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.

9037 studies demonstrate that red meat causes cancer. I'm well aware that you can manipulate statistics, which is why there is an organisation called the World Cancer Research Fund. They've sifted through 500,000 studies and currently have identified 9037 legitimate studies. wcrf.org/int/research-we-fund/cancer-prevention-recommendations/animal-foods

You might not like vegans or Dr. Greger, but you cannot argue against over 9000 peer reviewed, and medical journal published studies, that are unrelated, done by non-vegans, and then filtered through by non-vegan scientists to assess the quality of the results.

EDIT: They say that more than 300g of red meat a week puts you in serious danger of developing cancer - that quite clearly means it is at least as dangerous as smoking.

OK, so cured meats cured with nitrates are now classified carcinogenic, but non cured meats, and meats cured without nitrates, salt, or smoke only "may" be slightly carcinogenic...or may not. So still, not all deli turkey, not all chicken nuggets (I make them at home from whole chicken with no preservatives) or bacon (I had some uncured bacon a few years back...it sucked, but it does exist)....so not ALL processed meats are in that category, and certainly not all nuggets, sliced turkey, or bacon...so exaggeration, even if you wish to say it's only exaggeration by omission of detail.

Because he strongly implies it's because they are meats, says "The World Health Organization recently published a report that puts chicken nuggets, deli turkey slices, bacon and other processed meats in the same category as cigarettes and asbestos: known carcinogens" without explanation, and extrapolates to imply that all meats are as carcinogenic as habitually smoking processed tobacco cigarettes.

In terms of disease, overall danger to a person's health, and morality, it's completely inaccurate, and grossly misleading. A processed plant diet (the norm) can be FAR worse for you and the environment than a sustainably raised, non processed meat based diet (which is not the norm). It's not cut and dry, details matter.
"The International Agency for Cancer Research (IARC) used clearly defined guidelines to identify hazards (qualitative evaluation), i.e. whether an agent can cause cancer, but IARC does not assess level or the magnitude of risk.
Even though smoking is in the same category as processed meat (Group 1 carcinogen), the magnitude or level of risk associated with smoking is considerably higher (e.g., for lung cancer about 20 fold or 2000% increased risk) from those associated with processed meat – an analysis of data from 10 studies, cited in the IARC report showed an 18 percent increased risk in colorectal cancer per 50g processed meat increase per day. To put this in perspective, according to the Global Disease Burden Project 2012, over 34,000 cancer deaths per year worldwide are attributable to high processed meat intake vs. 1 million deaths per year attributable to tobacco smoke."
source- https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2015/11/03/report-says-eating-processed-meat-is-carcinogenic-understanding-the-findings/
So, smoking =2000% greater risk, eating meat daily-18% greater risk....so not honestly equivalent by any stretch.

I would agree that switching from a processed meat based diet to a non processed plant based (not even necessarily pure vegetarian) diet, in general, might be equivalent to quitting smoking (but smoking how much, and smoking what, depends on MANY variable factors, and it appears it's generally equivalent to smoking <2 cigarettes per week, while breathing air in most cities is equivalent to smoking a pack a day).

TONS of things cure cancer. All day, every day. Doctors have no clue what cancer is. All they can do is cut, burn, or poison and cross their fingers.

I didn't say Cannabis was THE cure. It is A cure used by thousands with amazing efficacy. Everyone is different.

Here's 60+ studies for your perusal if you insist on the superiority of western scientific research:

