Vegans, do we need our own conspiracy theory?

I don't know. I don't see much hate towards anyone. I in fact. Avoid people that hate anything. I think hate is a toxic thing. I don't like it my house I don't like it in my food, I just don't like hate at all. I don't like when people in my vicinity say hateful things. I'm okay with dislike but not hate.

I can't understand how you can say veganism isn't about diet. To me, and only me, it's about diet. It's about health. I want to understand what you are saying but I'm not getting it. Please try to tell me what I'm missing.
 
"Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals."

I do many things that may overlap in a Venn diagram with other beliefs but it would be silly to say I follow those practices if I don't adhere to them as a whole.
Living off grid doesn't make you Amish
Following 9 of the ten commandments doesn't make you Christian
Eating a plant based diet doesn't make you vegan

Brian made a good point in another thread--food isn't vegan, people are vegan
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: feather and Lou
I think coming up with a good one is a lot more challenging that I expected.

then there is the hazard, what if we come up with a good one and next week we see it repeated on the news??!!
Would that be a good thing?

---------
Big Pharma and Big Food have secretly joined forces to encourage people to eat more butter, eggs and meat with the intent to sell more food and more pharmaceuticals. Magazines and TV shows are their unwitting tools.
So immense disheartening , so much on the tele, these lies!!!
 
Not vegan, but a recent one in the news...


So, the government confirmed siting of AFP's. I was really excited about this. The prospect of real UFO sighting. And then they showed the video of the flying pyramid....

That's when I knew that this was a false flag operation.

How/Why?

Most of us are aware of the age old CT about aliens building the Egyptian pyramids, right?

Well, whoever created these videos was probably aware of it too, and made the flying pyramid video in order to spark/reignite that CT, and subconsciously make it more believable.

In all likelihood, these are top secret projects being worked on by the NSA or DARPA. And since it's not uncommon for the left hand to not know what the right hand is doing, I can believe that comments made by the pilots who witnessed the AFP's are genuine.
 
Yes it is. It was vegans who invented the rift and the absurd term "plant based" The Vegan Society to be precise.

We should have a descriptor for those who simply feel animals are not ours to exploit for our own uses.Not only for food, but testing, clothing, and entertainment.

I disagreed with the people on the wfpb site that argued they were vegan because they did not touch foods made from animals, but had no problem with wearing there skins, using them for testing, or entertainment. They did not like those vegans who rallied for animal rights, and didn't care what people ate as long as it wasn't animals :dismay:

Maybe I'll join a Christian group, after all, Jesus was pretty cool--I live my life according to what he espoused. When someone says I need to believe in God too I'll simply remind them that Christians follow Christ
Oh heck---

What I don't understand is when someone says they're vegan, but only the dietary part, and then a very restrictive part of that, they get upset when you say that's not how it works. They get upset about the use of 'labels', but if they don't like labels, then why hijack a label just to fit their needs? If you eat plant based, or wfpb, you already have a descriptor----you're plant based!
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: feather and Lou
The first vegan society definition of veganism was written in 1949 by Leslie Cross.
“[t]he principle of the emancipation of animals from exploitation by man”

The def has been refined and adjusted over the years. but it's clear that from 1949 on, veganism was more than just about diet.

The current def has been in place since 1988.

A person who follows JUST a vegan diet is correctly called a Strict Vegetarian. *

A wfpb diet is a strick vegetarian diet minus salt, sugar and oil.

I'm pretty much against using the terms dietary vegan and ethical vegan. Technically, historically and whatever a dietary vegan is a strict vegetarian and an ethical vegan is just a vegan.

However I don't worry about the labels and technicalities too much. whatever works for the animals is good for me.

* Neither here nor there but before I was vegan I was a strict vegetarian. I knew about lacto-vegetarians and ova- vegetarians but I thought that a vegetarian that didn't eat milk or eggs was just a (plain) vegetarian. Something about the prefixes (and the logic) alluded me (still does - I can never keep them straight). One day I got into a big argument about that and it was only then I learned the term strict vegetarian. that a (plain) vegetarian ate milk and eggs. Anyway, it doesn't surprise me that no one uses the label strict vegetarian - I WAS one and didn't know the term.


