Diet Debate

He is using words like "convincing", "enthusiasm". This is an emotional plea in support of veganism dressed as a scientific presentation. He should explain why his present "convictions" about the harmfulness of animal protein are contradicting his previous published papers. Campbell's thesis is totally untenable since he himself contradicted it in his previous published papers! See my other posts . He also never refuted Denise Minger logical arguments against his China Book (BTW, my examples of Campbell's self-contradiciton came from her and from Chris Masterjon's blogs - their examples are based on Campbell's own work, not of Minger or Masterjohn's).

The pseudo-refutations posted on some blogs and youtube are emotional rhetorics of vegans filled with rage, character assassinations and ad-hominem accusations and very little of logical counter-arguments. See it for yourself.

JC, If you want to examine a usefullness or a value behind some belief system (or a religion) look at a behavior of its followers. I believe beliefs influence behavior. Destructive beliefs make people hate and fight other people. Constructive beliefs make people love and heal other people - this is the only criterium. It doesn't matter much what a belief system actually says - vegan, plants, savior, guru etc etc. It's the outcome that matters. Beliefs create reality...

Vegans often launch scathing attacks against Weston A Price foundations accusing them of all sort of conspiracies. That happens in almost every vegan posts lately. Yet WAPF has never attacked anybody, personally, only criticised some misleading books (of drs. Ornish and Campbell - justifiably IMHO) and institutions: namely the USA food corporation and their backers in the US governments. If vegans were genuinely interested in promoting sustainable agriculture and family run farming in the United States, then they should support WAPF rather than attack it! I often wondered what is really going on here?

Stan (Heretic)

I have a friend(an expert in health and nutrition) who is against a vegan or vegetarian diet but is still not a fan of meat which he says is inflammatory but he does advocate some meat in small quantities.He believes in balance but still thinks the WAPF is linked to the meat and dairy industry.

I do see what you mean about many vegans and their lack of tolerance for any discussion.....just look at what happened to the both of us on the McDougall forum....even though I explained the best support I could get would be to resolve questions(such as Denise M counter to TC Campbell).As did you I was branded a "troll"just trying to stir up trouble.It reminded me of Nixon and his enemies list.

But then there are some near vegans on this board who are completely unoffended by debate or disagreement....EG,Tomato,Dead,Dolores,myself,etc....so not all vegans the same.

I don't think diet necessarily defines any set of characteristics....meat eaters are as different as vegans and im sure many meat eaters as just as sensitive to disagreement as some vegans.

They are tolerant but not "joyfully welcoming" the Mystery, the way we do. Only you and Dolores seem to have fun debating me. Out of all vegans I have ever debated over the years, almost all were characterwise, how to put it - "bittersweet" and strongly ego-driven. I think, they definitely did not enjoy discussions as much as I did. There is only one vegan promoter who did not seem to feel offended but didn't respond either to my controversies - Doug Graham of the raw food fruitarianism. I appreciated that and stopped bothering them (probably have got a lot more problems to deal with than debating a Heretic).

Regards,
Stan

Its too bad those on the McDougall forum don't really enjoy the spirit of free and open debate because many have far more knowledge about the science of nutrition than I do.You need a worthy debate challenger to keep you sharp(and challenged) and I don't the science background to keep up.Jeff N would be a match but I don't think even he is confident enough in his convictions to come here and debate you....and he knows about this forum because I posted this link a number of times on their forums.

Several have come here to this debate forum(from the McDougall board) but just to call me a troll....then they left.

Or maybe they consider this too small a venue with too little following to be worth their time.

At any rate someone has to be very self confident to enjoy ongoing discussions with those they do not agree with.

Re: Campbell's contradictions. Come on, H, people are allowed to change their opinions. Dr. McDougall is very outspoken about his point of view but says he reserves the right to change his mind if he learns something that will change his opinion. H, weren't you on a plant based diet until something convinced you to switch to your present diet? I am sure you had what you thought were good reasons for eating that way at that time. I wouldn't call your changing your diet to what you are eating now a character flaw, sloppy scholarship or present it as proof that you are engaged in some sort of deception now.

