I'll tell ya the ending:

Food trucks become a national craze and the cost of tacos rises from a dollar and some change to 12 bucks a pop; sliders for 10 dollars (EACH). Welcome to GOURMET FOOD TRUCK HELL. It's forever. We'll never return to the days of food trucks selling cheap food for cheap prices.

But, then again, I never had a bone marrow and Gorgonzola burrito before...

(And that's why you're fat and living paycheck to paycheck.)

Just goes to show you how resourceful we are. And when removed from the knowledge of what parts are being used, we decidedly enjoy the foods created with these "spare" ingredients. Bone marrow? EXTREMELY good for you. Chicken skin? Not only tasty, but a moderate amount has the fats your body needs. What's this guy's deal? He's just teaching these kids to be discriminatory food snobs.

My girlfriend eats fish eyes and fish heads. When the zombie apocalypse comes, I'm bunking with her.

I really don't see the point of this experiment... People eat bone marrows. People eat chicken skins. People eat giblets.

So how is turning all these unappetizing bits into an edible food a bad thing?

This is a great case of maximizing the food that you purchase. This is fantastic, I think I will make this at my house.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur#Soft_tissue_and_DNA

One of the best examples of soft-tissue impressions in a fossil dinosaur was discovered in Petraroia, Italy. The discovery was reported in 1998, and described the specimen of a small, very young coelurosaur, Scipionyx samniticus. The fossil includes portions of the intestines, colon, liver, muscles, and windpipe of this immature dinosaur.[45]

In the March 2005 issue of Science, the paleontologist Mary Higby Schweitzer and her team announced the discovery of flexible material resembling actual soft tissue inside a 68-million-year-old Tyrannosaurus rex leg bone from the Hell Creek Formation in Montana. After recovery, the tissue was rehydrated by the science team.[46]

When the fossilized bone was treated over several weeks to remove mineral content from the fossilized bone-marrow cavity (a process called demineralization), Schweitzer found evidence of intact structures such as blood vessels, bone matrix, and connective tissue (bone fibers). Scrutiny under the microscope further revealed that the putative dinosaur soft tissue had retained fine structures (microstructures) even at the cellular level. The exact nature and composition of this material, and the implications of Schweitzer's discovery, are not yet clear; study and interpretation of the material is ongoing.[46]

Newer research, published in PloS One (30 July 2008), has challenged the claims that the material found is the soft tissue of Tyrannosaurus. Thomas Kaye of the University of Washington and his co-authors contend that what was really inside the tyrannosaur bone was slimy biofilm created by bacteria that coated the voids once occupied by blood vessels and cells.[89] The researchers found that what previously had been identified as remnants of blood cells, because of the presence of iron, were actually framboids, microscopic mineral spheres bearing iron. They found similar spheres in a variety of other fossils from various periods, including an ammonite. In the ammonite they found the spheres in a place where the iron they contain could not have had any relationship to the presence of blood.[90]

The successful extraction of ancient DNA from dinosaur fossils has been reported on two separate occasions, but, upon further inspection and peer review, neither of these reports could be confirmed.[91] However, a functional visual peptide of a theoretical dinosaur has been inferred using analytical phylogenetic reconstruction methods on gene sequences of related modern species such as reptiles and birds.[92] In addition, several proteins, including hemoglobin,[93] have putatively been detected in dinosaur fossils.[94]

Timeline of successful transplants

1905: First successful cornea transplant by Eduard Zirm[9]
1954: First successful kidney transplant by Joseph Murray (Boston, U.S.A.)
1966: First successful pancreas transplant by Richard Lillehei and William Kelly (Minnesota, U.S.A.)
1967: First successful liver transplant by Thomas Starzl (Denver, U.S.A.)
1967: First successful heart transplant by Christiaan Barnard (Cape Town, South Africa)
1981: First successful heart/lung transplant by Bruce Reitz (Stanford, U.S.A.)
1983: First successful lung lobe transplant by Joel Cooper (Toronto, Canada)
1986: First successful double-lung transplant (Ann Harrison) by Joel Cooper (Toronto, Canada)
1987: First successful whole lung transplant by Joel Cooper (St. Louis, U.S.A.)
1995: First successful laparoscopic live-donor nephrectomy by Lloyd Ratner and Louis Kavoussi (Baltimore, U.S.A.)
1998: First successful live-donor partial pancreas transplant by David Sutherland (Minnesota, U.S.A.)
1998: First successful hand transplant (France)
2005: First successful partial face transplant (France)
2006: First jaw transplant to combine donor jaw with bone marrow from the patient, by Eric M. Genden (Mount Sinai Hospital, New York)
2008: First successful complete full double arm transplant by Edgar Biemer, Christoph Höhnke and Manfred Stangl (Technical University of Munich, Germany)[citation needed]
2008: First baby born from transplanted ovary.
2008: First transplant of a human windpipe using a patient’s own stem cells.