FMI
 
The first vegan society definition of veganism was written in 1949 by Leslie Cross.
“[t]he principle of the emancipation of animals from exploitation by man”

The def has been refined and adjusted over the years. but it's clear that from 1949 on, veganism was more than just about diet.

The current def has been in place since 1988.

A person who follows JUST a vegan diet is correctly called a Strict Vegetarian. *

A wfpb diet is a strick vegetarian diet minus salt, sugar and oil.

I'm pretty much against using the terms dietary vegan and ethical vegan. Technically, historically and whatever a dietary vegan is a strict vegetarian and an ethical vegan is just a vegan.

However I don't worry about the labels and technicalities too much. whatever works for the animals is good for me.

* Neither here nor there but before I was vegan I was a strict vegetarian. I knew about lacto-vegetarians and ova- vegetarians but I thought that a vegetarian that didn't eat milk or eggs was just a (plain) vegetarian. Something about the prefixes (and the logic) alluded me (still does - I can never keep them straight). One day I got into a big argument about that and it was only then I learned the term strict vegetarian. that a (plain) vegetarian ate milk and eggs. Anyway, it doesn't surprise me that no one uses the label strict vegetarian - I WAS one and didn't know the term.


FMI
I want to feel that way, and always have--until---I joined groups for wfpb and plant based diets and found so much animosity towards vegans. Or I should say, "ethical" vegans, since these folks clearly felt it fine to call themselves vegans, just not the ":extremists" 🙄
If someone posted a recipe with something like honey, D3, or gelatin, and it was called out as not vegan they got jumped on relentlessly! People would pile on posting how rude and policing vegans are, and how they only follow a vegan diet. Say vegan is more than a diet-oh boy that turns into a sh+t storm!

I totally understand people just wanting to follow a plant based diet for health, and it's a wonderful thing, for everyone. I also see an even larger need to tailor the term "vegan" to mean no animal exploitation, which automatically indicates diet. Saying you're vegan should not imply what you eat at all! Avoiding all animal products being the definition
 
I think Cowspiracy, and Seaspiracy DID move the needle as much as you can realistically expect a movie to do, which is not going to be a huge, transformational amount.

I sometimes think those movies, along with What the Health (which I don't think really had a noticeable impact on the needle) were deliberately careless with the facts in order to ignite controversy and debate and promote the movie's agenda.

For example if you say that 30% of the plastic in the oceans is due to fishing it's a conservative claim, so no-one will challenge it or debate it, and so no-one will become aware that any of the plastic in the oceans is due to fishing.

But if you say that 70% of the plastic in the oceans it's due to fishing (can't remember actual numbers they use) well then now people are arguing across both social and mainstream media about whether it's really 30% or 70%. All of a sudden, everyone sees that no-one is claiming that fishing doesn't put any plastic in the oceans. Amidst all the argument, in the space of a week Seaspiracy changed "fishing is a substantial contributor to ocean plastic" from completely unknown to an established fact in about a week.

We could try this with pandemics, We could all agree to go on facebook and share a meme that says "every single pandemic in the last 50 years was caused by meat, or trading other animal products". Now I'm guessing that this statement is false (although I don't really know) and so people might reply and argue and point out that pandemic such and such was actually caused by something else, and than the origins of COVID-19 are still unproven, and they'd probably be right. But in the midst of all the argument "animal products cause certainly some and probably most pandemics" would become established fact.

Whereas if we literally wrote "animal products cause certainly some and probably most pandemics" such a conservative, hard to dispute statement would probably provoke no reaction at all, and therefore sink without trace, and most people would never know it was true. Some of the fault for this is in the architecture of both mainstream and social media but I think I've already gone on about that elsewhere.

But still...I wouldn't be in favour of making false or exaggerated statements or conspiracy theories. I think truth wins in the long run.

The ally that truth needs is not lies but cheaper and more readily available Beyond Burgers.

