That is an argument, but is fallacious.
Those already well practiced in self enrichment are more likely to continue. Satisfying greed makes it stronger, not weaker.

Go to soy bean country and tell them that, or someone who works for the federal government, or contracts with them, or makes a living serving them. I think you'll find things have changed for more people than you seem to think.

Gratefully he has been less effective at most of his ideas than he claims, or we would be fighting off the wolves coming for the national carcass.

So, plant based eaters have Vegan superpowers that prevent colon cancer?

You ridicule my take on statistics, which you are wrong about as the 18% chance still ends up being a 1% chance OVER A LIFETIME, but you think that being Vegan means you will never experience pre-cancerous polyps or full blown colon cancer?

ANYONE can get colon cancer, Vegans still have a lifetime risk of 5% like everyone else. Even the link I quoted says they simply recommend choosing fish, poultry, or beans instead of red meat and processed meat. They DON'T say "GO VEGAN AND NO CANCERS FOREVER LOL".

That is why this is propaganda. The PCRM and it's lead Vegan doctor founder would have you believe that if you go Vegan that all of life's ails would simply be gone. You will never get those nasty sicknesses the meat eating brutes get...without acknowledging that diet is NEVER going to overrule genetic predisposition for certain ailments and conditions. It certainly might help very slightly in the long run, but the PCRM would have you believe that eating meat is equivalent to chainsmoking 4 packs of cigarettes a day, ie, you WILL get cancer if you aren't Vegan.

Trust me, I also understand having people that you love dying sucks. I've lost my entire biological family and many of my wife's family due to various reasons. All I have left is my wife's family and my biological mother. But I also realize that every single person is going to die. I also know that a lot of times that death isn't going to make sense or even be fair. You might be able to salvage a few years by restricting yourself from the pleasures of life, but statistically you still could die in a shitty way.

That is why I don't agree with the Vegan outlook or the ideal they promote that going Vegan will give you the longest lasting life with all happiness. There are many other diets that could provide the same minor edge in extending life, but Vegans typically refuse to acknowledge that. I view them as a pseudo-science cult, much like Breatharians.

Refined carbs aren't great, but grains, starchy roots (potatos) and beans are a key component of every bluezone in the world where people live the longest and with the fewest amounts of disease. There's a video about it on the same channel as this video above :-)

You don't want to trade weight loss, for long term health is what I'm saying. Weight loss in of itself is going to improve health markers and general wellbeing, but the majority of people in the west die from preventable heart-disease, which is without a doubt tied to cholesterol, which eggs are full of (yes there are a lot of cholesterol deniers out there, but there is no valid research backing up their claims). Bob Harper is a good recent example, huge keto/low-carb advocate, had a heart-attack, despite being lean and athletic. He's doing the bluezone way of eating now....

Also have you noticed that nobody ever mentions the 4th macro nutrient in any diet these days? Fibre! The one macro nutrient almost everybody is deficient in.... but nobody seems to talk about it, except those selling fibre supplements. I find it weird personally!

It's pretty clear the governments can't get their shit together, so it is up to us as individuals to drive the change.

If you want to do your part to combat climate change, then any reduction in products that come from animal farming is going to decrease your carbon (and methane) foot print.

e.g. Go for the bean burrito with guac or tahani dressing, instead of a beef and cheese burrito.

Go for the coconut/soy/almond ice cream instead.

Watch the COWSPIRACY documentary on Netflix, and look up Dr. Richard Oppenlander speaking to the EU parliament.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jun/02/un-report-meat-free-diet

It's pretty clear the governments can't get their shit together, so it is up to us as individuals to drive the change.

If you want to do your part to combat climate change, then any reduction in products that come from animal farming is going to decrease your carbon (and methane) foot print.

e.g. Go for the bean burrito with guac or tahani dressing, instead of a beef and cheese burrito.

Go for the coconut/soy/almond ice cream instead.

Watch the COWSPIRACY documentary on Netflix, and look up Dr. Richard Oppenlander speaking to the EU parliament.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jun/02/un-report-meat-free-diet

You missed the beans? Are you dislexit or what?

Both of your examples are demonstrably false.

