods with carbohydrates are useful for providing the body with energy to perform tasks, and all foods with lactic acid aid in muscle recovery, but not all aid in increasing muscle capacity. Furthermore, the body stores the carbohydrates it does not immediately use as its energy reserves. The sugar glucose is what endurance athletes need—just like the rest of us—as the body stores it as its most immediate energy reserve (as glycogen). Glycogen also has the benefit of keeping the brain running efficiently, as well as red blood cells and kidney cells.

You might say that eating meat and dairy decreases mental clarity and makes you weak, though this can be counteracted by mental and physical exercises, of course, but why would anyone who wants to become strong consume something which makes him weak? Do not be fooled by big muscles. Big muscles are not indicative of strength or fitness any more than a big head is indicative of intelligence. There are plenty of vegan strongmen and bodybuilders to demonstrate the fallacy, despite the fact that vegans only represent 1% of the population: Patrik Baboumian, current holder of the Germany’s Strongest Man title and of several world records, including the heaviest 10 meter yoke carry (at 550 kg!), is among them. Clearly, the healthiest form of weight gain is by plant-based diet.

It works the same way for healthy weight loss, too. High-protein diet fads routinely advocate reducing the intake of necessary carbohydrates (i.e., malnutrition) to achieve weight loss. In fact, too much protein intake leads to mal-absorption of protein, and therefore severe weight loss and wasting away, called cachexia, which oncologists have identified as the actual cause of death in cancer patients. That is to say that ingesting meat not only causes cancer initiation, progression and metastasis, but death, as well, by providing a fresh supply of the amino acids which the tumors need.

Similarly, animal protein is also the cause of osteoporosis (weakening of the bones due to calcium depletion), because protein inhibits calcium absorption and increases blood and tissue acidity. In order to compensate for the acid buildup, the body pulls calcium from the bones. In other words, animal protein both causes bone decay and prevents the body’s calcium absorption process which naturally counteracts it. Not only that, but cow milk, which is rich in calcium (which the human body cannot even use, due to the protein), inhibits vitamin D activation, thereby destroying the body’s immune system, making it more susceptible to all kinds of diseases. Simply enriching the milk with vitamin D to compensate (as is normally done) does not solve this problem, because the body rejects it altogether. (The human body cannot digest the enzymes in cow milk, just like it cannot adequately digest the carbohydrate lactose.) In contrast, it used to be thought that drinking cow milk was a sure way to develop strong bones, and you have probably heard that at some point in your life, but nutritionists and clinical researchers have demolished that scandalously disingenuous marketing ploy, whether or not the public has put it out of its consciousness.

The basis of the protein myth is that, apart from those who understand the necessities of body growth, no one has any idea how much protein the human body actually needs for optimal health, so the typical approach for authors selling books advocating low-carb diets is to advocate even more animal protein, because there is no such thing as a scientifically attested level of “protein deficiency” (apart from malnutrition/starvation) for their opponents to invoke to show that they are mistaken about the optimal intake. The only benefit from eating animal-based foods which has ever been shown by clinical study is prevention of gastrointestinal cancer, and this is only between the cross-segments of vegans and ovo-lacto vegetarians. In no case whatsoever is it to a person’s nutritional advantage to eat meat, as meat-eaters are far more likely to develop gastrointestinal cancer than are vegans and ovo-lacto vegetarians alike. Even then, the likelihood of a vegan developing any type of cancer is so remote as to not even merit consideration, and some physicians who specialize in gastroenterology say they have never seen such a case.

Yahshuah said, “Whoever believes that the All itself is deficient is completely deficient himself.” Thomas 67

Yahshuah said, “Why do you wash the outside of the cup? Do you not realize that he who made the inside is the same one who made the outside?” Thomas 89

In America, recommendations for protein intake are roughly twice the level necessary for optimal health (i.e., they far exceed any amount in the healthy range),232 and most people in First World countries (Americans and Brits especially) consume far more than that. The RDA of protein is 46 g for women and 56 g for men;233 the actual intake for the average American is 70 g for women and 102 g for men.234 In 2008, the Institute of Medicine’s Planning Committee for Dietary Reference Intakes Review Workshop summarized its findings from ten years of data showing just how inflated and purely psychological the protein dependency really is, as follows:

A shocking 63 percent of women over age 51 appeared to have inadequate [protein] intakes if they consumed more than 50 percent of intake from vegetable sources (these persons were assumed to be vegetarians). This might imply a major nutritional problem among an identifiable subgroup of the United States population, a problem warranting a high priority for action.

However, there is a serious quandary. These analyses were based on requirement expressed as grams per kilogram body weight per day, the original unit in which protein requirements were estimated. The DRI [Dietary Reference Intake, i.e. DRV or DRA] study committee requested that requirements be presented as grams per day applied to reference individuals (omitting any provision for variation in body size) …

We are left with three different estimates of the apparent adequacy of protein intakes among adults in the United States. These range from the inference of the existence of a major public health problem in an identifiable subgroup of the population, to satisfaction that protein intakes are adequate for nearly all persons. But which estimate is valid? How do we determine the “truth” using independent measures? We have no field-applicable measure equivalent to the nitrogen balance criterion used to estimate requirements. That is a most unsatisfactory situation. Unfortunately, parallel situations hold for several other nutrients. How do we validate the estimated prevalence of inadequate intakes if we cannot measure prevalence by direct assessment? These issues are important both for national and regional planning and for scientific validation of requirement estimates, but we have not developed the concepts and tools we need to address them. This is an urgent need for future DRIs.

From my perspective, there are dreams about the things we would like to have for use in developing future DRIs … and there are the realities of whether we can generate them with a foundation in science …

Much depends on the precision wanted/needed in any final application. It also depends on how far we are prepared to abandon science in favor of opinion and judgment.

In the end, we are constrained by a realization that what we dream is desirable and helps drive scientific advancement, but what we must deal with is reality. We must temper our theories, approaches, desires, and dreams with reality. We must always remember that the whole purpose of any DRI process must be to come up with evidence-based information that can be applied to real life. Institute of Medicine of the National Academies235

Considering that this is a report for the National Academy of Sciences, it sure sounds like the rapporteurs are complaining that there is a standard which has been set which is ad hoc, biased and unscientific, cannot be tested in the field, and is not even standardized. Knowing this, we can only wonder what other nutrients have similarly ad hoc DRIs ascribed to them. Might calcium, cholesterol and saturated fat also be among them? After all, it was the agricultural industries (especially the dairy industry) which paid so much for marketing and for government sponsorship that they ultimately decided it was more economical to just buy the government—or at least the FDA, the USDA and a few Congressional subcommittees.

In reality, a typical plant-based diet provides the optimal amount of protein (though there is a great deal of variability in the complete proteins created by combining different foods with different amino acids), and the quality of the protein of most green vegetables is substantially better than any type of meat or dairy product, without all the carcinogens (though pesticides are a major problem with plant foods now). Furthermore, there are several plant-based foods which are better sources of protein (including complete proteins) and much safer to eat or easier to find in their organic forms than meat, such as quinoa, black beans and hemp seeds, so it is not hard for a vegan to get plenty of protein in his diet, even if the desired level is far above the optimal requirement imposed by our Creator, as convention typically insists, without any basis in science. Incidentally, the world’s oldest living human has attained his great age (123 years!) by eating quinoa and chewing coca leaves (which the United Nations saw fit to outlaw the chewing of in 1961: see Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, Article 49, 2.e), and by staying away from “civilization.”236

Now, for those of you who benefit from visual aids, we have a few of them to drive the point home that there is nothing whatsoever inherently wrong with a strictly plant-based diet, even as anything short of that necessarily leads to disease. These are some of the most famous vegan bodybuilders, fitness coaches and fitness models who are active as of 2013. Some are raw vegans (i.e. they do not eat anything that is cooked, including grains and legumes, which are generally considered the best plant-based sources of protein). You decide whether any of them appear to be “protein deficient” or otherwise malnourished.


L to R: Ed Bauer, Kristine and Ryan Belliston, Chad Byers, Raechelle Chase


L to R: Nathane Jackson, Joel Kirkilis, Mike Mahler, Frank Medrano


L to R: Monica Parodi, Marcus Patrick, Marzia Prince, Noel Polanco


L to R: Channa Serenity, Jimi Sitko, Derek Tresize, Koya Webb



The left pic is of me when I was 7 months pregnant. Honestly, I didn’t look that much different AFTER the baby was born either. I weighed 170 lbs, bf [bodyfat] over 30%, wearing size 12 jeans, and large shirts. Pic to the right is my most recent. I’m 124 lbs, bf at 12%, size 0 jeans and small shirts. Not only did my appearance change, but so did my attitude. I’m happier, healthier, and more positive. I had no idea what I was doing in the beginning, but I just started with eating right. Then a little cardio. After that some weights. Antoinette Pacheco237

To be fair, these are people who do an awful lot of exercise, and this is just not practical or even desirable for most people. In order to gauge what kind of impact a healthy diet and exercise regimen would have on the average person, we would need to observe the type of regimen that the average person could actually accomplish. The problem with this is that a plant-based diet is generally seen as the “extreme” component of the vegan lifestyle, just as several hours per day of physical exercise actually would be. In reality, the only reason it is seen as extreme is that it is uncommon, so the necessary implication is that being healthy is what is “extreme.” Changing one’s dietary habits, and even one’s appetite and palate, over time, is easy.

The most extreme plant-based diet is a raw vegan diet, which is actually just natural, because it is exactly what we are designed to eat. Perhaps the most well-known amateur raw vegan food coach on the Internet is Leanne Ratcliffe, a.k.a. Freelee. (The other main contender for this position is Kristina Carrillo-Bucaram, who runs considerably more than Freelee does.) Freelee claims to average about 3000 calories per day, or about twice what the average person actually needs for optimal health, of hardly anything but fruit (bananas, dates, mangoes and durian, in that order) with some greens. In terms of time and energy put into diet and exercise, her lifestyle is so simple and easy that it could be replicated by just about anyone who had the motivation to be healthy. She generally jogs (not runs—jogs) 30-60 minutes every other day, and lifts weights two to three times per week.238 This is one of her “before/after” photos:



Considering just how few people are vegans compared to the general population, as well as what kinds of successes vegans have achieved, a plant-based diet is clearly one of the key markers for success in athletic competitions (along with mental and psychological factors: dedication and a strong work ethic). A generation before Michael Phelps amazed the world with his 21st century world-record swimming performances, the first name among the great sportsmen of the world was undoubtedly Carl Lewis. Lewis was named Sportsman of the Century by the International Olympic Committee, and Olympian of the Century by Sports Illustrated. Lewis is best known for his still-standing world record performances in the 1984 Olympics, and for his nine Olympic gold medals. He is widely considered to be the greatest athlete that has ever lived, so the fact that he has attributed his Olympic successes to his plant-based diet is perhaps the greatest endorsement of any diet for health reasons that one could ever hope for.

I’ve found that a person does not need protein from meat to be a successful athlete. In fact, my best year of track competition was the first year I ate a vegan diet. Moreover, by continuing to eat a vegan diet, my weight is under control, I like the way I look. (I know that sounds vain, but all of us want to like the way we look.) I enjoy eating more, and I feel great. Carl Lewis239

Far from just making a person feel great in terms of their athleticism and aesthetic appearance, becoming a vegan has also been likened to winning a championship by some professional athletes. (Incidentally, this metaphor is also used in the Bible—more on that later.) Fitness guru Anthony Aurelius calls his decision to become a vegan in 2006 “the best thing I feel I have ever done in my life.”240 World-class (as of 2013, current Canadian national champion and World Figure Skating Championships bronze medalist) pairs skater Meagan Duhamel calls going vegan “one of my proudest accomplishments.”

So many people tell me they could never be vegan. I just wish people would understand and realize that it’s really not that difficult, and it’s a choice that we make. I think that it is in everybody’s grasp to be able to make a decision like switching to a vegan lifestyle. Meagan Duhamel241

Some athletes switch to plant-based diets before competitions just because they are aware of the benefits it gives them. For example, World Boxing Organization welterweight champion Timothy Bradley is not a vegan, but he always makes the switch before his fights and enthusiastically claims that it guarantees him the winning edge.242 Tennis superstars Venus and Serena Williams both recently switched to a raw vegan diet when Serena was diagnosed with Sjogrens Syndrome,243 which shows how even world champion athletes motivated purely by self-interest typically wait until it is almost too late before converting to a plant-based diet, once they finally consult a few doctors and find out how it will improve their health. It is no wonder, then, that a vegan tennis player like Vicki Cosio, in her late 40s, can keep up with girls half her age, who simply do not know the poorly-kept secret about health and fitness. In her mind, it is not even a matter of being healthy, but of doing the right thing.

It’s a no brainer to say no to animal foods, when you know the cruelty that is involved in their production. I have to say, over the years I lost about 18 pounds without trying, all by eating a healthful, delicious and compassionate diet. I also am usually faster than my younger opponents and have more resistance than they do. I attribute it all to my vegan diet. Vicki Cosio244

In fact, age is not even that much of a factor. Janette Murray-Wakelin (64) and her husband Alan (68) set the world record for most consecutive marathons on 1 January 2014, having finished 366 marathons (about 15,500 km) in as many days, “to inspire and motivate conscious lifestyle choices, to promote kindness and compassion for all living beings and to raise environmental awareness for a sustainable future.”245 We applaud the fact that this couple did not perform this feat of endurance in order to inspire people to improve their health, but that their motivation was to raise awareness of ethical and environmental issues. Yet every vegan has a slightly different story about how she became informed. In this case, Janette was diagnosed with breast cancer and given six months to live. That was ten years ago; instead of simply accepting the prognosis of imminent death, this couple switched to a raw vegan diet and has been in good health ever since.246

You’re never too old and you’re never too young to make conscious choices in life and small changes can make a really huge difference to your own health. Janette Murray-Wakelin247

Of course, we are saying that athletes all around benefit from plant-based diets, but we have focused our attention so far on examples from endurance sports: track and field, figure skating, boxing (which is an endurance sport when you consider the training regimen of a WBO welterweight champion), tennis and (incredibly long) long-distance running. Some will say that these individuals are the rare exceptions, that in spite of his own thoughts on the matter, Carl Lewis’ extraordinary abilities are due to his genetic disposition, hard work and determination. Others will say that vegans may excel in endurance sports, but that this is only one area, and that omnivores have the advantage in others, so we cannot make a blanket statement and say that exercise and a plant-based diet necessarily put you in a better state of health than exercise and an omnivorous diet do.

First of all, this completely ignores all of the evidence we have already cited about disease pathology and prevention. We already know that eating animal proteins causes allergic reactions and lethargy, that hypertrophy is as unhealthy as it is unnatural, and that huge muscles are a sure sign of chronic inflammation. Bodybuilders may often double as athletes, but bodybuilding itself is not a sport, and big muscles do not make a person healthy.

Secondly, there is no shortage of compassionate weightlifters. We already know that vegan strongman Patrik Baboumian recently set the world record for yoke carry, which basically makes him the strongest man in the world, a modern-day Samson with the heart to match. Likewise, Alexander Dargatz became a vegan for “ethical, ecological, spiritual and healthy reasons (in that order),” citing animal cruelty. 5 years later he won the World Champion Body-Builder title. When asked about the difference it has made for him, he is happy to respond: “My power has increased since becoming vegan, especially my endurance, and I almost never get ill anymore.”248

66-year-old powerlifter and long-time vegan Pat Reeves, officially the oldest competing weightlifter in Europe (as well as an accomplished marathon runner and triathlete, winning five of the nine marathons she entered in the 1980s and 90s), recently set a new world powerlifting record, lifting more than 1.85 times her bodyweight, even after an unsuccessful shoulder surgery.249 This was more than thirty years after being diagnosed with terminal osteosarcoma (bone cancer) which typically kills people in their childhood. Then there is world champion arm wrestler Rob Bigwood, who has made a name for himself as an animal rights activist. He fields questions about how his plant-based diet affects his performance with answers like “I have never felt better in my entire life and it was one of the smartest decisions I ever made.”250

I used to weigh 285 lbs. (130 kg), be sluggish and relied too much on coffee throughout the day. Now I’m down to 225 lbs. (102 kg), have incredible energy and overall feel like a new person. … I’m healthier now and feel just as strong as I did before turning vegan. Rob Bigwood251

Are vegans stronger than omnivores? Perhaps not, but pound-for-pound they generally should be, given that they will have less fat and healthier immune systems, which has all kinds of benefits as far as training is concerned. We might say that Goliath was undoubtedly stronger than the puny little vegan that accepted his challenge when all the cowards among the omnivores around him were not up to the task, and we all know how that turned out. Either way, bodybuilding and strength competitions are both entirely vain; we only raise these points about vegan athletes to demonstrate that optimal health is only achieved by way of plant-based diets, as vegan athletes are the models of perfect health. More importantly, vegans of all varieties are those who are more concerned about creating a better world to live in than such superficial, self-obsessed and transient causes as who has the biggest muscles. Yet they are certainly not lacking in strength, or in anything else, like love (face it—vegans are more admirable, and they also have more love to give, more wisdom, more libido and healthier bodies, all of which makes them more desirable to the opposite sex), happiness, intelligence, good health and life expectancy … which no omnivore can honestly say about himself.

Lest it be said, however, that vegans are not more intelligent than omnivores and ovo-lacto vegetarians, or that their greater intelligence is due to environmental factors rather than improved cognitive functioning (i.e. having better access to education, which is associated with wealth, which is also associated with eating well—a notion which is thoroughly demolished by The China Study), we will address this point, too. Of course, you would actually have to experience the differences for yourself, and it may be too late due to the dementia which inevitably accompanies meat and dairy intake, but you can also take a vegan’s word for it. Either way, the science behind the phenomenon is fairly simple, and should not be as hard to make sense of as what we have covered so far. Keep in mind that this is what is really important, and affects each and every one of us. (What parents, for instance, would not want their children to be mentally competent, if not geniuses, and to have the capacity to be whatever kind of people they would like to become? What parents would choose instead to raise their children on a diet which they know causes brain degeneration, as well as severely impairing psychological development and moral judgment, comparable to exposing them to slasher horror films several times a day from a very young age and then teaching them to imitate them?)