PS Although I decided to go for a serious response, I do realize that the original thread from Lou was more of a joke!
Thank you Jamie. It is not a case of having to exaggerate the facts but stating them, rather, in a persuasive and even forceful or impactful way. I agree that it is not right to make statements that are too open to rebuttal but the general feeling, as I can detect, is that we need to inject into the public consciousness a number of key ideas that serve as vehicles for our vegan principles. If, for example, we insist that animal agriculture is truly the main cause of global warming and extinction (through loss of habitat, etc) that is not an exaggeration by any means. But if we simply compare it to transport and offer weak data by stating that it contributes 18% of global warming gases as opposed to 15% for transport, that will not move very many members of the general public who, probably for the most part, cannot comprehend the relevance of either 15% or 18% and who do not bring to mind any affective visual image. We need to use affective mental imagery because evidence proves that we only bring about rapid changes in belief for if people are emotionally touched and if that emotional association persists. We have at least two problems with which to contend using the affective approach : that people will adopt an attitude of denial and/or refuse to emotionally engage or they will become innured to the imagery and desensitised. By keep beating the drum we may overcome to a small degree these untoward responses by simply conditioning people to merely accept our argument by continual exposure to it. But we ourselves need to accept that most people simply do not and will not care. We need to study the classic works on persuasion by the likes of Bernays and Cialdini and use such sophisiticated techniques as are proven. And we need to continually reinforce the message by repetition and with the frequent addition of fresh and novel evidence—or the same evidence innovatively presented in fresh guises. The general failure of the anti-vivisction movement over the last century and a half has not been down to any lack of heart-rending materials or poorly constructed evidence but to carefully constructed counter arguments, clout and public apathy. Morality has been used offensively as a defensive weapon and the public have been confused or persuaded of the 'necessity' of animal experimentation 'to save the lives of children, etc'—as they are today about consuming animal-derived substances.
In the old direct-mail industry, much faith was rightfully placed in testing copy. It was very expensive to mail out material in the hope of converting perhaps only 1% (or far fewer) of the recipients of the mailing. So different copy would be tested for effectiveness before a general rollout. I cannot find any reliable data on the conversion rate of non-vegans to veganism in respect of their having been persuaded by friends, media, publicity or otherwise—except for a French report which may be rather out of date and may not be accurate. There are so many influences and none may be uniquely determinant. Some of the more subtle influences might be the most important such as that of a partner in love or the influence of a highly regarded person—which could be a YouTuber.
We really do need not just data but careful and intelligent analyses to inform our activities and our approach to educating and persuading the public or a sector of it. I may be supposing wrongly that we could adopt a reverse-reverse engineering approach by not spending all our precious time trying to unbundle and tease out the complex causes that move people towards veganism—if only because there are so many confounding factors that influence us and underpin a decisive action that had already been anticipated in our unconscious. Perhaps we should examine the vastly greater volume of data generated by the mass of people who are similarly exposed to some of the evidence but who choose not to respond positively. There is a lot of solid information on the mental mechanisms of denial and willful ignorance, addiction and habit that may be very relevant such as the work of Drs Goldhammer and Lisle. I wonder if there really are two sides to the same coin. Is failure to meet the imperative demands of veganism in any way the opposite behaviour of those who do respond and consequently change their behaviour? And what happens among that significant percentage of people who start to change their lives for the better but subsequently 'relapse' or' fail' for various reasons? The parable of the sower comes to mind—but those valid explanations of the causes of 'failure' do not address the social relations that need to be remedied. Perhaps we need to know something about the psychology of the 'winners' and 'losers' and their social environment rather than the ostensible antecedent influences which caused the person to adopt veganism for as long as they did.. It would be no small research project to provide answers to the many questions we might pose regarding how best to persuade non-vegans to embrace veganism. This information might help us better understand how to provide moral and material support to novice vegans.
Evidently, for some people, the only method might be to remove (perhaps forcibly) all animal products from their environment while, for others, it might be impossible to coerce them to eat any product of animal origin. If we are looking at two opposite ends of a spectrum, might we perhaps find, on occasion, two rather similar personalities equally committed to their viewpoint as we find among committed theists and atheists? Logical argument or an appeal to examine the evidence may be equally a waste of time in either case.
