The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by eric3579.

I have problems with some buttons, but shoe laces are the worse!

Ah this makes me sad that none of his doctors told him that rheumatoid arthritis is a flare up caused by dairy and certain meats

If anyone else is suffering from it, try changing your diet for a week or two. It's free, and there are no side effects. You can always go back if it doesn't help. But for these people it changed their lives:

https://www.drmcdougall.com/health/education/health-science/featured-articles/articles/diet-only-hope-for-arthritis/

Follow the recipes on the site, it's all stuff you already eat, just with a few ingredients changed. (don't worry it's not salad!)
https://www.drmcdougall.com/health/education/recipes/mcdougall-recipes/

I don't have arthritis. I have physical disabilities since birth.

I'm sorry hear that buddy. My mother has been wheelchair bound since I was a toddler, so I feel you.
All the best.

So, no vegan has arthritis, but the entire medical community just missed that fact? Not true.
One more total misrepresentation of the science by your guru....the ACTUAL science, from Hopkins, says....
"In some patients, specific foods have been shown to exacerbate the symptoms of RA.(ref 5) Avoiding these foods or food groups has been shown to have limited, short term benefits but no benefits long term. Even though different forms of dietary modification have reportedly improved symptoms in some patients, people with RA may have spontaneous temporary remissions. Therefore, it is important to perform double-blind, placebo controlled trials to differentiate diet effect from spontaneous remission. You may identify a food that is a particular trigger for you, and this phenomenon is real. However, the science is not able to reliably identify specific triggers for individuals."
So only in hyper sensitive patients that have allergies to dairy, meats, or processed foods has this appeared to be somewhat effective temporarily, not long term, not for everyone....and it seems only anecdotally at this point (they imply that there have not been double blind, placebo controlled studies yet).
Fish oils are FAR more effective, but, you know, that's an animal product, so McDougal (as he is want to do at every turn) dismisses it in favor of false claims about miraculous veganism and misrepresentation of the science.

I downvoted your comment for using misrepresentational propaganda and unverified anecdote masquerading as scientific data from a known liar with undeniable bias to support your unsupportable position(s), that veganism cures everything including cancer.

Like I said, try it for a week. What's the worst that can happen? If it doesn't work, then you've lost nothing.

BTW Dr. McDougall isn't vegan......

I continue to be amused by the long lines of "inventors" of new gadgets, gizmos and things that go bing that are very simply re-discovering items that already exist. Case in point, the button hook, the button loop, the fastener loop or other names as it was known being rediscovered here. The original button hook, serving the same purpose as this device, was patented in 1851, with many variants following. Give yourself a pat on the back kids, and don't forget to pick up your trophy.

If that were all you had said, I would not have replied, nor even disagreed.....but it's not.

What you ACTUALLY said was "rheumatoid arthritis is a flare up caused by dairy and certain meats", which is pure and utter bullshit culled from McDougal's constant total misrepresentation of other people's work. Again, the studies he's referencing made no such claim, and the scientists that preformed them actually clearly said no such claim is possible to deduce from the studies. This is his clear MO, misrepresenting other people's scientific work to further his movement (and sell books, speaking engagements and the McDougal Program, an expensive 10-day residential program located in Santa Rosa, California).

I'm pretty sure "Dr" McDougal isn't actually a doctor either, since he clearly can't even read a simple synopsis of a medical study without misreading it completely and claiming results that were not observed, every time. If he is a doctor, he's a terrible student and practitioner that should have his license removed. You should really give him up.

It's less about "inventing" and more about solving problems for real people. They customized the solution to the problem and improved his life.

They could have spent a couple bucks online and just bought the guy a button hook.

https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2/136-6348609-6033755?url=search-alias%3Dhpc&field-keywords=button+hook

Why all the melodrama?

I did actually say that.....Gotta read more than the first sentence before you get triggered and go on a hyperbolic rant mate ;-)

You also didn't read the studies he's referencing, clearly shows meat/dairy being a factor.

But it's not ALL you said, as you preceded that reasonable suggestion with some totally wrong medical information, as I said.
Gotta learn to read the entire sentence there, mate.

You don't know if I have or have not read them. Truth is I don't need to read the studies in their entirety to know he's consistently misrepresented them, I can read a synopsis and understand scientists and or doctors when they delineate the limits and implications of their own studies, but that still doesn't mean I haven't read them. Even if I were unable to understand a study and it's limitations, I would still take the clear words of the doctors at Johns Hopkins who did the studies on arthritis and diet over hyperbiased diet guru McDougal every time.

My OP wasn't wrong. It's inline with the John Hopkins quote you provided. But you then decided to tailor the quote to your agenda by adding your own "hypersensitive people" bit onto the end.

If you had perhaps made a measured rebuttal, I'd happily discuss this with you. But you take things out of context, you exaggerate, you lie - whatever you deem necessary to make you "right" or "win".

You always do this, regardless of the topic. Why do you even bother discussing anything?

According to the JH website, it's not only wrong, the study could not show what you claim by it's design.
Excuse me...let me use their exact words....

Food Hypersensitivities and Their Link to RA

In some patients, specific foods have been shown to exacerbate the symptoms of RA.(ref 5) Avoiding these foods or food groups has been shown to have limited, short term benefits but no benefits long term. Even though different forms of dietary modification have reportedly improved symptoms in some patients, people with RA may have spontaneous temporary remissions. Therefore, it is important to perform double-blind, placebo controlled trials to differentiate diet effect from spontaneous remission. You may identify a food that is a particular trigger for you, and this phenomenon is real. However, the science is not able to reliably identify specific triggers for individuals.

