The Role of Personal Responsibility in the Obesity Epidemic

The Role of Personal Responsibility in the Obesity Epidemic
4.64 (92.79%) 61 votes

How the power of the “eat more” food environment can overcome our conscious controls.

Discuss
Republish

Below is an approximation of this video’s audio content. To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video.

Food and beverage companies frame body weight as a matter of personal choice. Even when we’re not distracted, the power of the “eat more” food environment may sometimes overcome our conscious controls over eating. One look around the room at a dietician convention can tell you that even nutrition professionals are vulnerable to the aggressively marketed ubiquity of tasty, cheap, convenient calories. This suggests there are aspects of our eating behaviors that defy personal insight by flying below the radar of conscious awareness. Appetite physiologists call the result of these subconscious actions “passive overconsumption.”

Remember that brain scan study where the thought of a milkshake lit up the same reward pathways in the brain as substance abuse? That was triggered just by a picture of a milkshake. Dopamine gets released, cravings get activated, and we’re motivated to eat. Intellectually, we know it’s just an image, but our lizard brain just sees survival. It’s just a reflexive response over which we have little control––which is why marketers ensure there are pictures of milkshakes and their equivalents everywhere.

Maintaining a balance between calories in and calories out feels like a series of voluntary acts under conscious control, but it may be more akin to bodily functions such as blinking, breathing, coughing, swallowing, or sleeping. You can try to will yourself power over any of these, but by and large, they just happen automatically, driven by ancient scripts.

Not only are food ads ubiquitous; so is the food. The types of establishments selling food products expanded dramatically in the 1970s and 1980s. Now there’s candy and snacks at the checkout counters of gas stations, drug stores, bookstores, and places that used to just sell clothes, hardware, home furnishings, or building supplies. The largest food retailer in the United States is Walmart. There’s that jolt of dopamine, and the artificially-stimulated feelings of hunger around every turn. Every day we run the gauntlet.

And it’s become socially acceptable to eat anywhere—in your car, on the street, or packed in a crowded bus. We’ve become a snacking society. Vending machines are everywhere. Daily eating episodes seem to have gone up by about a quarter since the late 1970s––increasing from about four to five occasions a day, potentially accounting for twice the calorie increase attributed to increasing portion sizes. Snacks and beverages alone could account for the bulk of the calorie surplus implicated in the obesity epidemic.

And think of the children. Here we are trying to do the best for our kids, role-modeling healthy habits, feeding them healthy foods, but then they venture out into a veritable tornado of junky food and manipulative messages. This commentary in the New England Journal of Medicine asked why should our efforts to protect our children from life-threatening illness be undermined by massive marketing campaigns from the manufacturers of junk food. Pediatricians are now encouraged to have the “french fry discussion” with parents at the 12-month well-child visit and not wait all the way until year two. And even that may be too late. Two-thirds of infants are being fed junk food by their first birthday.

Dr. David Katz may have said it best in the Harvard Health Policy Review: “Those who contend that parental or personal responsibility should carry the day despite these environmental temptations might consider the implications of generalizing the principle. Perhaps children should be encouraged, but not required, to attend school, and tempted each morning by alternatives, such as buses to the circus, zoo, or beach.”

Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.

Video production by Glass Entertainment

Motion graphics by Avocado Video

Below is an approximation of this video’s audio content. To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video.

Food and beverage companies frame body weight as a matter of personal choice. Even when we’re not distracted, the power of the “eat more” food environment may sometimes overcome our conscious controls over eating. One look around the room at a dietician convention can tell you that even nutrition professionals are vulnerable to the aggressively marketed ubiquity of tasty, cheap, convenient calories. This suggests there are aspects of our eating behaviors that defy personal insight by flying below the radar of conscious awareness. Appetite physiologists call the result of these subconscious actions “passive overconsumption.”

Remember that brain scan study where the thought of a milkshake lit up the same reward pathways in the brain as substance abuse? That was triggered just by a picture of a milkshake. Dopamine gets released, cravings get activated, and we’re motivated to eat. Intellectually, we know it’s just an image, but our lizard brain just sees survival. It’s just a reflexive response over which we have little control––which is why marketers ensure there are pictures of milkshakes and their equivalents everywhere.

Maintaining a balance between calories in and calories out feels like a series of voluntary acts under conscious control, but it may be more akin to bodily functions such as blinking, breathing, coughing, swallowing, or sleeping. You can try to will yourself power over any of these, but by and large, they just happen automatically, driven by ancient scripts.

