The notion that guns and mercenaries from the west are flooding in is simply untrue. You have the curious responsibility of explaining how the US has been incapable of removing Assad if it has provided such overwhelming support as you claim. What is true, is that Assad overreacted to the Arab Spring protests, unlike say Jordan decided to fire on protests almost immediately and brought a civil war on his hands.

Meanwhile, we also know the origin of the trajectory of the Sarin rockets fired were from areas of government control. We know Assad had a chemical weapons program. We know the volume of the attacks was almost certainly unattainable by anyone other than a state actor. We know that most of the victims were either civilians or the opposition. It's also a curious that these attacks only seemed to occur in Syria.

Again your idea that oil is still a motivation for US involvement in the Middle East is an outdated concept. The US surpassed Saudi Arabia as the largest global producer in the world thank to shale oil. The price of oil has crashed as a result and will likely remain low for a prolonged time as a result. The only beneficiary who stands to gains from revisiting the conflict between the US and Russia is Putin because it boosts his domestic popularity to be locked in a struggle with the US.

Many governments in the Middle East regularly throw out the excuse that anything that goes wrong (and is usually their fault) is a result of a US conspiracy. Egypt has regularly done it, Turkey has just recently blamed the attempted coup on the US even though the incentives for the US are clearly for a stable government there to provide a base from which to attack ISIS in Iraq. You should not be so gullible as to believe this is always the case just because the US has intervened covertly in the past.

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

What about Edward Snowden?

Most of the Syrian refugees are actually still in Syria, or just over the border in Turkey, it's a fairly small percentage of that group who have chosen to try their luck in westernised countries.

A report that places chicken nuggets, turkey slices and bacon in the same category as cigarettes and asbestos is NOT equivalent to saying that quitting meat is the disease and mortality equivalent of quitting smoking.

That is patently absurd, and demonstrates what happens when someone tries to apply the scientific conclusion of a study to ...everything else. Scientific studies have a particular scope. They should state clearly within the study the limits of what the information can tell us.

1. How much of those meat products must you eat vs. how many cigarettes do you have to smoke? If i quit having one slice of bacon a week, I will not be healthier than if i quit smoking 10 a day.
2. The meat products you refer to make up only a small fraction of the meat based produce that is available. You might as well say "krokodil is bad for you, so stop taking your insulin."

I expect you to admit that the bit from the comment quote (put in bold) is wrong.

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

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).

But the WHO report does in fact put chicken nuggets, turkey slices, and bacon into the same category(Group 1 carcinogens) as cigarettes and asbestos, because they are processed meats.

He's just saying what the report says, so I don't understand how that can be exaggeration.


"plant based diets (quitting meat) is the equivalent of quitting smoking".
In terms of disease and mortality that is completely accurate.

Duh. Soylent green is made from elderly people, not teenagers, and as such it's made from pretty tainted meat. I'll take some Soylent pink, made from pure milk fed baby.

Not murder if they're terminally ill and ask you to do it, in many states.

Far more ethical to work for proper animal treatment than to insist on something that will never happen in a way that makes those you wish to convince your adversaries. He'll get WAY farther towards ending some animal suffering that your methods ever will. Your methods have had many people reply to you that they will eat MORE meat just to spite you, or so you've said in the past....so your methods are obviously failing badly, so are unethical as they cause MORE animal suffering.

Most available vegan food is processed today, so is in the same category you put bacon and deli turkey. Unprocessed meats are also far healthier than processed meats, and are more nutrient dense than plants.

Depending on the curing process, it can be bad or good (and again, not PROVEN to cause cancer...you just backed off that claim on the other thread...so why make it again?)

He wants less harm done to animals....so he's winning. he wants people to eat MORE healthily, he's winning. He wants to move away from a zealous, all or nothing movement that's failing in it's goals and making enemies in the effort, he's winning.

There isn't enough available land to switch to purely vegetarianism either, you're point is ridiculous, no one is advocating feeding all people on pure meat....he's not even advocating for vegetarians to eat meat, and said so clearly. If you had a point to make, then you've failed.

You say that like vegans aren't mostly pasty sickly looking people that look about 2 years late for death by wasting syndrome.

"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.

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.

@newtboy

you said:
Call it what you will. To me, massive illegal immigration with the goal of territorial control is invasion...no matter why they invaded. Invaders always have a reason.
Hence my making the distinction between Arab and Jewish controlled Palestine. Officially the British were still ruling over Palestine, but in most practical ways, Palestine was already divided before the mass immigration started. There was essentially Jewish Palestine and Arab Palestine, and the normal conflicts between close neighbours with different religion were already significant before the illegal immigration. Of all the places for Jewish Europeans to flee to, the land already in the possession and control of welcoming Jewish Palestinians hardly stinks of invasion to me.

Sorry, I know I tried to refocus on what they should have done and immediately leapt off the rails myself.