Not to say "I told you so" to all those against stem cell research but.. hey.. you guys are fucking morons

Stem cells and bone marrow ftw

I haven't looked at this closely, but I was hoping we'd figure out how to clone livers and kidneys and bone-marrow, etc.

for those reading this thread, please do not be mislead by rembars assertion that there is no scientific evidence of fluoride being harmful. I only have to prove there is scientists and scientific evidence that says fluoride is harmful. I don't personally have to prove it.

one would assume that if the EPA was to look at the subject they would be studying and comparing scientific studies. So here are Excerpts from: “Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards” (National Research Council, 2006)

FLUORIDE’S EFFECTS ON THE BRAIN:

“On the basis of information largely derived from histological, chemical, and molecular studies, it is apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain and the body by direct and indirect means.” p187

“A few epidemiologic studies of Chinese populations have reported IQ deficits in children exposed to fluoride at 2.5 to 4 mg/L in drinking water. Although the studies lacked sufficient detail for the committee to fully assess their quality and relevance to U.S. populations, the consistency of the results appears significant enough to warrant additional research on the effects of fluoride on intelligence.” p6

“histopathological changes similar to those traditionally associated with Alzheimer’s disease in people have been seen in rats chronically exposed to AlF.” p178

“Fluorides also increase the production of free radicals in the brain through several different biological pathways. These changes have a bearing on the possibility that fluorides act to increase the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease.” p186

“More research is needed to clarify fluoride’s biochemical effects on the brain.” p186

“The possibility has been raised by the studies conducted in China that fluoride can lower intellectual abilities. Thus, studies of populations exposed to different concentrations of fluoride in drinking water should include measurements of reasoning ability, problem solving, IQ, and short- and long-term memory.” p187

“Studies of populations exposed to different concentrations of fluoride should be undertaken to evaluate neurochemical changes that may be associated with dementia. Consideration should be given to assessing effects from chronic exposure, effects that might be delayed or occur late-in-life, and individual susceptibility.” p187

“Additional animal studies designed to evaluate reasoning are needed.” p. 187

FLUORIDE’S EFFECTS ON THE ENDOCRINE SYSTEM:

“In summary, evidence of several types indicates that fluoride affects normal endocrine function or response; the effects of the fluoride-induced changes vary in degree and kind in different individuals. Fluoride is therefore an endocrine disruptor in the broad sense of altering normal endocrine function or response, although probably not in the sense of mimicking a normal hormone. The mechanisms of action remain to be worked out and appear to include both direct and indirect mechanisms, for example, direct stimulation or inhibition of hormone secretion by interference with second messenger function, indirect stimulation or inhibition of hormone secretion by effects on things such as calcium balance, and inhibition of peripheral enzymes that are necessary for activation of the normal hormone.” p223

“Some of these [endocrine] effects are associated with fluoride intake that is achievable at fluoride concentrations in drinking water of 4 mg/L or less, especially for young children or for individuals with high water intake. Many of the effects could be considered subclinical effects, meaning that they are not adverse health effects. However, recent work on borderline hormonal imbalances and endocrine-disrupting chemicals indicated that adverse health effects, or increased risks for developing adverse effects, might be associated with seemingly mild imbalances or perturbations in hormone concentrations. Further research is needed to explore these possibilities.” p7

“Further effort is necessary to characterize the direct and indirect mechanisms of fluoride’s action on the endocrine system and the factors that determine the response, if any, in a given individual.” p223

“The effects of fluoride on various aspects of endocrine function should be examined further, particularly with respect to a possible role in the development of several diseases or mental states in the United States.” p224

FLUORIDE’S EFFECTS ON THE THYROID:

“several lines of information indicate an effect of fluoride exposure on thyroid function.” p197

“it is difficult to predict exactly what effects on thyroid function are likely at what concentration of fluoride exposure and under what circumstances.” p197