Isaac Newton, universally regarded by Western academics as the greatest scientist who ever lived, was reluctant to eat meat, and seems to have been a vegetarian at least for the last five years of his life. Little is actually known about this subject, so we are relying on speculation (it has been rumored that he was a vegetarian since shortly after his death), but Newton was certainly profoundly religious, having dedicated much of his life to the pursuit of esoteric religious knowledge. Based on his extensive studies, he concluded that all of the world’s religions (which, to him, basically would have meant the Abrahamic religions, Hinduism, Buddhism and the ancient Egyptian mysteries—if he was not himself a Rosicrucian, then he was certainly influenced by them) were originally vegetarian, having all derived from the same source, which was vegetarian. He believed, furthermore, that there was a total ban of meat in ancient Christianity, on account of his daily reading of Scripture. In Newton’s mind, the two greatest commandments of Christianity (to love God and to love your neighbor) were followed by a third—to love animals—and that the fact that this is missing now from established religion indicates a degradation of the true, universal religion.252

Albert Einstein, regarded by many as one of the most brilliant physicists who ever lived, was a long-time proponent of animal rights, and became a vegetarian toward the end of his life, declaring “I am living without fats, without meat, without fish, but am feeling quite well this way. It always seems to me that man was not born to be a carnivore.”253

Besides agreeing with the aims of vegetarianism for aesthetic and moral reasons, it is my view that a vegetarian manner of living by its purely physical effect on the human temperament would most beneficially influence the lot of mankind. Albert Einstein254

The world’s foremost string theorist, Edward Witten, who has been dubbed Einstein’s successor, is also a vegetarian.255 Witten’s most famous protégé, Brian Greene, is the man who refuted Einstein’s theory that space can stretch but not tear. To give some idea of how brilliant he is, by the time he was 9, he could multiply 38-digit numbers in his head. He, too, has been a vegetarian since the same age, and a vegan since adulthood. Selected excerpts from an interview on science, morality and vegetarianism256 show how the man reputed to be the world’s greatest mathematical genius thinks that being a vegan is one of the most important keys to intelligence.

Q: What inspired you to become a vegetarian?

A: Quite literally, it was a dish—spare ribs—that my mother cooked when I was nine years old. The ribs made the connection between the meat and the animal from which it came direct; I was horrified and declared I’d never eat meat again. And I never have. Going vegan happened later. I visited an animal rescue farm in upstate New York and learned much about the dairy industry which was so disturbing that I could not continue to support it. Within days I gave up all dairy.

Q: Why do you think so many of the greatest geniuses have been vegetarian?

A: From my limited experience, vegetarians typically are people who are willing to challenge the usual, accepted order of things. Moreover, they’re often people willing to sacrifice their own pleasures in pursuit of what they believe is right. These same qualities are often what’s needed to make great breakthroughs in the arts and sciences.

Q: Why do you think other scientists are still not vegetarian?

A: I would ask, more generally, why the vast majority of people are not vegetarian. I think the answer is that most people don’t question the practice of eating meat since they always have. Many of these people care about animals and the environment, some deeply. But for some reason—force of habit, cultural norms, resistance to change—there is a fundamental disconnect whereby these feelings don’t translate into changes of behavior.

Of course, not all of us are math prodigies or educated beyond an undergraduate level in physics and calculus. Some could still make the argument that the world’s greatest physicists and mathematicians are textbook examples of genius, and that veganism is therefore an elitist ideology which is not practical for the masses. So intelligence is better measured by the ability to focus and solve complex, organic problems than it is by one’s level of education in any particular field. The one competition which tests this ability and is open to all people around the world, regardless of any qualifications other than sheer intellect, is chess.

When the present book was written, the current undisputed World Chess Champion since 2007 was Viswanathan Anand. (He lost this title to Magnus Carlsen in November 2013.) Anand has been described by world-famous chess commentator Lubomir Kavalek as the most versatile world chess champion ever, as the only player to have won the world chess championship in tournament, match and knockout format, as well as rapid time controls. His only criticism is that he is “a little lazy, relaxed and only focuses on matches” (as opposed to tournaments).257 According to Anand himself, this ability to stay relaxed and focused is the key to his success, which he owes to his vegan diet. Unlike other world champions with their eccentric personalities (e.g. Paul Morphy, who retired shortly after dominating the competition and is thought to have been mentally ill, or Bobby Fischer, who was an embarrassment to the sport which banned him from competition because of his controversial political views), Anand has no concern about incapacities from mental exhaustion, because of his diet.258

Without considering competition, examples can also be drawn from people who do independent research or invent things that are beneficial to mankind. If you were to ask the average person who knows anything about history who the greatest inventors in history have been, he would inevitably point out Leonardo da Vinci, Nikola Tesla, Thomas Edison, and probably also Steve Jobs; the only question would be what order to place them in. Of these four, the only one who was not a lifelong vegetarian was Tesla, who was a long-time animal rights advocate,259 and, like Einstein, also became a vegetarian near the end of his life, once he put a little less time into his inventions and a little more into thinking about ethics. Although Edison and Tesla famously disagreed about which type of electric power we should be using, and how it ought to be applied (i.e. for the profit of some or the benefit of all), one thing they certainly agreed on in the end was the vegetarian ethic.

On general principles the raising of cattle as a means of providing food is objectionable. It is certainly preferable to raise vegetables, and I think, therefore, that vegetarianism is a commendable departure from the established barbarian habit. That we can subsist on plant food and perform our work even to advantage is not a theory but a well-demonstrated fact. Many races living almost exclusively on vegetables are of superior physique and strength. There is no doubt that some plant food, such as oatmeal, is more economical than meat, and superior to it in regard to both mechanical and mental performance. Such food, moreover, taxes our digestive organs decidedly less, and in making us more contented and sociable, produces an amount of good difficult to estimate. In view of these facts every effort should be made to stop the wanton, cruel slaughter of animals, which must be destructive to our morals. Nikola Tesla260

Nonviolence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all evolution. … [Vegetarianism has a] powerful influence upon the mind and its action, as well as upon the health and vigor of the body. Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages. Thomas Edison261,262

As for the subject of philosophy, the men regarded as the greatest thinkers of the preceding age (the Age of Enlightenment) were all vegetarians at heart, whether or not they actually practiced what they preached. The Idealists were split into Jewish and German factions, which accounts for the late development of the vegetarian ethic with Einstein and his (Jewish) successors. We already know what the Jewish position on murdering animals is, so it is no wonder that Einstein did not come around until the end of his life, and given the social barriers both of his native culture and of the times, it is remarkable that he even did. The vegetarian view was espoused by the German faction, which included Schopenhauer, and therefore many other famous philosophers that he was responsible for mentoring, such as Nietzsche, Fichte and Schelling, as well as all the members of the Bayreuth Circle, whose views on the ethics of vivisection were instrumental in the creation of the modern vegetarian and vegan movements.

Through these men, pacifism and nonviolence were as integral to the establishment of the National Socialist ideology as barbarism and violence were to Communism through the crypto-Jews Kant, Hegel, Marx and Lenin. Even Adolf Hitler (himself a crypto-Jew who was influenced by the Idealists and the Bayreuth Circle) was a vegetarian, at least at the end of his life (a fact which has been contested by a few revisionist vegetarians who claim that it was just a publicity stunt—mostly Jews like the famous American animal rights advocate Gary Yourofsky—despite mountains of evidence to the contrary), and, contrary to popular belief, espoused nonviolence as a Christian ideal, and carried a Bible with him everywhere he went as Chancellor of Germany. Schopenhauer, however, made the common mistake of thinking that the Bible endorses the killing of animals, and this led him to reject it on principle, and especially the Christian religion. He taught that the best aspects of Christianity were those which it shared with Buddhism and Hinduism (i.e. its central dogmas pertaining to morality and reverence for life), whereas the worst aspects of Christianity were those which it had inherited from Judaism (i.e. its legalism, loopholes and disdain for nonhuman life).263

Since compassion for animals is so intimately associated with goodness of character, it may be confidently asserted that whoever is cruel to animals cannot be a good man. Arthur Schopenhauer264

The assumption that animals are without rights and the illusion that our treatment of them has no moral significance is a positively outrageous example of Western crudity and barbarity. Universal compassion is the only guarantee of morality. Arthur Schopenhauer265

Thus, because Christian morality leaves animals out of account … they are at once outlawed in philosophical morals; they are mere “things,” mere means to any ends whatsoever. They can therefore be used for vivisection, hunting, coursing, bullfights and horse racing, and can be whipped to death as they struggle along with heavy carts of stone. Shame on such a morality that is worthy of pariahs, chandalas and mlecchas, and that fails to recognize the eternal essence that exists in every living thing, and shines forth with inscrutable significance from all eyes that see the sun! Arthur Schopenhauer266

Clearly Schopenhauer’s views are those of a vegan rather than a vegetarian, though no such distinction existed at that time. They were the main point of scholarly contention between the mainstream Christian institutions and the fundamentally vegetarian secret societies which descended from the Templars and Cathars. The Illuminati were thriving in Germany well before Schopenhauer had even been born; his views just demonstrate the antipathy with which they (as the “true Christians”) regarded the “barbarous” Christians. The true leader of the Enlightenment was François-Marie Arouet (Voltaire), who unleashed his vitriol against the Christian establishment in terms less civil than Schopenhauer’s, by criticizing it both for failing to uphold the moral virtues of the Christian religion in regards to this question, and for failing to read the Bible properly. The rise of atheism in Europe (Voltaire’s influence) is therefore attributable to nothing so much as the hypocrisy of Christians in their decision to eat flesh when God has expressly forbidden it in their holy book; in Voltaire’s mind, it is better to be a pacifist and to throw out religion altogether than to espouse such dissonant, immoral views.

“But do not slaughter a cow or a sheep and its young on the same day.” Leviticus 22:28

It may be inferred from [the passage cited above, and others] and several other passages [in the Mosaic account of the alliance made between deity and men and the rest of the animal world], what all antiquity has always thought, that animals have intelligence and knowledge. The deity does not make a pact with trees and with stones, which have no feeling, but he makes it with animals whom he has endowed with feeling often more exquisite than ours, and with some ideas necessarily attached to it. This is why he will not allow [to men] the barbarity of feeding upon their blood, because, in reality, blood is the source of life, consequently of feeling. Voltaire267

There is in man a disposition to compassion as generally diffused as his other instincts. Newton had cultivated this sentiment of humanity, and he extended it to the lower animals. With Locke he was strongly convinced that God has given to them a proportion of ideas, and the same feelings, which he has to us … In truth, without humanity, a virtue which comprehends all virtues, the name of philosopher is little deserved. Voltaire268

People must have renounced, it seems to me, all natural intelligence to dare to advance that animals are but animated machines … It appears to me, besides, that [such people] can never have observed with attention the character of animals, not to have distinguished among them the different Voices of need, of suffering, of joy, of pain, of love, of anger, and of all their affections. It would be very strange that they should express so well what they could not feel … We know neither how these organs were formed, nor how they are developed, nor how they receive life, nor by what laws, feelings, ideas, memory, will, they are attached to this life and, in this profound and eternal ignorance inherent to our nature, we dispute without ceasing, we persecute one another, like bulls who butt against each other with their horns, without knowing why and how they have horns. Voltaire269

How pitiful, and what poverty of mind, to have said that the animals are machines deprived of understanding and feeling … Judge (in the same way as you would judge your own) the behavior of a dog who has lost his master, who has searched for him in the road barking miserably, who has come back to the house restless and anxious, who has run upstairs and down, from room to room, and who has found the beloved master at last in his study, and then shown his joy by barks, bounds and caresses. There are some barbarians who will take this dog, that so greatly excels man in capacity for friendship, who will nail him to a table, and dissect him alive, in order to show you his veins and nerves. And what you then discover in him are all the same organs of sensation that you have in yourself. Answer me, mechanist, has Nature arranged all the springs of feeling in this animal to the end that he might not feel? Has he nerves that he may be incapable of suffering? Voltaire270

Voltaire’s contemporary Rousseau (they both died in 1778, just one month apart) elaborated on his position in many of his writings. Emile, or On Education, which he considered the “best and most important of all my writings,”271 followed the philosophical principles of John Locke, advocating asceticism in education to instill temperate virtues in children. This work served largely as the basis for modern education.

One of the proofs that the taste of flesh is not natural to man is the indifference which children exhibit for that sort of meat, and the preference they all give to vegetable foods, such as milk-porridge, pastry, fruits, etc. It is of the last importance not to de-naturalise them of this primitive taste and not to render them carnivorous, if not for health reasons, at least for the sake of their character. For, however the experience may be explained, it is certain that great eaters of flesh are, in general, more cruel and ferocious than other men. This observation is true of all places and of all times. English coarseness is well known. The Gaures, on the contrary, are the gentlest of men. All savages are cruel, and it is not their morals that urge them to be so; this cruelty proceeds from their food. They go to war as to the chase, and treat men as they do bears. Even in England the butchers are not received as legal witnesses any more than surgeons. Great criminals harden themselves to murder by drinking blood. Homer represents the Cyclopes, who were flesh-eaters, as frightful men, and the Lotophagi [lotus-eaters] as a people so amiable that as soon as one had any dealings with them, one straightway forgot everything, and one’s country, to live with them. Jean-Jacques Rousseau272

This was the sentiment of the Enlightenment, which aimed to debunk and dispel the superstitions of mainstream Christian religion and establish a scientific and moral basis for living in harmony with philosophical principles. This sentiment was carried to America by Voltaire’s followers, now called the Founding Fathers of the United States. The foremost of them, Benjamin Franklin, declared animal slaughter to be “unprovoked murder.”273 Thomas Paine said “Everything of persecution and revenge between man and man, and everything of cruelty to animals, is a violation of moral duty.”274

Speaking of moral duty, let us leave off the discussion of vegetarians (and, more recently, vegans) having greater intellects or philosophical and moral principles, having established it adequately by these case examples. The issue, really, is whether or not vegans are just better people in general, morally speaking, as that is generally what parents hope to instill in their children, and society at large in its citizens. This is obviously a matter of having moral compass, and no one will argue that this is something which vegans lack—only whether their compass points in the right direction. Anyone who is honest about it will recognize the legitimacy of the moral and ethical arguments in favor of veganism, but there are many who are entirely dishonest and even resort to arguments like “plants have feelings, too,” to attempt to substantiate their reasons for inclining to hedonism. So we appeal once again to the notable men who have been regarded as the most virtuous and most effective at changing the world for the better.

The most obvious example is Yahshuah, but we will deal with him later; suffice it to say that we would not have written this book if he had not been a vegetarian, or had not advocated and mandated it as one of the principle ethics of his teachings. However, there have been a few Christians who, having read the Bible and realized that the Church openly lies about it, have picked up the cause which Yahshuah advocated and written about it extensively. We will cite a few examples from the ancient era later; the most notable example in the modern era is perhaps Leo Tolstoy.

Tolstoy’s literal reading of the New Testament effectively created the basis for the modern ideology of nonviolent resistance which is now celebrated throughout the world. His vegetarian ethic brought him into contact with Mohandas Gandhi, and the two cultivated a friendship whereby Tolstoy influenced him. In effect, Gandhi, a Hindu, was a better Christian by Christian standards than most people who have ever called themselves such. The basis for evaluating a man’s righteousness, according to Tolstoy’s interpretation of Scripture, was clear: “If a man aspires towards a righteous life, his first act of abstinence is from injury to animals.”275

The ideology of nonviolent resistance was picked up in America by Martin Luther King, Jr., the civil rights leader whose legacy is notable enough that he is the only American to have a national holiday (exclusively) in his honor in the United States. King was neither a vegetarian nor an animal rights activist, but it is understood that he would have been, had he not been assassinated, because animal rights are intrinsically associated with civil rights, especially as it concerns the ideal of nonviolence. King’s widow Coretta Scott King became a vegan in her later years, having been influenced by their son Dexter Scott King, who has been a vegan and animal rights activist since the 1980s. King regards veganism as a natural outgrowth of the policy of nonviolence—and no wonder, as it is actually the basis for it, and only a schizophrenic could make no provisions for violence toward humans while allowing no respite from it for nonhuman victims. However, neither Dexter Scott King nor his father is regarded as the greatest civil leader or agent of social change in recent history. That status belongs to Gandhi, whose view on the vegetarian ethic was as committed and uncompromising as Tolstoy’s. If Gandhi had had his way, there would be no more wars, and everyone in the world would be a vegan. In his mind, the inherent power which the human intellect enables us with comes with a great responsibility.

To my mind the life of a lamb is no less precious than that of a human being. I hold that, the more helpless a creature, the more entitled it is to protection by man from the cruelty of man. Mohandas Gandhi276

Many people pretend that the ideology which these men (Yahshuah, MLK, Gandhi, Einstein, etc.) shared represents their own, yet fall so short of even understanding it, much less embracing it, that the same ideas need to be repeated again and again, even though the specific institutions which they fought against have long since vanished. These men knew all too well that the campaign against violence would not end until the last human had embraced a moral position and an egalitarian ethic. They have prophesied that the change is inevitable, and that the survival of our own species depends on it.

I have from an early age abjured the use of meat, and the time will come when men such as I will look upon the murder of animals as they now look upon the murder of men. Leonardo DaVinci277

I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other when they came in contact with the more civilized. Henry David Thoreau278

Nothing will benefit human health and increase the chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet. Albert Einstein279

The Doctor of the future will give no medicine, but will interest his patient in the care of the human frame, in diet, and in the cause and prevention of disease. Thomas Edison280

The main inhibitor of this eventual progress is the individual who resists it. While the individual has little power to effect change on his own, most people (including ovo-lacto vegetarians) are culpable in this respect, and their combined might ensures that the social and economic barriers to change remain in place. Secondary to this is the religious establishment which sits in its self-designated and self-enforced place at the head of the world’s moral institutions. We will have much to say about this later as far as it pertains to Christianity, and also to Judaism in the ancient world, but the institutions of Christianity are not the only ones preventing the realization of the kingdom of heaven—just the ones that are most responsible.

Like Christianity’s “holy book,” Buddhist teachings proscribe monks from eating animals which are killed on their behalf. Some interpretations (especially among the Mahayana schools, and particularly the Mahaparinirvana Sutra) insist that the Buddha did not allow his followers to eat any sentient beings whatsoever.281 However, these interpretations are as controversial as the ones under our examination, amounting to wayward Buddhists looking for loopholes in the Buddhist canon (just like Jews and the Torah), so we will not delve into them here, apart from this one point. The hypocrisy is immediately self-evident in the fact that the Dalai Lama is the figurehead of Mahayana Buddhism, yet eats whatever is put in front of him (even veal), because it is “allowed” by Buddhist canon—though not by the teachings of his own sect, nor by prudence, which dictates that he would not do something so utterly offensive to so many people and then pretend like he is their spiritual master who will teach them how they ought to live. This puts many people off to Buddhism itself, and probably detracts more from his campaigns to end violence around the world than every other issue put together, because even a child knows better (before his conscience is thwarted by his own parents) than to eat what is unnatural to his species, or to do other acts of evil (before he learns to).