It is frustrating and sad to find the overwhelming evidence and moral arguments of veganism so ineffective among our fellow humans. But that is a challenge to address and to overcome. We can do our best only with sound knowledge and understanding of the theoretical and practical issues. I doubt whether many of us have sufficient training to act other than on a one-to-one level (or even at that level) with a great deal of success. I even wonder whether the often stupid and puerile counter-arguments to veganism might not be helping us simply on the basis that 'any publicity is good publicity'. Interviews by Joey Carbstrong and Earthling Ed must make viewers despair as to the intelligence of their fellow non-vegans—and so highlight the principled and logical arguments for veganism. I think too about the famous (if not original) utterance of deputy prime minister George Brown : 'When you've got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow'.
I really do not think that conspiracy theory is much help to us here—unless it could materially change people's behaviour. We are bombarded with evidence that many of the events in our modern life are of the nature of deception. Whether it is the outlandish hoaxes perpetuated by governments or the similarly outlandish hoaxes perpetuated by the medical establishment on patients suffering from chronic diseases, the effects are little different. It is the hoax that usually wins out while truth-seeking 'conspiracy theorists' are derided not just by the hoaxers but by the general population. What we learn also from careful study of historical events is that many conspiracies are simply counter-conspiracies or, more aptly, pseudo-conspiracies. The Gunpowder Plot and the Cato Street Conspiracy were, in actual fact, (like many conspiracies) engineered by the then government with a purposeful aim—not by the supposed conspirators but by 'embedded' agents provocateurs exploiting patsies whom they encouraged. The usual outcome is that the named conspirators take the rap and provide the justification or pretext for the imposition of harsh political controls. Ironically, the controlling party shouts about conspiracy (whether that be '911 conspirators' or whatever/whoever); while experts with profound techical knowledge knowledge and moral integrity call such events into question but are promptly denigrated as conspiracy theorists. So, one conspiracy is official and the other nothing but a hoax—or vice versa depending upon one's commonsense, 'allowable' degree of cognitive dissonance, or willingness to confront uncomfortable facts.
Perhaps, it is little different with food—so, we should not expect to change a cultural habit by exhibiting mere facts and hoping to weave a narrative around them. Arguments against human slavery were probably no different, or not much different, five thousand years ago than now. We know that arguments against the consumption of animal products were well developed two and a half thousand years ago and maybe not much has since been added philosophically. If people live in a certain culture or are brought up in it, they may adhere to it substantially throughout their life unless there are very strong reasons such as tarumatic illness or an emotional event. Even then, it appears, many would rather risk an inevitably long and painful demise rather than adopt a healthy diet, give up cheese, drinking alcohol or smoking tobacco!
So, it boils down, in some cases at least, to commonsense, integrity and moral fortitude. But what we know is that much more than ninety percent of the population would rather go to war, kill others, get maimed or die rather than appear to their peers in an unfavourable light—because few people are willing to openly question the reason for war. Such is the case even when millions of ordinary people are pitted against millions of other ordinary people. Is there a conspiracy to deceive or simply a misunderstanding? The true, clearly documented facts, about the last World War demonstrate that sixty-five million people died for no good reason because the war could have been easily prevented and later stopped by peaceful negotiation on no fewer than twenty separate occasions. Instead, the war was engineered for reasons based on monetary control. We know from incontrovertible documentary evidence that the lead, tobacco and asbestos industries conspired to confuse the public about the toxicity of their products just as the food , drug and agrochemical industries today.
Beneficial change only occurs when there is a sufficiently active mass not of evidence but opposition. And sufficiently active means, in effect, empowered. Farm animals are not empowered, carribean slaves were not empowered, and those that sought to empower themselves, like the followers of Spartacus, were often treated with utmost brutality and cruelty in order to conserve the status quo.
When we seek to market a product, we select a target and focus our efforts on it. If necessary, we adapt our product more finely to that market. We might be trying to sell into the eighteen-to-thirty market and, in fact, to a much narrower sub-section if we are offering a specialised product. We do not cast our net over all age groups or our marketing budget would soon be depleted. As campaigning, proseltyzing vegans, our personal time and reosurces are very limited even when we collaborate. We need to achieve a wide enough presence to provide credibility but focus our fire power on the most promising targets among the general population. Do we know for certain who these targets are and have we a clear picture of their needs and expectations? Does there exist any information on this subject? If so, I am very keen to learn about it. If any member could identify such information, I should be very grateful.
