Originally Posted by
kings run east
Your point about boiling water is well taken, but how would boiling water on someone's skin effect the traffic patterns of their city that day? Once we use inferred scientific analysis beyond the individual and into a complex, relational system it's capacity for prediction breaks down...
Once you bring such an argument/hypothesis into the ring, you open the door to blow the whole cancer/animal meats thing out of the water. Cancer has literally a plethora of increased risk associations. Looking at one particular lifestyle trait is dangerous unless you look wholistically at the lifestyle of the test subjects. Increased cancer rates may well be tied to any number of other factors, while the subjects coincidentally ate meat. It's a slippery slope. Maybe those that make the lifestyle choice to not eat meat are therefore more acutely aware of other potential risk factors and so mitigate those as well, thus meaning they inadvertently associate lower cancer risk with their diet.
In the end, it's pretty well known that diets work by calorie restriction. That's pretty much it, stripped right down to the basics. The method by which this is done will dictate the success for the individual.