He did mention fish/white meat, however he was making the point that meats aren't what is making them healthy - the Mediterraneans are healthy despite these animal foods. They are healthy because of the large intake of whole plant foods, as is the case in Japan.

And we know this, because within Japan itself there's a clear relationship between health, and amount of animal products consumed. The traditional Okinawan diet (the place which has the most centenarians int he world) is just 6% calories from animal products, the rest being from sweet potato and rice and veg. Where as mainland Japan where they eat more animal products they don't do as well as their Okinawan neighbors.

This relationship of animal food intake & rates of chronic diseases works on a local level or a global level. Less is always better, all the way to none (Loma Linda 7th day Adventists many of which are vegan by religion tend do the best out of all of the blue zones, when it comes to chronic disease).



------


Omega 3 is present in so many plant foods - such as flaxseed/linseed, hemp, chia, and even sea algae (which is where the fish get their omega 3 from)

The benefit of getting omega 3 from plant sources means almost no saturated fat, no cholesterol, no mercury, no IGF-1 raising protein structures (and no antibiotics if you are eating farmed fish). Also they say the ocean will be fishless by 2048..... (which also coincides with the Post Atomic Horror era for the Trekkies out there lol)

Fish also don't have any fiber, (the one macro nutrient everyone pretends doesn't exist, and most people are deficient in). Stay regular and prevent diverticulitis/diverticulitis, and avoid hemorrhoids, and even varicose veins.

Flax also contains lignans which prevents/treats prostate cancer https://www.healthline.com/health/prostate-cancer/flaxseed-and-prostate-cancer.


You just get so much more nutrition out of plants over all. Animal products tend to have a higher amount of a single compound or nutrient, but they have a lot of baggage with it. It's like buying a car, you don't necessarily want the one with the biggest engine, the total package is what's important.


------

Whether or not Barnard is a vegan shill, doesn't change the nutritional profiles of foods as shown above.

It also doesn't change the fact he looks, acts and speaks amazing for someone that's 65 years old - clearly putting his theory into practice with wonderful results. And while that is anecdotal, that's certainly something nobody would say about Atkins, or Loran Cordain (Paleo advocate) or Jimmy Moore (Keto advocate), who all look like they could drop dead any minute (and Atkins literally did drop dead).

Yeah, any type of cherry picking in studies irks me badly. For instance, I recently got into an internet argument with one of the people who try to claim we didn't land on the moon.

They were using the results of a single study that tentatively said the Van Allen radiation outside of LEO possibly causes higher rates of cardio-vascular disease in astronauts. I then read the study and found out they picked 7 out of the 13 deceased astronauts vs a sample of 100 LEO astronauts, plus the general public's rates of CVD. That set off my alarm bells, so I then looked at the ages the people died at and their actual cause of death on the internet.

Three of the astronauts died at 56, 61, and 61. So basically about a decade early. The other 4 died in their 80's, basically a decade later than average. Out of those 4, they were suffering other conditions and illnesses that might have influenced the final cardiac failure. Sadly no one in the scientific community seems willing to challenge the study, so it stays valid, and the news media posted great big headlines about it when it came out.

Like I told the person I was arguing with, the median age of death of lunar astronauts is 87, even including the three that died early. Even if Van Allen radiation increases CVD likelihood, living to 80 something is pretty damn spectacular, so it really doesn't matter if you die from CVD, cancer, or a stroke.

Ok, there is something wonderfully and touchingly French about this being a tribute and cancer fund raiser for a young woman who died of Leukemia.
If in no other sense, for all the futures she never got to live as a young, feminine, French woman---
Bravo.

"How can you not call CNN fake news when the majority of their programming is all about Trump in a negative light?"

This is because in reality, Trump is a piece of shit. Accurate reporting does not have to make something seem balanced when in reality it is not. This is why the majority of news media, not just CNN, report Trump in a negative light. There is nothing good to report about cancer.

This is why most international news media in the western world, who are not affected by domestic US partisan bias, report Trump in a negative light. Read the BBC if you want. Trump is just as shitty in Britain as he is in America.

There are two possibilities: one is that there is some sudden massive coordinated conspiracy by the once respectable and honest media to lie about Trump. Or two, the media is just exposing a life long immoral compulsive liar in the Oval office for the piece of shit that he is.

Just because you don't like hearing negative things about Trump doesn't mean that those things are fake. Don't be gullible and let Trump's lies fool you into believing that anything negative against him is a part of some agenda. That is the first step any communist or fascist dictator uses to blind their people to the truth.

The thief was just doing him a favor. Nobody should eat cheese. The stuff kills you. From heart-disease, erectile dysfunction to various cancers.

Your video, How UV Causes Cancer and Aging, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Lol....no you aren't, you admitted you don't get information from news sources, only talking heads and conspiracy cabals....Rush, Dore, and Q to quote you. You're just buying what the propagandists and conspiracy theorists are selling.