Out of the mouth of babes and infants
You have founded strength,
Because of Your adversaries,
To put an end to enemy and avenger.
Psalm 8:2

And [they] said to Him, “Do You hear what these say?” And יהושע said to them, “Yea, have you never read, ‘Out of the mouth of babes and nurslings You have perfected praise’?” Matthew 21:16

The Dalai Lama has, throughout his life, publicized his view that the human race needs to adapt the ethical spirit of Eastern philosophy and merge it with the scientific and technological innovations of Western civilization. As he is the most reputable authority on Buddhism in the world, and regarded by many as the embodiment of the Buddhahood (comparable to “Christ consciousness”), if not the reincarnation of the Buddha himself, in order to convert Buddhists to vegetarianism, it ought to suffice to say that to abstain from eating sentient creatures (as the Buddha insisted) is to be a vegetarian. The very same Western scientists which the Dalai Lama extols for their superior knowledge (including cognitive scientists, neuropharmacologists, neurophysiologists, neuroanatomists and neuroscientists) at the Francis Crick Memorial Conference on Consciousness in Human and Non-Human Animals have openly declared that all beings are sentient, “conscious and aware to the degree that humans are,” in what is formally called The Cambridge Declaration of Consciousness.282 Many of the misconceptions about animal intelligence are actually quite embarrassing to humans, and demonstrate that they have more empathy and a better sense of morality than most of us.

For example, for years we blithely believed that humans were the only species to use tools, until researchers documented that wasps were using pebbles as hammers, octopuses were carrying coconut shells as portable hiding places, crows were using sticks to dig in the ground for grubs and many other examples. The mathematical abilities of fish have proved to be on a par with those of monkeys, dolphins and bright young human children.

We know that elephants flirt with each other and gather to grieve over the loss of a loved one, that cows shed tears, and that monkeys have refused to pull a chain to access their only source of food if doing so caused another monkey, even a stranger, to experience a painful electric shock. In that famous study, one monkey starved and went without water for nearly two weeks to avoid hurting his fellow. When the experiment was repeated, other monkeys also chose to starve rather than giving shocks to another monkey. A similar study done with human subjects showed that 65 percent of people continued to give other people increasingly strong electric shocks if an experimenter simply told them to do so. Ingrid Newkirk283

“But now ask the beasts, and they teach you; and the birds of the heavens, and they declare it to you; or speak to the earth, and it teaches you; and the fish of the sea inform you. Who among all these does not know that the hand of יהוה has done this, in whose hand is the life of all that live, and the breath of all mankind?” Job 12:7-10

It is known now that animals communicate with each other in complex languages, using specific intonations to identify specific characteristics and warn about potential predators, which include making new words (which are understood) to describe new varieties, as well as describing the species, size, shape and color of the threat.284 Chicks communicate with their mothers before they are even hatched,285 and dogs are so adept at picking out different scents that they have already been used to detect different types of cancers in humans.286 Animals (even insects) are certainly conscious and intelligent, experiencing all the same emotions that we do, but we humans are exclusive in our ability to dissociate from our own sense of right and wrong so much that we can behave in ways which are unnatural to us, and destructive—that is, to the point that we sin. This is why the Dalai Lama, far from being the epitome of the bodhisattva ideal or even a valid representative of it, is an unenlightened sinner and speciesist; not just he, but every practitioner of the “Middle Way” is obligated to abstain both from killing and from eating anything that ever had a will to live and pursue happiness—which all animated creatures do, according to the Buddha himself, as well as to Western science.

Any religion or philosophy which is not based on a respect for life is not a true religion or philosophy. Albert Schweitzer287

These words, spoken by one of the most notable theologians and humanitarians in human history, are not merely a casual sentiment; they are the conclusion of many observations made during a life spent in service to others. Like intellect, spirituality is a matter of an individual’s awareness growing to encompass more than his sense of self, such as Schweitzer personified even before he became a vegetarian and outspoken opponent of vivisection because of it. Though a physician by trade and not overtly religious, anyone can see that he was a spiritual man, as surely as Gandhi was, and with more certainty than the Dalai Lama is. Many people mistake religion for spirituality because of the veneer which religious institutions espouse and because they talk about spirituality. In reality, religious sentiment is just that—sentiment, or feeling—while true religion is spiritual, and always bears the fruit of faith which mere feeling lacks. In some sense, faith is certainly based on emotion, associated with the right hemisphere of the brain, but emotion by itself does not constitute spirituality, which results from both brain hemispheres in agreement with one another. No one who thinks that faith and science are not in total conformity can be said to be spiritual in any sense, if they are indeed not also conflicted by vain reasoning and/or baseless religious sentiment.

Even aside from the right-brained feelings which empathy for animals entails, the reasons why a plant-based diet gives you a greater capacity both to focus and to expand your spiritual awareness are numerous. The whole process starts as soon as you have an open mind, which is true of any subject, but none so much as one which is a minority view. Adopting a minority ideal after espousing the majority view usually entails a greater understanding of the subject, because you have perspective that you were previously lacking, and which the majority lacks. People do not simply espouse views which are antithetical to the majority’s without having reasons, whether those reasons are of a personal nature, or, as in the case of veganism, a logical and ethical nature, which necessarily sets vegans apart from other members of society as having more awareness of issues pertaining to the vegan ideology, because there are no vegan societies and no one is born into one. Whether or not the typical omnivore is concerned about issues pertaining to animal rights and human nutrition, as the typical vegan is, he is certainly not nearly as well informed about them.

Having established all this, let us now return to the main subject. On the matter of how veganism is associated with greater capacity for intelligence, it ought to be apparent that brain degeneration initiated by eating animal proteins leads to cognitive impairment as surely as it does spiritual depravity. We already know what the causes of brain degeneration are, so we will not dwell on this any further. It is, however, extremely significant to the matter of intelligence, as anyone who has ever been around someone with Alzheimer’s knows. Furthermore, brain degeneration does not only affect elderly people; the study of 10-year-olds reported in Lancet which we cited earlier (quoting Robert Kradjian) ought to demonstrate that much. The difference there (ten IQ points on average) was between breast-fed and formula-fed infants, so we can just imagine what kind of results a study would yield which compared breast-fed infants who ate meat and dairy with breast-fed children who were otherwise vegans before and after weaning.

Many of the same reasons that vegans are healthier contribute to why they generally have a greater capacity for mental health, as well. A diet with meat causes constipation. (The medical establishment defines constipation as less than three bowel movements per week, but that is only because that is what is normal, not what is natural: 95% of the population has three to twenty-one per week, and one per day is normal, but less than 50% is regular like this. If you do not have at least one bowel movement per day on average, then you are constipated!)288 A diet with dairy stimulates mucous production, and therefore fevers, headaches, earaches and other irritations. Skin defects such as acne, eczema and lupus, for example, can cause much stress. Poor physical health often results in poor mental health and general lethargy, especially where it concerns sickness and death in the family, brought about by long-term dietary decisions.

High protein diets raise cortisol serum levels, which can lead to hypercortisolism, and eventually damage to hippocampal cells, which are important for memory. Furthermore, people with high cholesterol levels often take statins to lower liver production instead of cutting it out of their diets. Side effects include neuropathy, memory loss, poor concentration and mood swings, among other things. Other drugs that are used to combat the effects of consuming animal proteins (especially anti-inflammatory drugs) have similar side effects.

Beyond the mentality of a counterculture which encourages (and even requires) awareness and critical thinking, and beyond reducing the loss of brain cells and neuropathways which an omnivorous diet entails, a plant-based diet also affects moods, which has a huge impact on our thinking patterns. After making the switch, many vegans report becoming calmer, less stressed and more open-minded. Parents of unruly children have the most obvious incentive to get their kids off meat, as even “healthy” diets with meat have been shown to reduce aggressive and hyperactive traits just from cutting back on refined sugars and fried foods. The results of one experiment289 showed an almost 600% increase in bad behaviors from the control group, which was fed a moderately healthy meal, but also that the control group performed 48% better in the games they played—and this was from a single meal. The fact that this is the case at all goes a long way to showing that you really are what you eat—emotionally and spiritually, as well as physically.

It is well known that the brain (just like the rest of the body) thrives on glucose, and that a diet which mainly consists of carbohydrates facilitates production of serotonin, which is necessary for regulating food cravings, and for melatonin synthesis. Melatonin is the hormone which regulates moods and sleep patterns, and one which performs many other important functions, such as scavenging free radicals as an antioxidant, preventing aging and diabetes, and stimulating dreams (and also hallucinations for recreational drug users and people who fast or go without sleep for long periods—i.e. “visions,” which have a great deal of significance to many people’s lives). Less carbohydrates in the diet also means less acetylcholine synthesis, and therefore less efficiency in the brain.

It has been observed that eating red meat (and only red meat) reduces the risk of depression and anxiety (at least in women).290 However, this does not factor in the actual causes, which are of a dietary nature; subtle balances are regarded by psychiatrists as necessary for mental health, and the same report which broke the news also suggests that eating too much can be just as bad for mental health as not eating enough. Furthermore, of the more than one thousand women studied, only nineteen were vegetarians, and we assume if any were vegans, they were not even represented in the study as a statistically significant factor, so the data are at least suspect, if not altogether spurious. Studies which aim to show a connection between meat and mental health typically focus on fatty acids, because they are in meats but not plants, but the real chemical agent of mental health is serotonin, and this is why researchers are not looking to make the connection, because it is synthesized from all foods with the essential amino acid tryptophan, including plants.

It is true that serotonin’s precursor tryptophan is found in meat (especially poultry) and dairy. However, the fact that it is more abundant in poultry than in red meat suggests that the right factors have not been isolated in the studies showing an association between red meat consumption and reduced risk of depression and anxiety, which have a myriad of causes. Our simplest explanation is that constant epinephrine secretion reduces anxiety, but as a detrimental emergency response, not as an inhibitor. Either way, we would like to see studies which compare meat-eaters to vegans, because this is the only type of study which is even really relevant to the present human condition. And either way, the point of life is not to be happy or to gratify oneself at the expense of the lives of others, and those who think that it is deserve to be miserable, to put it mildly, regardless of what they are eating.

In any case, a well-planned plant-based diet will lack nothing, including essential amino acids like tryptophan. On the other hand, meat is not even the best source of tryptophan. ½ cup of chicken breast (the highest concentration of any meat) contains .49 gm, while ½ cup ground flax seeds contains .53 gm. ½ cup turkey breast or snapper (the second highest concentrations in meat) contains .38 gm, compared to .39 gm in 1 cup (a roughly equivalent serving size) of soybeans or .29 gm in an apple.291 These are exceptions; meat is generally a better source of tryptophan (and other amino acids) than most plants, except for spirulina, which is a better source of it than any animal, but harder to come by.

Still, this is a matter of a serotonin precursor—even if the propaganda is accurate, is it worth paying the ultimate price for the extra protein? If you think it is, because your only goal in life is to be happy, then consider that eating meat actually reduces tryptophan in the brain in comparison with other protein sources, even as it increases it, because it contains larger proportions of other amino acids, with which it has to compete for blood-brain barrier transport. (It gets drowned out, so to speak.) This is why there is little difference between meat-eaters and vegetarians in this regard. By eating proteins rather than carbohydrates (remember, your brain needs glucose), tryptophan is practically useless for enabling cognitive functioning, and with other carbohydrates, will make you tired. (Conversely, eating a banana should not make you tired, because it provides a quick source of glucose and is easily digested, tryptophan and all.)

In any case, meat is not the only culprit and serotonin is not the only cure for clinical depression. Really, all toxic substances play a role in mood disorders, which is why treating depression and anxiety with serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SRIs) typically fails to produce happiness despite their ability to regulate moods. What your body wants is more sleep (and the quality matters), less emotional stress and a more nutritious diet, not more chemicals—not even ones which it produces itself. Melatonin plays an important role in all of these.

Furthermore, the most potent way of reducing anxiety is to reduce guilt, and this is what veganism essentially aims to achieve. Of course, one could argue that he does not feel guilty about his choices, but anyone who literally has no sense of guilt for things like torture, rape and murder, and a myriad of other abuses which animals endure at the hands of humans so he can sate his palate for eight seconds of “pleasure” (the average amount of time it is in his mouth), is categorically a psychopath. Likewise, the one who has no awareness of the factors and the consequences of his choice is categorically stupid, and is not making a choice at all, because free choice necessitates awareness. He is, rather, a slave of convention. In either case, such a person is blatantly evil, whether knowingly or not, and deserving of the death which he has cultivated within him, and this notion of right and wrong is the whole basis of the Bible’s position against the eating of flesh, which we will be covering in the succeeding chapters. In the meantime, let us return once again to the main subject of what is natural for human consumption.

We could also argue that food additives—many of which are known carcinogens, like arsenic—that are added to meat are even more toxic than meat itself. Packaged meats are routinely treated with carbon monoxide, for instance—you know, that thing you have the detector for in your house because you are afraid it might otherwise seep into your house and kill you in your sleep—to make them look less decayed than they really are, so that you will be more likely to buy them.292 However, the point really ought to be moot by now; anyone who subscribes to the “organic” meat and “raw” milk variety of meat and dairy industry propaganda because they are not already sure about the physiological and pathological effects has not been paying attention or does not understand the science behind metabolic functions. (See Appendix A.6 and A.6a.) We hold that all non-vegan diet fads are marketed specifically to (as in, aimed at profiting from) such people as know little or nothing about nutrition and are gullible enough to take what they read and hear at face value, because there is simply no truth whatsoever to the notion that consumption (much less regular consumption) of animal proteins is safe, nutritionally comparable to plant-based diets, or beneficial to human health.

It is true that many countries have banned meat imported from the United States because it is uncommonly toxic, and have similarly banned genetically modified foods which Americans typically eat. However, it is also true that the human body is designed to produce secondary bile acids which can become toxic to itself over time in order to process out the carcinogens in meat, and that this is ultimately the principle cause of cancer and many other diseases and health defects. There is simply no getting around this, and it is a wonder we are even able to eat meat and dairy at all, given just how toxic they really are to our bodies, even apart from the increased production of bile acids. Even consuming small amounts of plant-based cooking oils can be shown to increase cholesterol levels and risk of heart disease, so it should not take a genius to realize how much more toxic are the foods which are naturally carcinogenic to the human body, and this is why the paleo-diet fads aim to show that meat and dairy are not the culprits, though the entire academic/medical establishment has effectively put an end to the debate, even though it has no interest in informing the public of its own findings. Simply frying meat at a higher temperature has been shown to double the risk of colorectal cancer.293

Now consider what kind of impact long-term exposure to animal proteins has on children and infants, and the conspiracy to exterminate the human race and replace it with zombies is blatantly obvious. France, for instance, is seen by much of the world as an “enlightened,” “democratic” society where the government at least attempts to serve the people’s interests. In 2013, a French court ruled against Monsanto in a suit by a single farmer, while less than two weeks later an American court ruled against a suit of more than fifty farmers (just one appeal in a long series of favorable rulings for the corporation). Both the government and the people (those who have spread awareness and organized demonstrations) of France were among those who led the charge against Monsanto which ultimately caused it to back out of Europe entirely. This may not be exactly the opposite of the situation in America, but the point is that Monsanto does not run the government of France the way it does that of the United States—a fact which has gained much notoriety in recent years.

Keeping in mind that the genetic engineering of crops is just an afterthought to the genetic modification of our species which happens by way of our food, France is a perfect example of a country which has virtually no tolerance for morality, and is actively pursuing the Satanic agenda. The European Vegetarian and Animal News Alliance (EVANA) has stated that “French agriculture minister, Bruno Lemaire, declared in January 2010 that the government’s aim in determining its public nutritional policy was to defend the French agricultural model and specifically to counter initiatives such as those of Paul McCartney calling for a reduced consumption of meat.” (Paul McCartney is a famous vegetarian and animal rights activist.) By the end of September 2011, the government had ordered that all meals in school canteens in France must contain animal products, and that meat and fish must be served at a certain minimum frequency.294

In effect, veganism was outlawed in French schools and every schoolchild has been forced to at least stare at a piece of flesh on his plate, and suffer the effects of having a poor diet if he tries to eat around it. No regard whatsoever was given to the fact that most vegetarians are vegetarians for moral or ethical reasons. No regard was given to France’s binding European Union membership, which necessarily makes it unlawful for the government to enact any regulation which infringes upon its citizens’ right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, alone or in community, public or private, and to manifest said thoughts and beliefs in worship, teaching, practice and observance.295

Even just from a nutritional standpoint, this is utterly ludicrous. Even American and Canadian physicians would protest the outlawing of veganism at any level of society. The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (the oldest and foremost authority on diet and nutrition in the US) and the American Academy of Pediatrics both endorse vegan diets for children, including infants and toddlers.296 According to the latter, “Multiple experts have concluded independently that vegan diets can be followed safely by infants and children without compromise of nutrition or growth and with some notable health benefits.”297

It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes. … A vegetarian diet can meet current recommendations for [protein, n-3 fatty acids, iron, zinc, iodine, calcium, and vitamins D and B-12, i.e. all the nutrients which meat-eaters commonly allege are deficient in plant-based foods and abundant in meat]. An evidence-based review showed that vegetarians can be nutritionally adequate in pregnancy and result in positive maternal and infant health outcomes. The results of an evidence-based review showed that a vegetarian diet is associated with a lower risk of death from ischemic heart disease. Vegetarians also appear to have lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, lower blood pressure, and lower rates of hypertension and type 2 diabetes than nonvegetarians. Furthermore, vegetarians tend to have a lower body mass index and lower overall cancer rates. Features of a vegetarian diet that may reduce risk of chronic disease include lower intakes of saturated fat and cholesterol and higher intakes of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, nuts, soy products, fiber, and phytochemicals. American Dietetic Association298

The Australian government has already formally recognized that a well-planned vegan diet is perfectly healthy and published new dietary guidelines to accommodate vegans, in accordance with the overwhelming consensus of dieticians and health experts.299 Moreover, as academic opinion catches up with scientific understanding, the trend is not just to accept a plant-based diet as a viable option, but to turn the tables around and discredit the antiquated notion that meat and dairy are viable as alternatives to plant-based diets. For example, the Harvard School of Public Health, perhaps the most accredited academic institution in the world offering nutritional advice, has recently latched on to the effects of dairy, and ditched its longstanding recommendation of dairy products altogether.300

So one must wonder why, when the consensus among knowledgeable dieticians and physicians is that well-planned vegetarian diets are healthier than omnivorous ones, the French government would deliberately aim to counteract initiatives for institutional and agricultural reforms or even allow the option for schoolchildren, unless it was simply in the business of protecting the status quo against the scientific data. When the question of “Qui bono?” or “Who benefits?” is asked regarding the ideal vegetarian diet, the answer is the people on the consuming end. When it is asked in regards to the conventions of the agricultural and pharmaceutical industries, the answer is the big corporations that are making a killing (literally) on animal products and petrochemicals (which are at least partially composed of decomposed animal matter), and only scant profit on what God intended us to eat.