Diet elimination therapy is a method of determining food hypersensitivities with patients. Elimination diets avoid a specific food or group of foods such as milk, meat or processed foods that are known to be prime allergy suspects. These foods are eliminated from the diet for a specific period of time. Foods are then gradually reintroduced one at a time, to determine whether any of them causes a reaction.

Panush and colleagues, demonstrated temporary improvement in the signs and symptoms of RA with diet elimination and modification in a controlled study where the symptoms associated with food sensitivities were studied.(ref 5) During this study when the patient was fasting or on a severely restricted diet, the patients symptoms improved significantly. However, when the patient had milk reintroduced into the diet, episodes of pain, swollen and tender joints and stiffness were experienced. Similarly, Kjeldsen-Kragh and colleagues(ref 6) noted that fasting may be effective in reducing the symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis, however most patients relapsed as new foods were reintroduced into the diet. Pain and discomfort frequently returned once a patient reverted to a normal diet. These studies are few in number and should be interpreted and extrapolated to real life only with careful thought and caution.

What you've quoted is that's the same thing I said in my OP -JH acknowledges that changing diets helps. They specifically say meat and milk are the prime allergy suspects.

There isn't any disagreement here :-)




But..........I do have a bone to pick with Hopkins. The fish oil study they reference on the Hopkins site, is a bit sus when you dig deeper.
Everyone in the study was also given disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs along with the fish oil..... so Hopkins isn't really giving us the full story here, which is: Fish oil helps remission in people on RA drugs.

Great, now RA sufferers have to buy toxic liver destroying drugs, and also buckets of fish oil supplements too(the doses were 10x the daily recommended amount of fish oil).... I guess they're line of reasoning is that you make more money if you can sell them two pills for the same disease.

They even try to hide the drugs part by calling it "DMARDs" after the references (which people don't usually read). Technically it's not lying I suppose, but it's very unethical. If I didn't go all the way through and find the research it'd have never figured that out. Turns out John Hopkins is largely industry funded, which doesn't surprise me now that they're approach is to push more pills, instead of less.

Sincerely, I have to thank you for bringing that to my attention. I like to keep a list of this misleading stuff.

You weren't wrong when you said there are some scummy misleading people in the medical field.

Changing diet seems to help relieve symptoms for some people, temporarily, not long term, but spontaneous remission also happens with no diet change, so much more, double blind study is needed before making definitive statements like the one you first made.
Prime allergy suspects, not necessarily causes, and only for some food hypersensitives, not everyone.

I agree, if the studies of fish oil were only for people on certain ra drugs they certainly should make that abundantly clear.

I'm waiting for my apology from you for all the misplaced accusations made here.

I have now shown you unequivocally that I did none of what you accused me of...there was no exaggeration, nothing out of context, absolutely no lie told (by me)... and I actually quoted the medical paper from Hopkins, I did not tailor anything to my agenda (hilarious accusation coming from you, who does that with every bit of data you post) and did not add anything of my own.
Your post, on the other hand, is in no way in line with their synopsis, they actually clearly say so in it and warn against jumping to conclusions, a warning you ignored.

Waiting. ;-)

I'm never going to discuss this kind of stuff with you, because you're sick and you obviously get off on the attention and conflict.

My previous statements still stand.

But that's the thing, you haven't. You're only saying you did.

You wrote one sentence, and you can't help yourself to dramatise it already. These claims aren't mine and they are scientifically backed by non-vegans.

It's just a waste of my time to discuss with someone dishonest like you.

I used to think that you were simply not comprehending the science. But now it's pretty clear to me that you're still deliberately misrepresenting your quoted text on purpose to bait me into further arguments. This happens with almost everyone you talk to, across every topic, and it's bordering on bullying now. And if that's what you enjoy then great, but I've got better things to do.

You keep saying that, but have never offered a single example where I misunderstood or misrepresented anything, just a mistaken accusation that I added my own term "hypersensitives" out of bias, but it was actually in the title AND the paper.
Present one. What, exactly, am I misrepresenting? Use quotes and be specific.

I think you must not understand plain English then, because that Hopkins synopsis is in plain English and contradicts your original blanket contention I took issue with-"rheumatoid arthritis is a flare up caused by dairy and certain meats".
That might be true in some cases of patients with food hypersensitivities, the science isn't yet clear, but it is clear that your original all encompassing statement is just wrong in most if not all cases and overreaching exaggeration in the extreme as written, something which is specifically warned against in the paper itself. ( "the science is not able to reliably identify specific triggers for individuals." , "These studies are few in number and should be interpreted and extrapolated to real life only with careful thought and caution.")
I personally know 2 long term (over 30 years) vegans in my family with active rheumatoid arthritis, and know of many more. If your statement was correct, that would be impossible.

Edit: had you said 'it appears that, in some people, RA flare ups can be caused by meat and/or dairy.' instead of "rheumatoid arthritis is a flare up caused by dairy and certain meats" you would not have been contradicted. If you could accept that the exaggeration makes your statement unsupportable instead of defending it blindly and zealously with mistaken assumption and misplaced insult, this would have been a single post instead of a whole thread.

I've set you to *ignore*.

You're stilling trying to bait me into another argument. Reported.

How? Aren't you ignoring me anyway?
Feel free to report away. You are the one who wrote the ad hom personal accusations.