I am severely sight-impaired so research is (literally) painfully difficult. I would be especially appreciative if somebody could help to draw up a compendium of such information from which a programme, policy, and database might be constructed. My email is jeremy.delvarr@outlook.com. Please forward any information or correspondence in English or French only. I warmly welcome any suggestions, guidance or advice as I have some ideas but no practical experience in assembling social-science data or extracting information. I am a semi-retired chartered engineer with wide experience of technical (paper-based) documentation and technical editing; however, although I have been using computers professionally since 1983, I am not what I would call computer-literate in the true sense. I am in the process of establishing a low-cost professional membership society with international reach to coordinate the efforts of multiple disciplines in establishing plant-based food policies and disseminating information. Initially, writing and v/blogging in English but, eventually in all other languages including Esperanto, God willing.
My first desire is to get a handle on the entire subject of presentation because there are two 'market sectors' that concern me : firstly those like ourselves who are committed vegans and, secondly, those who are also sufficiently interested in a plant-based diet to seek further information from an independent, reliable and authoritative source which they could trust. The core of any organisation is the dedicated and knowledgeable membership but the wider purpose is to reach beyond and attract members at appropriate levels of adhesion. There are practitioners, and there are genuine enquirers some of whom will become practitioners. Then, there is a third 'market sector' of people who may be vaguely interested and, hopefully, sufficiently so to subscribe to a YouTube channel where they can receive timely information of the appropriate nature. Fortunately, we have already a wonderful resource in NutritonFacts.org and a number of other superb channels offering much to what I suggest are 'market sectors' one and two as well as to the occasional enquirer in sector three. Thank God for all of these marvellous people around the world each with their particular gifts to realise their particular vision of a kinder and more wholesome future. It is not my intention to necessarily duplicate their work but to provide a means of collaboration and a showcase, a rich and valuable resource, a coordinating function and centre of stability which can provide trustworthy and reliable information to anyone whether or not sympathetic to our moral cause.
We are very fortunate that many valuable resources on the Internet are in English and that this language has become international in reach. There are several excellent organisations such L214 publishing in French also and I guess (but do not know) that there must be many in other languages too. A few organisations that I know of in the English or French tongue are campaigning organisations or information providers or both. They do not usually coordinate the activitities of volunteers according to their specific professional abilities nor do they publish articles from specific standpoints such as medical, legal, artistic, musical or scientific (for example) in a way that is accessible to the general reader as distinct from members of a SIG (special interest group).
There is a growing interest in plant-based diets and plant-based medicine, plant-based sport, and so on. Drs Greger and Barnard have very carefully not slipped into the unfortunate position of political commentator as has Dr Milton Mills whose efforts otherwise are so commendable. Any professional society must similarly avoid any political and corporate allegiances and respect the widely differing standpoint of its members on many issues including culture and religion to be able to speak on equal footing with any- or everybody else around the world. This does not mean avoiding discussion of religon or politics per se but to do so respectfully without censure of the beliefs of others but in a positive and constructive way that might be of genuine interest to reader of any faith, political leaning, or none. I am seeking to establish a sober, tolerant, mature and open dialogue which will be attractive, informative and welcome to as many people as possible within the first two sectors I mentioned and, eventually, the third. The overriding policy will be based on the WIIFM principle as a means of providing the very best service and experience for members and the best value possible including free or voluntary membership contributions where feasible. I will be publishing, in due course, the articles and memoranda of the organisation I registered last year as a company limited by guarantee with charitable objectives. In the meanwhile, I would welcome your ideas and, in particular, your reponses by email to the matters I mentioned above.
I have many years of experience as a professional standards inspector, assessor and trustee for professional engineering institutions and, in the sixties and seventies, I was very active in the anti-vivisection movement (British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection) and worked with feral cats in urban areas for many years. I have never received any remuneration or expenses. I became a vegetarian in 1966 and a vegan several years later. I am severely disabled, partially sighted and elderly—in case that is an issue for some. My intention, God willing, is to promote dietary reform which is WFPBD known to us as veganism in its healthiest form and to do so from every angle but not by linking directly or indirectly to any other -ism or -ology. That does not mean disregarding any campaigning issues such as sport fishing, hunting, and dozens of other practices but reporting on them only when related in any way to diet, analyzing their effects and making a moral commentary. There is fine line between the work of a professional or learned institution and a campaigining organisation—both of which are based perhaps on more or less identical moral principles but whose objectives differ even if the aims are very similar.
I look forward to communicating with like-minded individuals.
 