"Cannabis, and the cannabinoid compounds found within it, has been shown through a large cannabisplantamount of scientific, peer-reviewed research to be effective at treating a wide variety of cancers, ranging from brain cancer to colon cancer. Below is a list of over 60 studies that demonstrate the vast anti-cancer properties of cannabis.
Studies showing cannabis may combat brain cancer:
Cannabidiol (CBD) inhibits the proliferation and invasion in U87-MG and T98G glioma cells. Study published in the Public Library of Science journal in October 2013.
Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) can kill cancer cells by causing them to self-digest. Study published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation in September 2013.
CBD is a novel therapeutic target against glioblastoma. Study published in Cancer Research in March 2013.
Local delivery of cannabinoid-filled microparticles inhibits tumor growth in a model of glioblastoma multiforme. Study published in Public Library of Science in January 2013.
Cannabinoid action inhibits the growth of malignant human glioma U87MG cells. Study published in Oncology Reports in July 2012.
Cannabidiol enhances the inhibitory effects of THC on human glioblastoma cell proliferation and survival. Study published in the Molecular Cancer Therapeutics journal in January 2010.
Cannabinoid action induces autophagy-mediated cell death in human glioma cells. Study published in The Journal of Clinical Investigation in May 2009.
Cannabinoids inhibit glioma cell invasion by down-regulating matrix metalloproteinase-2 expression. Study published in Cancer Research in March 2008.
Cannabinoids and gliomas. Study published in Molecular Neurobiology in June 2007.
Cannabinoids inhibit gliomagenesis. Study published in the Journal of Biological Chemistry in March 2007.
A pilot clinical study of THC in patients with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme. The results were published in the British Journal of Cancer in June 2006.
Cannabidiol inhibits human glioma cell migration through an independent cannabinoid receptor mechanism. Study published in the British Journal of Pharmacology in April 2005.
Cannabinoids inhibit the vascular endothelial growth factor pathway (VEGF) in gliomas. Study published in the Journal of Cancer Research in August 2004.
Antitumor effects of cannabidiol, a nonpsychoactive cannabinoid, on human glioma cell lines. Study published in the Journal of Pharmacology in November 2003.
Inhibition of glioma growth in vivo by selective activation of the CB2 cannabinoid receptor. Study published in the Journal of Cancer Research in August 2001.
Studies showing cannabis may combat colorectal cancer:
Cannabigerol (CBG) can inhibit colon cancer cells. Study published in the Oxford journal Carcinogenesis in October 2014.
Inhibition of colon carcinogenesis by a standardised Cannabis Sativa extract with high content of CBD. Study published in Phytomedecine in December 2013.
Chemopreventive effect of the non-psychotropic phytocannabinoid CBD on colon cancer. Study published in the Journal of Molecular Medecine in August 2012.
Cannabinoids against intestinal inflammation and cancer. Study published in Pharmacology Research in August 2009.
Action of cannabinoid receptors on colorectal tumor growth. Study published by the Cancer Center of the University of Texas in July 2008.
Studies showing cannabis may combat blood cancer:
The effects of cannabidiol and its synergism with bortezomib in multiple myeloma cell lines. Study published in the International Journal of Cancer in December 2013.
Enhancing the activity of CBD and other cannabinoids against leukaemia. Study published in Anticancer Research in October 2013.
Cannabis extract treatment for terminal acute lymphoblastic leukemia of Philadelphia chromosome (Ph1). Study published in Case Reports in Oncology in September 2013.
Expression of type 1 and type 2 cannabinoid receptors in lymphoma. Study published in the International Journal of Cancer in June 2008.
Cannabinoid action in mantle cell lymphoma. Study published in Molecular Pharmacology in November 2006.
THC-induced apoptosis in Jurkat leukemia. Study published in Molecular Cancer Research in August 2006.
Targeting CB2 cannabinoid receptors as a novel therapy to treat malignant lymphoblastic disease. Study published in Blood American Society of Hemmatology in July 2002.
Studies showing cannabis can combat lung cancer:
Cannabinoids increase lung cancer cell lysis by lymphokine-activated killer cells via upregulation of Icam-1. Study published in Biochemical Pharmacology in July 2014.
Cannabinoids inhibit angiogenic capacities of endothelial cells via release of tissue inhibitor of matrix metalloproteinases-1 from lung cancer cells. Study published in Biochemical Pharmacology in June 2014.
COX-2 and PPAR-γ confer CBD-induced apoptosis of human lung cancer cells. Study published in Molecular Cancer Therapeutics in January 2013.