“Fluoride exposure in humans is associated with elevated TSH concentrations, increased goiter prevalence, and altered T4 and T3 concentrations; similar effects on T4 and T3 are reported in experimental animals..” p218

“In humans, effects on thyroid function were associated with fluoride exposures of 0.05-0.13 mg/kg/day when iodine intake was adequate and 0.01-0.03 mg/kg/day when iodine intake was inadequate.” p218

“The recent decline in iodine intake in the United States (CDC 2002d; Larsen et al. 2002) could contribute to increased toxicity of fluoride for some individuals.” p218

“Intake of nutrients such as calcium and iodine often is not reported in studies of fluoride effects. The effects of fluoride on thyroid function, for instance, might depend on whether iodine intake is low, adequate, or high, or whether dietary selenium is adequate.” p222

FLUORIDE’S EFFECTS ON THE PINEAL GLAND:

“The single animal study of pineal function indicates that fluoride exposure results in altered melatonin production and altered timing of sexual maturity (Table 8-1). Whether fluoride affects pineal function in humans remains to be demonstrated. The two studies of menarcheal age in humans show the possibility of earlier menarche in some individuals exposed to fluoride, but no definitive statement can be made. Recent information on the role of the pineal organ in humans suggests that any agent that affects pineal function could affect human health in a variety of ways, including effects on sexual maturation, calcium metabolism, parathyroid function, postmenopausal osteoporosis, cancer, and psychiatric disease.” p221-22

FLUORIDE’S EFFECTS ON INSULIN SECRETION/DIABETES:

“The conclusion from the available studies is that sufficient fluoride exposure appears to bring about increases in blood glucose or impaired glucose tolerance in some individuals and to increase the severity of some types of diabetes. In general, impaired glucose metabolism appears to be associated with serum or plasma fluoride concentrations of about 0.1 mg/L or greater in both animals and humans. In addition, diabetic individuals will often have higher than normal water intake, and consequently, will have higher than normal fluoride intake for a given concentration of fluoride in drinking water. An estimated 16-20 million people in the U.S. have diabetes mellitus; therefore, any role of fluoride exposure in the development of impaired glucose metabolism or diabetes is potentially significant.” p. 217

FLUORIDE’S EFFECTS ON THE IMMUNE SYSTEM:

“Nevertheless, patients who live in either an artificially fluoridated community or a community where the drinking water naturally contains fluoride at 4 mg/L have all accumulated fluoride in their skeletal systems and potentially have very high fluoride concentrations in their bones. The bone marrow is where immune cells develop and that could affect humoral immunity and the production of antibodies to foreign chemicals.” p249

“There is no question that fluoride can affect the cells involved in providing immune responses. The question is what proportion, if any, of the population consuming drinking water containing fluoride at 4.0 mg/L on a regular basis will have their immune systems compromised? Not a single epidemiologic study has investigated whether fluoride in the drinking water at 4 mg/L is associated with changes in immune function. Nor has any study examined whether a person with an immunodeficiency disease can tolerate fluoride ingestion from drinking water.” p250

“bone concentrates fluoride and the blood-borne progenitors could be exposed to exceptionally high fluoride concentrations. Thus, more research needs to be carried out before one can state that drinking water containing fluoride at 4 mg/L has no effect on the immune system.” p250

“it is important to consider subpopulations that accumulate large concentrations of fluoride in their bones (e.g., renal patients). When bone turnover occurs, the potential exists for immune system cells and stem cells to be exposed to concentrations of fluoride in the interstitial fluids of bone that are higher than would be found in serum. From an immunologic standpoint, individuals who are immunocompromised (e.g., AIDS, transplant, and bone-marrow-replacement patients) could be at greater risk of the immunologic effects of fluoride.” p 258

“Within 250 ?m of a site of resorption, it is possible to encounter progenitor cells that give rise to bone, blood, and fat. Thus, one must assume that these cells would be exposed to high concentrations of fluoride. At this time, it is not possible to predict what effect this exposure would have on the functioning of skeletal elements, hematopoiesis, and adipose formation.” p115

“It is paramount that careful biochemical studies be conducted to determine what fluoride concentrations occur in the bone and surrounding interstitial fluids from exposure to fluoride in drinking water at up to 4 mg/L, because bone marrow is the source of the progenitors that produce the immune system cells.” p 259