This is like the opposite of what I was looking for.

but wait, saying that reducing meat consumption isn't the sole climate change solutions isn't saying that it isn't A solution. I think any solution for climate change not only should include reducing meat consumption - but must include reducing meat consumption.

but yeah. unfortunately we are ways off from the government doing that.

Now pass me a plant based beer.
 
I was listening to a podcast called Slow Burn. Season one is about Watergate. The episode I just finished was about Watergate conspiracy theories. One of the points they made was that before the Watergate hearings, the Watergate scandal was just a conspiracy theory.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Blues
@Jamie in Chile

I was going for a little humor. I thought it would be a fun exercise. but my want for something to get people involved is real.

"But still...I wouldn't be in favour of making false or exaggerated statements or conspiracy theories. I think truth wins in the long run."

Mostly agree with that but I'm not only having doubts but maybe we don't have the time to coddle our sensibilities.

The whole MMR causes autism fallacy was started in the 90s and thoroughly debunked over the next ten years. but here we are in the 2020s and people still believe it. And it has evolved and spread. For some anti Vax is a religion.

What we need is something that works as well but against meat.
Thank you again for your contribution; but I cannot agree with you that the 'whole MMR causes autism' has been debunked. Maybe you have been told this and it is repeated by official sources and by (would you believe it?) Big Pharma whose profits run into billions of dollars/pounds/euros from the manufacture of vaccines. The 'fallacy' of vaccine damage of all sorts is not new but you are quite correct that it was widely recognised in the nineties by scientists and physicians alike and the epidemiological evidence of correlation was convincing to those whose minds were sufficiently open.

Back in the nineteenth century, the great Dr Walter Hadwen of the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection outright condemned the 'injection of diseased filth'. Bear in mind that most vaccines are neither by content vegan not could they considered morally acceptable to vegans being tested extensively on animals, especially primates, in horrific circumstances where animals are infected with disease to make them suffer the same diseases to which humans are susceptible to but without the care and sympathy any human patient might rightfully expect. Further more, even if this were not the case, and any single vaccine could be (ever) considered 'vegan', the companies that produce them are all the most heavily involved in cruel animal exploitation where animals are intentionally treated with deliberate cruelty in even more wicked fashion than farm animals. To add to the the problem of personal damage to health, bear in mind too that as well as animal-derived ingredients, all vaccines contain adjujvants that are intended to produce an inflammatory response in the 'patient' and which, in turn, can create serious problems not only at the time of injection but much later when any effects will be officially discounted. The governments of most Western countries have institutions that deal with vaccine damage and settle compensation claims routinely. In the USA, Big Pharma is exempt from any claim for vaccine damage. Examine the modern history of vaccination in Africa and India from official statistics. You have my permisson to disregard the claims based on misinterpretation of data by Big Pharma and paid-for (rotating-door) officials. Look at Polio and Smallpox data and ask an anti-vaccinist to explain the figures in easily understandable arithmetic.

As a vegan, you might wish also to examine the effects of glyphosate-based pesticides and herbicides which are similarly the subject of interest among those of us with recognised qualifications in both the health and agricultural fields. Examine, for example, the correlation with the use of Roundup and the incidence of autism. If you are not shocked and alarmed, I would be most surprised. Are you surprise that Monsanto is owned by another Big Pharma agribusiness. In effect, the infamous AgGag laws are simply the outcome of mixed naivety and self-interest among politiicans and ensconced members of the administration and academia. If we dare call that corruption (instead of cowardice or stupidity) we might risk being targeted as conspiracy theorists because mere data can be dismissed with a wave of the hand by those who control our destinies with their own self-interest in mind. Who would suppose that governments and businesses could be so shallow as to allow suffering on such a grand scale to animals, as is the norm in laboratories and the food industry, while not, at the same time, countenancing other policies that do further harm to the public at large.
Do we not have plentiful evidence, at every level, of the suppresion of incontrovertible factual information? The case against tobacco was absolutely clear by the nineteen thirties—but only Germany decided to launch a public-health campaign to reduce smoking (and, incidentally, reduce the consumption of meat and alcohol). Is it a mere coincidence that the same administration was also the first in the world to introduce environmental laws and ban vivisection?