CBD inhibits lung cancer cell invasion and metastasis via intercellular adhesion molecule-1. Study published in the Journal of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology in April 2012.
Cannabinoid receptors, CB1 and CB2, as novel targets for inhibition of non–small cell lung cancer growth and metastasis. Study published in Cancer Prevention Research in January 2011.
THC inhibits epithelial growth factor-induced (EGF) lung cancer cell migration in vitro as well as its growth and metastasis in vivo. Study published in the journal Oncogene in July 2007.
Studies showing cannabis may combat stomach cancer:
Cannabinoid receptor agonist as an alternative drug in 5-Fluorouracil-resistant gastric cancer cells. Study published in Anticancer Research in June 2013.
Antiproliferative mechanism of a cannabinoid agonist by cell cycle arrest in human gastric cancer cells. Study published in the Journal of Cellular Biochemistry in March 2011.
Studies showing cannabis may combat prostrate cancer:
Cannabinoids can treat prostate cancer. Study published by the National Institute of Health in October 2013.
Non-THC cannabinoids inhibit prostate carcinoma growth in vitro and in vivo: pro-apoptotic effects and underlying mechanisms. Study published in the British Journal of Pharmacology in December 2012.
The role of cannabinoids in prostate cancer: Basic science perspective and potential clinical applications. Study published in the Indian Journal of Urology in January 2012.
Induction of apoptosis by cannabinoids in prostate and colon cancer cells is phosphatase dependent. Study published in Anticancer Research in November 2011.
Studies showing cannabis may combat liver cancer:
Involvement of PPARγ in the antitumoral action of cannabinoids on hepatocellular carcinoma (CHC). Study published in Cell Death and Disease in May 2013.
Evaluation of anti-invasion effect of cannabinoids on human hepatocarcinoma cells. Study published on the site Informa Healthcare in February 2013.
Antitumoral action of cannabinoids on hepatocellular carcinoma. Study published in Cell Death and Differentiation in April 2011.
Studies showing cannabis may combat pancreatic cancer:
Cannabinoids inhibit energetic metabolism and induce autophagy in pancreatic cancer cells. Study published in Cell Death and Disease in June 2013.
Cannabinoids Induce apoptosis of pancreatic tumor cells. Study published in Cancer Research in July 2006.
Studies showing cannabis may combat skin cancer:
Cannabinoid receptor activiation can combat skin cancer. Study published by the National Institute of Health in October 2013.
Cannabinoids were found to reduce skin cancer by 90% in just 2 weeks. Study published in the Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology in July 2013.
Cannabinoid receptors as novel targets for the treatment of melanoma. Study published in the Journal of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology in December 2006.
Inhibition of skin tumor growth and angiogenesis in vivo by activation of cannabinoid receptors. Study published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation, in January 2003.
Studies showing cannabis may combat other types of cancer:
Bladder: Marijuana reduces the risk of bladder cancer. Study published in the Medscape site in May 2013.
Kaposi sarcoma: Cannabidiol inhibits growth and induces programmed cell death in Kaposi sarcoma–associated herpesvirus-infected endothelium. Study published in the journal Genes & Cancer in July 2012.
Nose, mouth, throat, ear: Cannabinoids like THC inhibit cellular respiration of human oral cancer cells. Study by the Department of Pediatrics at the State University of New York, published in June 2010.
Bile duct: The dual effects of THC on cholangiocarcinoma cells: anti-invasion activity at low concentration and apoptosis induction at high concentration. Study published in Cancer Investigation in May 2010.
Ovaries: Cannabinoid receptors as a target for therapy of ovarian cancer. Study published on the American Association for Cancer Research website in 2006.
Preparation and characterisation of biodegradable microparticles filled with THC and their antitumor efficacy on cancer cell lines. Study published in the Journal of Drug Targeting in September 2013.
CBD Cannabidiol as a potential anticancer drug. Study published in the British Journal of Pharmacology in February 2013.
Cannabinoids as anticancer modulators. Study published in the Progress in Lipid Research journal in January 2013.
CBD inhibits angiogenesis by multiple mechanisms. Study published in the British Journal of Pharmacology in November 2012.
Towards the use of cannabinoids as antitumour agents. Study published in Nature in June 2012.
Cannabinoid-associated cell death mechanisms in tumor models. Study published in the International Journal of Oncology in May 2012.
Cannabinoids, endocannabinoids and cancer. Study published in Cancer Metastasis Reviews in December 2011.
The endocannabinoid system and cancer: therapeutic implication. Study published in the British Journal of Pharmacology in July 2011.
This list was compiled in part by Alchimiaweb.com.
– TheJointBlog"