“In addition, studies could be conducted to determine what percentage of immunocompromised subjects have adverse reactions when exposed to fluoride in the range of 1-4 mg/L in drinking water.” p259

FLUORIDE’S INTERACTIVE/SYNERGISTIC EFFECTS (w/ IODINE, ALUMINUM, ETC):

“Intake of nutrients such as calcium and iodine often is not reported in studies of fluoride effects. The effects of fluoride on thyroid function, for instance, might depend on whether iodine intake is low, adequate, or high, or whether dietary selenium is adequate.” p222

“Better characterization of exposure to fluoride is needed in epidemiology studies investigating potential effects. Important exposure aspects of such studies would include the following: collecting data on general dietary status and dietary factors that could influence exposure or effects, such as calcium, iodine, and aluminum intakes.” p72

“Available information now indicates a role for aluminum in the interaction of fluoride on the second messenger system; thus, differences in aluminum exposure might explain some of the differences in response to fluoride exposures among individuals and populations.” p222

“With the increasing prevalence of acid rain, metal ions such as aluminum become more soluble and enter our day-to-day environment; the opportunity for bioactive forms of AlF to exist has increased in the past 100 years. Human exposure to aluminofluorides can occur when a person ingests both a fluoride source (e.g., fluoride in drinking water) and an aluminum source; sources of human exposure to aluminum include drinking water, tea, food residues, infant formula, aluminum-containing antacids or medications, deodorants, cosmetics, and glassware.” p42

“Further research should include characterization of both the exposure conditions and the physiological conditions (for fluoride and for aluminum or beryllium) under which aluminofluoride and beryllofluoride complexes can be expected to occur in humans as well as the biological effects that could result.” p42

“Another possible explanation for increased blood lead concentrations which has not been examined is the effect of fluoride intake on calcium metabolism; a review by Goyer (1995) indicates that higher blood and tissue concentrations of lead occur when the diet is low in calcium. Increased fluoride exposure appears to increase the dietary requirement for calcium (see Chapter ; in addition, the substitution of tap-water based beverages (e.g., soft drinks or reconstituted juices) for dairy products would result in both increased fluoride intake and decreased calcium intake.” p43

“[G]iven the expected presence of fluoride ion (from any fluoridation source) and silica (native to the water) in any fluoridated tap water, it would be useful to examine what happens when that tap water is used to make acidic beverages or products (commercially or in homes), especially fruit juice from concentrate, tea, and soft drinks. Although neither Urbansky (2002) nor Morris (2004) discusses such beverages, both indicate that at pH < 5, SiF6 2- would be present, so it seems reasonable to expect that some SiF6 2- would be present in acidic beverages but not in the tap water used to prepare the beverages. Consumption rates of these beverages are high for many people, and therefore the possibility of biological effects of SiF62-, as opposed to free fluoride ion, should be examined.” p44
FLUORIDE’S EFFECTS ON THE REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEM:

“A few human studies suggested that high concentrations of fluoride exposure might be associated with alterations in reproductive hormones, effects on fertility, and developmental outcomes, but design limitations make those studies insufficient for risk evaluation.” p6

“the relationship between fertility and fluoride requires additional study.” p161

FLUORIDE & DOWNS SYNDROME:

“The possible association of cytogenetic effects with fluoride exposure suggests that Down’s syndrome is a biologically plausible outcome of exposure.” p170

“A reanalysis of data on Down’s syndrome and fluoride by Takahashi (1998) suggested a possible association in children born to young mothers. A case-control study of the incidence of Down’s syndrome in young women and fluoride exposure would be useful for addressing that issue. However, it may be particularly difficult to study the incidence of Down’s syndrome today given increased fetal genetic testing and concerns with confidentiality.” 172

FLUORIDE’S EFFECTS ON THE GASTROINTESTINAL SYSTEM:

“The numerous fluoridation studies in the past failed to rigorously test for changes in GI symptoms and there are no studies on drinking water containing fluoride at 4 mg/L in which GI symptoms were carefully documented.” p230

“GI effects appear to have been rarely evaluated in the fluoride supplement studies that followed the early ones in the 1950s and 1960s.” p231

“The table suggests that fluoride at 4 mg/L in the drinking water results in approximately 1% of the population experiencing GI symptoms.” p231