Not only are food ads ubiquitous; so is the food. The types of establishments selling food products expanded dramatically in the 1970s and 1980s. Now there’s candy and snacks at the checkout counters of gas stations, drug stores, bookstores, and places that used to just sell clothes, hardware, home furnishings, or building supplies. The largest food retailer in the United States is Walmart. There’s that jolt of dopamine, and the artificially-stimulated feelings of hunger around every turn. Every day we run the gauntlet.

And it’s become socially acceptable to eat anywhere—in your car, on the street, or packed in a crowded bus. We’ve become a snacking society. Vending machines are everywhere. Daily eating episodes seem to have gone up by about a quarter since the late 1970s––increasing from about four to five occasions a day, potentially accounting for twice the calorie increase attributed to increasing portion sizes. Snacks and beverages alone could account for the bulk of the calorie surplus implicated in the obesity epidemic.

And think of the children. Here we are trying to do the best for our kids, role-modeling healthy habits, feeding them healthy foods, but then they venture out into a veritable tornado of junky food and manipulative messages. This commentary in the New England Journal of Medicine asked why should our efforts to protect our children from life-threatening illness be undermined by massive marketing campaigns from the manufacturers of junk food. Pediatricians are now encouraged to have the “french fry discussion” with parents at the 12-month well-child visit and not wait all the way until year two. And even that may be too late. Two-thirds of infants are being fed junk food by their first birthday.

Dr. David Katz may have said it best in the Harvard Health Policy Review: “Those who contend that parental or personal responsibility should carry the day despite these environmental temptations might consider the implications of generalizing the principle. Perhaps children should be encouraged, but not required, to attend school, and tempted each morning by alternatives, such as buses to the circus, zoo, or beach.”

Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.

Video production by Glass Entertainment

Motion graphics by Avocado Video

Doctor's Note

It can be helpful, perhaps, to take a step back and think of what’s at stake here. We’re not just talking about being manipulated into buying a different brand of toothpaste. The obesity pandemic has resulted in millions of deaths and untold suffering. And if you’re not mad yet, brace yourself for my next video, The Role of Corporate Influence in the Obesity Epidemic.

This is the ninth in this 11-part series. If you missed any, see:

If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my videos for free by clicking here.

131 responses to “The Role of Personal Responsibility in the Obesity Epidemic

Comment Etiquette

On NutritionFacts.org, you'll find a vibrant community of nutrition enthusiasts, health professionals, and many knowledgeable users seeking to discover the healthiest diet to eat for themselves and their families. As always, our goal is to foster conversations that are insightful, engaging, and most of all, helpful – from the nutrition beginners to the experts in our community.

To do this we need your help, so here are some basic guidelines to get you started.

The Short List

To help maintain and foster a welcoming atmosphere in our comments, please refrain from rude comments, name-calling, and responding to posts that break the rules (see our full Community Guidelines for more details). We will remove any posts in violation of our rules when we see it, which will, unfortunately, include any nicer comments that may have been made in response.

Be respectful and help out our staff and volunteer health supporters by actively not replying to comments that are breaking the rules. Instead, please flag or report them by submitting a ticket to our help desk. NutritionFacts.org is made up of an incredible staff and many dedicated volunteers that work hard to ensure that the comments section runs smoothly and we spend a great deal of time reading comments from our community members.

Have a correction or suggestion for video or blog? Please contact us to let us know. Submitting a correction this way will result in a quicker fix than commenting on a thread with a suggestion or correction.

View the Full Community Guidelines

  1. Off-topic but related to ‘responsibility’ is a recent article in Nature.

    It argues that all science institutions and scientists have a responsibility to counter pseudoscience, disinformation and bunk generally.- a responsibility which has been brought into sharp focus bu the covid-19 pandemic. The article concluded

    ‘Let us hope that one of the legacies of this crisis will be the recognition that tolerating pseudoscience can cause real harm. Good science and public trust are perhaps the most valuable tools in the fight against misinformation.’
    https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01266-z

    As a site dedicated to nutrition science and medicine, should NutritionFacts continue to tolerate pseudoscience, science denialism and absurd conspiracy theories being posted on its comments pages? The current policy of toleration arguably does a disservice to both science and people’s health. It also undermines the site’s and Dr Greger’s credibility as a consequence of the ‘guilt by association’ principle.

    1. Mr. Fumbles,
      Dr. Greger’s eloquently descriptive presentation of how humans have had all their puppet strings pulled by a sophisticated, predatory, food delivery system is case in point that people think with their feelings and taste buds when it comes to nutrition. The few, the proud, the NutritionFacts.org’ers et.al bar their doors and use nutrition science for their health.