Put it this way: A 20% markup on a 5-pound bag of rice at $5 will only turn a $1 profit, but will feed the consumer several times, while a 20% markup on 5 pounds of beef at $20 will return a profit every time it gets processed. There are several processes which meat goes through before reaching the stores, and in order for each process to be worthwhile, everyone involved at every stage has to get paid and share in the profits. (Many other production costs are added to those of transportation and the wages paid to the farmers.) So the great irony of processed food is that the more natural it is, the more it tends to cost. Needless to say, even animal farming really turns out to be a waste of a company’s resources in light of the exorbitant profits which a drug like Xanax can return with its 569,958% markup (real figure)301 at the expense of the health of every consumer, so the real profits are in the pharmaceutical industry, but the pharmaceutical industry relies on the meat industry to make people sick.

This is why a nation like France will stick to its agricultural policy in spite of the fact that it is so detrimental to human health. The people who run the government of any and every republic or parliamentary system get paid by special interest groups to create and enforce laws which are beneficial to those groups. It hardly matters whether the groups that dominate political policy in America are the same as those that dominate Europe, because they are working to exactly the same ends. Our societies are not so very different that scientific research tends to completely different conclusions, or that the medical and agricultural establishments have antithetical ways of approaching how products are marketed, or diseases are treated. It is well known, for instance, that affluent people from around the world travel to Rochester, Minnesota to be treated at the clinic which bears the name of the celebrated physician Charles Mayo. What is not so well known—to those who cannot afford the same treatment, or to those who take numerous medications prescribed by less prestigious clinics—is what the position of the man himself was.

Normal resistance to disease is directly dependent upon adequate nutrition. Normal resistance to disease never comes out of pill boxes. Adequate nutrition is the cradle of normal resistance, the playground of normal immunity, the workshop of good health, and the laboratory of long life. Charles Mayo302

This, it seems, is a secret of the elites who are willing and able to pay for it, so that the medical establishment benefits either way: from the rich and from the poor both. The plain fact is that the medical and agricultural establishments in all countries are both in the business of promoting and dealing out death. There is simply no denying this. They spray toxic chemicals on produce and market drugs made from petrochemicals with long lists of adverse side effects in the place of healing remedies, because there is no profit for them in the latter. It may not be well known that the word ‘hospital’ shares its etymology with ‘hospice’ (a guest house where you go to die), but as an example, low-risk births at home are far safer than hospital births,303 and no physician in his right mind will tell you that routine cancer treatments save lives, or that changing to a healthy lifestyle does not. Meanwhile, the etymology of ‘restaurant’ implies that one’s health is being “restored” from “restorative soup” which one eats when one is sick,304 and we are the only species that has not seemed to understand that the best thing we can do when we are sick is to not eat until our body restores itself. Who has not been told “Eat this” or “You should see a doctor” or “You should go to the hospital” or “You should have gotten vaccinated” when they have been sick? More to the point, who has been told the truth: You should fast, and then eat lots of fruits, vegetables and whole grains once you have recovered so that you do not get sick again?

Often when people hear of scientific information that justifies a radical shift in diet to plant foods, they can’t believe their ears. “If all that you say is true,” they wonder, “why haven’t I heard it before? In fact, why do I usually hear the opposite of what you say: that milk is good for us, that we need meat to get protein and that cancer and heart disease are all in the genes?” These are legitimate questions, and the answers are a crucial part of this story. In order to get to these answers, however, I believe that it is essential for us to know how information is created and how it reaches the public consciousness.

As you will see, much is governed by the Golden Rule: he who has the gold makes the rules. There are powerful, influential and enormously wealthy industries that stand to lose a vast amount of money if Americans start shifting to a plant-based diet. Their financial health depends on controlling what the public knows about nutrition and health. Like any good business enterprise, these industries do everything in their power to protect their profits and their shareholders. …

The entire system—government, science, medicine, industry and media—promotes profits over health, technology over food and confusion over clarity. Most, but not all, of the confusion about nutrition is created in legal, fully disclosed ways and is disseminated by unsuspecting, well-intentioned people, whether they are researchers, politicians or journalists. The most damaging aspect of the system is not sensational, nor is it likely to create much of a stir upon its discovery. It is a silent enemy that few people see and understand. T. Colin and Thomas M. Campbell305

“Alternative” (i.e. naturopathic) treatments often do save lives—and there are many types that do, but the ones that work are all rooted in metabolic treatments. People being treated for cancer are often prohibited from eating meat, as it is well known that meat, as it is being digested, destroys pancreatic enzymes such as trypsin and chymotrypsin, which are critical to allowing the immune system to kill cancer cells, whereas plant-based foods do not. However, it should never come to this, because human beings should never develop deficiency diseases like late-stage cancer. It is only after many years of repetitively destroying one’s health, without periodic recovery by fasting, that such diseases come about. As one cancer physician has put it, “anyone who does not eat meat, eats only good food, and does all he can to protect his liver, may never get cancer. Cancer is less a disease than a condition existing in the whole body. Cancer would be almost unheard of if no devitalized food or meats were eaten. Cancer cannot exist where there is a pure bloodstream.”306

Dean Ornish and Caldwell Esselstyn (both M.D.s) have conducted small studies on their patients over the course of many years, and both have proved that a low-fat, mostly vegan diet is capable of not only stopping heart disease, but reversing it. The results of Ornish’s study have been public knowledge since 1998,307 while Esselstyn’s results were published in 1999.308 Considering the billions of dollars that have been spent on statins, which have been proven to have serious side effects, might we ask why a few million cannot reasonably be diverted to subject the already-established benefits of a vegan diet to rigorous scientific testing? For those looking for the “conspiracy” angle in all this, there it is: the only adverse side effects of a vegan diet are significantly decreased profits for the medical and agricultural establishments and a bit of “sacrifice” on the part Americans and others who are addicted to foods that are killing them.

With the realization of all this, the true nature of the medical establishment becomes clearer. This, too, is part of the problem. Many who have bought into the idea of cholesterol and saturated fat from animal products being healthy, and even necessary for our survival and well-being (i.e. those we have called the controlled opposition), have done so because they recognize that the medical establishment has no real interest in preserving life, and therefore conclude that whatever it advocates is necessarily false: the establishment says that a diet high in saturated fat and cholesterol is unhealthy, so it must be healthy. While the impetus for doubting what “everyone knows” in this case is certainly warranted, what no adherent of the low-carb diet fads is willing to admit is that their conclusions have likewise been formed solely on the basis of what someone else has told them, and that they lack the sense to question their motives.

We are happy to grant without challenge the premise that the establishment is irrevocably corrupt. We agree that the medical industry is a business, that it exists not to reduce suffering and save lives, but rather to make money, and that in terms of policy, it does not allow its profits to be impeded by the business of saving lives to whatever extent that saving lives is part of the business. We do not dispute that dozens of viable cures for cancer have been discovered and are administered discreetly by doctors and entrepreneurs who would otherwise be brutally punished for their contributions to mankind. We acknowledge that the extant alternatives offered by the medical industry—radiation and chemotherapy—are as deadly and unsuccessful for the patients as they are profitable for the doctors administering them. We even acknowledge that no parent should be ignorant of the incredible risks that vaccines pose to their children. Given all this, how can we justify advocating a position aligned with that of the medical establishment (i.e. that saturated fats and cholesterol from meat and dairy are destructive to one’s health)?

Firstly, we say it because it is true. To automatically assume that a hypothesis is false based solely on the reputation of the party arguing for it constitutes ad hominem reasoning. One may be leery of trusting any claim made by a government institution or the medical community, but this does not warrant rejecting such claims out of hand. As always, facts and arguments must be dealt with dispassionately and directly, paying attention to details, not merely with emotionally-charged bias. The establishment indeed has its own bias, but this does not suffice to implicate the results of scientific research, because the establishment’s bias is not to get us all eating plant-based diets, but to maintain the status quo, which is essentially the opposite.

To be fair, some will point out here that the United Nations has called for a global shift to veganism, but this is for noble reasons, and expressly contrary to the agenda of the global agricultural establishment, which includes the United Nations’ own Codex Alimentarius, which is perhaps the most threatening legal framework ever devised (in part) to thwart veganism and naturopathic treatments alike. Some low-carbers pretend that the codex is a threat to their operations, but this is only true so far as it reinforces those regional standards which have already determined the illegality of selling unpasteurized milk, and enforcing other such existent standards. When it is understood that aspects of the codex are designed to suppress the vegan options specifically, in that the only people who refuse to be told what they must eat are vegetarians and vegans, then the point should be recognized as moot, and as working in favor of those who see the establishment as backing the low-carb fads. The United Nations General Assembly has only paid lip service to its desire to see a world free from ethical and economic injustices, per its charter; if it really wanted to do away with meat and dairy options, then it would start by making it harder for producers to meet the safety demands, via the Codex Alimentarius. Having any standards for meat production at all can only benefit the “sustainable” meat advocates’ ideology, so they show their true colors here by demonstrating that what they are really after is not global agricultural reform, but to keep their monopoly on a niche market.

Returning to the point at hand, asserting that all nutritional recommendations of the medical establishment must be false due to the presumed untrustworthiness of said establishment constitutes slothful reasoning which fails to distinguish between medical researchers and the medical industry itself. The latter is the party with the means and the motives to distort and suppress clinical evidence and nutritional truths. While they do exert influence over the former, and this influence can be, at times, sufficient to change black into white and white into black, the default inclination for most medical researchers is, as with all humans whose livelihoods are not at risk, to act with honesty and integrity. The burden of proof lies with anyone claiming that the findings of these researchers must always be thoroughly suspect, if not outright fraudulent, or else those findings stand to reason. Indeed, they always do, regardless of how they are spun, as the spin is not inherent in the data, which speak for themselves. To distrust the peer review process is to distrust education as a whole, in the sense that human beings are incompetent to come to the right conclusions about anything, which begs the question of why someone who is much less serious and far more inept (such as a diet fad guru) than everyone with a postgraduate education can come to the right conclusions where everyone else has failed.

Science is all about data, not spin—which, of course, is why the scientists are all on the same side and the naysayers are against them (though they cannot agree on the particulars), as diet fads are all about spin and devising flashy new gimmicks to market old products. The naysayers would do well to realize that it does not make sense to suppose that everyone puts spin on things just because they do. The policy of scientists everywhere is to avoid coming to conclusions specifically in order to not put any spin on the data, even accidentally. Perhaps this is not the case with the establishment, which does spin things and even fabricates data as it sees fit, but it is a fallacy to confuse the individual researcher with the establishment, or the separate agendas thereof. Those scientists who are not beyond reproach seem to work their way up in the establishment’s directorate by rubbing elbows with those who are already part of it: that should be a clue as to where the secret of success lies, and the fact that most medical professionals are innocent of or only unknowingly complicit in the establishment’s crimes against humanity—certainly no more guilty than the consumer.

Lastly, the position we are advocating in this treatise is not at all aligned with the medical establishment. While we agree with the well-proven facts about the dangers of elevated cholesterol levels and excess consumption of saturated fats, because these are indisputable facts, the solution that we advocate herein is dietary, where the medical industry is solely interested in “solving” this problem with drugs. Anyone who has not been brainwashed into believing that the research proving that too much saturated fat and cholesterol intake will kill him is all one big conspiracy ought to have enough sense about him to see where the real conspiracy lies. Decades of research by brilliant medical researchers has yielded greater and greater understanding of the finer details about how the intake of animal foods leads to heart disease, cancer and diabetes, and yet what the medical industry has done with this research has not been to strenuously advocate the need for a complete overhaul of the American diet. Instead, it has poured billions of dollars into researching, creating and promoting statins (cholesterol-lowering drugs). This, of course, makes all the sense in the world, as the former course of action would devastate the profits generated from expensive surgeries and treatments, while the latter generates even more profits from the sale of statins.

Now, based on all this, it should come as no surprise that God is less than happy about the practice of trying to defeat the mechanisms he has put in place in order to prevent wicked men from gaining immortality (which would be disastrous to the universe) with such drugs and other medical treatments. Indeed, the pharmaceutical industry, upon which (or, to be more concise, on behalf of which) modern allopathic medicine is based, is the modern equivalent of what the Bible calls pharmakeia, which is to say, drug sorcery or witchcraft. (The Heritage Bible translates it as “spell inducing drugs” in Revelation 18:23.) It is in this fact that we find the ultimate reason why animal products have been advocated by spiritually depraved nutritionists.

The practice of eating animal-based products is practically synonymous with pharmakeia. The reason may not be immediately apparent, but it involves the fact that meat is a drug. We do not mean to refer to the drugs and toxic chemicals in meat and dairy products (and there are many, and they are very toxic); meat itself creates a psychological as well as a physiological dependency, to the point that the most common objection to veganism that we hear and see is “I could never [be a vegan],” i.e. “I could never give up meat, because I’m addicted to it.” Other drugs are merely synthesized to create effects similar to those naturally produced through metabolic and endocrine processes, and many pharmaceuticals are actually plant-based.

A drug is defined by Merriam-Webster as:

  1. a : a substance used as a medication or in the preparation of medication b: according to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (1) : a substance recognized in an official pharmacopoeia or formulary (2) : a substance intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease (3) : a substance other than food intended to affect the structure or function of the body (4) : a substance intended for use as a component of a medicine but not a device or a component, part, or accessory of a device
  2. something and often an illicit substance that causes addiction, habituation, or a marked change in consciousness309


Animal flesh stands out as being an abundant source of several chemicals which act on various organs and systems of the body, especially the brain. Some will say that it is a food, and therefore that it is not a drug. We dispute this, not just on the basis of the Bible’s position, but because it is certainly not natural for human consumption, though it may be for other species. Even so, it still falls under both definitions of a drug (especially given the position of the Codex Alimentarius) simply because it is used as medicine (i.e., as food [1(2)], not to be confused with medication [1(3)]), and is habit forming and produces a marked change in consciousness. That you are unlikely to get sick and immediately die from eating it does not mean it is not a slow-acting poison (pharmakon) which will inevitably rid you of your life, as we have seen. Certainly, it will be agreed that heroin and cocaine are slow-acting poisons, that they can be lethal, and that they are drugs. So why should meat, which has these same characteristics, not be classified as a drug? And the milk and cheese you buy at the store are loaded with morphine, which explains why many people are addicted to them.

Now consider that allopathic medicine is little more than the treatment of the symptoms of disease by single instances of onset, combined with pharmacology. Obviously, setting a broken bone or removing an aggressive tumor can be a good thing, but real medicine aims at preventing disease. It is better to have strong bones than to have to fix a broken one, and to not be at risk of cancer than to submit to invasive surgeries that have low probabilities of success. Hospitals benefit from performing these tasks, but not from health (and a healthy person does not need to visit a physician for a check-up, either), so there is no incentive for allopathic clinics to advocate a healthy lifestyle apart from the individual physician’s concern for his patients. This concern is offset by the money he gets (as kickbacks) from the pharmaceutical companies which pay him to prescribe their profit-driven products, which require the diagnosis of disease, and deliberately deter its cure. For if the disease was cured, then there would be no perceived need for the drug’s administering. So while hospitals and surgeons do benefit from treating symptoms, general practice revolves around pharmacology, because that is where the real money is. And pharmacology is the administering of poisons to unsuspecting victims—i.e., pharmakeia.

Pharmacology (from Greek φάρμακον, pharmakon, “poison” in classic Greek; “drug” in modern Greek; and -λογία, -logia “study of”, “knowledge of”) is the branch of medicine and biology concerned with the study of drug action, where a drug can be broadly defined as any man-made, natural, or endogenous (within the cell) molecule which exerts a biochemical and/or physiological effect on the cell, tissue, organ, or organism. More specifically, it is the study of the interactions that occur between a living organism and chemicals that affect normal or abnormal biochemical function. If substances have medicinal properties, they are considered pharmaceuticals. The field encompasses drug composition and properties, interactions, toxicology, therapy, and medical applications and antipathogenic capabilities. Wikipedia310



If you are taking pharmaceuticals, then you are a victim of the deceptions and seductions of drug sorcerers whose intent is to poison your body and your mind. The same also applies to all meat-eaters, as meat is the most common drug, and processed meat is the principal source of many other pharmacological drugs in the average person’s body, apart from public water supplies. (In Scripture, the word ‘idolatry’ really only ever refers to the practice of eating meat, as we will see.) Have we not already seen that consumption of meat and dairy is what causes neurodegenerative disorders and also causes allergies which prompt the use of glucocorticoids to turn down inflammation? It is no wonder, then, that the agricultural-pharmaceutical-government complex produces and promotes all three; this cascade which begins with “what’s for dinner” is the chief pharmacological means of dumbing down the world’s population and ushering in the New World Order.

There will be in the next generation or so a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude and producing dictatorship without tears so to speak. Producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this seems to be the final revolution. Aldous Huxley311

The “final revolution” of the Satanists is, of course, the culmination and completion of the apostasy of Lucifer, according to their own writings and lectures. Marx and Lenin had no qualms about openly confessing this long before Huxley came along. And the best of all pharmacological methods being used to enhance brainwashing to the end of abject slavery is the one which is tried and true. So keep this in mind when we get to the discussion of Israel’s demand for a king to rule over them and what God’s response to that demand was.

Of course, some will also say that it is not important to avoid poisoning one’s body, because we are all sinners, or because we are all bound to die anyway, or that the world will be ending soon enough and God is going to clean up our messes, so there is no point in making any reforms. That is clearly antagonistic toward Christ’s teachings and the spirit behind them, and will inevitably bring calamity to any and every unrepentant sinner.

But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. Revelation 21:8 (KJV)

The “fearful” include those who invoke Genesis 9:2-3 in support of their habits, as well as who demonstrate by their actions that they are more concerned about their own lives than they are about doing what is right, as evidenced by their fear of death in choosing to eat meat for nutritional reasons (which are no reasons), rather than abstaining for moral or ethical reasons. The “unbelieving” are those who think and say things like “I read [your essay], it’s bogus, and your arguments are circular. Paul was talking about meat sacrificed to pagan idols, that’s the context [of 1 Corinthians 8]. To say eating meat is a sin is just a lie.”312 The only thing consistently referred to as “abomination” in the Bible is animal (or human) sacrifice, which was always associated with eating flesh in the ancient world, and especially the Bible, and the word for ‘abominable’ is just as properly translated as ‘corrupt,’ ‘unclean,’ or ‘defiled’ (by flesh).313 The “murderers” require no explanation. The “whoremongers” are those who commit “adultery,” in both the physical and the spiritual sense, because lust and fornication poison the body and spirit. (In Scripture, pharmakeia is used to describe idolatry, as are “whoremongering” and “adultery.” All four words are used interchangeably, and the rendering normally depends more on the translator’s understanding than on the intent.) The “sorcerers” are those administering the drugs. The “idolaters” are those consuming them. And the “liars” are the clergy and those who say things like “[Scripture] in no way implies [Yahshuah] was a vegetarian.”

