As an aside, the last time this was brought up it was in the late 30's.

"Aside from President Franklin Roosevelt’s ill-fated threat in 1937 to add new Justices who sympathized with his policies to the Supreme Court, the number of Justices on the Court has remained stable.

Roosevelt was particularly upset by the Court’s 1935 decision in Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States. The unanimous decision invalidated a key part of the National Industrial Recovery Act, one of the projects passed during FDR's 100-day program in 1933. President Roosevelt did not mince words a week later when he talked to the press. “You see the implications of the decision. That is why I say it is one of the most important decisions ever rendered in this country,” Roosevelt told reporters on May 31, 1935. “We have been relegated to the horse-and-buggy definition of interstate commerce.”

As Roosevelt started his second term, he used one of his fireside chats in March 1937 to make his case to the American people for adding more Justices to the Supreme Court who agreed with him. “This plan of mine is not attacking of the court; it seeks to restore the court to its rightful and historic place in our system of constitutional government and to have it resume its high task of building anew on the Constitution ‘a system of living law.’ The court itself can best undo what the court has done,” Roosevelt said.

The legislation struggled to gain traction and it was opposed not only by Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes but also by Justice Louis Brandeis and members of Roosevelt’s Democratic Party."

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.

Eating fish and poultry at least twice a week is conspicuously left off the Mediterranean Diet list here.

Fatty fish — such as mackerel, lake trout, herring, sardines, albacore tuna and salmon — are rich sources of omega-3 fatty acids. Fish is eaten on a regular basis in the Mediterranean diet.

Seems from everything I see, seafood seems to be pretty predominant in Japanese diet intake, the other diet he mentioned in comparison.

So, I figured, let me look up some info on the Dr. presenting here. Neal Barnard is a well known Vegan and founding president of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine.

Intriguing, no? Then I looked up the PCRM he is the founding president of (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicians_Committee_for_Responsible_Medicine). OMG, they just happen to be a non-profit research and advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C., which promotes a vegan diet, preventive medicine, and alternatives to animal research, and encourages what it describes as "higher standards of ethics and effectiveness in research." Its tax filing shows its activities as "prevention of cruelty to animals."

So it is a combination of a Vegan diet promotional group AND PETA. It also seems that they don't mind omitting parts of 'competing' diets to promote their own. Basically this is the equivalent of a organization like Atkins having a doctor like Iris Shai, RD, PhD, show that a low-carbohydrate diet like Atkins had a more favorable effect on blood lipid levels than both the Mediterranean diet or a low–fat diet.

Obviously she must be right, she is a doctor and other doctors support her. So this must mean all the other doctors and diets are wrong, including this one, right?

I'm calling this *propaganda, sorry.

Someone who knows that letting vehicles, cattle, poultry, or objects stop you in a possibly hostile place is putting you into a static kill zone for an ambush or IED.

Yet this probably enrages the regular population too.

So it's lose/lose

I'm not sure I could ever stop eating meat (primarily chicken), but I understand that there is serious mistreatment and mismanagement of farm animals. I think a greater adoption in North America of CAK (controlled atmosphere killing) via something like high concentrations of nitrogen gas would be a great improvement, especially if it could be extended to pigs and cows. The old stun bolt or electric immobilization (for poultry) and throat-cut method seems so barbaric and I find it hard to believe that it doesn't result in pain.

I'll address your linked report first because I have a problem with the statistics on there. It's a little misleading because the bit you mentioned only considers cancer deaths attributable with processed meats.

But then goes to includes all diseases attributable with smoking, not just cancer.
So it's not comparing cancer to cancer rates. The report is comparing processed meat cancer with ALL smoking diseases.

And this makes smoking look a lot worse. For a fair comparison we'd need to compare only smoking caused cancers to processed meat cancers.
Or we'd need to compare diseases from processed meat, to all diseases from smoking.

Further the report, states that it's an 18% risk for only 50g of processed meat.
I don't know about anyone else, but when I ate the stuff, it wasn't just 50g. That's like 3 chicken nuggets. I'd eat 9 at least in one sitting for lunch(150g). Maybe I had 2 rashers of bacon for breakfast, another 50g, and then I might have a few slices of salami for dinner, another 50g.

So in a day I might have eaten 250g of processed meat. So it might only be 18% chance to get cancer, but that's 5 times I've rolled the dice(250 divded by 50g = 5). So even low odds get pretty dangerous if you roll the dice often enough.


Right after that paragraph, it goes on to say that the total number of attributable deaths to processed meat is 644,000.