      1. With all due respect, Dan, I believe what TG is railing against are those of us who try to debunk the pseudoscience of Darwinism in the forums. His invective is likely directed at me personally. That’s ok.

        My understanding:

        1. I define “science” as our (limited) attempt to understand what has been created ,,, by God, not some cosmic randomness. We have only 5 senses at our disposal and a very limited processor that we use to attempt to understand our world and universe. We should not be arrogant about our intellectual prowess or our mastery of “Knowledge.” We probably have a long, long way to go.

        2. Accordingly we should not deify “science.” I think we 21st century humans have come a long way in acquiring a modicum of scientific data. But I maintain that 1) our knowledge base, even in the 21st century, is a fraction of a grain of sand in an immense seashore of True Factual Knowledge that exists in the universe. And 2) what we think we know as factually true might not be true. We routinely jettison errant or false understanding with updated (putative) facts. So our knowledge base is mutable. Recall what the “science experts” believed in George Washington’s day when they bled him on his death bed, ultimately removing nearly 80 ounces of his blood – because their “science” experts told them sickness was caused by infected blood, and it had to be removed. If we laugh at the foolish understanding of 18th – 19th century scholarship today, won’t they laugh at us 300 years from now in the 24th century? We should not be arrogant about our prowess or our accomplishments.

        3. In a previous video in this series (frugal gene theory), Dr. G. mentioned the term Evolution twice in the transcript and alluded to it at least twice more in the video. The FGT hypothesis itself is predicated on the mendacious Darwinist theory. I have an educated opinion about that… Why should I not be allowed to comment about it? Why should any contributor in the discussion forums be allowed to censor me and recommend disallowing my comments about video content? I think if you should be allowed to censor me, I should be allowed to censor your contributions as well.

        (All the foregoing said with no malice or hostility. Just a calm discussion with a cup of Matcha green tea on my desk.)

        1. As soon as you call Darwinism “pseudoscience” we stop reading and move on to an uncrazy comment. Feel free to believe in whatever wacky invented stuff you like and it won’t be censored but don’t think you’re having any impact whatsoever with people here except a huge eye roll or giggle.

          1. Thank you, Laurie in Canada, for your comment.

            You are completely correct. That’s exactly what I do: stop reading.

            And thank you. Mr. Fumblefingers, for the linked article; it was very good. I don’t understand how this country — and maybe large parts of the world — seem bent on descending into the Dark Ages. The only idea I can come up with is: Pseudoscience sells. Which is pretty ironic, given that science deniers use science-sounding language to peddle their quacky-wacky nostrums and kooky ideas. But why is there such a large apparently receptive audience?

          2. Again, with all due respect, Laurie, I would venture to say that I know quite a bit about science. I got my “handle” from the fact that I’ve studied many disciplines of science over my life since high school, including calculus physics, chemistry, biochemistry, mathematics, digital electronics, avionics, and not least of all, evolution. I have conducted a very disciplined study of Darwinism since 2008 (twelve years ago). Yes, I have read a few religious writers, but they were all science experts. Many, like Denton and Behe have PhDs in molecular biology. One is an agnostic. Nuts, I even read Dawkins, Greatest Show On Earth. He doesn’t even come close to adducing empirical proof for macro evolution.

            I would dare to say that I probably know a lot more about Darwinism than you do and most others with trenchant positions here in this forum. I would guess that most have never even seen a copy of the primer, Origin of Species, much less read any of it. What most hard core evolution believers “know” about evolution is what they were spoon fed since childhood and have never challenged it, as I began doing 12 years ago.

            I am not pushing any religion. I only contend that of the two choices, Design or Darwinism, the latter is inadequate to explain the origin of species… or anything else for that matter. I feel it’s within the freedom allowed me on this website to respectfully disagree with Dr. G on hominid evolution when he mentions it in his videos. I find it a hard pill to swallow.