So it should already be apparent, without even delving any further into the biblical context, that whatever offends God enough to merit everlasting destruction all comes back to killing animals, eating their flesh, and then justifying it (blasphemy against the Holy Spirit). Now consider that Christians believe they are abiding by the highest and what is perhaps the only valid moral code in the universe. They advocate a “pro-life” position when it comes to the issue of abortion, and many will vote for a political candidate based on his position on this issue alone. They will even allow for manmade clauses that purport to be derived from our Creator, such as the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, found in the American Declaration of Independence, or in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. Yet they only extend these rights to humans, while callously ignoring other issues when brought to their attention, and will go so far as to openly persecute anyone who tries to make a positive change to their paradigm. Given their ideas about their own moral superiority, this makes them the biggest hypocrites on the planet.

Political language … is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. George Orwell314

The truth is that most Christians simply have no idea how much death and destruction they cause on a daily basis, and would rather leave it to someone else to deal with it, assuming there is even a perceived problem with it. They let the clergy tell them that animals do not have souls, and are therefore somehow expendable, though the far less conscious human fetuses are not. They then let their indoctrination tell them that nothing matters except whether a human believes in Jesus, so the only reason for existing at all, and the only priority in life, is to share the “good news” of Jesus so that others (other humans) will believe and go to heaven. Any death and destruction which they wreak along the way is irrelevant to them, and this is exactly why they themselves must perish, and will never experience life in the kingdom of heaven, short of actually repenting.

Let us suppose for a moment, contrary to the Christians’ assumptions, that wanton carnage of Earth’s ecosystem really does matter from God’s point of view, as we will see that it does matter (a great deal). Let us then simplify environmentalist issues in order to identify the common cause behind the various symptoms of the disease. Let us also ignore whatever the establishment that is destroying the planet has to say about environmental issues, as it is evidently not true, but only being invoked for political purposes, such as the global warming hoax.315 What we will find is that the destruction of our planet’s ecosystems comes back to what the masses (Christians included) have on their dinner plates, and that all it would take to fix the problems is repentance, on a large scale, or, to rid ourselves of these problems entirely, a global one. To start with, here are some facts (cited verbatim) about pollution from livestock farms, from the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC):


Livestock pollution and public health

  • California officials identify agriculture, including cows, as the major source of nitrate pollution in more than 100,000 square miles of polluted groundwater.
  • In 1996 the Centers for Disease Control established a link between spontaneous abortions [miscarriages] and high nitrate levels in Indiana drinking water wells located close to feedlots.
  • High levels of nitrates in drinking water also increase the risk of methemoglobinemia, or “blue-baby syndrome,” which can kill infants.
  • Animal waste contains disease-causing pathogens, such as Salmonella, E. coli, Cryptosporidium, and fecal coliform, which can be 10 to 100 times more concentrated than in human waste. More than 40 diseases can be transferred to humans through manure.
  • Manure from dairy cows is thought to have contributed to the disastrous Cryptosporidium contamination of Milwaukee’s drinking water in 1993, which killed more than 100 people, made 400,000 sick and resulted in $37 million in lost wages and productivity.
  • In this country, roughly 29 million pounds of antibiotics—about 80 percent of the nation’s antibiotics use in total—are added to animal feed every year, mainly to speed livestock growth. This widespread use of antibiotics on animals contributes to the rise of resistant bacteria, making it harder to treat human illnesses.
  • Large hog farms emit hydrogen sulfide, a gas that most often causes flu-like symptoms in humans, but at high concentrations can lead to brain damage. In 1998, the National Institute of Health reported that 19 people died as a result of hydrogen sulfide emissions from manure pits.


Livestock pollution and water pollution 

  • Huge open-air waste lagoons, often as big as several football fields, are prone to leaks and spills. In 1995 an eight-acre hog-waste lagoon in North Carolina burst, spilling 25 million gallons of manure into the New River. The spill killed about 10 million fish and closed 364,000 acres of coastal wetlands to shellfishing.
  • In 2011, an Illinois hog farm spilled 200,000 gallons of manure into a creek, killing over 110,000 fish.
  • In 2012, a California dairy left over 50 manure covered cow carcasses rotting around its property and polluting nearby waters.
  • When Hurricane Floyd hit North Carolina in 1999, at least five manure lagoons burst and approximately 47 lagoons were completely flooded.
  • Runoff of chicken and hog waste from factory farms in Maryland and North Carolina is believed to have contributed to outbreaks of Pfiesteria piscicida, killing millions of fish and causing skin irritation, short-term memory loss and other cognitive problems in local people.
  • Nutrients in animal waste cause algal blooms, which use up oxygen in the water, contributing to a “dead zone” in the Gulf of Mexico where there's not enough oxygen to support aquatic life. The dead zone fluctuates in size each year, extending a record 8,500 square miles during the summer of 2002 and stretching over 7,700 square miles during the summer of 2010.
  • Ammonia, a toxic form of nitrogen released in gas form during waste disposal, can be carried more than 300 miles through the air before being dumped back onto the ground or into the water, where it causes algal blooms and fish kills.


The growth of factory farms 

  • From 1980 to 2011, the number of hog operations in the U.S. dropped from 666,000 to roughly 69,000, yet the number of hogs sold remains almost the same.
  • About 70% of U.S. beef cattle come from farms with at least 5,000 head of cattle.
  • Ten large companies produce more than 90 percent of the nation's poultry.316


Now, lest anyone say that it is factory farms, rather than animal farming itself which is to blame for the pollution and destruction of the ecosystem (do animals on other farms not defecate and carry diseases?), factory farming is practically mutually exclusive from ranching. Ranching is what takes up the land. So while factory farming may be disastrous to human health in urban areas and to the natural environment in certain locations, overall, ranching is what is most responsible for deforestation, which is probably the first thing that comes to mind for many people when the topic of the destruction of the environment is raised. Consider that agriculture altogether accounted for about 95% of the deforestation of the Brazilian rainforest between 2000 and 2005, most of which was exclusively for grazing cattle, while logging for pulp only accounted for 1.5%, as indicated in the following pie chart:317



As far as environmental issues are concerned, deforestation is most responsible for the mass extinction of plant and insect species everywhere. Nor is this a problem that is exclusive to Brazil, or to the world’s rainforests—the reason it is happening there is that it has already happened everywhere else. The lowest figure we have seen for how much land is dedicated to raising animals for food is 17 million square miles, or 30% of Earth’s land mass (about the equivalent of the entire continent of Asia). By comparison, the Moon’s surface area is only 14.6 million square miles.318 This does not even include the land that is used to grow animal feed.

In the US, the amount of forest that is cleared to make room for more animals or for growing animal feed is equivalent to seven football fields every minute.319 70% of the grains and cereals grown in the US are fed to farm animals in order to produce meat and dairy products. It takes sixteen pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat, and five pounds of fresh fish to produce one farmed fish.320 This incredibly exploitative, inefficient and unsustainable use of land and resources, combined with economic factors in undeveloped nations, is essentially the cause for world hunger.

One of the intended results of this malfeasance is the deliberate extermination of wildlife species on previously protected lands. For example, the US Forest Service recently announced its plans to wipe out black tail prairie dogs in Wyoming, by giving the go-ahead for ranchers to kill them by Rozol poisoning321 (a torturous death which lasts for weeks), though they have already been pushed off 99% of their natural habitat (by humans) and all species of prairie dogs have already been recognized as threatened or endangered, which theoretically entitles them to protection under the Endangered Species Act from the very same government which intends to wipe them out. Rozol had previously been restricted due to concerns which the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had in regards to the potential impact on eight other federally listed endangered species.322 Considering how many predator species depend on prairie dogs for their own survival in the American West, it seems the ranchers have launched an attack not on prairie dogs, but on Nature itself. Yet the ranchers have the audacity to call these gentle, adorable creatures a “menace.”

So now that you know that this is how the American government treats environmental issues pertaining to ethics, ecology and management of resources, and how it gives preference to ranchers even over endangered species, it should not be a surprise that such issues are routinely covered up and lied about. Nowhere is this more true than with the government-created myth of anthropogenic global warming, which is a politically-motivated, unsubstantiated hoax that has been thoroughly discredited by the tens of thousands of scientists who are actively trying to educate the public on this matter. However, the myth itself is still commonly accepted by the public, so the cause attributed to it still merits our attention, and even apart from the myth, it is still a concern for anyone worried about pollution.

With that in mind, global warming is attributed to the emissions of so-called greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide. These gases are emitted from animal excrement, particularly from farms which raise them for food, which produce about 90,000 pounds of excrement per second.323 For comparison, switching from a regular internal combustion engine vehicle to a hybrid will reduce carbon emissions by 1 ton per year, but switching to a vegan diet will reduce them by 1.5 tons per year. On a larger scale, if every American cut out just one serving of chicken just once a week, the resultant decrease in CO2 emissions would be equivalent to taking 500,000 cars off the road.324

The other main greenhouse gases are methane, which is 20 times more potent at trapping heat than CO2 is, and nitrous oxide, which is another 15 times more potent than methane (that is, 300 times as potent as CO2). Farmed animals represent the largest producer of methane in the US, and the animal farming industries produce 65% of nitrous oxide emissions worldwide. Altogether, it takes 11 times as much fossil fuel to create a calorie from animal protein as it does a calorie from plant protein325 (and too much protein is hazardous to health!), so it is hardly an exaggeration to say that the conversion of the world’s population to a plant-based diet would effectively end the major cause for concern over global warming. So compelling is the data that demonstrates this that Al Gore, years after presenting the scientific argument for anthropogenic global warming based on atmospheric emissions in An Inconvenient Truth, finally reportedly became a vegan in late 2013.326 We do not imagine that Gore cares about the welfare of animals any more than his old running mate Clinton does (which is to say that Gore could not care any less about ethical or environmental issues—an investigation into his background with Occidental Petroleum would suffice to prove this), so the fact that he has been persuaded to adopt the lifestyle based solely on the issue of pollution and how he had lost credibility among vegetarians and vegans for being a hypocrite ought to be enough to convince everyone who has bought into his claims to do the same.

Along with deforestation, soil pollution and atmospheric pollution, the issues of water pollution and mismanagement of fresh water resources (leading to chronic dehydration in poor regions) are also major causes for concern among environmentalists. Nearly half of all water used in the US goes to raising animals for “food.”327 According to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), it takes more than 2400 gallons of water to produce a pound of meat,328 but it only takes 25 gallons to produce a pound of wheat. The average vegan diet requires 300 gallons of water per day, while the average meat-eater’s diet requires 4000.329 For comparison purposes, the average American uses 176 gallons of water per day, altogether, while the average family in Africa uses only 5.330

This is truly unsustainable; already the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) estimates that 2.4 billion people lack adequate sanitation, and 1.1 billion people do not have access to safe water.331 It is estimated that by 2025, nearly two-thirds of the world’s population will experience water shortages.332 This also leads to other serious and regrettable conditions; for example, at any given time, half the world’s hospital beds are occupied by people who have contracted waterborne diseases (which are also the number one killer of children globally).333 So to say that the global shift to veganism is the first and most important step to eliminating preventable disease is a massive understatement.

Any way that one looks at it, it is clear that the consumption of meat is the primary cause of the destruction of this planet’s environment and the mismanagement of its resources (natural and otherwise). Ecologists are well aware of this. According to the International Livestock Research Institute, livestock systems occupy 45% of the global surface area.334 As one ecologist puts it, “When the World Bank estimates that livestock production uses over ‘two-thirds of the world’s surface under agriculture, and one-third of the total global land area,’ they are describing the fact that these terrestrial ecosystems are controlled by tens of billions of our domesticated livestock.”335 This is exactly why the United Nations has urged the world’s population to move away from meat and dairy;336 it is simply the cause for all the world’s environmental and ecological problems. We have used the low-end estimates to demonstrate the point so far; here are a few more from Richard Oppenlander, who is as knowledgeable as anyone on this subject:

  • It takes 55 ft2 of rainforest to produce just 1 quarter-pound burger.337
  • 70% of our rainforests have been slashed and burned in order to raise livestock.338
  • 55% of our fresh water is being given to livestock.339
  • It takes 10-20 gal. of water to produce 1 lb. of vegetables, fruit, soybeans or grain.340
  • It takes over 5000 gal. of water to produce 1 lb. of meat.341
  • 1 acre of land, if used for vegetables, grain, and/or legumes, produces 10-15 times more protein than if devoted to meat production.342


Let’s put it into perspective: on any given acre of land we can grow twelve to twenty times the amount in pounds of edible vegetables, fruit and grain as in pounds of edible animal products. We are essentially using twenty times the amount of land and crops and hundreds of times the water, as well as polluting our waterways and air and destroying rainforests, to produce animals to kill and eat … which is less healthy than eating the plant products we could have produced. …

An almost unbelievable 70 percent of all grain produced [in the United States] is fed not to humans but to animals that are raised for food. The World Hunger Organization [sic] reported that six million children died of starvation in 2009 alone. Another one billion people currently are suffering from hunger and malnutrition. There is more than enough grain produced each year to eradicate world hunger, but the solution is to stop giving grain to livestock and to simply give it to those who are starving to death. Richard Oppenlander343,344

The solution to virtually every environmental dilemma (or, at least, the first step to reversing the destruction of Earth’s ecosystems) is simple enough that a 12-year-old can figure it out and share her findings in a thoroughly convincing way. These facts are a little out of date now (i.e. the problems have grown since the article was written), but they still demonstrate the point well enough:

According to the Water Education Foundation, it takes 2,464 gallons of water to produce one pound of beef in California. This is the same amount of water you would use if you took a seven-minute shower every day for six entire months. In contrast, only 25 gallons of water are needed to produce one pound of wheat. Present human water consumption drains aquifers around the world. Water tables are dropping drastically and wells are going dry. The United States Geological Survey says that 40 percent of fresh water used in the U.S. in 2000 went to irrigate feed crops for livestock. Only 13 percent was used for domestic purposes including showers, flushing toilets, washing cars and watering lawns. Switching to a plant-based diet or reducing the amount of meat in your diet is by far the most important choice you can make to save water.

Raising livestock depletes other natural resources as well, including fossil fuels and topsoil. Aside from the cost of grains used to feed livestock you can also measure the cost of fossil fuel energy. Agricultural production uses ten percent of the energy used every year in the United States. David Pimentel from Cornell University explained it this way, 40 calories of fossil fuel are needed to produce one calorie of protein from feedlot beef while only two calories of fossil fuel are needed to produce one calorie of protein from tofu.

Topsoil is another vital natural resource being used faster than nature can replace it. The production of corn and soybeans, the major grains fed to livestock, causes massive soil erosion because those crops are grown in rows. The bare patches between the rows expose the topsoil to both wind and rain erosion. Pimentel has calculated that in Iowa one half of the topsoil has been lost due to farming over the past 100 years. It is estimated that we lose nearly 7 billion tons of topsoil every year.

Another natural resource that is being threatened today by the increased production of livestock is the rainforest. According to the Nature Conservancy, every second of every day one football field of rainforest is being destroyed. Much of this forestland is being cut down to farm and raise livestock, which is then exported to the U.S. and ends up in fast-food hamburgers. According to the Rainforest Action Network, 55 square feet of tropical rainforest are destroyed to make every fast-food hamburger made from rainforest cattle. This is an area about the size of a small kitchen and it is gone forever each time one of these hamburgers is eaten. It is even worse because with each square foot of rainforest gone, up to 30 different plant species, 100 different insect species and dozens of bird, mammal and reptile species are destroyed. The rainforests are so important because half of the species on earth live in them and the forests are vital to the world’s oxygen supply.

Additional impacts on the environment from a meat-eating diet are the pollution of our water and air. All of the livestock being raised throughout the world produce enormous amounts of manure and urine, which in turn pollute natural resources. Animal waste changes the pH of our water, contaminates our air; and the gases emitted are believed to be a major cause of global warming. To keep costs down, the modern animal farming practice is to raise livestock in feedlots and factory farms where thousands or tens of thousands of animals are crowded into small spaces. However, this makes the animal waste problem worse because of concentrated waste. Livestock in the U.S. produce 2.7 trillion pounds of manure each year. That’s about ten times more waste than was produced by all the American people.

What happens to all this waste? Some farmers spray the manure on nearby fields for fertilizer, however this can be expensive, does not provide the best nutrient balance for growing plants and can spread diseases carried in the waste to humans. Some farmers use manure lagoons as a “safe” way to store millions of gallons of animal waste. These lagoons, it turns out, are not so safe. In 1995, 25 million gallons of manure and urine spilled from a hog farm lagoon into the New River in North Carolina. More than 10 million fish were immediately killed and 364,000 acres of coastal wetlands were closed to shell fishing. In the Gulf of Mexico there is a 7,000 square mile “dead zone” where there is no aquatic life due to pollution from animal waste and chemical fertilizers. The pollution from factory farms and feedlots is happening throughout the U.S., and is beginning to happen throughout the world. If we decrease our consumption of animal products we can also decrease the threat of water pollution.

The waste from factory farms gives off many harmful gases such as ammonia, methane and hydrogen sulfide, as well as clouds of dust and particles, which pollute our air. Since these farms are so large and often use huge manure lagoons the most obvious pollution is the horrible smell, which affects communities nearest the farms. The bad smell is the least of the dangers to the environment. In the U.S., animal farms are responsible for 73% of the ammonia released into the air. The ammonia can react with other gases in the air and cause respiratory problems and contribute to smog and acid rain. The particulate matter created from animal agriculture can also cause respiratory problems and can form a brown cloud effect that used to be found only near large industrialized cities.

Methane may be the most serious gas given off from livestock. In fact the meat industry is the number one source of methane throughout the world, releasing over 100 million tons a year. Methane is a gas that traps heat in the atmosphere and causes the earth’s temperature to rise. Noam Mohr in his report on global warming says, “methane is 21 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.” Theoretically by reducing the amount of meat eaten throughout the world we could slow down methane production and therefore global warming.

Yes, I am still very concerned about the mistreatment of animals, but I am also concerned with the loss of the rainforests, with the increasing threat of global warming, and with having clean water to drink and clean air to breathe. What can I, a 12-year-old American girl, do to make a difference? I will still choose to conserve water and electricity and to reuse and recycle whenever possible, but the single most environmentally important choice I can make is to eat a plant-based diet. Lillie Ogden345

As we have just seen, the evidence indicating that the primary cause for the ongoing destruction of the environment is people’s taste for animal flesh is overwhelming. That is not to say, necessarily, that the earth would not still be mined for its minerals and its oil, or that trees would not be cut down in large numbers, etc., but it is certainly the case that the most immediate cause for concern for anyone interested in environmental issues is the existence and growth of the animal farming industries. This is especially true considering that it is both unnecessary and preventable.

The process of destroying any one creature and preparing it to become food for us wreaks far-reaching environmental damage to our planet, long before we have ingested that creature. Once we have done that, the internal processing of animal proteins and fats wreaks far-reaching internal damage to our body. No one can honestly maintain, then, that these consequences in and of themselves are insufficient to dissuade anyone from supporting, much less participating in, the consumption of animal products. Such a person has literally rejected life.

