Wtf? Of course it's hyperbolic, intentionally. Possibly for the sake of levity. What, you think he/she sat up trying to think about whether or not this could be accurately described as legitimate proof of the existence of "pure evil?"

Have a cup of tea or something.

When asked, patients tend to value confidence and empathy over knowledge when it comes to doctors. That should fucking tell you something about people.

Employing Bannon is a clear statement of support for white power.

Even if Trump is not himself racist, he is enabling racism. Impact is as important as intent.

Correct me if I'm wrong. In the U.S., the antibiotic that is given to livestock is monensin, or other ionophore antibiotics which are effective against gram-positive aerobic bacteria and coccidia, and is not used in human medicine. E coli is gram negative, and the concerning antibiotic resistance that this new strain has is to polymixins (specifically colistin). So while I happen to agree that antibiotics for growth promotion is not a good thing, the connection between that and the development of E coli that is resistant to multiple antibiotics used in human therapy is not obvious. If you can, please do clarify it for me.

...as long as I get a rakunk as well.

This is a right to privacy issue, you insensitive clod. Just because the government doesn't have anything to hide doesn't mean they shouldn't have the right to obscure their actions!

I'm not sure I'd hold the AC posting in the comments to the same standard as the Slashdot editor posting on the front page.

...and come straight to the inane crap here! :-D

I asked because the poster made the effort to express on a public forum their opinion that the current class structure is unfairly under attack. This would fit for someone who was a member of a privileged group that benefits from this structure, in which case I would take his +5-insightful comment with a large grain of salt. It has nothing to do with the clueless hack.

I'm genuinely curious: are you white, male, and is your income above the median?

From TFA: "Findings were similarly null for related measures such as stress or lack of control."

No, standard scientific procedure is to include controls for that kind of thing. So you don't compare young health nuts with the general population; you compare young health nuts who happen to be vegetarian with young health nuts who eat some red meat.

From a systematic review published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in 2009 (Am J Clin Nutr May 2009 vol. 89 no. 5 1607S-1612S):
"There is convincing evidence that vegetarians have lower rates of coronary heart disease, largely explained by low LDL cholesterol, probable lower rates of hypertension and diabetes mellitus, and lower prevalence of obesity. Overall, their cancer rates appear to be moderately lower than others living in the same communities, and life expectancy appears to be greater. However, results for specific cancers are much less convincing and require more study. There is evidence that risk of colorectal cancer is lower in vegetarians and in those who eat less meat; however, results from British vegetarians presently disagree, and this needs explanation. It is probable that using the label “vegetarian” as a dietary category is too broad and that our understanding will be served well by dividing vegetarians into more descriptive subtypes. Although vegetarian diets are healthful and are associated with lower risk of several chronic diseases, different types of vegetarians may not experience the same effects on health."

From the published Position of the American Dietetic Association on vegetarian diets (Journal of the American Dietetic Association [2009, 109(7):1266-1282])
"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. [....] 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."

Is this all screaming that meat is bad for you? Not at all. The point is that the argument has merit, if not proven. So, as I originally stated, for some people it is problematic.

My searches didn't yield more recent publications discrediting the studies up until 2009, but if you are aware of them by all means I am curious.

Meat consumption today is problematic for two main reasons:

1. The current medical literature shows significantly lower incidence of diseases such as cancer and ischemic heart disease in populations eating a vegetarian diet. Beyond personal benefit, increasing public health is beneficial for any society that has any kind of publicly funded healthcare system.

2. Particularly in the United States, the mainstream agricultural system is unsustainable, environmentally damaging, and increasingly a threat to public health in terms of infectious disease and antibiotic resistance.

Additionally, as consumers many people find the disconnect between consumption of meat (buying the wrapped piece of meat in the supermarket) and the raising/slaughter of livestock morally disconcerting, even if they don't take fundamental issue with killing animals for food.

I was going to provide citations, but I'm too lazy and you can probably use PubMed as well as I can. Anyway my point is that eating meat might not actually be entirely good for you, and that the way meat is produced in the US is unfortunate.