“Whether fluoride activates G proteins in the gut epithelium at very low doses (e.g., from fluoridated water at 4.0 mg/L) and has significant effects on the gut cell chemistry must be examined in biochemical studies.” p236

“There are a few case reports of GI upset in subjects exposed to drinking water fluoridated at 1 mg/L. Those effects were observed in only a small number of cases, which suggest hypersensitivity. However, the available data are not robust enough to determine whether that is the case.” p. 250

“Studies are needed to evaluate gastric responses to fluoride from natural sources at concentrations up to 4 mg/L and from artificial sources.” p. 258

FLUORIDE’S EFFECTS ON THE LIVER:

“It is possible that a lifetime ingestion of 5-10 mg/day from drinking water containing 4 mg/L might turn out to have long-term effects on the liver, and this should be investigated in future epidemiologic studies.” p248

“The effect of low doses of fluoride on kidney and liver enzyme functions in humans needs to be carefully documented in communities exposed to different concentrations of fluoride in drinking water.” p258

FLUORIDE’S EFFECTS ON THE KIDNEY:

“Human kidneys... concentrate fluoride as much as 50-fold from plasma to urine. Portions of the renal system may therefore be at higher risk of fluoride toxicity than most soft tissues.” p236

“Early water fluoridation studies did not carefully assess changes in renal function.” p236

“future studies should be directed toward determining whether kidney stone formation is the most sensitive end point on which to base the MCLG.” p247

“On the basis of studies carried out on people living in regions where there is endemic fluorosis, ingestion of fluoride at 12 mg per day would increase the risk for some people to develop adverse renal effects.” p247

“The effect of low doses of fluoride on kidney and liver enzyme functions in humans needs to be carefully documented in communities exposed to different concentrations of fluoride in drinking water.” p258

FLUORIDE & CANCER:

“Fluoride appears to have the potential to initiate or promote cancers, particularly of the bone, but the evidence to date is tentative and mixed (Tables 10-4 and 10-5). As noted above, osteosarcoma is of particular concern as a potential effect of fluoride because of (1) fluoride deposition in bone, (2) the mitogenic effect of fluoride on bone cells, (3) animal results described above, and (4) pre-1993 publication of some positive, as well as negative, epidemiologic reports on associations of fluoride exposure with osteosarcoma risk.“ p. 286

“Because fluoride stimulates osteoblast proliferation, there is a theoretical risk that it might induce a malignant change in the expanding cell population. This has raised concerns that fluoride exposure might be an independent risk factor for new osteosarcomas.” p109

“Osteosarcoma presents the greatest a priori plausibility as a potential cancer target site because of fluoride’s deposition in bone, the NTP animal study findings of borderline increased osteosarcomas in male rats, and the known mitogenic effect of fluoride on bone cells in culture (see Chapter 5). Principles of cell biology indicate that stimuli for rapid cell division increase the risks for some of the dividing cells to become malignant, either by inducing random transforming events or by unmasking malignant cells that previously were in nondividing states.” p275

“Further research on a possible effect of fluoride on bladder cancer risk should be conducted.” p288

Good call.

Yeah, I misread it. The bit that upset me was:

"Her husband died of kidney cancer after their health-insurance company denied payment for a bone-marrow transplant that might have saved his life. Ms. Pierce's rage is palpable as she repeats the word her insurers used in response to her husband's request. "They denied it," she sneers. "Said it was 'experimental.'""

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118964470258225901.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

So. He quotes this lady, and then never contacts her about it.

Even though I misread it, it doesn't change the fact that he puts a lot of effort into being a douche bag.

I don't think any of his pieces are balanced. He interviews Moore and then selectively edits their interview to make him sound like a jackass. You can't call that fair, and it certainly isn't journalism. If he presented his arguments as solely exhibiting a single opinion then I wouldn't have an issue. My beef with him is when he says he is presenting the facts and the whole story.

A great example is his piece on Global Warming, which regardless of my scientific opinion about it I thought it was complete hogwash.

I have always maintained, that knowledge is power with regards to one's health.
IF, you do not put shit in, you get an organism putting out till it stops, on most cases-The health care situation in the U.S., believe it or say nay, could be transformed, if people would begin to prevent the necessity of such a machine , and begin to teach it to future gens-Die n'beatus, heart disease, and cancer, would have not the effect and levels of preeminence, if folks would eat right.