Dolores

Re: Jeff

Interesting. I was intuitively directed towards posting and did post to him even much earlier, before you prompted me to debate him. I felt I had to help him in some way but wasn't sure really why. I either didn't do it properly or he wasn't ready. Things are not very easy for him, for example he has to maintain a certain level of cash flow and he has to tow a party line of people and institutions he has involved himself with. I can understand that. It is not easy to be a free lancer. That's for example, the main reason why he didn't feel free to endorse vitamin D3 among other things, inspite of scientific evidence. I remember one case when he had to remain silent when a diabetic woman got dangerously worse on Mcdougall's diet and he remained muted about those high salt McDougall's packaged food they are selling on the website. He has to work it out first, whom he really is, sort out his friends and then he will be able to communicate with us.
Re: At any rate someone has to be very self confident to enjoy ongoing discussions with those they do not agree with.


Absolutely! Also, I think another condition is that they would have to abandon the use of their ego as a defensive weapon to defend themselves against some imaginary threats (from me or whoever) against their cherished beliefs. Most people identify with their beliefs too much. (Advise: trash your own beliefs yourself before anybody would do it for you as a favor...) Most of the people seem to use their ego in a narrow sense as a weapon to protect their position of power, status, authority, etc., not realising that they are protecting worthless symbols. I use my ego very differently from most people. I use it as a psychic tool for research and creation. I enclose everything and everybody involved in a particular project I am doing (at work or as a hobby) within its circle of influence, to maintain a strong focus of my attention and of my energy on a task at hand, and ensure automatic coherent action of all people involved. I do it that way when researching nutrition, medicine, my blog or when writing this message.I highly recommend this method to anybody reading it. It works. Stan (Heretic)

H, I think you have to add EG to those who enjoy debating you. He has always been a gentleman as have you when expressing your points of view. I don't ever detect any rancor from either of you (or jc) but only opinions based on conclusions from what you have read and from personal experience.

Dolores

Agree, and so would our favorite philosopher.

H, tell me about the diabetic woman who got dangerously worse on McDougall's diet. I eat oatmeal, sweetpotatoes, rice, whole wheat bread along with lots and lots of vegetables, beans, some fruit, a walnut or two and around two ounces of clams and/or salmon. a couple times a week for the B12. This morning my blood sugar was 84 and it is often in the low 70's--you know I do not take any meds. I am definitely not a low carber. I occasionally visit web md diabetes support group where EVERYBODY low carbs. It seems to me that most of them are on meds. Sometimes more than one.

Dolores

My blood sugar is also down as is my blood pressure since I went near vegan.

But there are some other problems I developed after starting the diet....muscle wasting,too thin,cold all the time(maybe thyroid?),hair thinning.

Some on the McDougall message board also report the same problems so the diet is not all peaches and cream.

But since my BP was once 210/110 on average and my FBG was in the 130s I have accept the other problems that come with a near vegan diet in order to keep my BG abd BP under control.

Re: ... people are allowed to change their opinions.

Yes personally, and no, not in science - science is not based on opinions .
Note that I did admit that I was wrong striving towards vegetarianism up until 1999.

Campbell never admitted anything even though his old papers blatantly contradicted his China Study book! When Minger found that out and wrote about it, he refused to debate her directly and explain it! Instead he hurled personal accusations of conspiracy and accused her of a lack of qualifications. That is not only completely illogical but also funny! Campbell is in reality fighting against his own ghosts from the past not just against a young girl from Oregon. Saying that Campbell is allowed to be simply wrong just like me about veggies before 1999 is a bad comparison and doesn't make a sense, unless you are trying to whitewash him. Do you worship him?
Campbell never recanted his old papers that Minger has quoted against him. Even if he did, the way science work, it is not as simple as one co-author saying "I was wrong therefore don't look at this paper anymore".
Dolores, you should ask yourself first why didn't he publicly recant those papers? Don't you think that there is a much simpler explanation of this and other strange behavior of his: he is is just plain wrong and afraid to admit it!
Then there are other co-authors who worked on it. Did they also want to recant? No they didn't!
If Campbell wanted to negate his old work and pretend that the data or conclusions are somehow invalid he would have to explain why and what exactly was wrong, and why did it take over a decade to find out. Flawed research or incompetence?
The problem is that, whatever he now does and says, he has no good moves left. He blew it and he knows it.
Stan (Heretic)

No, I do not worship Campbell and am not vegan. But I do think Esselstyn is kind of cute.

Dolores

Why don't you increase your calorie intake then, and some of these problems may disappear (being thin and cold at the very least)?

I have a good calorie intake but am very active physically.I have gone from a weight of 222 to around 145..And at 222 I was not really much overweight.Giving up junk food and fast food and replacing with healthier food had benefits but also caused more wt loss than I wanted.

But then EG(and Fuhrman) says its much healthier to be very very thin.