If you concede the point. I sure don't. Something I remember from a well-known vegan advocate--I think it was McDougall, of all people--applies here, I think. He was talking about epidemiological studies that showed very weak associations of disease with meat intake vs plant intake. What he basically said, was that if you look at meat intake in some part of America, you won't find much advantage to decreased meat intake. Basically because veganism is so wildly unpopular on a population basis, that when you split things into quintiles, there often just isn't enough difference in the diet and lifestyle between even the top and bottom quintiles to make all that much difference. Looking at data from different countries, instead of individuals--or looking at what people ate in the 17th century, and how they did atherosclerosis wise vs people today, if you could get reliable data to make the comparison--might give us some valuable information.

If you think about it, this applies to paleo as well. It sidesteps the idea that eating like people who didn't get metabolic syndrome, type II diabetes, etc. might be a good idea.

Treat a thousand with statins, how many benefit? As many as if you find a way to lower insulin, increase insulin sensitivity, etc.? I doubt it.