We might consider the destruction of the environment Nature’s way of getting rid of the problem, which is to say, mankind. The warning signs are all there, and we need to listen, or else our policy of lusting after flesh will certainly be the cause of our own extinction, even apart from God’s wrath. Really, the destruction of the environment is just a secondary complication of the malicious enslavement and abuse of the creatures for whom the earth was created. Our own end will be a third result, if it is not prevented. Eating meat is therefore so detrimental that it leads to death at every level: the individual, the regional, and the global. There is simply no safe way to go about it, in any sense.

Moreover, that these consequences exist at all, and that they are, without fail, so pervasively and consistently demonstrative against the same act, not only dissuades support of animal consumption due to the consequences, but ought to make it abundantly clear to any reasonable person that the act, in and of itself, and regardless of said consequences, is entirely evil. Only those who protest that they do not consume sufficient quantities to be responsible, or that the animals they eat are “happy” during their short lives, have any grounds to deny that theirs is the appetite of wanton destruction, the Abomination of Desolation. We have addressed this blatantly feeble justification of evil in Appendix A.6 and A.6a, but let us examine the arguments themselves here first, because for some reason there really are many people who are naïve enough to buy into them, though obviously only because most people desperately want to believe that they do not have to change anything about themselves in order to fall short of being damnable wretches on the scale of evil.

Most people who fall into this category regard the solution to the present ecological crisis as transitioning either to a “paleo” or to a “locavore” diet. These proposed solutions happen to be centered around greater consumption of meat and dairy products, simply because that is what people want, so it is what they are given, but with the pretense that animal farming can somehow miraculously transform into a sustainable form of agriculture under the right conditions. This ignores both what the conditions of the crisis actually are and that it is impossible to apply the ideal to the whole world (or even a large part of it), and the fact that the proposed conditions would actually increase the problem dramatically by less efficient use of space and other resources such as water and animal feed. Nevertheless, like all dietary fads, the locavore movement does manage to convince some people who simply have not done any research regarding the legitimacy of the views presented that it is possible to raise animals for slaughter in a “humane” manner, and that they are therefore not evil for participating in what is arbitrarily determined to be evil by them—namely, “factory” farming.

First of all, it is not without cause that we have called the “locavore” movement and its offshoot, the “humane” movement (which are both extensions of the same ideology), “the controlled opposition.” They were devised by farmers and meat marketers within the agricultural establishment, each with a purpose, in response to growing awareness of the fact that consuming meat and dairy accounts for the majority of the world’s health and environmental problems. The intent of the humane movement is to soften the impact of the realization by someone who purports to love animals that he is actually a hypocrite and personally responsible for their systematic abuse and murder; even where it does demonstrate that the problem has been mitigated, the “humane” label allows such people to feel better about themselves by believing that they are not responsible when they are. The “paleo” movement likewise aims to allow meat-eaters who purport to care about their health to believe they are consuming healthy products without making any fundamental or radical changes to their diets.

The locavore movement is the most influential and insidious of the three outside academic and fitness circles (where the “paleo” fad is the most influential and accepted of any diet): it aims not only to absolve meat-eaters of their guilt, but also to give them a feeling of moral superiority to the vegetarians and vegans responsible for undermining the animal farming industries by creating awareness of ethical and environmental issues. As such, the resistance to social changes instigated by veganism is centered around the locavore movement, which consequently receives the most attention from agricultural initiatives, and from people who simply cannot think for themselves, but like being told they are in the right. The locavore movement is predicated on the principle that people are stupid and irrational, so that repetition (remedial education, a.k.a. brainwashing) and emotional appeals can offset reason and conscience, subverting minds and instilling whatever ideas are meant to be implemented therein. (This process, formerly called “propaganda” and now called “public relations,” has been the backbone of modern marketing schemes since about the 1930s, when corporations started hiring psychologists as advertising consultants, and especially since the advent of television.)

Locavores claim that those concerned with environmental problems can make the most positive impact by purchasing foods produced closest to where they live. This is aimed not so much at providing any reasonable argument against veganism (because there is none) as it is giving the masses an easy way to feel like they are doing their part to save the environment while diverting attention away from the real problem, which would require changes far more substantial than doing nothing more than buying from a farmer’s market instead of a grocery store every so often. The Omnivore’s Dilemma by Michael Pollan is the central text of this movement, and its publication in 2006 was no doubt the catalyst for the selection of the term ‘locavore’ as 2007’s word of the year by the Oxford American Dictionary.346 Pollan’s book misses no opportunity to attack vegetarianism, yet always does so by framing meat-eating as the only rational option for the environmentally conscious, in spite of the inevitability of the facts which we have already examined, and which Pollan himself—shill that he is—is well aware of. We provide a few examples below in order to demonstrate how fallacious this mentality is.

The vegan utopia would also condemn people in many parts of the country to importing all their food from distant places … To give up eating animals is to give up these places as human habitat, unless of course we are willing to make complete our dependence on a highly industrialized national food chain. The food chain would be in turn even more dependent than it already is on fossil fuels and chemical fertilizers, since food would need to travel even farther and fertility—in the form of manures—would be in short supply. Indeed, it is doubtful you can build a genuinely sustainable agriculture without animals to cycle nutrients and support local food production. If our concern is the health of nature—rather than, say, the internal consistency of our moral code or the condition of our souls—then eating animals may sometimes be the most ethical thing to do. Michael Pollan347

Pollan ignores the fact that neither humans nor the ecosystem as a whole benefit from our existing in every single crevice under every single rock on the globe. Not only that, but some of the most abundant food sources grow in some of the harshest climates and are cash crops for societies which do not export animal products, such as Bolivia, which exports the majority of its quinoa to America because it desperately needs the money, and America desperately needs the nutrition. Furthermore, traditional agriculture produces greater yields except where cash crops are concerned, and is more profitable to local producers than industrialized agriculture.

He also ignores the fact that veganism is fundamentally opposed to the use of manure and chemical fertilizers, and that the extra space and energy we would have if our food all came from plants would easily accommodate fallow fields, allowing the land to heal itself, as Nature intended, and as God has commanded us to do. Even so, Pollan dances around the issue of pollution: manure would not be in “short supply” even if the whole world went vegan, as there is a massive overabundance of it now as solid waste, and vegans do not propose killing off all the animals on animal farms, though perhaps to let them reproduce naturally and let their numbers be maintained organically. If there was such a shortage, humans would adapt by finding better use for their own feces than flushing it down the toilet, whereas the same number of animals raised on “organic” farms still produces the same amount of manure as those raised on “factory” farms.

Unfortunately for Pollan and his ilk, many of his flimsy lies can actually be subjected to the scrutiny of scientific measurements. The “most ethical thing” a person can do is not to indulge in filthy habits without any measure of skepticism, but to think, and to question the legitimacy of the arguments of people whose only real motivation is to perpetuate disease and murder while making money at the expense of suffering animals and gullible humans. Ethics are, after all, based on facts, and on reason, not the bias of subjective opinions. It is more than a bit ironic, then, that even judging by the dubious standard of greenhouse gas emissions (which is a real problem in terms of pollution), eating locally-raised grass-fed beef is inferior to eating plant products shipped from far away, contrary to Pollan’s unsubstantiated claims.

Despite significant recent public concern and media attention to the environmental impacts of food, few studies in the United States have systematically compared the life-cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with food production against long-distance distribution, aka “food-miles.” We find that although food is transported long distances in general (1640 km delivery and 6760 km life-cycle supply chain on average) the GHG emissions associated with food are dominated by the production phase, contributing 83% of the average U.S. household‘s 8.1 t CO2e/yr footprint for food consumption. Transportation as a whole represents only 11% of life-cycle GHG emissions, and final delivery from producer to retail contributes only 4%. Different food groups exhibit a large range in GHG-intensity; on average, red meat is around 150% more GHG intensive than chicken or fish. Thus, we suggest that dietary shift can be a more effective means of lowering an average household’s food-related climate footprint than “buying local.” Shifting less than one day per week’s worth of calories from red meat and dairy products to chicken, fish, eggs, or a vegetable-based diet achieves more GHG reduction than buying all locally sourced food. Christopher L. Weber and H. Scott Matthews348

This by itself ought to put an end to the locavore movement, insofar as it is based on ethical considerations. (As far as it is based on moral considerations, it should have no basis, because it is totally immoral to exploit and murder animals for 8 seconds of plant-seasoned taste.) However, people advocating locavore diets clearly have no comprehension of how erroneous their views are or how thoroughly and easily the opposing arguments demolish theirs, because they do not know or understand the very first thing about issues pertaining to the destruction of the natural environment and the mismanagement of Earth’s natural resources, which is that they are all mostly attributable to systematic human consumption of animal products. Advocating human health under any pretense, or advocating any environmentalist cause while simultaneously advocating the consumption of meat and dairy to any extent whatsoever, is utterly ludicrous and hypocritical.

Even the icons of the locavore movement seem entirely oblivious to, or else gratuitously proud of this hypocrisy. In The Omnivore’s Dilemma, Pollan, while describing a meal he was attempting to assemble solely from locally-sourced foods, remarks, “Fortunately the state of Virginia produces no chocolate to speak of, so I was free to go for the good Belgian stuff, panglessly,”349 thus demonstrating that he is actually happier when he fails to meet his own self-generated standard of morality when indulging in nutritionally devoid “foods,” and not at all ashamed to admit it. Meanwhile, Joel Salatin, a farmer whose accolades from Pollan have assisted him in reaching celebrity status, refuses to ship the meats he produces because he does not believe that doing so is “sustainable.” Yet Salatin does not hesitate to advertise the quality of his product by bragging about how far his customers are forced to drive to buy from him directly, even posting a testimonial on his website which states, “I drive to Polyface 150 miles one way in order to get clean meat for my family.”350

This is supposed to be more sustainable than mass production and mass shipping to local markets. Could it be any more apparent that locavorism is a blatant marketing gimmick exploited by men like Salatin to get rich and famous and promoted by men like Pollan to perpetuate environmental destruction and animal suffering, rather than to do anything to alleviate either of them? If nothing else, we might question the wisdom of idealizing Salatin, a self-proclaimed Christian who enthusiastically promotes not just exposing children to killing and death, but encourages them to engage in acts of violence themselves.

Interestingly, we typically have families come—they want to come and see the chicken butchering, for example. Well, Mom and Dad (they’re in their late-20s early-30s), they stay out behind in the car, and the 8-, 9-, 10-, 11-year-old children come around to see this. We have not found any child under 10 that’s the least bit put off by it. They get right into it. We’ll even give them a knife and let them slice some throats. Joel Salatin351

“But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it is better for him that a millstone be hung around his neck, and that he be drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe to the world because of stumbling-blocks! For it is necessary that stumbling-blocks come, but woe to that man by whom the stumbling-block comes!” Matthew 18:6-7

Of all the outrageous ethical and environmental claims put forth by psychopaths like Pollan and Salatin, the greatest is the notion that only agricultural systems which “incorporate” animals (a euphemism which studiously diverts focus from their ultimate fate) are sustainable. No better is this sentiment represented than in Allan Savory’s February 2013 TED Talk entitled “How to green the desert and reverse climate change,” in which it is asserted that, contrary to popular belief, grazing livestock are not the cause of desertification but instead can be employed to reverse it. Never mind that these incredible claims have failed to withstand the scrutiny of decades of scientific research: spinning a fairy tale of eating meat to save the planet was cause for a standing ovation and host Chris Anderson’s effusive praise of “I’m sure everyone here … wants to hug you.”352

Of course they do. That is exactly the problem. The locavore celebrities have merely caught onto the fact that there is a huge niche market to exploit, thanks to the growing awareness of ethical issues due to vegan initiatives, and that they can actually sell their products at higher prices without increasing production costs simply by pretending like they have more value. By hypnotizing audiences and making the relationship between producers and consumers a highly personal affair, logical critique and choice options can both be safely thrown out the window: the consumer does not have to worry about whether or not his carcinogens are “safe,” because he knows the killer, and he is a good and honest man because he smiles a lot and sings his pet a lullaby as he murders it—unlike those shady city slickers who put their products through assembly lines.

Actually, debunking this happily murderous paradigm is easy. It is so easy, in fact, that proponents of animal slaughter are beginning to acknowledge that they need to devise new methods to mitigate the inevitable conclusion that what they are doing is never morally acceptable or ecologically viable. One recent proposal demonstrates what lengths they are willing to go to while simultaneously pretending like they do not have the willpower to simply stop eating animals. In this case, rather than expanding the room which farmed chickens are given in order to make the environmental conditions more humane, the proposed solution to the ethical quandary of animal farming is to reduce the space and expand the cages, to the point of actually removing the feet of the chickens, hooking them up to life support machines, and removing their brains, which will theoretically take away their ability to feel the pain and psychological torment which other farmed animals are routinely subjected to.353

The images of the new cruelties imposed on the animals in this experiment are not only evocative of the terrifying human farming systems depicted in science fiction films like The Matrix and The Island; they also beg the question of whether or not removing an animal’s brain is actually going to destroy its consciousness to the point that it has no capacity to suffer, or how this can even be done without inflicting suffering (short of using anesthetics), or whether it will just create a system of atrocity so far removed from the auspices of morality that we will unknowingly be causing a far greater amount of suffering, but without any sense of remorse. That it can actually be proposed as a “solution” to the issue of Man’s inhumanity to his fellow Earthlings has sparked debate, which some might take as a sign of hope for humanity’s redemption. We do not; we find the fact that it is controversial deplorable in and of itself, considering that there was never anything to debate in the first place, as evidenced by the fact that when Joel Salatin found himself on the opposite side of a public debate354 with Neal Barnard, the founder and president of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, he was formally declared the loser, and with more than ample cause. Ironically, some spectators have remarked that it was Salatin’s appeal to Jesus and Mohammad that sealed his fate of having no credibility at all, as though “Jesus” would ever advocate his position. (Who can imagine “Jesus” cutting into a pork chop with a steak knife and commenting on how delicious it is, or asking one of his disciples to pass the salt because his oxtail soup is a little bland?) We hardly think it is an exaggeration to say that Mr. Salatin needs to read the present book, so he can see how he has defeated his own argument with his own fallacious logic, just as the inadequacy of his arguments have inadvertently helped to spread the vegan cause.

No matter how many websites, videos, papers, books and lectures are churned out to cleverly spin legitimate issues and vehemently assert otherwise, the notion that eating meat can ever be more ecologically efficient and beneficial than eating plants is fatally flawed for one very simple reason: it will always be more wasteful to eat an animal that eats plants (or an animal that eats animals that eats plants) than to eat plants directly. This is well-known to anyone who has bothered to study even the most basic fundamentals of environmental science. In fact, it is literally the first thing which environmental science textbooks teach, before proceeding to hypocritically offer the proposed solutions, i.e. the ways to “reduce” the proportions of meat in people’s diets without switching to plants. We quote from the authors of the beginners-level textbook Environmental Science: Foundations and Applications:

Plants absorb energy directly from the Sun. That energy is then spread throughout an ecosystem as herbivores (animals that eat plants) feed on plants and carnivores (animals that eat other animals) feed on herbivores. Consider the Serengeti Plain in East Africa … There are millions of herbivores, such as zebras and wildebeests, in the Serengeti ecosystem, but far fewer carnivores, such as lions and cheetahs, that feed on those herbivores. In accordance with the second law of thermodynamics, when one organism consumes another, not all of the energy in the consumed organism is transferred to the consumer. Some of that energy is lost as heat. Therefore, all the carnivores in an area contain less energy than all the herbivores in the same area because all the energy going to the carnivores must come from the animals they eat … The proportion of consumed energy that can be passed from one trophic level [link in the food chain] to another is referred to as ecological efficiency. Ecological efficiencies are fairly low: they range from 5 to 20 percent and average about 10 percent across all ecosystems. In other words, of the total biomass available at a given trophic level, only about 10 percent can be converted into energy at the next higher trophic level … The principle of ecological efficiency also has implications for the human diet. For example, if all humans were to act only as primary consumers—that is, become vegetarians—we would harvest much more energy from any given area. How would this work? Suppose an acre of cropland could produce 1,000 kg of soybeans. This food could feed humans directly. Or, if we assume 10 percent ecological efficiency, it could be fed to cattle to produce approximately 100 kg of meat. In terms of biomass, there would be 10 times more food available for humans acting as primary consumers by eating soybeans than for humans acting as secondary consumers by eating beef. However, 1 kg of soybeans actually contains about 2.5 times as many calories as 1 kg of beef. Therefore, 1 acre of land would produce 25 times more calories when used for soybeans than when used for beef. Andrew Friedland, Rick Relyea and David Courard-Hauri355

The peer-reviewed textbook Environmental Science: Working With the Earth, which is certainly not at all partial to the vegan cause, addresses the issue first by analyzing, and then by comparing organic farming favorably to “high-yield” agriculture. Conventional organic farming is shown to be better for the earth, for the farmers, and certainly for the consumers and the animals themselves—i.e. everyone except the agricultural establishment. When we consider that the USDA’s standard for certifying foods as organic is practically whatever does not destroy the health of the consumer, and just how very little food in the US is actually organic, the nature of the problem becomes crystal clear: the only reason for world hunger is that the enormous surplus is literally wasted on animal farming to suit the tastes of omnivores.

In the United States industrialized farming has become agribusiness as big companies and larger family-owned farms have taken control of almost three-fourths of U.S. food production. Only about 650,000 Americans (2% of the population) are full-time farmers. However, about 9% of the population is involved in the U.S. agricultural system, from growing and processing food to distributing it and selling it at the supermarket.

In terms of total annual sales, agriculture is bigger than the automotive, steel, and housing industries combined. It generates about 18% of the country’s gross national product and 19% of all jobs in the private sector, employing more people than any other industry.

Here are three pieces of good news about the highly productive industrialized agricultural system in the United States. First, with only 0.3% of the world’s farm labor force, U.S. farms produce about 17% of the world’s grain (most consumed by U.S. livestock) and nearly half of the world’s grain exports.

Second, since 1950, U.S. farmers have used green revolution techniques to more than double the yields of key crops without cultivating more land. Indeed, the amount of land used to grow crops in the United States decreased by 23% between 1950 and 2000. Such increases in the yield per hectare of key crops have kept large areas of forests, grasslands, wetlands, and easily erodible land from being converted to farmland.

Third, the country’s agricultural system has become increasingly efficient. While the U.S. output of crops, meat, and dairy products has been increasing steadily since 1975, the major inputs of labor and resources—with the exception of pesticides—to produce each unit of that output have fallen steadily since 1950.

This industrialization of agriculture has been made possible by the availability of cheap energy, most of it from oil. Agriculture consumes about 17% of all commercial energy in the United States each year. Some good news is that the input of energy needed to produce a unit of food has fallen considerably and most plant crops in the United States provide more food energy than the energy used to grow them.