Masaai have a life expectancy of what 44? http://www.bbc.co.uk/northamptonshire/features/2004/maasai/maasai_03.shtml


Who eats the most fish in the world? (factory farm cows actually) but in the human population, it's the Inuits. And they have the worst health of any people on earth. So clearly fish aren't the thing bringing the health. Their health actually gets better when they go to a standard american diet. that's how bad eating fresh wild caught fish is.....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LvGiiZyn-M

Okinawans have the opposite diet of the Inuits - mostly plants, and little amounts of fish, and they have the opposite health of the Inuits too.

Less fish and more plants = better health. Therefore fish cannot be a health food.


It's also VERY easy to meet all of your nutritional needs as a vegan, yeah those hippie dippy idiots that eat all raw foods are asking for trouble, but anyone who eats regular food with grains, beans, fruit, nuts and vegetables will get everything they need. A few fortifided foods here and there and no supplements are required. (and please don't pretend like vegans are the only ones eating fortified foods- salt is fortified with iodine, and dairy is fortified with vitamin D by US law). Anyway, point is the cheapest and easiest foods to cook are the healthiest ones - the same foods that everyone in the bluezones eats, and nobody is saying those bluezone foods are expensive or hard to make.

That's what this whole video is about, identifying the foods that are health promoting, and in vegans and in Mediterranean diets (and other bluezones diets) it's the exact same foods that are providing the health. The plants, the cheap, easy to cook and readily available plants.

I'll even level with you, there's a lot of stupid people out there who happen to be vegan and they say a lot of stupid crap, but everything I post is backed up by science. I went vegan because of the health science, the ethics to me came later (perhaps I'm a bit slow, because I didn't want to see the ethics, while I was part of the system, but that's a story for another time )

I'm not suggesting you do it for your own benefit, but rather to see if the methodology in the study works, as I figured this would be much more productive than splitting hairs about the study details :-)

I think you may have also misunderstood the methodology, as it doesn't require non-exercise, it just says it doesn't play an important part of the weight loss. If you were to try this for a few weeks, you could still exercise, and you should still see your results mirror those of the study.

There's also nothing restrictive about it, you can eat any cuisine you want, it's just a matter of replacing a couple of ingredients to minimize the processed ingredients and animal foods.

E.g. beef burrito turns into a bean burrito. All the flavours are still there :-)

Perhaps they think that the ocean is a fucking massive place, that the crap that floats on the surface is just the tip of the iceberg, and that much like the very prominent attemps to clean up oil spills and the like it really does very little except placate our guilt. I mean sure, do both, but come on, human beans don't work like that. Some will litter with a clear conscience if they think somebody is being paid to clean up behind them. I mean, its practically job creaton right!

I understand how you've come to your conclusion, but let me clear it up:

The word 'vegan' in medicine is exchangeable with plant-based diet. If you look at the PCRM.org they recommend a whole-foods plant-based diet. They simply call it vegan, as that's what other organisations know it as, such as the British/American Dietetics Association. Clearly not recommending vegan icecream and hotdogs :-)

When it comes to prevention of cruelty to animals, the PCRM do it from a medical training/testing stand point. They're not saying don't eat animals because it's cruel, they're saying don't test drugs on animals when there are computer models and lab work that yield more accurate results (although animals costs less....). They're also against surgeons performing vivisection as part of their training. E.g. when my cousin did her training she had to put a perfectly healthy dog to sleep, chop of some of it's legs and re-attach them, as well as causing massive internal wounds to simulate gunshots.... it's messed up, but it's hard for young doctors to say anything because they've trained for a decade at that point, and they're not going to throw it away (and the next person will come along and do it anyway, since it's such a highly competitive industry). This where the PCRM come in, they lobby medical institutions to stop this kind of stuff.


If you're still thinking that they have some kind of vegan agenda / bias, the PCRM is an organisation of 12,000 doctors. If it was just one or two quacks preaching veganism, I'd be suspicious too, but that's clearly not the case here.

Everything they do is based on data. And they're also not the only medical organisation to do it. The Australian Medical Association is also urging hospitals to give patients plant-based diets because of how much faster they recover (and don't return). The President of the American College of Cardiology is 'vegan', and is know for his phrase "Meat kills, processed meat kills you quicker". The World Cancer Research Fund, recommends beans with every meal, no processed meat, and maximum of 350g of red meat a week. That's basically a plant-based diet.