So now we're finally comparing apples with apples. 644,000 processed meat deaths vs. 1 million tobacco deaths.

Still smoking is the clear winner here, but it's 2/3 the way there. So to me Dr. Greger's statement is starting to ring true.

Of course Dr. Greger isn't only talking about processed meat, he's talking about all meat, including poultry and fish too. Because just like processed meat, they have cholesterol and saturated fat which causes heart disease and diabetes without a doubt.
The heart disease statistics are (google says:) "An estimated 17.5 million people died from CVDs in 2012, representing 31% of all global deaths"
Now granted not all of these cardiovascular diseases will be diet related. But we only need to another 366,000 out of that 17.5 million to be caused by diet, and now we're comparing 1 million meat related deaths to 1 million tobacco related deaths.

So it's totally comparable in my eyes. And in the end, regardless of which has higher chances of cancer. The death rates are easily matched.

(not to mention colorectal cancer is kills more people, even though more people get lung cancer. Because lung cancer is more survivable).

So now you do admit that your blog post was a smear attack. You weren't "simply mentioning". We'll it's going to be hard to have an honest discussion then. Because you're happy to lie in order to be "right".

Dr. Greger reads " every single diet related research paper, written in English, every year" He says this as his opener on every presentation he does.

If that doesn't make him a qualified and credible source, then I don't know what does.

PhD's are focused on a single, narrow yet very detailed topic. So mentioning PhD isn't even relevant here.


The fact that you've come to the conclusion that he's not a credible source based on your own technicalities is just absurd.

Sliced turkey and chicken nuggets = processed meat. The report was warning about processed meat.
Poultry and fish = unprocessed meat. They mentioned this because they were talking about red meat (unprocessed) and didn't want people to become confused. But that obviously failed in this case.

OK here I'll admit you're right, please don't take advice from me, without doing your own research as well. But you said you're lacto-vegetarian, and most people don't eat carrots on their own, or just potatoes on their own. Most people make mash-potoates (with milk). Most people dip their carrots into creamy cheeses etc.

The only thing I've lost is a bit of my free time, and I'm happy to give it up because I'm enjoy this conversation.

I put that in quotations because he LITERALLY isn't a PhD dietitian, so he has NO credibility to dish out diet advice or write books on the topic anymore than the Lawyer who wrote The Obesity Myth. That is a fact. Deal with it. If you are going to put that in your title to gain credibility, be prepared to have it questioned.

I also simply mentioned Sucralose, which the only study against it was a single case study he used. Also, almost none of the studies proving that Sucralose is ok were industry funded, many of the ones showing it was bad was funded by the Naturalistic Industry. Funny how that works.

I rarely eat processed foods, and eat nothing that has whey or milk powder in it. That also doesn't explain why potatoes and Carrots cause my digestional upset as well, but thanks for trying. I am pretty sure you are even LESS qualified than the General Practitioner Greger in this.

And since the WHO wasn't talking about fish or poultry, they were not talking about Chicken Nuggets and Sliced Turkey. Sorry. Stop bending the facts to try to fit your narrative. Processed nuggets are not healthy for you, but they are NOT mentioned in this study.

Thanks again for playing, but like last time, you lost. Take the L babe

Your blog post doesn't "simply mention" anything. Your blog post is clearly an attack on Dr. Greger's credibility.

For starters the blog post title is "The case against Dr. Greger" AND!!!!! you put "Dr." into quotations to suggest he's not a doctor, or not worthy of being one.

You try to catch him out on a technicality, which you misword in your post to make it sound worse than it is.

Your artifical sweetner claims are also weak. ( The number of industry funded positive studies don't outweight the recent studies showing how bad artificial sweetners actually are, from obesity, to aspartame turning into formaldehyde in the blood).

These aren't the actions of someone that is "simply mentioning" something. You had a clear agenda when you wrote that blog post. Which was either to create controversy in order to get traffic to your website, or to justify your non-vegan diet at the time of writing.


Also if you're having digestive issues, it's most likely dairy. Not just milk and cheese, but the milk powder they put into processed foods.

Edit:
Chicken nuggets are poultry yes, but they are highly processed - which puts them into the processed meat category. The WHO report doesn't specifically mention every single type of processed meat and brand because they're assuming that people can tell what processed meat is. But apparently they've given people too much credit.

As the "Bozo" who runs the very site that you just attacked, I would like a chance to respond to your baseless accusations, sir.

I was plant-based lacto-vegetarian at the time of writing that post, and was vegan just 13 days after writing it, on November 27th. I am now going back and forth between vegan and vegetarian due to severe digestive health issues, but thanks for trying to say I am using that post to "justify" anything I do.