            Let’s also not forget the racist nature of Darwinism. Hitler read Origin of Species in the early 20th century. His “Kampf” was all about promoting the advancement of a more evolved Nordic race and eliminating the lesser evolved races so they wouldn’t taint the pure line he intended to lead as a vanguard for humanity into the Fourth Reich. If you aren’t sure Hitler was a Darwinist and that his motivations came from this doctrine, please read Weikart: https://www.amazon.com/Darwin-Hitler-Evolutionary-Eugenics-Germany/dp/140397201X/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=From+Darwin+to+Hitler%3A+Evolutionary+Ethics%2C+Eugenics&qid=1588185043&sr=8-1

            1. Dr. C I join you in being repulsed by the automatic assumption that evolution is “science”. It’s merely an attempt to disprove God without any factual basis, only opinion. But those who reject Creationism and a superior power to our own will someday come face with Him and then be told “depart from me, I know you not”, where in there will be “weeping and gnashing of teeth” as God’s Word says. The bible has never been proven wrong and in fact is still used by archaeologists today in Israel because of it’s veracity and accuracy.

              1. Oh come on. Even the Jedi religion is more credible then the abrahamic religions which promote some primitive tribal god that was too puny to drive out the Philippines because they had chariots of iron. And this is supposed to be some omnipotent being that created the cosmos?

                A pretty unpleasant monster it is too. Even ignoring all the first-born children murdered in Egypt, he has a long and vile record of genocide

                The LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain. Deuteronomy 2:33-34

                So the LORD our God delivered into our hands Og … and we smote him until none was left to him remaining … from threescore cities … And we utterly destroyed them, … utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city. Deuteronomy 3:3-6

                And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword. Joshua 6:21

                And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them. Deuteronomy 7:2

                And thou shalt consume all the people which the LORD thy God shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity upon them. Deuteronomy 7:16

                Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword. Deuteronomy 13:15

                But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth. Deuteronomy 20:16-17

                So smote all the country … he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded. Joshua 10:40

                Thus saith the LORD of hosts … go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. 1 Samuel 15:2-3

                1. Do you mean this verse?:

                  “And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.” (Judges 1:19 [KJV])

                  Some Bible translations use “they” instead of “he”. It is talking about Judah, not God. Always when the Israelites apostatized, God didn’t support them. Or maybe they did not dare to attack them because of want of faith.

                  “And the children of Israel again did evil in the sight of the LORD, when Ehud was dead.
                  And the LORD sold them into the hand of Jabin king of Canaan, that reigned in Hazor; the captain of whose host was Sisera, which dwelt in Harosheth of the Gentiles.
                  And the children of Israel cried unto the LORD: for he had nine hundred chariots of iron; and twenty years he mightily oppressed the children of Israel….
                  And Sisera gathered together all his chariots, even nine hundred chariots of iron, and all the people that were with him, from Harosheth of the Gentiles unto the river of Kishon.
                  And Deborah said unto Barak, Up; for this is the day in which the LORD hath delivered Sisera into thine hand: is not the LORD gone out before thee? So Barak went down from mount Tabor, and ten thousand men after him.
                  And the LORD discomfited Sisera, and all his chariots, and all his host, with the edge of the sword before Barak; so that Sisera lighted down off his chariot, and fled away on his feet.
                  But Barak pursued after the chariots, and after the host, unto Harosheth of the Gentiles: and all the host of Sisera fell upon the edge of the sword; and there was not a man left.” (Judges 4:1-3, 13-16 [KJV])

                  And yes, God does not say “hugs not bullets” when it is time to do justice like the Mexican President has done with drug cartels. He destroys nations when their iniquity is full.

                  “And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years;
                  And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance….
                  But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.” (Genesis 15:13,14,16 [KJV])

                  “Remember what Amalek did unto thee by the way, when ye were come forth out of Egypt;
                  How he met thee by the way, and smote the hindmost of thee, even all that were feeble behind thee, when thou wast faint and weary; and he feared not God.
                  Therefore it shall be, when the LORD thy God hath given thee rest from all thine enemies round about, in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance to possess it, that thou shalt blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven; thou shalt not forget it.” (Deuteronomy 25:17-19 [KJV])