There are now something like 400 studies being published every single year showing how bad animal products are for us. There's a nice graph here actually showing how much more evidence is coming out all the time: https://youtu.be/C5qRXPDNw1E?t=4190 (nevermind the tacky channel, the speakers at this conference are all legitimate medical professionals)

So yes, your doctors are right, eat your fruit and veg, but also whole grains, beans, nuts and seeds. Bean burrito is a perfect combination of these, followed by a banana and berry smoothie

You also have to consider the amount of financial loss various food and pharmacological industries would suffer if most people ate plant-based. So when you look for opinions about the PCRM people are very quick to make PCRM appear as a bunch of hippies in order to protect their earnings. America spends something like 50 billion dollars a year on statins, and 35 billion on stent surgeries, which would pretty much go away overnight if everyone ate plant-based diets. They're not going to let that money go without a fight, which is why there's a lot of opinions about PCRM around. Needless to say though, they don't have any good evidence to back their reasoning, which makes it quite easy to see which ones are likely opinions funded by certain industries.

Your assumption is incorrect. As I've stated repeatedly, I think people should be seen and assessed individually on the totality of their character. It's just that I see the inpracticality of that in institutional settings where a few people must assess tens of thousands of applicants in months. That necessitates putting people into groups and making assumptions, sometimes by necessity that's by race. Fund education better, they might screen better. Fund all education better, they might be able to abandon all criteria beyond past performance, but that just won't happen (but $12 billion for Trump's trade war's damage to soy bean farmers, no problem, who's next?).

Ahhh....but those discriminatory practices have, and still are encoded in the law against these groups in many forms. Some have been rectified, many not, and never has there been a reasonable attempt to make up the shortfalls/damages these policies have caused these groups over decades and centuries. If I beat you daily and take your lunch until 11th grade, then stop, it's still horrifically unfair of me to insist you meet weight requirements to be on my JV wrestling team and yet not offer you weight training and free lunch to help you get there. Same goes for groups, however you wish to divide them, that have been downtrodden.
Creating policies to address the damage done in order to get the long abused back to their natural ability level isn't bad unless they aren't ever modified once equality is reached. We aren't close yet.

Some won't, most do. You make a thousand little sacrifices for the greater good daily, one more won't hurt you. If your ability is actually equal to the poor kid trying to take your place, the advantages you have over them should make that point abundantly clear and your scores should be excessively higher. If they aren't, you just aren't taking advantage of your advantages, making them the better choice.

Time will tell, but I don't see this as political, I see it as rational realism vs irrational tribal wishful thinking.
My parents both worked at Stanford, and are Republicans, and both support giving less advantaged students more opportunities to excell, and both think diversity on campus benefits everyone to the extent that it merits using race and gender as points to consider during the application process if that's what it takes to get diversity.

Your main problem seems to be that it's decided purely by race. Let me again attempt dissuade you of that notion. Race is only one tiny part of the equation, and it's only part because they tried not including race and, for reasons I've been excessively sesquipedelien about, that left many races vastly underrepresented because they don't have the tools required to compete, be that education, finances, support of family, support of community, extra curricular opportunities, safety in their neighborhood, transportation, etc., much of which is caused by centuries of codified law that kept them poor, uneducated, and powerless to change that status. No white male with a 1600 and 4.0 is being turned away for a black woman with 1000 and 2.9, they might be turned away for a black woman with 1550 and 3.8 because she likely worked much harder to achieve those scores, indicating she'll do even better on a level field.

I don't see why Republicans care, they're now the proudly ignorant party of anti-intellectualism who claim all higher education is nothing but a bastion of liberal lefty PC thugs doin book lernin. Y'all don't want none of that no how. ;-)

Edit: note, according to reports I saw years ago, without racial preferencing FOR white kids, many universities would be nearly all Asian because their cultures value education above most other things so, in general, they test better than other groups.

Congratulations! Your comment on Gun Control Explained by Mr Bean has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 32 Badge!

That's not Mr Bean, it's Rowan Atkinson on a completely different show.

Your video, Gun Control Explained by Mr Bean, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Bean. Made me laugh.

Bean a son.

Somebody is Canadian, maybe.