not at all. Read T.Colin Campbell, The China Study, Whole and The Future of Nutrition. Raised on a dairy farm, his research led him to conclusions utterly opposite to the prevailing paradigm. He would not touch those vaccines with a 10-foot pole. That type of work and research is the very essence of what terrain theory is all about. We had a comorbidity problem, not a virus problem.
not at all. Read T.Colin Campbell, The China Study, Whole and The Future of Nutrition. Raised on a dairy farm, his research led him to conclusions utterly opposite to the prevailing paradigm. He would not touch those vaccines with a 10-foot pole. That type of work and research is the very essence of what terrain theory is all about. We had a comorbidity problem, not a virus problem.
People have said that. Nobody has systematically refuted it. Not easy to overcome 70 years of NIH funded, peer-reviewed research. And I have seen the results with hundreds of patients and those results speak for themselves and healthcare insurance often picks up the cost for the initial training of the patients. T2D and CVD are propbably 95% reversible with the diet and the patient retention after a year is 70-80%, whereas with statins most people give them up over the side effect, so by 6 months you have less than 50% retention. .
undoubtedly, he pissed many people off. Criticizing him is one thing however, but I have not seen any solid, peer-reviewed refutation of his major tenets. 70 years of peer-reviewed, solid research is not easy to overcome. For me the rest of the proof is the hundreds of patients I know of that are doing very well with this approach.
I have never seen a long term vegetarian RTC. Let alone a comparison with keto paleo. Most studies that "prove" vegetarianism is good are observational and have such big flaws it boggles me why these are taken seriously.
For example, that study that defined a healthy diet (whole grains, vegetables, white meat, fish, no sugar etc) and was compared to the unhealthy diet (red meat, fast food, sugar, highly processed foods etc) and surprise, the unhealthy diet group had worse health outcomes. The authors happily blamed red meat for being unhealthy. Instead of the sugar, fast foods etc.
I am sure most people's health will improve on vegetarian diet in comparison with SAD. I think they will even improve further if they switch to keto paleo.
I believe there are three things we can say scientifically proven about food: sugars bad, highly processed foods bad and transfat is bad. For the rest I think I (we) know it but it's not tested.
Are we mixing apples and oranges again? Just because you are familiar with cases of corruption at NIH, that does not mean they are corrupt all the time. T. Colin Campbell is a lone researcher, and he was being opposed constantly by the agribusiness, because his school, Cornell, is a land-grant university and controlled by the agribusiness. They even canceled his classes in 2007, even though he was a tenured professor. In spite of all that, his nutrition course has been an online bestseller. The reason he published his work as a popular book, The China Study, was exactly because of the academic boycott, which originated from the agribusiness, who want to sell you meat and dairy, and don't give a shit if you're healthy or not.
I read the China Study- bought it hook line and sinker. Went responsibly vegetarian for four months and had never felt worse in my life. Everyone is different. Everything in moderation. And the old one man’s pill is another’s poison.
It's a book, not a published and peer-reviewed study. And a very biased book based on his already pro-vegan beliefs, and he cherry-picked data that fit his bias. Campbell and the book is a diagrace to science and nutrition.
The book is complete with references to all his peer-reviewed studies, so it is documented to a T, and contrary to what you state, he started out being raised on a dairy farm and studying traditional nutrition. He began to change only when his research in the field and some findings of other scientists woke him up to the fact that something was wrong. He spent the rest of his life documenting what he found. I have seen and heard him being cussed out by many, but I have yet to see anyone deliver proper, peer-reviewed refutations of his major findings. Name calling is the easy way out and does not impress me. In the meantime, I am also familiar with hundreds upon hundreds of patient case studies showing very consistent results. And, as Dean Ornish notes, after one year he usually has 70-80% compliancs, but with e.g. statins, the compliance will be below 50% in six months because of the side effects.
I don't think the people behind the covid scare made the vegan diet up, I think they embraced it as a way to weaken us. Testosterone will plummet for example. So making people more agreeable and less able to defend them selves. Not to mention the small amount of muscle most vegetarians and vegans have. They won't be fit to defend themselves. They don't want to eitheir because their hormone profile changed. So that's am easy fight.
Sad to see I can't find "Polish a turd and find a diamond?" by Kurt Harris, MD on the internet, even using the Wayback Machine. It was another excellent critique of The China Study.
It's very hard, sometimes impossible to get addicts to accept that their addition is harming or killing them. True for alcoholics, smokers, drug addicts, serial spikeshot takers, and that includes people who are addicted to and convinced they need meat, dairy, eggs. It's a waste of time to try to convince them; they display the same kind of cognitive dissonance protecting arguments as covidians, as you see here, and I've found over the years that it is best to leave them to discover the truth on their own, hopefully not the hard way.