The bad news is that if we include livestock, the U.S. food production system uses about three units of fossil fuel energy to produce one unit of food energy. That energy efficiency is much lower if we look at the whole U.S. food system. Considering the energy used to grow, store, process, package, transport, refrigerate, and cook all plant and animal food, about 10 units of nonrenewable fossil fuel are needed to put 1 unit of food energy on the table. By comparison, every unit of energy from human labor in traditional subsistence farming provides at least 1 unit of food energy and up to 10 units of food energy using traditional intensive farming. G. Tyler Miller, Jr.356

[T]wo major ways to increase the world’s food production are to increase crop yields per hectare and to increase the amount of land used to grow crops.

The total area of cropland is unlikely to expand because of a lack of affordable and environmentally sustainable land. In addition, increasing the yields per area of existing cropland may be limited in some areas because of a lack of water for irrigation, reduced genetic diversity needed to develop new crop strains, slowing of increases in yields per hectare, and the environmental effects of food production, which degrade existing cropland.

If these projections are correct, there are three main ways to reduce hunger and malnutrition and the harmful environmental effects of agriculture. One is to slow population growth. Another is to reduce poverty so people can grow or buy enough food for their survival and good health.

The third is to develop and phase in systems of more sustainable agriculture or low-input agriculture (also called organic farming) over the next three decades. Currently, organic farming is used on less than 1% of the world’s cropland (0.2% in the United States) but on 6-10% of the cropland in many European countries. However, this type of farming is growing rapidly. In 2002, it was a $25 billion global market and a $12 billion market in the United States.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has established several rules for organic food production. First, crops are grown on land that has not been fertilized with sewage sludge or chemical fertilizers. Soil health is managed primarily through use of organic fertilizers, crop rotation, and planting cover crops.

Second, organic farmers do not use chemical insecticides. They treat pests and plant diseases primarily with natural insect predators, traps, and insect repellents. They also do not use chemical herbicides. Instead, weeds are controlled mostly by mulching and hand weeding or mechanical cultivation.

Third, genetically engineered crops and livestock animals are not used. Fourth, animals used to provide meat and eggs must be raised on pure organic feed and receive no growth hormones or antibiotics. They must also be raised under living conditions that allow for exercise, freedom of movement, and reduction of stress. Finally, organic food cannot be irradiated. …

In 2002, agricultural scientists Paul Mader and David Dubois reported the results of a 21-year study comparing organic and conventional farming. Their results and those from other studies have shown that for most crops low-input organic farming has a number of advantages over conventional high-input farming. They include use of up to 56% less energy per unit of yield, and improved soil health and fertility. Organic farming also provides more habitats for wild plant and animal species and generally is more profitable for the farmer than high-input farming.

Most proponents of more sustainable agriculture are not opposed to high-yield agriculture. Instead, they see it as vital for protecting the earth’s biodiversity by reducing the need to cultivate new and often marginal land. They call for using environmentally sustainable forms of both high-yield polyculture and high-yield monoculture for growing crops. G. Tyler Miller, Jr.357

In other words, sustainable agriculture is up to 100 times more efficient than industrial agriculture, thanks to the inefficiency of raising animals for food. Yet Monsanto, the company which more than any other is responsible for the direction which the agriculture industry has been taking the last few decades, has declared that their critics are “elitists,” implying that they are attacking a company aiming to curb world hunger.358 To call this ironic would be to give it too much credit. Given all this data, it goes without saying that the inefficiency of profit-driven corporate domination of our food supply and the shift away from the type of organic production of grains and vegetables to which we are suited are actually the cause of world hunger.

Moreover, the problem is getting worse—much worse—very quickly. In 2012, the US was projected to consume over 50 billion pounds of meat; in just over 100 years’ time, this rate has quintupled from just shy of 10 billion pounds per year in 1909.359,360 The powers that be will tell us that such predation is actually necessary, and that predators play an essential role in the “food chain” or in the “cycle of life.” The implication is that by “culling the herd” (a euphemism for predations), you are doing the herd a favor, and perhaps even saving the whole species. It is thought that an overgrown herd could deplete its food source, thereby causing the whole species to go extinct. However, the only species that is even a threat to others, much less to all others, is Man. For example, wild fish have been projected to be extinct by the year 2050.361

We are not even dealing with animals in their natural habitats or numbers, but those which are bred for slaughter. This argument could only even apply to carnivores, theoretically, as herbivores do not deplete their food sources, while it has happened in the case of our species causing others to go extinct. In addition, removing carnivores (including Man, as an omnivore that kills to eat, as opposed to scavenging) from an ecosystem will not adversely affect it, though the same would not be true of removing herbivores.

The carbon and nutrients in dead organic matter are broken down by a group of processes known as decomposition. This releases nutrients that can then be re-used for plant and microbial production, and returns carbon dioxide to the atmosphere (or water) where it can be used for photosynthesis. In the absence of decomposition, dead organic matter would accumulate in an ecosystem and nutrients and atmospheric carbon dioxide would be depleted. Approximately 90% of terrestrial NPP goes directly from plant to decomposer. Wikipedia362

What this means is that the more plants grow in any given ecosystem, the more energy is added to that ecosystem, because plants convert solar radiation into usable energy. This is nature’s perfect design for perpetually sustainable/renewable life. However, it only applies when all the consumers are consuming plants, and it is only sustainable in proportion with how much of the consumer’s diet is plant-based. In other words, farming which is not agricultural is a waste of energy and depletes the available food sources. So ‘sustainable farming’ and ‘animal farming’ in any capacity are antithetical, and the whole concept of sustainable agriculture applied to animal farming is an oxymoron.

The energy is passed on from trophic level to trophic level and each time about 90% of the energy is lost, with some being lost as heat into the environment (an effect of respiration) and some being lost as incompletely digested food (egesta). Therefore, primary consumers get about 10% of the energy produced by autotrophs, while secondary consumers get 1% and tertiary consumers get 0.1%. This means the top consumer of a food chain receives the least energy, as a lot of the food chain's energy has been lost between trophic levels. This loss of energy at each level limits typical food chains to only four to six links. Wikipedia363

If 90% of the plant material available for consumption is literally wasted, why do people even talk about overpopulation and world hunger? And if 90% of the energy available to herbivores is lost to carnivores when they eat the animal that eats the plant instead of eating the plant itself, how can any rational person argue that eating meat ever makes ecological sense? Likewise, how can omnivorous humans even think to ask vegans about their “energy levels,” as though a plant-based diet is somehow inefficient in enabling the body to turn glucose into ATP, and therefore going to make them lethargic, though it is many times more efficient than their own diets (and at least 10 times more than an entirely animal-based diet)? If our species stopped eating meat, our planet could already support 10 times the present human population, without cultivation of any new lands or species of crops. (This does not even account for the fact that if the available land could no longer support the population, plant farms could eventually be stacked and tiered, unlike grazing pastures.) In fact, more herbivores actually means more efficiency, so the sustainable population would actually be much greater, but we are still so far off from reaching that mark that it would not even matter for another century or two.

Consequently, dead animals decompose more rapidly than dead leaves, which themselves decompose more rapidly than fallen branches. As organic material in the soil ages, its quality decreases. The more labile compounds decompose quickly, leaving an increasing proportion of recalcitrant material.Wikipedia364

In other words, the ecosystem will cycle through nutrients much more quickly and efficiently with more herbivores. If you change a large number of species from herbivores to carnivores, then there are that less many consuming plants, and therefore decomposition and return of the nutrients in those plants to the ecosystem takes much longer. This is also the case where carnivores are ingesting herbivores and taking those nutrients into themselves rather than returning them to the environment. Without proper management of the ecosystem by a sentient species, carnivores always create a net loss on the ecosystem, and add virtually nothing to it. If you really think that God designed it this way so you could eat hamburgers and hot dogs, then know that it was actually designed to ensure that if you do, you will not live, “for in the day you eat of it, you shall surely die” (Genesis 2:17). This is not so much a matter of God punishing sinners as it is the natural consequence of doing what is necessarily disastrous to one’s own body, à la “the wages of sin is death.” Ever since the beginning, we have been told that light is the basis of creation, and of life; those who consume death are living in darkness.

The efficiency with which energy or biomass is transferred from one trophic level to the next is called the ecological efficiency. Consumers at each level convert on average only about 10% of the chemical energy in their food to their own organic tissue. For this reason, food chains rarely extend for more than 5 or 6 levels. At the lowest trophic level (the bottom of the food chain), plants convert about 1% of the sunlight they receive into chemical energy. It follows from this that the total energy originally present in the incident sunlight that is finally embodied in a tertiary consumer is about 0.001%. Wikipedia365

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with Elohim, and the Word was Elohim. He was in the beginning with Elohim. All came to be through Him, and without Him not even one came to be that came to be. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. John 1:1-5

He was the true Light, which enlightens every man, coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world came to be through Him, and the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the authority to become children of Elohim, to those believing in His Name, who were born, not of blood nor of the desire of flesh nor of the desire of man, but of Elohim. John 1:9-13

Take note of the deliberate use of terms contrasted against “life,” “light” and “God”: “darkness,” “blood,” “flesh,” “Man.” It is absurd to think that God, in his infinite wisdom and benevolence, would have designed an ecosystem for the purpose of giving life to it, in which it was necessary for any one sentient creature to feed off any other, or in which it was even beneficial. Let the Darwinists cling to such baseless superstitions. Christians should know better, as their major preoccupation is with inheriting everlasting (perpetually sustainable, i.e. 100% organic, self-regenerating) life. Darkness and light cannot coexist; ignorance and wisdom are antitheses, as are death and life.

Light is sown for the righteous,
And gladness for the upright in heart.
Psalm 97:11

For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Master. Walk as children of light—for the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness, and righteousness, and truth—proving what is well-pleasing to the Master. And have no fellowship with the fruitless works of darkness, but rather reprove them. For it is a shame even to speak of what is done by them in secret. But all matters being reproved are manifested by the light, for whatever is manifested is light. Ephesians 5:8-13

“The lamp of the body is the eye. If therefore your eye [what you see; what you desire] is good, all your body shall be enlightened.” Matthew 6:22

And this is the message which we have heard from Him and announce to you, that Elohim is light and in Him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and are not doing the truth. But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of יהושע Messiah His Son cleanses us from all sin. 1 John 1:5-7

The night is far advanced, the day has come near. So let us put off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light. Romans 13:12

It can be difficult to see how one’s daily decisions impact an entire planet, in such a way as to realize that eating a hamburger in Chicago amounts to forcing millions of children in Africa to starve, especially considering that marketing tactics like those of the locavore movement are deliberately constructed in such a way as to occlude one’s sight from these truths. However, given the nature of the global economy (which is based on the worldwide financial system—not on whether you get your groceries from near or far!), everyone who financially supports the meat industry is undeniably contributing to the problem. Anyone who eats meat, or even so much as buys it at the store, is guilty of the same crime that caused Adam and Eve to get kicked out of Paradise, and caused God to destroy the human race with the Flood. What we need in order to return to the ideal state is to undo the effects of the Fall by removing their cause; what we need is to have more reverence for life, so that we do not gauge its value by its taste on our tongues.

The average city dweller will eat chops and burgers without ever having to confront the idea that what he or she is eating was once alive. Such fastidiousness would have been alien in [ancient times], so ideas of ritual sacrifice and preparation of animals may seem a touch barbaric in our squeamish society. In reality they were the reverse, showing respect for the beasts, to the social order and to the gods. Those who confront the reality of slaughter as well as the cost of rearing and feeding livestock will be less inclined to waste the meat, of course. Chinese thinker Lin Yutang said that if a chicken is killed and then badly cooked then that chicken has died in vain—a good thought for our era of fish fingers and chicken nuggets that would have been obvious at any other times. John M. Wilkins and Shaun Hill366

In conclusion, if you think you need to murder animals to survive, think again! Your Creator says the exact opposite, and that you will be held accountable for each and every time you commit the sins of murder and adultery. Sin, being essentially the contravention of God’s will, is most concretely expressed in the destruction of his creation, because God’s will is all about life, and the appreciation and sustaining of it.

As for why we are calling the eating of flesh “adultery” (an association which we will examine later in more detail), we mean this in the biblical sense, of course, as ‘adulteration,’ which technically extends beyond merely eating the wrong things, but is mostly confined to that in general terms. The construction of all biological organisms is controlled by DNA, while the maintenance of said organisms is controlled by their metabolic processes. In humans, the consumption of animal products modifies DNA and disrupts metabolic processes. Therefore, the consumption of animal products is a sin because it alters God’s creation. The penalty for such sin is the destruction of the human body through the buildup of metabolic wastes and the degradation of the body’s tissues and organs, which ultimately results in death.

So now that you know the truth about why we mortals die before our times, will you still let mere men like Michael Pollan and Joel Salatin, or Pope Francis, tell you that there are no consequences for sin, or will you finally take the hint and put your trust in Yahweh?

Thus said יהוה, “Cursed is the man who trusts in man and makes flesh his arm, and whose heart turns away from יהוה. For he shall be like a shrub in the desert, and not see when good comes, and shall inhabit the parched places in the wilderness, a salt land that is not inhabited. Blessed is the man who trusts in יהוה, and whose trust is יהוה. For he shall be like a tree planted by the waters, which spreads out its roots by the river, and does not see when heat comes. And his leaf shall be green, and in the year of drought he is not anxious, nor does he cease from yielding fruit.” Jeremiah 17:5-8

Trust in יהוה with all your heart,
And lean not on your own understanding;
Know Him in all your ways,
And He makes all your paths straight.
Do not be wise in your own eyes;
Fear יהוה and turn away from evil.
It is healing to your navel,
And moistening to your bones.
Proverbs 3:5-8

The word translated as “moistening” here is שקוי (shiqquy, H8250), which literally means ‘drink,’ which was synonymous with ‘medicine’ in the ancient world. In other words, you can cause your obesity/bloating/indigestion and your cancers/leukemias to go into regression simply by doing what God tells you to do instead of thinking that you know better than him and acting accordingly. In other words, do not be like the “serpent” (“wise”—in your own eyes) and go your own way, which is the way of death. Rather, listen to God about what you should eat; trusting in him will heal your flesh and nourish your bones!






38 Mike Adams, Natural News,

39 “Meat Consumption and Cancer Risk,” Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine,

40 World Cancer Research Fund & American Institute for Cancer Research, Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity, and the Prevention of Cancer: a Global Perspective, AICR, Washington DC, 2007,p. 382,

41 F. Crowe et al., “Risk of hospitalization or death from ischemic heart disease among British vegetarians and nonvegetarians,” The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 1 Mar 2013, 97(3), pp. 597-603,

42 M. Thorogood et al., “Risk of death from cancer and ischaemic heart disease in meat and non-meat eaters.” British Medical Journal, 25 Jun 1994, 308, pp. 1667-1670,

43 J. Chang-Claude, R. Frentzel-Beyme & U. Eilber, “Mortality patterns of German vegetarians after 11 years of follow-up,” Epidemiology, Sep 1992; 3, pp. 395-401,

44 J. Chang-Claude & R. Frentzel-Beyme, “Dietary and lifestyle determinants of mortality among German vegetarians,” International Journal of Epidemiology, Apr 1993, 22, pp. 228-236,

45 T.J. Key et al., “Cancer incidence in British vegetarians,” British Journal of Cancer, 7 Jul 2009, 101, pp. 192-197,

46 E Giovannucci et al., “Intake of Fat, Meat, and Fiber in Relation to Risk of Colon Cancer in Men,” Cancer Research, 1994, 54(9), pp. 2390-2397,

47 W.C. Willet et al., “Relation of Meat, Fat, and Fiber Intake to the Risk of Colon Cancer in a Prospective Study among Women. The New England Journal of Medicine, 1990, 323, pp. 1664-1672,

48 P.H. Gann et al., “Prospective Study of Plasma Fatty Acids and Risk of Prostate Cancer. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 1994, 86(4), pp. 281-286,

49 Takeshi Hirayama, “Epidemiology of breast cancer with special reference to the role of diet,” Preventative Medicine, 1978, 7, pp. 173-195,

50-51 Michael Greger, “Heart Disease Starts in Childhood,”, 23 Sep 2013,

52 Vinay Kumar et al., Robbins Basic Pathology (8th ed.), Saunders Elsevier, 2007, pp. 348-351.

53 J.P. Strong & H.P McGill, Jr., “The Pediatric Aspects of Atherosclerosis,” Journal of Atherosclerosis Research, May-Jun 1969, 9(3), 251-265,

54 John McDougall, “Why Did Steve Jobs Die?” 27 Feb 2012,

55 Michael Greger, “Starving Cancer with Methionine Restriction,”, 18 Sep 2013,

56-57 Michael Greger, “Eating Outside Our Kingdom,”, 16 Sep 2013,

58-60 Michael Greger, “Poultry Exposure Tied to Liver and Pancreatic Cancer,” 13 Sep 2013,,

61 J.F. Dorgan et al., “Diet and sex hormones in girls: findings from a randomized controlled clinical trial,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Jan 2003, 95, pp. 132-141,

62 A.C.M. Thiébaut et al., “Dietary Fatty Acids and Pancreatic Cancer in the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 15 Jul 2009, 101, pp. 1001-1011,

63 E. Cho et al., “Premenopausal fat intake and risk of breast cancer, Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 16 Jul 2003, 95(14), pp. 1079-1085,

64 That is, cancer research is aimed at finding the means to enable people to continue eating meat and dairy without having to suffer the ultimate consequence. Considering how much effort is devoted to the treatment of preventable diseases, this is essentially the basis of modern medical practice in its entirety.

65 This is a matter of percentage of total caloric intake, and of how much food your body can handle. To be safe, you should not eat more than 2000 calories per day, and your diet should not consist of more than 10% protein. However, this is just a rule and there are many other things to consider.

66 See note 16 (Chapter 1) for publishing information.

It is worth noting that by the time Cohen had published Milk: The Deadly Poison, after three years of investigative research, he still had not removed all dairy (much less meat) products from his family’s diet. We mention this to demonstrate the power which the agricultural influences have over the common person’s mind due to strong psychological and behavioral barriers, and how even the most controversial information contained here in Chapter 2 does not come from biased (vegan) sources, lest anyone attack it by alleging a lack of objectivity or credibility.

67 Cohen, p. vii.

68 Ibid., p.101.

69 Ibid., p. xi.

70-72 Ibid., p. 226.

73 Ibid., p. 229.

74-75 Ibid., p. 231.

76 Ibid., p. 236.

77 Ibid., p.xii.

78 Ibid., p. 205.

“Breastmilk levels of IGA against specific viruses and bacteria increase in response to a maternal exposure to these organisms. Thus, human milk has been called environmentally specific milk, which the mother provides for her infant to protect against the organisms that her infant is most likely to be exposed to.”