                  “Now the word of the LORD came unto Jonah the son of Amittai, saying,
                  Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and cry against it; for their wickedness is come up before me….
                  And Jonah began to enter into the city a day’s journey, and he cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown.
                  So the people of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them even to the least of them….
                  And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not….
                  But it displeased Jonah exceedingly, and he was very angry.
                  And he prayed unto the LORD, and said, I pray thee, O LORD, was not this my saying, when I was yet in my country? Therefore I fled before unto Tarshish: for I knew that thou art a gracious God, and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repentest thee of the evil.
                  Therefore now, O LORD, take, I beseech thee, my life from me; for it is better for me to die than to live.
                  Then said the LORD, Doest thou well to be angry?
                  So Jonah went out of the city, and sat on the east side of the city, and there made him a booth, and sat under it in the shadow, till he might see what would become of the city.
                  And the LORD God prepared a gourd, and made it to come up over Jonah, that it might be a shadow over his head, to deliver him from his grief. So Jonah was exceeding glad of the gourd.
                  But God prepared a worm when the morning rose the next day, and it smote the gourd that it withered.
                  And it came to pass, when the sun did arise, that God prepared a vehement east wind; and the sun beat upon the head of Jonah, that he fainted, and wished in himself to die, and said, It is better for me to die than to live.
                  And God said to Jonah, Doest thou well to be angry for the gourd? And he said, I do well to be angry, even unto death.
                  Then said the LORD, Thou hast had pity on the gourd, for the which thou hast not laboured, neither madest it grow; which came up in a night, and perished in a night:
                  And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and also much cattle?”
                  (Jonah 1:1-2; 3:4-5,10; 4:1-11 [KJV])

              2. As for ‘ The bible has never been proven wrong’, this is a laughable assertion. Take for example …

                “For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds. Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.“ (Matthew 16: 27, 28)

                “Then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And then He will send forth the angels, and will gather together His elect from the four winds, from the farthest end of the earth to the farthest end of heaven. Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. Even so, you too, when you see these things happening, recognize that He is near, right at the door. Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place…“ (Mark 13:26-30)

                Proven beyond question to be completely and utterly false.

                  1. YR

                    There’s an interesting new book out by Bart Ehrman, a well-known New Testament scholar at the University of North Carolina. It’s about the bible and the concepts of heaven and hell. I’m too cheap to buy it but it’s extensively described and discussed in this interview with the author
                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OijFhy9Kna8

                    In short, Jesus didn’t believe that ‘bad people’ like you and me go to hell.

                  2. There is no hell as many interpret it.

                    “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.” (John 3:36 [KJV])

                    “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Romans 6:23 [KJV])

                    There is not eternal torment because the wages of sin is death.

                    “In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
                    Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power.” (II Thessalonians 1:8-9 [KJV])

                    “Hell is the place of the future punishment called ‘Gehenna’ or ‘Gehenna of fire’. This was originally the valley of Hinnom, south of Jerusalem, where the filth and dead animals of the city were cast out and burned; a fit symbol of the wicked and their future destruction.” https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=G1067&t=KJV

                1. Mk 13:30

                  No doubt you’re familiar with Strong’s Concordance. The Koine Greek word “generation,” genea (γενεά) is related to the verb yinomai (γίνομαι), which has its roots in concepts as: to become or to come into being.

                  γενεά itself can mean race, family, or generation.

                  What Jesus might have meant was that the Jewish ‘race’ would not pass away until the eschatology he spoke of had taken place.

                  https://biblehub.com/greek/1074.htm

                  (I have been reading the Koine NT since 1987)

                  Anyway, I’m so glad you have some familiarity with MSS, TG. This is good. You might be very close to the best thing you could ever know.

                  1. [the Jewish ‘race’ would not pass away until the eschatology he spoke of had taken place. ]

                    This is not to mean that God has some grudge against Israel. It just means that at the end of this age there will be no more “races” of men.

                    God Loves Israel. All you have to do to verify this is read Isaiah. That love will never cease.

                    1. J.C. taught that “The Kingdom of God is within us.” It’s said that we are ALL — all things on earth and elsewhere — are a part of God/Universe/Yahweh/All That Is/Great Spirit…etc.

                      I am part of you and you are part of me! *_^

                  2. Dr Cobalt

                    That sounds like clutching t straws to me. In any case, ‘those who are standing here’ seems pretty unambiguous.

                    1. Understood, T. But, I have not had a chance to explain my interpretation of the first example, Mt 16:27. Perhaps we can shed some light on that in our next meeting. =]

                2. “Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.” (Matthew 16:28 [KJV])

                  Yes, Jesus said this and it was fulfilled:.

                  “And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart,
                  And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.
                  And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him.
                  Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias.
                  While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.” (Matthew 17:1-5 [KJV])

                  “For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
                  For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
                  And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.” (II Peter 1:16-18 [KJV])

                  “Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.” (Mark 13:30 [KJV])

                  Maybe Jesus just meant the generation that saw the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD or CE (Christian Era :) ).