Indeed, so this is about secondary gain as Freud recognized, i.e. we do things against our own long term interest for satisfying a short term pleasure. I have a letter up for peer review on Academia about that very issue: The Wilful Ignorance of Secondary Gain in Public Health in General and Lifestyle Medicine in Particular
Yeah no. The short term results for me: all health outcomes I tried to fix became worse. It's not about short term satisfaction, it's about long term health. I've never seen convincing research that (free pasture) meat is bad. Never seen it proven in a RCT. I think it is a form of self flaggelation and it's wrapped in cult, group think strategies to promote it to the masses. I do not know any true healthy vegans or vegetarians. They are always hungry.
Listen, everyone should eat what makes them happy. The reason for change comes when you notice that you are ill because of the food you eat. This is the case for the majority of the population, see the stats on diabetes, cancer, autoimmune disease etc. Some people will become interested in changing the outcomes, and make the change accordingly. I agree many vegans and vegetarians are unhealthy, for most of them do not understand plant-based nutrition in the first place. That is up to them, But good, plant-based nutrition is now increasingly part of disease reversal programs for all of the chronic diseases I just mentioned. In NYC, where I live there are such programs at all major hospitals, and it is making its way into school programs as well. Various such examples around the country, but unless you feel the need to change, you probably won't anyway, so I have no need to argue with you. And yes, if you are on a plant-based diet, you would tend to eat more, because the coloric density is less, but that is exactly the key problem with animal nutrition. Meat takes longer to digest, hence constipation and also colon cancer is a bigger issue in that part of the population.
Carnivore, myself and my husband, and our stools are regular and impeccable. No one needs plant fibre to be able to defecate well. On a "healthy" plant based diet I had irritable bowel syndrome, interstitial cystitis, constipation, which is all fixed now. Hmm......And remember Bill Gates wants stop the world eating meat and I do not trust him one inch. Nor the mainstream media who are all advocating this plant based diet.
All vegans and vegetarian people I know saw a decline in their health when they started. I tried it, and yes I did it right, and saw a decline in my health. On keto paleo I regained my health. So, yeah, it is hard to argue with that experience.
not at all. Read T.Colin Campbell, The China Study, Whole and The Future of Nutrition. Raised on a dairy farm, his research led him to conclusions utterly opposite to the prevailing paradigm. He would not touch those vaccines with a 10-foot pole. That type of work and research is the very essence of what terrain theory is all about. We had a comorbidity problem, not a virus problem.
That book has shown some serious fiddling the studies
People have said that. Nobody has systematically refuted it. Not easy to overcome 70 years of NIH funded, peer-reviewed research. And I have seen the results with hundreds of patients and those results speak for themselves and healthcare insurance often picks up the cost for the initial training of the patients. T2D and CVD are propbably 95% reversible with the diet and the patient retention after a year is 70-80%, whereas with statins most people give them up over the side effect, so by 6 months you have less than 50% retention. .
Look up Denise Minger. She did a debunk of it about 5 years ago. She was a vegetarian/vegan before that.
undoubtedly, he pissed many people off. Criticizing him is one thing however, but I have not seen any solid, peer-reviewed refutation of his major tenets. 70 years of peer-reviewed, solid research is not easy to overcome. For me the rest of the proof is the hundreds of patients I know of that are doing very well with this approach.
I have never seen a long term vegetarian RTC. Let alone a comparison with keto paleo. Most studies that "prove" vegetarianism is good are observational and have such big flaws it boggles me why these are taken seriously.
For example, that study that defined a healthy diet (whole grains, vegetables, white meat, fish, no sugar etc) and was compared to the unhealthy diet (red meat, fast food, sugar, highly processed foods etc) and surprise, the unhealthy diet group had worse health outcomes. The authors happily blamed red meat for being unhealthy. Instead of the sugar, fast foods etc.
I am sure most people's health will improve on vegetarian diet in comparison with SAD. I think they will even improve further if they switch to keto paleo.
I believe there are three things we can say scientifically proven about food: sugars bad, highly processed foods bad and transfat is bad. For the rest I think I (we) know it but it's not tested.
What proof do you have that the soi-disant "70 years of peer-reviewed research" is reliable?
Why should any rational human being accord any credibility to the findings of bodies that serve as a laundromat for their sponsors?
Do you think that brandishing "NIH" somehow bolsters your position?
Are we mixing apples and oranges again? Just because you are familiar with cases of corruption at NIH, that does not mean they are corrupt all the time. T. Colin Campbell is a lone researcher, and he was being opposed constantly by the agribusiness, because his school, Cornell, is a land-grant university and controlled by the agribusiness. They even canceled his classes in 2007, even though he was a tenured professor. In spite of all that, his nutrition course has been an online bestseller. The reason he published his work as a popular book, The China Study, was exactly because of the academic boycott, which originated from the agribusiness, who want to sell you meat and dairy, and don't give a shit if you're healthy or not.