You said:
should have fought the Nazis, not the mostly blameless (for the atrocities) Palestinians
A majority of them that made it into Britain and America did just that. In fact, so many fought against the Nazis that when the civil war in Palestine came to a head and WW2 veteran Jewish soldiers started showing up it's counted part of the Arab narrative as 'western' support and part of the unfair military advantage that made Israel the mighty power and the Arab league army the underdogs.

You said:
The U.S. was open...if they could get here.
No, nothing was open. As pictures of the camps spread, doors started opening but that was very much after the fact. Leading up to and during WW2 immigration numbers were very restricted to jewish people. There simply was absolutely no legal immigration option for thousands and thousands of Jewish Europeans.

You said:
neighbors and allies try to secure their borders that are being crossed by invaders
You misunderstand my statement on the Arab League member's intentions. They had NO intention of defending their neighbouring Arab Palestinian's land. Sure, publicly they declared a joint effort to liberate Palestine. Each member nation though was stating that as code for liberate a portion of Palestine by making it a part of themselves. Israel was able to take the best equipped and trained Jordanian army out of the battle without a single shot fired by agreeing with them to simply abandon the portion of Palestine that Jordan proceeded to make a part of itself. The other Arab states made similar bids militarily, refusing to co-ordinate their assaults because each wanted to declare the ground gained their own. As they each rushed their offensives and attacked individually Israel had the time to plant 100% of their forces in the path of each of them.

You asked:
Should I think you call Turkey an invader of Daesh, and you a supporter of Daesh?
In the sense that you are asking, it's a near yes. The original Syrian resistance is a group I really do support, and the Kurdish fighters have largely been on their same side and I support their efforts there as well. Daesh was much more interested in killing the 'legitimate' resistance than Assad and Putin's forces. Similarly, the Russians have made it a firm practice to exclusively attack the 'legitimate' resistance and doing their best to largely not bother attacking Daesh unless forced to. The main reason being that once Daesh is all that's left, the scorched earth fix becomes all the more easily justified, and the actual rebels pose a much more real and legitimate alternative to Assad's government than Daesh.

Call it what you will. To me, massive illegal immigration with the goal of territorial control is invasion...no matter why they invaded. Invaders always have a reason.

The Jewish population didn't want to be mixed, nor did the Arabs by then from my readings, so there was no chance of peaceful coexistence.

Wait...what?! So...after the Nazis were gone it was too late to go home?!? How do you figure? Many if not most of them were still in Europe then.
They didn't need a promise, they needed to return to their properties, then demand reparations. They weren't promised anything by Palestine either....right?

They should have said that when the Nazis showed up, not after they were defeated...and should have fought the Nazis, not the mostly blameless (for the atrocities) Palestinians.

Again, civil wars are between native populations, not immigrants. Immigrants fighting natives is called invasion. Period.

HA!!!!! So, when neighbors and allies try to secure their borders that are being crossed by invaders, you call THEM invaders, but not the immigrant army. WTF, man?

EDIT: Should I think you call Turkey an invader of Daesh, and you a supporter of Daesh? They were in the same boat as the Jews, being ostracized and destroyed around the globe, until they came together in an area where a small portion of the natives gave them support and the majorities ignored their rise to power, they grasped territories and power, formed their separate nation, and since then have simply 'defended' themselves from the aggressive natives....right? Um....no.

No...far from the most open place, Palestine was openly hostile to them, but incapable of stopping the invasion. The U.S. was open...if they could get here. There was no separate Jewish Palestine then. I have sympathy for the European Jews until the day they tried to become a separate nation by force. Since that day, they've been the aggressive invaders doing to the Palestinians what the Nazis did to them without the gas chambers.

Perhaps you don't know that >90% of rockets are fired at expansionist settlements in Palestine, not Israel, met with exponentially more force against civilians. (And before you balk, there's no such thing as an Israeli civilian, they are all, 100%, military....by law).

Neighbors and allies fighting invaders of their allies are absolutely not more at fault than the invaders for the continuing tragedy...not that I support their rhetoric or actions.
The single cause of the conflict is foreign invaders taking territory by force and constant expansion ever since. Their continuing inhumanity towards the natives is another topic, morality.

That settles it - anti-everything.

"Whereas esjews, like their frequent allies and ideological partners the islamists, seem to be gaining ground and converts every day.

I think you can see where i was coming from with this stuff though. I was being polite, but I'm not stupid and I can read between the lines - he's insulting 'lefties' for pandering to Muslims and giving them special treatment, more or less allowing them to behave as they wish, for fear of offending their religion. I know this argument, i've heard it before.

It's not racist; it's not hate talking. It's fear of the stereotype that the mainstream media love to peddle. Fear the muslims, hate the socialists who protect them! Divisive politics that allows a practically fascist political establishment to maintain the war industry, because if the peons are scared of Muhammad they won't start to ask why we can't have better hospitals and schools, or why between 1 - 5% of people are getting richer whilst everyone else has to have austerity. Why are pension funds in trouble, why will our children be worse off than us, when we are working to depression and exhaustion? Never mind that - fear the immigrants, don't vote for their allies and ideological partners! Vote for Christmas you turkeys!