79 Ibid., pp. 1-2.

80 Ibid., p. 6.

81 Ibid., p. 7.

82 Ibid., p. 8.

83 Ibid., pp. 105-106.

84 Ibid., p. 142.

85 Ibid., p. 11.

86 Ibid., p. 215.

87 Ibid., p. 220.

88 Ibid., p. 221.

89 G.C. Beuhring, “Bovine Leukemia Virus Infection and Human Breast Cancer Risk,” California Breast Cancer Research Program,

90 Gertrude Beuhring et al., “Bovine leukemia virus infection is significantly associated with risk of breast cancer,” AACR Meeting Abstracts Online, 14-18 Apr 2007, 1747,

91 Cohen, p. 222.

92 In order to understand just how illogical the methodologies for establishing that saturated fats are beneficial to human health are, one needs to pick apart the paradigm one issue at a time, and this can be very time-consuming. For a cursory examination and rebuttal of WAPF’s major claims, see Joel Fuhrman’s exposé;

93 User: creed, “Raw Milk and Bovine Leukemia Virus: update – Raw Milk [online forum comment],” Mothering,

94 “FAQ-Dairy,” Weston A. Price Foundation, 2 Sep 2010,

95 Cohen, p. 40.

96 Ibid., p. 279.

97-98 Jon Hamilton, “Mad Cow and Alzheimer’s Have Surprising Link,” National Public Radio, 25 Feb 2009,

99 Amy Dockser Marcus, “Mad-Cow Disease May Hold Clues to Other Neurological Disorders,” Wall Street Journal, 3 Dec 2012,

100 Cohen, p. 282.

101 “Prion,” Wikipedia,

102 Cohen, p. 278.

103 Ibid., p. 218.

104 Ibid., pp. 212-214.

105 Ibid., p. 257.

106 Ibid., p. 259.

107-108 Ibid., p. 262.

109 Ibid., p. 261.

110 Ibid., p. 257.

111 Ibid., p. 270.

112 Ibid., p. 257.

113 Ibid., p. 259.

114 Ibid., p. 100.

115-116 Jane Brody, “Final Advice From Dr. Spock: Eat Only All Your Vegetables,” New York Times, 20 Jun 1998,

117 Cohen, p. 218.

118 Ibid., pp. 217-218.

119 Ibid., p. 264.

120 Ibid., pp. 260-261.

121 Ibid., p. 260.

122 Ibid., pp. 233,264.

123-124 Ibid., p. 264.

125 “Insulin signal transduction pathway and regulation of blood glucose,” Wikipedia,

126 Cohen, p. 265.

127 Ibid., p. 228.

128 This has been the case for many years, but not so much anymore, as porcine serum only accounts for about 30% of the market. The majority is also now produced from human insulin recombined and replicated in E. coli cells, so the point remains the same, considering that neither the average person nor his genetically modified intestinal bacteria could possibly be considered “clean” by the Bible’s stringent standards.

129 Cohen, p. 246.

130 “Mutagen,” Wikipedia,

131 “Radical (chemistry),” Wikipedia,

132 “Phagocytosis,” Wikipedia,

133 “Electron transport chain,” Wikipedia,

134 Ibid.,

135 “Radical (chemistry),” Wikipedia,

136 “Oxidative stress,” Wikipedia,

137 Ibid.,

138 Ibid.,

139 “Superoxide,” Wikipedia,

140 “Reactive oxygen species,” Wikipedia,

141 Ibid.,

142 Ibid.,

143 “Insulin signal transduction pathway and regulation of blood glucose,” Wikipedia,

144 Ibid.,

145 “Reactive oxygen species,” Wikipedia,

146 “Autocrine signaling,” Wikipedia,

147 Ibid.,

148 “Wnt signaling pathway,” Wikipedia,

149 Ibid.,

150 Ibid.,

151 “Insulin signal transduction pathway and regulation of blood glucose,” Wikipedia,

152 Ibid.,

153 Ibid.,

154 Ibid.,

155 “Overweight and Obesity,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,

156 Cohen, p. 162.

157 Life expectancies in developed nations are as follows:

US: 79; UK: 80; Austria: 81; Canada: 82; Australia: 82; Sweden: 82; Italy: 82; Israel: 82; Japan: 83.

158 There have been many studies demonstrating this. Unfortunately, the information has been suppressed and the American government (through which most research grants are dispersed) rarely funds this kind of research. Here are a few links to publications that demonstrate the point:

159 David Gutierrez, “Hormones in meat cause young girls to reach puberty sooner,” Natural News, 23 Oct 2010,

160 Cohen, p. 52.

161 Ibid., p. 157.

162 Ibid., p. 161.

163 Ibid., p. 158.


164 Ibid., p. 74.

165 Ibid., p. xiii.

166 “Holstein Breed Characteristics,” Holstein Association USA,

167 Cohen, pp. 38-39.

168 Ibid., p. 235; the full list is on pp. 238-239.

169 Ibid., p. 239.

170 “Insulin-like growth factor 1,” Wikipedia,

171 Ibid.,

172 Ibid.,

173 Ibid.,

174 Ibid.,

175 Cohen, p. 161.

176 Ibid., p. 162.

177 Ibid., p. 160.

178-179 Ibid., p. 161.

180 Ibid., pp. 161-162.

181-182 Ibid., p. 161.

183 Ibid., p. 58.

184 Ibid., p. 159.

185 Ibid., p. 161.

186 Ibid., p. 158.

187 Ibid., p. 167.

188 Ibid., p. 158.

189 Ibid., p. 54.

190 Ibid., p. 53.

191-193 Ibid., p. 54.

194 Ibid., p. 35.

195 “Insulin-like growth factor 1,” Wikipedia,

196 Cohen, p. 112.

197 “Bovine somatotropin,” Wikipedia,

198 Cohen, p. 53.

199-200 Ibid., p. 242.

201 Ibid., p. 111.

202-203 Ibid., p. 242.

204 “Homogenized milk and atherosclerosis,” Wikipedia,

205 Cohen, pp. 240-241.

206 “Homogenized milk and atherosclerosis,” Wikipedia,

207 Ibid.,

208 Ibid.,

209 Ibid.,

210 Ibid.,

211 Ibid.,

212 Ibid.,

213 Ibid.,

214 Ibid.,

215 Ibid.,

216-217 “Phospholipase A2,” Wikipedia,

218 “Homogenized milk and atherosclerosis,” Wikipedia,

219 Cohen, p. 242.

220 Kirsty Johnston, “Horse semen shots on Wildfoods menu,”, 18 Feb 2011,

221 Michael Greger, “Eggs and Diabetes,”, 9 Dec 2013,

222 Cohen, p. 17.

223 Ibid., p. 11.

224 T. Colin Campbell & Thomas M. Campbell, The China Study, BenBella, Dallas, 2005, p. 57.

225 Ibid., pp. 59-60.

226 Ibid., pp. 57-58.

227 T. Colin Campbell, “Casein Consumption,” T. Colin Campbell Center for Nutrition Studies,

228 L.B. Håkonsen et al., “Does weight loss improve semen quality and reproductive hormones? Results from a cohort of severely obese men,” Reproductive Health, 2011, 8(24),

229-231 “Protein Kinase B,” Wikipedia,

232 “Foods that Pack a Protein Punch [infographic],” People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals,

233 “Protein,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,

234 “Nutrient Intakes from Food: Mean Amounts and Percentages of Calories from Protein, Carbohydrate, Fat, and Alcohol, One Day, 2005-2006,” USDA Agricultural Research Service. 2008; retrieved from

235 Planning Committee for Dietary Reference Intakes Review Workshop, The Development of DRIs 1994-2004: Lessons Learned and New Challenges, National Academies, 26 Mar 2008, pp. 34-37; retrieved from

236 Santiago Limachi, “Quinoa, mushrooms and coca: Bolivian says ancient Andean diet has kept him alive for 123 years,” NBCNews, 18 Aug 2013,

237 Diane Sera, “Antoinette Pacheco, The Queen of Calisthenic,” Diane Sera,

238 “Freelee,” Inspirawtion,

239 Cris Iles-Wright, “Carl Lewis, vegan olympic sprinter,” Great Vegan Athletes,

240 The source for this quotation was, but the article is no longer available, presumably due to the conscious decision of the vegetarian/vegan community in the UK to distance themselves from Anthony Aurelius due to the negative publicity concerning his “anti-Semitic” comments in late 2013.

241 Cris Iles-Wright, “Meagan Duhamel, vegan figure skater,” Great Vegan Athletes,

242 Joanne Eglash, “Vegan boxer explains how plant-based power makes him lean and mean,” Examiner, 2 Oct 2013,

243 Rachel Quigley, “‘I won’t let it beat me:’ Venus Williams opens up about being diagnosed with incurable Sjogren’s syndrome at 31,” Daily Mail, 28 Dec 2011,

244 Cris Iles-Wright, “Vicki Cosio, vegan tennis player,” Great Vegan Athletes,

245 “Cancer Survivor Janette Murray-Wakelin & partner Alan Murray Running Around Australia,” Running Raw Around Australia,

246-247 Sarah Berry, “Inspired or insane: 365 marathons in 365 days,” The Age, 14 Aug 2013,

248 Cris Iles-Wright, “Alexander Dargatz, vegan bodybuilder,” Great Vegan Athletes,

249 “New world masters record for vegan vet lifter,” Great Vegan Athletes,

250-251 “Rob Bigwood,” Not Your Typical Treehugger,

252 “Isaac Newton,” HappyCow,

253 Florida News Group, USA, “Eminent Scientists and Inventors on Vegetarianism,” Supreme Master Ching Hai International Association,

254 Albert Einstein (translation of letter to Hermann Huth), Einstein Archive, 27 Dec 1930. 46-756; retrieved from


257 “Viswanathan Anand,” Wikipedia,

258 “Viswanathan Anand,” HappyCow,

259 Tesla evidently did not think much of humans. He was a lifelong recluse and died a virgin. Animals, however, were a great source of comfort for him. He spent much of his latter years keeping wild pigeons, and spoke of one of them in particular as though he was in love with her, as if she was his wife. While some may see this as eccentric, if not insane, it is perfectly in keeping with his unprecedented genius, and what we might expect from a truly virtuous human, like St. Francis of Assisi before him.


261 GreenYatra, “Meet the Great Vegetarians and Know Their Thoughts About Veg,” Raw for Beauty, 21 Nov 2012,


263-266 Derrick Everett, “Vegetarianism and Antivivisection,” Monsalvat,

267-270 “History of Vegetarianism: Voltaire (1694-1778),” International Vegetarian Union, 20 Jan 2012,

271 Emile, or On Education,” Wikipedia,,_or_On_Education.

272 “History of Vegetarianism: Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778),” International Vegetarian Union, 20 Jan 2012,


281 “’Nirvana Sutra’ on Vegetarianism,” Nirvana Sutra, 2004,

282 George Dvorsky, “Animals Are as With It as Humans, Scientists, Say,” Discovery, 24 Aug 2012,

283 Ingrid Newkirk, “Top Scientific Minds Declare That We Are Just One Among Many Animals,” Huffington Post, 28 Aug 2012,

284 Con Slobodchikoff, “Prairie Dogs: America’s Meerkats – 3. Language,” prairiedogtalk, 28 May 2011,



287 “Dr. Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965),” International Vegetarian Union, 6 Apr 2010,

288 “Constipation,” MedicineNet,

289 Adrienne, “Food and Behavior. Are They Connected?” Whole New Mom, 7 Nov 2013,

290 “Red meat halves risk of depression,” Telegraph, 21 Mar 2012,

291 Maya Pillai, “Food High in Tryptophan,” Buzzle, 20 Dec 2012,

292 Natasha Longo, “Decayed Meat Treated with Carbon Monoxide to Make It Look Fresh at the Grocery,” PreventDisease, 11 Mar 2012,

293 R.L. Siegel, A. Jemal & E.M. Ward, “Increase in incidence of colorectal cancer among young men and women in the United States,” Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention, Jun 2009, 18(6), pp. 1695-1698,

294-295 “The French Government Outlaws Vegetarianism in Schools,” European Vegetarian and Animal News Alliance, 14 Oct 2011,

296 “Vegan Diets to Help Children Thrive,” Free From Harm, 23 Jun 2013,

297 Brita C. Moilanen, “Vegan Diets in Infants, Children and Adolescents,” Pediatrics in Review, 25(5), 1 May 2004, pp. 174-176,

298 W.J. Craig & A.R. Mangels, “Position of the American Dietetic Association: vegetarian diets,” Journal of the American Dietetic Association, Jul 2009, 109(7), pp. 1266-1282,

299 “Government recognizes vegan diet as viable option for all Australians,” International News, 12 Jul 2013,

300 “Harvard’s Healthy Eating Plate Almost Kicks Dairy to the Curb,” Free From Harm, 3 Jan 2012,

301 Sharon Davis & Mary Palmer, “The TRUE Cost of Your Prescription Drugs!” Rense, 3 Jul 2004,

Note: this information has been widely disputed.

302 “How to Ensure Optimal Health and Longevity,” ThreeWorldWars, 2 Feb 2012,

It just so happens that Dr. Mayo’s position on animal cruelty was in line with the vegan ideal, as well: “I abhor vivisection. I know of no achievement through vivisection, no scientific discovery that could not have been obtained without such barbarism and cruelty.”

303 Heidi Stevenson, “Home Birth Safer Than Hospital Birth: Nation-Wide Study,” GreenMedInfo, 25 Jun 2013,

304 “Restaurant,” Wiktionary,

305 Campbell & Campbell, pp. 249-250.

306 “Cancer Prevention,” The Natural Remedies Encyclopedia,

307 D. Ornish et al., “Intensive Lifestyle Changes for Reversal of Coronary Heart Disease,” The Journal of the American Medical Association, 16 Dec 1998, 280(23), pp. 2001-2007,

308 Caldwell B. Esselstyn, Jr., “Updating a 12-Year Experience With Arrest and Reversal Therapy for Coronary Heart Disease (An Overdue Requiem for Palliative Cardiology),” Prevent and Reverse Heart Disease,

309 “Drug,” Merriam-Webster,

310 “Pharmacology,” Wikipedia,

311 “Who’s Who in Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World (1932)”

312 See Appendix C.

313 The Free Dictionary defines ‘abominable’ as “unequivocally detestable; loathsome,” which is exactly what the Hebrew word seqes (שקץ, H8263) of Leviticus 11 means, where it describes insects as unclean. The most literal English translations render seqes as ‘detestable.’ However, the NIV renders it ‘unclean,’ while the KJV and the Catholic Bible render it ‘an abomination.’ GOD’S WORD renders it ‘disgusting,’ which is how Merriam-Webster defines it (as ‘worthy of or causing disgust or hatred’).

314 George Orwell, “Politics and the English Language,” 1946; retrieved from

315 If this is new information to you, then we recommend approaching it from the layman’s perspective. There are many resources available on this subject from this perspective, but this is as informative as any (note the 60-second paper under Update #1 and the video under Update #2):

316 “Facts about Pollution from Livestock Farms,” Natural Resources Defense Council, 21 Feb 2013,

317 Richard A. Oppenlander, “Saving the World With Livestock? The Allan Savory Approach Examined,” Free From Harm, 6 Aug 2013,

318-319 “Impact of Vegan v. Non-vegan Diets on Environment & Resource Use [infographic],” Compassion Is Consistent, 9 Aug 2013,

320 Ibid.,

321 Richard Conniff, “Slaughter of the Innocents: Yes, Uncle Sam Is Really Planning to Kill 16,000 Prairie Dogs,” takepart, 10 Jan 2014,

322 “Pesticide News Story: New Restrictions on Rozol Use in Six States to Protect Threatened or Endangered Species,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 10 Apr 2012,

323 Ibid.,

324 Ibid.,

325 Ibid.,

326 Ashley Alman, “Al Gore Goes Vegan,” Huffington Post, 25 Nov 2013,

327 Ibid.,

328 “Mass Production Wastes Resources,” People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals,

329 Ibid.,

This figure has been widely sourced, but PETA has removed the omnivore figures since its original posting on the PETA site, presumably because the data are disputed or unreliable. It could be that no one really knows how much water is wasted by animal farming processes, but suffice it to say that it is enough to cause contamination and scarcity of fresh water supplies, as well as soil erosion and sinkholes.

330-331 “Water Facts,” Water Information Program,

332 “World Water Day 2012: How Much Water Do You Use Every Day? [infographic],” Huffington Post, 22 Mar 2012,


334 International Livestock Research Institute, “Timeline Photos [infographic],” Robert Grillo, 19 Aug 2013,

335 Will Anderson, This is Hope: Green Vegans and the New Human Ecology, Earth Books, 2013, p. 52.

336 Felicity Carus, “UN urges global move to meat and dairy-free diet,” Guardian, 2 Jun 2010,

337 Richard A. Oppenlander, Comfortably Unaware: Global Depletion and Food Responsibility, Langdon Street, Minneapolis, 2011, p. 22.

338-342 Ibid., p. 12.

343 Ibid., p. 36.

344 Ibid., p. 28.

345 Lillie Ogden, “The Environmental Impact of a Meat-based Diet,” Vegetarian Times,

346 “Locavore,” Wikipedia,

347 Vasile Stǎnescu, “‘Green’ Eggs and Ham? The Myth of Sustainable Meat and the Danger of the Local,” Journal for Critical Animal Studies, 8(1/2), 2010, p. 11; retrieved from

348 Ibid., pp. 12-13.

349 Ibid., p. 15.

350 Ibid., p. 16.

351 Ibid., p. 26.

352 Allan Savory, “How to fight desertification and reverse climate change,” TED, Feb 2013,

353 Tami O’Neill, “Are Brainless Chickens the Solution to Animal Cruelty?” takepart, 21 Feb 2012,

354 “Don’t Eat Anything With a Face,” Intelligence Squared, 4 Dec 2013,

355 A. Friedland, R. Relyea & D. Courard-Hauri, Environmental Science: Foundations and Applications, Macmillan, 25 Feb 2011, pp. 60,65; retrieved from

356 G. Tyler Miller, Jr., Environmental Science: Working With the Earth (Tenth Edition), 2004 Brooks/Cole-Thomson Learning, Pacific Grove, CA, pp. 380,382.

357 Ibid., pp. 406-407.

358 “Monsanto CEO Hugh Grant: Our Critics Are Fueled By Elitism,” Huffington Post, 16 May 2013,

359 “Meat Consumption in the United States, 1909-2012,” Earth Policy Institute, 27 Sep 2012,

360 See also Hannah Hoag’s and Nature magazine’s article “Humans Are Becoming More Carnivorous,” as published in Scientific American:

361 David Robinson Simon, Meatonomics: How the Rigged Economics of Meat and Dairy Make You Consume Too Much-and How to Eat Better, Live Longer, and Spend Smarter, Conari, 1 Sep 2013.

See also:

362 “Ecosystem,” Wikipedia,

363 “Energy flow (ecology),” Wikipedia,

364 “Ecosystem,” Wikipedia,

365 “Trophic level,” Wikipedia,

366 John M. Wilkins and Shaun Hill, Food in the Ancient World, Wiley-Blackwell, 2006, p. 140; retrieved from