We need to become a lot more sophisiticated if we are not to willingly render ourselves victims of one scam after another perpetuated by people whose power and influence over us is not for our own good. Factual evidence of hormesis has been hijacked and distorted by the vaccinists. The data they present is either not the data we need to examine or has been interpreted for us in a totally biased way. The Western vaccine movement is, like the animal-based food movement, a huge money-making affair where morals are noticeably absent. The modern movement started with Jenner who was a crook and charlatan whose ideas were unfounded and who took a young orphan child, infected him with Cowpox and then intentionally tried to infect him with deadly Smallpox to prove his hypothesis. If this were a monkey, that would be fine (according to the law) but nowadays he would have been imprisoned for outrageous child abuse and attempted murder. But Jenner is the hero feted for his 'contribution to medicine'. Well he was a charlatan, thrown out of the Royal Society for fraud but revered by vaccinists around the world whose cognitive dissonance is 'wondrous to behold'. I live just a few seconds walk from the Italian Gardens in Hyde Park London where there is a a giant statute of him seated, as it were, on a throne. It reminds me of another 'great' whose statue, equally large is place most prominently also on a 'throne' in the Natural History Museum directly on the other side of the park. Please do not allow yourself to be subject to the influence of the hero worshippers whose statues of Stalin, Kim and Mao (et alia) dominated the culture and history of entire civilisations. Those people may have loved their oppresors but we need to be more sophisticated.

Veganism is an important first step in that process of discovering the truth and being open to it. We do not have to be cynical but we must be alert and, at times, suspicious. We vegans are, at heart, kind and trusting, possibly more so as a group than many others. But as any other animal would tell us, the world is a dangerous place. According to the record, Jesus said he sent his disciples out as lambs among the wolves. The prophet Mohammed was asked, according to tradition (hadith), whether animals went to heavan and he assured the questioner that they did. He was also asked whether the devil was real and he answered affirmatively that 'the worst of them are men'....

Sadly, the world is (and almost always has been) controlled by bad or stupid people—one famous commentator calls them simply psychopaths and criminals. If that is not self evident, I do not know what could be. There are good reasons for that state of affairs, of course. Many of those who were not bad, but actually good, are the subject of contumely and contempt. Are we to be surprised at that? Distortion and confusion are important means of misrepresentation and subtle indoctrination. Lies are another. Why stop there....? Why not do actual harm? And are we not, as vegans, fighting a battle on all fronts against misrepresentation, lies and intentional harm. The same enemy, unfortunately has many other designs on the shape of our society than just getting people to eat animal products. Should we be surprised?

I am one of many senior public health professionals who condemn vaccination. Most others keep their thoughts to themselves for fear of reprisals. They condemn in their hearts, their mouths remain closed. If people believe, from scant examination of the facts, that meat is good for them, and that vaccination is good for them as well, they will adopt those practices that support the industries concerned. We have moral and intellectual responsibilties to set aside our predjudices on such serious matters and adopt a neutral stance regarding the facts. We need, however, first to seek the genuine facts and not be hoodwinked by tricksters or silenced by public clamour.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: Brian W
Thank you again for your contribution; but I cannot agree with you that the 'whole MMR causes autism' has been debunked.
I actually didn't read much of your post beyond the first paragraph. it didn't seem to have much to do with the MMR vaccine causing autism.

If you wish I can look up my references. and post them for you. It's been been debunked several ways and from multiple angles.

just google it. you will find articles debunking this concept from dozens if not hundreds or respectable journals.

