|Enewsletter • June 18, 2002|
More on the ARMEDIA Report
For those unfamiliar with the focus group of vegetarians and non-vegetarians in Seattle, Vegan Outreach previously passed along an analysis.
In short, the middle-aged non-vegetarians interviewed said they weren't going to go vegetarian, but if they did, it wouldn't be because of graphic pictures, it would be to help their health. The vegetarians said they were vegetarian for animal cruelty reasons. From this, ARMEDIA concludes that the health argument is the way to go. We disagree that this is the correct conclusion to draw.
Imagine how often this doesn't make the news?
"Edmonton-based Lilydale Co-operative Ltd. was fined $2,500 after 284 live turkeys at a plant in British Columbia were "immersed in a scalding tank while conscious," according to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency."
Here, Viva!USA is calling on activists around the U.S. to join in solidarity on behalf of the animals by organizing an event in your town. The 10 billion animals (not including sea creatures) killed yearly for food in the U.S. need your time and voices.
For more information and ideas, see Viva!USA's website.
Robert Cohen and Integrity: Summary Statement
by Stephen R. Kaufman, M.D.June 12, 2002 – I suspect a lot of people have been confused by the voluminous exchanges between Robert Cohen and his critics. In my opinion, the most important issue, Cohen's trustworthiness, has been lost among some tangential issues and angry exchanges. Cohen frequently analyzes medical reports and offers nutritional advice, which activists have accepted as truth (in part, I think, because of his compelling, dynamic speaking and writing style).
Can Cohen be trusted?
Stephen Walsh first questioned Cohen's analysis of the Hjartaker et al. report (www.vegsource.com/articles/walsh_openletter.htm) . Walsh could not understand how Cohen could make the remarkable claim that Hjartaker et al.'s data revealed the exact opposite of the authors' conclusions. Walsh suspected that Cohen had fabricated data as the only possible way that Cohen could arrive at the amazing statement that moderate or high milk consumption leads to a 6.4 times greater breast cancer risk than low milk consumption.
Specifically, Hjartaker et al. found that those who consumed "low" quantities of milk in combined childhood and adulthood had less than the expected number of breast cancers, given the numbers of women in the "low" group compared to "moderate" and "high" groups. For no apparent reason, Cohen claimed that the number of expected breast cancers in the "low" group was roughly equal to that of the "moderate" group plus the "high" group. However, this made no sense, because the number of women in the "low" group was far lower than those in the "moderate" plus "high" groups. With his evidently fabricated data, Cohen then concluded that the Hjartaker et al. group had perpetrated a fraud and that the number of breast cancers among low milk consumers was much less than the expected number.
Walsh asked Cohen to justify these calculations, and Cohen refused (on the dubious grounds that Walsh is an "infiltrator" and a "stalker"). I carefully reviewed the study, and it seemed clear that Cohen must have indeed fabricated data. Trying to be fair, I privately asked Cohen to explain his calculations, but Cohen initially evaded my questions and then cut off communication on the grounds that I had an "agenda."
Now convinced that Cohen had fabricated his data, I publicly challenged Cohen to explain his calculations. As I expected, he continued to obfuscate, claiming that his essay at notmilk.com clearly explains his analysis and demanding that those who question him answer unanswerable questions. These open exchanges encouraged other people, including vegan journalist Syd Baumel, to request an explanation. If Cohen could provide an explanation, it would have been easy to do so. He hasn't provided an explanation because he can't.
Why should we care?
I have had no axe to grind with Cohen. Prior to Walsh's revelations, I had some respect for Cohen's work (admittedly I had not examined it closely) and my few personal interactions with him had been pleasant. However, I now find his behavior outrageous. I'd like to think it's not just me. While I am academically oriented (I am an Assistant Clinical Professor at both Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine and Northeast Ohio Universities College of Medicine and I have several published papers and a chapter in the ophthalmology literature), I think integrity should transcend the walls of academia. How can we hope to win the hearts of minds of thoughtful people if we don't show high standards of integrity?
I dread the prospect of Cohen being a prominent speaker at a conference for hundreds of young AR activists anxious to learn how to be more effective advocates for the cause.
Dr. Kaufman is a long-time animal advocate who runs the non-profit Justice for Animals Fund and the website BioSpirituality. He is medical director of the Christian Vegetarian Association, president of the Cleveland-area group Vegetarian Advocates, and co-chair of the Medical Research Modernization Committee. He edits Perspectives on Medical Research. He is an Assistant Clinical Professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine and Northeast Ohio Universities College of Medicine.
If you believe that this is an important issue, please forward this message widely.