I read the China Study- bought it hook line and sinker. Went responsibly vegetarian for four months and had never felt worse in my life. Everyone is different. Everything in moderation. And the old one man’s pill is another’s poison.
Vegan here, grew up on a diary farm. Pretty much allergic to dairy. I also hate vaccines. But each to their own. And we are all different.
It's a book, not a published and peer-reviewed study. And a very biased book based on his already pro-vegan beliefs, and he cherry-picked data that fit his bias. Campbell and the book is a diagrace to science and nutrition.
The book is complete with references to all his peer-reviewed studies, so it is documented to a T, and contrary to what you state, he started out being raised on a dairy farm and studying traditional nutrition. He began to change only when his research in the field and some findings of other scientists woke him up to the fact that something was wrong. He spent the rest of his life documenting what he found. I have seen and heard him being cussed out by many, but I have yet to see anyone deliver proper, peer-reviewed refutations of his major findings. Name calling is the easy way out and does not impress me. In the meantime, I am also familiar with hundreds upon hundreds of patient case studies showing very consistent results. And, as Dean Ornish notes, after one year he usually has 70-80% compliancs, but with e.g. statins, the compliance will be below 50% in six months because of the side effects.
I don't think the people behind the covid scare made the vegan diet up, I think they embraced it as a way to weaken us. Testosterone will plummet for example. So making people more agreeable and less able to defend them selves. Not to mention the small amount of muscle most vegetarians and vegans have. They won't be fit to defend themselves. They don't want to eitheir because their hormone profile changed. So that's am easy fight.
Some of the people here might be familiar with Chris Masterjohn's excellent research on Covid-19 and are subscribed to his new substack. He has a PhD in Nutritional Sciences. Here was his review on The China Study and Denise Minger's critique: https://www.westonaprice.org/denise-mingers-refutation-of-campbells-china-study-generates-continued-debate/
Here is the link to Denise Minger's critique: https://deniseminger.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/
Sad to see I can't find "Polish a turd and find a diamond?" by Kurt Harris, MD on the internet, even using the Wayback Machine. It was another excellent critique of The China Study.
It's very hard, sometimes impossible to get addicts to accept that their addition is harming or killing them. True for alcoholics, smokers, drug addicts, serial spikeshot takers, and that includes people who are addicted to and convinced they need meat, dairy, eggs. It's a waste of time to try to convince them; they display the same kind of cognitive dissonance protecting arguments as covidians, as you see here, and I've found over the years that it is best to leave them to discover the truth on their own, hopefully not the hard way.
Indeed, so this is about secondary gain as Freud recognized, i.e. we do things against our own long term interest for satisfying a short term pleasure. I have a letter up for peer review on Academia about that very issue: The Wilful Ignorance of Secondary Gain in Public Health in General and Lifestyle Medicine in Particular
Yeah no. The short term results for me: all health outcomes I tried to fix became worse. It's not about short term satisfaction, it's about long term health. I've never seen convincing research that (free pasture) meat is bad. Never seen it proven in a RCT. I think it is a form of self flaggelation and it's wrapped in cult, group think strategies to promote it to the masses. I do not know any true healthy vegans or vegetarians. They are always hungry.
Listen, everyone should eat what makes them happy. The reason for change comes when you notice that you are ill because of the food you eat. This is the case for the majority of the population, see the stats on diabetes, cancer, autoimmune disease etc. Some people will become interested in changing the outcomes, and make the change accordingly. I agree many vegans and vegetarians are unhealthy, for most of them do not understand plant-based nutrition in the first place. That is up to them, But good, plant-based nutrition is now increasingly part of disease reversal programs for all of the chronic diseases I just mentioned. In NYC, where I live there are such programs at all major hospitals, and it is making its way into school programs as well. Various such examples around the country, but unless you feel the need to change, you probably won't anyway, so I have no need to argue with you. And yes, if you are on a plant-based diet, you would tend to eat more, because the coloric density is less, but that is exactly the key problem with animal nutrition. Meat takes longer to digest, hence constipation and also colon cancer is a bigger issue in that part of the population.
Carnivore, myself and my husband, and our stools are regular and impeccable. No one needs plant fibre to be able to defecate well. On a "healthy" plant based diet I had irritable bowel syndrome, interstitial cystitis, constipation, which is all fixed now. Hmm......And remember Bill Gates wants stop the world eating meat and I do not trust him one inch. Nor the mainstream media who are all advocating this plant based diet.
Congrats, but TMI. It all depends on what else you eat.
All vegans and vegetarian people I know saw a decline in their health when they started. I tried it, and yes I did it right, and saw a decline in my health. On keto paleo I regained my health. So, yeah, it is hard to argue with that experience.