Still the myth lives on.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Brian W
wow, this is an interesting conversation and I am going to agree with @feather and encourage @silva to stay away from any place/forum/group of people that "hate" - I also have removed the word from my vocabulary as much as possible and try to distance myself from toxic people and circumstances - I think that veganism is growing and some of the way that is happening is through people going plant-based or wfpb'ed first and then understanding why it is so important, not just for our health, but also for the animals and for the planet and then turning more and more into full-fledged vegans - vegans are as different from each other as humans are in general, for some it is the planet/climate change that is most important, for some it is the animals, and for others it is food... we should celebrate our differences and encourage all to be vegan in whatever way they can, to the best of their ability

I love a good conspiracy theory, if only for a laugh, and I think we don't need to create any to help the cause of veganism. We already have Lone Star ticks to help us stop people from eating meat.... so the ticks are conspiring with the cows? :~)

Emma JC
Find your vegan soulmate or just a friend. www.spiritualmatchmaking.com
 
As far as conspiracy theories go, what if we co-opt something that's already out there, like Bill Gates putting microchips in beef or George Soros funding the dairy industry to put estrogen in their products to turn everybody into liberal, pacifists so they can control us? Or something along those lines.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lou
As far as conspiracy theories go, what if we co-opt something that's already out there, like Bill Gates putting microchips in beef or George Soros funding the dairy industry to put estrogen in their products to turn everybody into liberal, pacifists so they can control us? Or something along those lines.
I was thinking of something along those lines too but I thought of ways it could backfire.
 
I actually didn't read much of your post beyond the first paragraph. it didn't seem to have much to do with the MMR vaccine causing autism.

If you wish I can look up my references. and post them for you. It's been been debunked several ways and from multiple angles.

just google it. you will find articles debunking this concept from dozens if not hundreds or respectable journals.

Still the myth lives on.
Thank you Lou, try reading on past that with which you disagree. You can also carry out some unbiased and independent research if the subject is of real concern to you. You may be unhappily surpised at what you discover if you probe sufficiently. You will have to examine genuine data, however. I hope that others might do the same—not in the spirit of seeking a conspiracy (they are all around us if we care to look) but because we need to protect ourselves, our families and communities—which is the pretext, after all, of mass-vaccination programmes.
 
Thank you Lou, try reading on past that with which you disagree. You can also carry out some unbiased and independent research if the subject is of real concern to you. You may be unhappily surpised at what you discover if you probe sufficiently. You will have to examine genuine data, however. I hope that others might do the same—not in the spirit of seeking a conspiracy (they are all around us if we care to look) but because we need to protect ourselves, our families and communities—which is the pretext, after all, of mass-vaccination programmes.
Of course it is a subject of real concern to me.
And I did do my own research. My research stated previous to 2010 where the amount of evidence against MMR was not so overwhelming. But since 2010 it is overwhelming. Both in width and depth.
But anyone else who might be interested in doing their own research, you really don't have to do much more than read a little about the guy who started the myth: Andrew Wakefield.
 

Of course it is a subject of real concern to me.
And I did do my own research. My research stated previous to 2010 where the amount of evidence against MMR was not so overwhelming. But since 2010 it is overwhelming. Both in width and depth.
But anyone else who might be interested in doing their own research, you really don't have to do much more than read a little about the guy who started the myth: Andrew Wakefield.

I've thought about this a lot over the years. I'm on the spectrum and grew up with crop dusters flying over my head. I still remember the smell almost 50 years later. I've read studies that point to the possible connection of autism with pesticides.

Even though that scientist lied about his findings, I still wonder, after reading so many parent testimonials and meeting parents of autistic children, if there isn't some connection with vaccines in a small percentage of children, but so small that it's not enough to show a 1:1 correlation. Maybe children who would have been high functioning like me, but the added vaccine was just enough to make them worse. Maybe from swelling in the brain, which can be a side effect of the MMR vaccine (CDC link below). I don't know...Just a thought and I could be totally wrong, but I think it's something to think about.

People can't tell I'm on the spectrum, but they like to say I'm "weird, but in a good way".


https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/vis/vis-statements/mmr.pdf
 
  • Like
Reactions: feather