I wrote the blog post, and if you read it, I simply mention why Greger is unreliable as the "bulletproof" source that many vegans make him out to be, including his bias and his inaccuracies. I never once attacked him as a person, which you would know if you actually read the post, I simply mention that inaccurate claims that he doesn't benefit from his work, because facts state that the charity he gives to is his own charity, which does nothing other than fund his videos, books, and lectures.

These are facts. This isn't even an opinion. I am not trying to attack Greger, and I think that if he dropped his biases at the front door, and didn't use flawed or non-existent studies to promote this that or the other, I would like him more.

But to be honest, no, he isn't this infallible being people claim him to be.

and no, the WHO report, if you read it, does not mention Chicken Nuggets or Turkey Slices. The FAQ section I linked to only mentions poultry once, as the definiton of a processed food. But it also said:

"21. Should we eat only poultry and fish?

The cancer risks associated with consumption of poultry and fish were not evaluated."

Read the actual post before commenting on whether or not a blog is "opinion"

Sincerely,

The Bozo

"plant based diets (quitting meat) is the equivalent of quitting smoking".....Pretty clear to me....so does this article he produced..."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"
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/how-much-cancer-does-lunch-meat-cause/

Except the report really only said that PROCESSED meats/poultry MAY be dangerous carcinogens (edit: and that may be 100% due to the processing they receive, not the meat)...so sorry, no exaggeration on my part, it's on his part.

He never says anything as dramatic as "chicken and turkey are deadly carcinogenic cancer causing agent".

There is only one person exaggerating here and it's you.


Watch the video linked in the blog, it's only 2:55 seconds long.
And he shows you the text from the WHO report. And they do mention poultry.

His balanced view couldn't be any clearer.

I think your overestimating how much money is in charity appearances for an vegan audience(which is something like 1% of the population). Wouldn't be easier to make money from a product that targets the other 99% of the population?

If he wanted to make money, he can make a lot more by simply being a doctor. And a helluva lot more by prescribing statins and all of the other drugs used to counteract the side-effects of statins.

Or if he wanted the blogs and lifestyle thing, he could sell Paleo/Ketosis diets because it's a lot easier to sell books that tell people to eat bacon instead of vegetables.

You'll notice that his blog doesn't make money like other blogs do, as there are no ads, and he's got no industry sponsorship's.

If he's trying to make money, then he's doing a poor job.





As for cherry picking data, yes his opinions are formed by the studies that aren't clearly B.S. industry funded designer studies - The studies that are repeated over and over with small adjustments to make the outcome positive. But I know he reads even the industry funded studies, because he often points out why they are poorly constructed studies, designed purposely to show a specific outcome.


He makes a new video nearly every day, and has been doing so for nearly 10 years. That's some 3000+ videos. He's allowed one mistake.
But it's not even a mistake. This blogger is trying to discredit all of this work because of semantics about a W.H.O. report. (She didn't read the W.H.O report correctly, because it does actually say that poultry *may* be carcinogenic too).

I've got some bad news for you dude, you've been eating vegan food all of your life. All of that stuff on your plate that isn't beef, poultry, fish or dairy is vegan. DUH DUH DUUUUUUUH!

Tofu is also highly dependent on what flavors it's absorbing, it doesn't have any flavor itself. I rarely eat myself, mostly using it as a substitute for mayo (+bit of mustard and tabasco makes a pretty convincing substitute)

I know what you mean though some of the older vegan processed food is awful and card board like.

Give these a go one day https://gardein.com/recipes/seven-grain-tenders-with-chipotle-mayo/
(it's not like real chicken patties have much chicken in them anyway...)


EDIT: BTW there is a perfectly good way to eat animals and be vegan. Road kill.... or if you're in the field at the right time to see an old buffalo collapse.... or if a shark has bitten a fish in 1/2 and you take the other 1/2. Technically all vegan since no animals were exploited by humans. There is always breast milk too assuming you've asked for the mothers consent. (don't do it mad max style).

I liked this video so up voted. I would however avoid buying Purina puppy chow. Terrible, terrible stuff. Choose a food that does not contain Poultry by-products.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poultry_by-product_meal

http://www.dogfoodadvisor.com/choosing-dog-food/animal-by-products/

Poultry by-product meal (PBM) is a high-protein commodity used as a major component in some pet foods. It is made from grinding clean, rendered parts of poultry carcasses...Poultry by-product meal quality and composition can change from one batch to another....Chicken by-product costs less than chicken muscle meat and lacks the digestibility of chicken muscle meat.