@ChairmanDrew

I really couldn't disagree more... they are reporting huge fund-rasing numbers over previous years.

Speaking for the three people i called out, none of them gave to ALS. All took the bucket and then donated to other things. Two were for Cancer research and was to the ADL... because those charities were near and dear to them. There is not a damn thing narcissistic about that... its fun... its raising awareness and its effective.

You can't cut, burn, and poison your way to health. The only cure for cancer is personal, non-delegated responsibility for one's own health.

Unknowable BILLIONS have already been spent on "cancer research" and they still don't know the first thing about cancer. Another billion or trillion ain't gonna help. The cure is free and available to all NOW. So it is with ALS.

I think you all misunderstand me. I mean the donations don't do anything either for ASL. It's almost as pointless as donating for cancer research.

Because it's snake oil, and people die from it. The reason I asked @Sniper007 what he would suggest as an alternative is because there are some interesting alternatives currently being researched, but diet has already been shown to be ineffective. It pretty much killed Steve Jobs, for a start.

Yes, absolutely, you should eat healthily as a general life rule (although raw vegan is nonsense). There's some good evidence to show that diet can lessen your chance of developing cancer, but as a treatment? Nope.

Cannabis, on the other hand, may potentially have some benefit but as of today, there's no evidence to support that (and Cancer Research UK have labelled internet claims of such "highly misleading"). It's further complicated by the fact that smoking cannabis is often combined with tobacco smoking.

Finally, yeah, chemo is awful, but right now it's still the best treatment.

I'm inclined to fall in the middle here.
Smoked a pack a day for 20 years and got lung cancer? That's a victim that took a risk and lost. BUT...
It's impossible to eliminate cancer risk entirely. Cancer is semi-random with an off-on trigger. Risk is cumulative, and while incidence can be correlated with risk across populations, incidence is not directly correlated with risk for a given individual. Some people will tan for years and never experience the specific set of mutations and biologic failsafe failures that results in melanoma, while others will trigger that specific set of conditions rapidly, even when the starting biologic conditions\predispositions are the same.
So, yes, I believe some people "get credit" for their cancer (or other illnesses) because of their behaviors, but others are just unlucky.
Even setting aside the randomness of incidence, we're constantly bombarded with a significant cancer risk factor in the form of ionizing radiation, and not just from avoidable sources like deciding to live in a brick house or eating bananas.
I also disagree with the idea that more money wouldn't help eliminate (contrast with "cure") cancer, because many organizations funding cancer research are looking at identifying risk factors, which leads to opportunities for educating populations about avoiding those risk factors. Cervical cancer can be caused by HPV? Get your kids vaccinated, don't have unprotected sex, etc. Lung cancer can be caused by smoking? Stop smoking! It isn't just about finding a magic medication to reverse cellular mutations or target mutated cells, although that would be fantastic.

Wow, $350,000,000 for breast cancer research? That's great. Did they cure breast cancer? No. They didn't. They won't cure it with $3 billion. They won't cure it with $3 trillion. or $300 quadrillion. Their mistake is in the perception of the problem, and the idea that "global poverty" or "cancer worldwide" is a "problem" which they can "solve". Cancer can be cured for $0. There are hundreds of lifestyle changes that cost nothing (or even save or make more money for the individual) that reduce cancer cells. Cancer isn't the problem, it's the cure, which points the individual to the real problem: lifestyle habits. Same goes for homelessness, hunger, etc. Those things (should) indicate to the individual that there is something wrong with the way they've lived their life up to that point. Or if you prefer a positive outlook, "there is a better way of living their life than the way they've been doing it up to that point." Stop trying to eliminate the things which motivate people to change their habits: Cancer, hunger, poverty, AIDS, etc. These are all symptoms. Symptoms teach us what the real problem is.

How's that for "real social innovation"?

While Bill is funny here he's also pretty misinformed. The Livestrong Foundation doesn't raise any money for cancer research.

http://todayhealth.today.com/_news/2013/01/16/16532911-armstrongs-cancer-fighter-legacy-still-inspires

>> ^yellowc:

Because he built his success on being honest and he isn't going to let social norms get in the way of sticking to that, personally I find it a breathe of fresh air. He is already helping her out tremendously with exposure, there is no need for him to feel obliged to completely foot the bill for it, this isn't a charity, it is an act of personal compassion.
20% also seems like a lot but only because it is relative to the cheap price of $5. If they charged $10, Louis would still of kept only $1, as he is not taking the money for profit. He also says "I'm" but this really means, the people who help me run my business and who I need to pay will require that $1 to keep getting paid.
>> ^MilkmanDan:
That's cool and moving.
...One question: In the description / message from Louis CK I read "The show is on sale for the same 5 dollars I charge for my stuff. I'm only keeping 1. She gets the other 4."
Obviously I don't know the full story, but that strikes me as a bit off. Why not give all of it to Tig? Barring that, why not withhold any costs associated with hosting the files for download and/or manufacturing CDs or whatever and give Tig 100% of the rest? Or finally barring that, don't flat out say "1'm keeping $1 and she gets $4" -- at least weasel out of it with a generic "Tig gets most of the profits, and some will be donated to cancer research" or some such.
I guess what I'm saying is, I don't see Louis CK's involvement being worth 20% off the top. If she feels that it is worth it, that's cool -- but I'd prefer to be blissfully ignorant of it.



I think it's more than that, it's respect for a fellow comic. I listened to it again tonight and it's even better the second time. The honesty and the bald faced reality of it is simply beautiful. I just love it and I love that Louis recognized how great this was and put it out on his website. Louis is doing the right thing with that site and he deserves our support. Everyone should go to his show when it's in their town. I've got my ticket.

Because he built his success on being honest and he isn't going to let social norms get in the way of sticking to that, personally I find it a breathe of fresh air. He is already helping her out tremendously with exposure, there is no need for him to feel obliged to completely foot the bill for it, this isn't a charity, it is an act of personal compassion.

20% also seems like a lot but only because it is relative to the cheap price of $5. If they charged $10, Louis would still of kept only $1, as he is not taking the money for profit. He also says "I'm" but this really means, the people who help me run my business and who I need to pay will require that $1 to keep getting paid.

>> ^MilkmanDan:

That's cool and moving.
...One question: In the description / message from Louis CK I read "The show is on sale for the same 5 dollars I charge for my stuff. I'm only keeping 1. She gets the other 4."
Obviously I don't know the full story, but that strikes me as a bit off. Why not give all of it to Tig? Barring that, why not withhold any costs associated with hosting the files for download and/or manufacturing CDs or whatever and give Tig 100% of the rest? Or finally barring that, don't flat out say "1'm keeping $1 and she gets $4" -- at least weasel out of it with a generic "Tig gets most of the profits, and some will be donated to cancer research" or some such.
I guess what I'm saying is, I don't see Louis CK's involvement being worth 20% off the top. If she feels that it is worth it, that's cool -- but I'd prefer to be blissfully ignorant of it.

>> ^MilkmanDan:

That's cool and moving.
...One question: In the description / message from Louis CK I read "The show is on sale for the same 5 dollars I charge for my stuff. I'm only keeping 1. She gets the other 4."
Obviously I don't know the full story, but that strikes me as a bit off. Why not give all of it to Tig? Barring that, why not withhold any costs associated with hosting the files for download and/or manufacturing CDs or whatever and give Tig 100% of the rest? Or finally barring that, don't flat out say "1'm keeping $1 and she gets $4" -- at least weasel out of it with a generic "Tig gets most of the profits, and some will be donated to cancer research" or some such.
I guess what I'm saying is, I don't see Louis CK's involvement being worth 20% off the top. If she feels that it is worth it, that's cool -- but I'd prefer to be blissfully ignorant of it.


i think a dollar is perfectly reasonable. there is probably significant overhead in hosting a big file like that for (possibly) hundreds of thousands of people.

That's cool and moving.

...One question: In the description / message from Louis CK I read "The show is on sale for the same 5 dollars I charge for my stuff. I'm only keeping 1. She gets the other 4."

Obviously I don't know the full story, but that strikes me as a bit off. Why not give all of it to Tig? Barring that, why not withhold any costs associated with hosting the files for download and/or manufacturing CDs or whatever and give Tig 100% of the rest? Or finally barring that, don't flat out say "1'm keeping $1 and she gets $4" -- at least weasel out of it with a generic "Tig gets most of the profits, and some will be donated to cancer research" or some such.

I guess what I'm saying is, I don't see Louis CK's involvement being worth 20% off the top. If she feels that it is worth it, that's cool -- but I'd prefer to be blissfully ignorant of it.