Then you got yer oath-Hippocrates fans will remember, that docs are in it for one thing-the protection and facilitating of life, above all else-I am forty-two, have had 2 major surgeries because of my own stupid shit, and both I had done, at a county hospital, and never payed a dime, nor did I suffer the credit probs, nor was i turned away for service....HOWEVER-I did have to work harder than most, to get the services rendered....I had to open my mouth, put my foot down, and work it, but I got it done, and done right. This meant being a bit smarter than yer average uninsured person-

I am not suggesting this for anyone else, you must find what makes you comfy. I keep full coverage for my kids,but not for myself. I need a hospital for one thing, at 42....Emergency technical assistance. Broken bones, deep lacerations, and the like....If I become mortally ill, I live in a country, where I will not be left die on the street, or released from a hospital for non-payment, if to do so would end my life-SO....if it gets to the point where I need a transplant, bone marrow or otherwise...GUESS WHAT?? It is at this point, I will prepare for the afterlife. There are plenty of guinea pigs lined up after I pass.
The pharmaceutical industry needs a goddamn leash onnit, as well as insurance companies, not to mention the number if illegals burdening the system, with roman-catholic inspired multiple births-this is not an illusion, it is happening. Take responsibility for yer own well-being, and you don't really need a doctor. jwray, why would I need a blood-pressure medicine, if my blood pressure was not whacked by poor eating habits? Or why would I need to be on an anti-depressant, or my kid on ADHD meds, if I had educated myself as to the possible causes of my own bullshit? Serious auto accidents in the US are mostly due to alcohol?....NO. Booze and pharmies.Let the idiots kill themselves with food and drugs.

If I become seriously ill, Emphysema or Cancer because I smoke, is it not a tragic thing, not that I did not have insurance or medical attention, but that I continued that which got me in that state?

We have a system that works in the U.S., but like most entities here as well, it is poorly managed and abused, and overdue for refining....we can start by burning every fucking fast food joint to the ground.

Religion aside, we still haven't decided when a person is a "person," meaning at what point does it fall under the protection of the state and rights of a citizen. The number of cells is a moot point since you start as one and eventually are billions. What's your magic number for being a person then? Make sure you don't leave out Gary Coleman.

Also, use of completely non-controversial adult-derived (and cord-derived) stem cells for treatment of adult conditions is making enormous strides. People who tell you otherwise don't know what they are talking about or have political agenda (and I happen to be a geneticist so I'm not Joe Q. on this topic. I hate to brag that cause it makes me sound like a prick, but otherwise people will just assume I'm another ...how'd you put it? "ignorant religious nutcase"). I'm all for stem-cell research. But it's unwise to rush into morally controversial territory when there is a completely non-controversial alternative that is getting more and more effective. The fact that there are destroyed embryos that could be instead used for science is another debate entirely, unfortunately. As for cloning babies? Well, I don't even have a problem with that really, a person is a person. But since the law currently allows late-term abortion in many places in the world, you could potentially clone yourself and kill the fetus late to harvest the tissue you need. I think anyone alive would find that detestable, but without the anti-cloning law, it would be legal... maybe not doable at the moment, but I give that one 3-4 years. Most of the methods needed are already worked out.

The public is only getting sound-bytes from uninformed politicians and fuming anti-theists about all this. They're being told that we need to ignore our ethics and do this NOW because PEOPLE ARE DYING!! Well, every kid in this world has 2 kidneys and that could save 2 lives for the price of one...what a deal! I mean, "people are dying" so we must act NOW!

I predict that Michael J. will be around to see adult-derived stem cell treatments for his condition.

In short, we're inches away from being able to reset certain cell types to recover most of their pluripotency. It shouldn't be long before we can take a bit of your bone marrow or (if you have it stored) cord-blood, reset the cells to a near embryonic progenitor, then tell them to become neurons or such. A few more years and we're there. Patience.

WTF! What does processed meat products, like happy burgers, have to do with "it is easier for our bodies to process certain nutrients out of meat than it is out of plants"...

Do you think hotdogs are *easy* for your body to process? Do you think McBurgers are better, with seaweed, preservatives, who-knows-what-else... Do you think TacoHell is using quality meat products? Don't you think it is parts of an animal you would ever eat.. all ground up.

I think that is the point, not "don't eat meat"... And of you want to talk about our evolutionary history, it isn't meat as much as bone marrow, that got up the big brains we currently have. So, when was the last time you ate bone marrow?