That is simply not true. Trump was never a "great nation figure" (whatever that means, I'm guessing you mean great national figure, which is still not true). Trump was a joke in the 90's and 2000's except to those who knew him personally, to them he was an unmitigated douchbag that tried to buy sex from their wives, and late 2000's till now he's been a destructive cancer eating the brain of gullible America, starting in earnest with the birther/Kenyan Muslim nonsense and ramping up from there with meth addict level insanity.
The only thing odd is your complete lack of memory and willingness to let a known liar rewrite what happened 1984 style.

This is an issue because some people are trying to confuse the issue to trick other people into believing veganism is healthy by pretending it's the same as a plant based diet.....

veg·an- vēɡən
noun
1.a person who does not eat or use animal products.

plant based -
A plant-based diet is a diet based on fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and legumes. ... In fact, almost 90% of Americans don't get their recommended intake of fruits and veggies. Eating more produce helps lower your risk of heart disease, diabetes, and even some cancers. (Note there's nothing about not eating meat or dairy)

Vegan is NOT just a plant based diet (that includes moderate meat and dairy), and is NOT what doctors mean when they say the words "plant based diet". Plant based diet means less processed food and sugar and more fruits and vegetables, not an exclusion of all meat and animal products.

Vegan doesn't equate to more natural or better for you, only lacking animal products.....E.g.. Oreos are vegan, but they are not part of a plant based diet.

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.

Possibly, although there were some comments on the video that he was a widower whose wife had died while using the juice to cure cancer or something.

Canon? Are you not familiar with the fuckery of Hollywood? This has nothing to do with Spiderman* - notice Venom doesnt even have the white spider on his chest?

Also Tom Hardy is a terrible choice. His "accent" actually made me cringe.

* Of course in the Ultimate universe the Venom symbiote isnt an alien but is instead a "cure for cancer" created by Eddie Brock Sr and Richard Parker (Peter's father). I take it they're probably going a similar route.

@navlasop that's part of the problem.

For example, there is no doubt that pharmaceutical companies engage in some EXTREMELY shady shit. But when someone screams that vaccines are evil and "big pharma" is hiding the cure for cancer, it becomes difficult to discern the genuine issues (evergreening, etc) from the noise.

"Chem trails!
Global Warming!
9/11 was an inside job!
Aliens at Roswell!"

One of those is a real and serious problem, but if it gets lumped in with the orders, it becomes easy to dismiss it as nonsense.

We need to get better as a society at filtering the signal from the noise.

Your talking about it historically though. Historical abuse and mistreatment of Aboriginal people in Canada has been acceptable to discuss for at least a generation or two now, up to formal apologies and enormous numbers of court cases and cash settlements around the myriad past injustices.

The trouble is, even while addressing all the historical problems, there still exist new ones right now.

Typical conditions on Aboriginal reserves in Canada are unacceptably awful. You can have a thriving municipality right neighbouring an aboriginal reserve that is a mess of dilapidated homes, boiled water and grossly increased rates of unemployment, substance abuse and suicide. Small wonder then that increased crime rates also come along with all that.

Even that you can talk about, though the increased crime rate will get you in trouble for flirting with being racist against aboriginals.

What you can't talk about is many of the causes of the disparity.

Aboriginal reserves operate under a different legal framework than the neighbouring municipality. They operate under a different framework of governance. They operate under a different system of taxation. Organisation of all related government services like education, healthcare, policing and civil works like roads, water and sanitation are ALL different if you're on a reserve.

Talking about all that you need to be very careful how you say it, because if your not careful my above observations are a statement that coloniser systems are superior to aboriginal ones.

Private property rights are IMO an even hotter topic. The dilapidated housing on a reserve 10 minutes away from the municipality with everything in order is a direct result of who is responsible for maintaining them. In the municipality if a roof is missing shingles, the owner replaces them. If a window is broken, the owner replaces it. On the reserve though, the community is the owner. Unsurprisingly, that abstraction means maintenance on the homes is worse. If the mayor was responsible for using tax dollars to maintain all the homes in the neighbouring municipality it'd be a mess too. This leads to the poor aboriginal family stuck in a destroyed and overcrowded home and a chief saying sorry, the Canadian colonisers didn't give us enough money to fix your place, go yell at them. This just stirs up the Winnipeg citizens I mentioned earlier to respond with wonderment at why you don't fix your own home up yourself instead of protesting hopelessly for the government to hand out the money to do it for you.

The differential treatment still in place now, today is a cancer and needs to be fixed but calling it out like that would get me in trouble.

I think it can be linked more to tobacco being a carcinogen. While smoking 'anything' may cause other issues with your respiratory system (bronchitis, emphysema, COPD, etc), smoking a carcinogen means you are exposing cells to a substance that can alter their genome.

An easier comparison would be chewing gum and nicotine gum. Since nicotine is a carcinogen, you run the risk of developing cancers of the mouth, throat, and gums by chewing the gum. Regular chewing gum does not contain a carcinogen, so it wouldn't affect you in that way.

As far as the smoke itself, I know that cigarette smoke has additional carcinogens other than nicotine. I do not know if these transfer to weed simply because it is smoked as well. One would assume you could bypass this, just in case, by vaping or using edibles.