*ban
Seo Blog
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjgXNm0p1Lg

Sweet mother of fuck:
http://www.securityweek.com/brian-krebs-blog-hit-665-gbps-ddos-attack

Akamai dropped him once the attack was over. Guess they couldn't take the heat...

Absolutely false. He's outright saying that stopping eating meat, and nothing else, is equivalent to stopping smoking, which is an outright lie.
He sells a lifestyle, with books, blogs, websites, videos, and appearances for sale. There's nothing wrong with that, unless you claim to not have a financial tie to your movement or financial incentives to mislead and exaggerate. He clearly does, and lies about that too.

Insisting on honesty does nothing to remove personal responsibility for yourself. Please.

No one mentions Dr Williams because he's not making up studies or results, he's offering a personal opinion and explanation of his personal actions...not lying to convince others to follow suit out of misplaced fear....like your hero, "Dr" Greger.

It's proper to attack the zealous liar that's making a living selling lies....like "Dr" Greger, no matter when they appear on screen.

One more example of him lying....taking "Consumption of foods high in saturated AND industrially produced trans fats, salt, and sugar is the cause of at least 14 million deaths" and restated it as "consumption of animal foods (and processed foods) leads to at least 14 million deaths."...but the study conclusion he references doesn't mention animal foods at all, he just added that, and emphasized it over what the study actually said while completely omitting processed plant based foods, which are just as bad as the meat ones according to the study. That's lying. Lies like that make it difficult to take personal responsibility for your health, because you have to debunk them to get to the good advice/actual facts.

Of course he's not infallible. I totally understand that he's human and might even make a mistake:

Which is why I haven't made a blog post trying to discredit him for a poorly worded sentence. LIKE YOU DID.

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.

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

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.

His blogs ask you to support a charity, that he owns, and buy his books, and see his appearances, etc. Likely he wasn't a great doctor, or yes, he probably could make more money that way (although maybe not, even though zealous people like you may be <2% of the US population, if 10% of you pay/make him $1 a year, he's making a MINT, WAY more than a normal practitioner, and with speaking fees, I'm sure he makes at least that...also, a doctor that tells his patients they must adopt a vegan lifestyle won't keep many patients.)

By "not clearly BS industry funded designer studies" you must mean any study that doesn't fit his narrative, because it's FAR from only industry studies that he ignores, and the few studies he actually supports, he exaggerates and misrepresents.

Yes, it did say they "may" be carcinogenic, and he quotes that as "it says that chicken and turkey are deadly carcinogenic cancer causing agents". That's absolute bullshit, making up statements and attributing them to reputable sources to garner support for your pet cause. He's a liar and exaggerator, so he's blown his chance to teach anyone anything.

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).

Referencing one opinion blog to accuse someone's lack of scientific evidence.

Oh the irony...

EDIT: BTW the blogger is just some bozo that is trying to justify her reasons not to be fully vegetarian/vegan, by using character assassination.

She's doing whatever it takes to clear herself from any responsibility or guilt.

Congratulations! Your comment on 25 Random things about me... (Blog Entry by youdiejoe) has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

http://mindyourdecisions.com/blog/2016/09/07/the-horse-horseshoe-boots-viral-brain-teaser-the-correct-answer-explained/

From everything I've read, including this link, it's really just a basic algebra problem. What appears to make it difficult is that people who don't use algebra and math all the time will not know the specific rules with equations.

As far as posting it, why do we post anything here? This piqued my interest and I thought it might be something others would enjoy. If it isn't something you care for, don't vote or down vote.

Your arguments are the same kind used by black lung / coal miner or cancer / smoking skeptics. Sure, it seems like when we control for every other factor in longitudinal studies that these factors are strong predictors. But you can't guarantee that all coal miner will get black lung or a smoker will get cancer. So it must be some other lifestyle factor.

Same with climate change. Your right wing blogs / websites argue that just because you can't create a model with perfect certainty, the inexorable trend isn't obvious. No thanks, I'd rather go with a 97% scientific consensus that has convinced most scientific organisations, large multinational companies (without a countervailing interest) and national governments from America to China.

If you're so certain that the science is wrong, why not publish a countervailing journal article? Oh wait, no, you almost certainly don't have training in the field or actual understanding of the science, and are just copy pasting fancy phrases like "decadal scale oscillations" because it makes you sound more credible.