                  “But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judæa flee to the mountains:
                  And let him that is on the housetop not go down into the house, neither enter therein, to take any thing out of his house:
                  And let him that is in the field not turn back again for to take up his garment.” (Mark 13:14-16 [KJV])

                  Jesus told an interesting prophecy in that same chapter:

                  “But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light,
                  And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken.
                  And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.” (Mark 13:24-26 [KJV])

                  Similar with Revelation 6:

                  “And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:
                  And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?
                  And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.
                  And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood;
                  And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.
                  And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.
                  And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains;
                  And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:
                  For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?” (Revelation of John 6:9-17 [KJV])

                  There is to be (first) tribulation/persecution, (second) earthquake, (third) the sun will be darkened and the moon will not give her light, and (fourth) a rain of stars. These prophecies were fulfilled in that order:

                  1.- Tribulation/persecution: Persecution of Christians by Papal Rome (538-1798).
                  2.- Great earthquake: Lisbon earthquake of 1755.
                  3.- The sun will be darkened and the moon will not give her light: Dark day of May 19, 1780.
                  4.- A rain of stars: Meteor Shower of November 13, 1833.

                  See Daniel and the Revelation by Uriah Smith, pgs. 409-432.
                  https://openlibrary.org/books/OL25606738M/Daniel_and_the_Revelation

                  “Many now affect to despise the institution of prayer; but at one time or another all men will pray. Those who will not now pray to God in penitence, will then pray to the rocks and mountains in despair; and this will be the largest prayer-meeting ever held. As you read these lines, think whether you would like to have a part therein.

                  “Ah! better far
                  To cease the unequal war,
                  While pardon, hope, and peace may yet be found;
                  Nor longer rush upon the embossed shield
                  Of the Almighty, but repentant yield,
                  And all your weapons of rebellion ground.
                  Better pray now in love, than pray ere long in fear.
                  Call ye upon him, while he waits to hear;
                  So in the coming end,
                  When down the parted sky
                  The angelic hosts attend
                  The Lord of heaven, most high,
                  Before whose face the solid earth is rent,
                  You may behold in him a friend omnipotent,
                  And safely rest beneath his sheltering wings,
                  Amid the ruin of all earthly things.”
                  Daniel and the Revelation, p. 434.

              3. Brian Howe:

                A- There is no “creator.”

                B- It is not my job to disprove g-d. Since you propose that there is a g-d, it is up to you to prove that there is one. You can’t.

                1. Sydney,

                  Regarding your statement A “There is no ‘creator'” …prove that there isn’t one.

                  You cannot neither prove nor disprove God or a creator. You can provide evidence, however, for both a creator and evolution. However, it is much more difficult to do in regards to the spiritual because it is not the tangible which is much easier to handle (no pun intended). But, there is evidence that the stories of Christ and his resurrection occurred and is real, for example–it cannot be proven to you unless maybe you allowed that evidence to serve as proof which incidentally, we do in science often. Now the point isn’t that I think you should go and read the bible and come back saved, it’s simply that maybe a little respect and humility is due because the irony of people like you being the way you’re being and essentially accusing Christians or anyone who believes in the spiritual, of being a fool, is that you yourselves are the ones being the fools. Not because you don’t believe, but because you mock those who do.

          3. Actually Laurie, what Dr. Cobalt says seems sober and reasonable to me. I find his words to be worth considering as possible and reasonable alternate to the stuff I nearly drowned in during my University biology classes. I never found the stuff they taught to be more than speculation and an attempt at historic reconstruction- and not empirical, verifiable science. For me at least, their almost daily repetition of their dogma was no more convincing to me that would be receiving an opposing political party’s daily emails.If the supporters of evolution can have their say, isn’t it fair that we also consider the opposing opinion?

          1. “the anti-evolution assertions certainly qualify as science denialism”

            Theories in evolution is just that. People can believe in creationism and not be denialists. Having faith that man’s agreed upon idea of how something came to be because the story is able to match the evidence we can put in our hand vs. having faith in something far greater than man which makes sense because the evidence we can put in our hand is so brilliantly designed as we keep realizing more and more are both equally acceptable ways of being. To rant on otherwise and try to make yet more unnecessary labels in society e.g. “science denialist!” just makes you arrogant and intolerant.

        2. Science does not have gods. And formation in no way equals creation.

          https://www.ted.com/talks/david_christian_the_history_of_our_world_in_18_minutes/transcript?language=en

          Science is also not a religion or deified by anyone who actually comprehends it. It is simply man’s attempt at comprehending the reality around him instead of relying on the opinions of bronze age tribesmen who were far more ignorant to ‘science’ and reality than now.

          You are trying to turn a medical discussion board into your religious discussion board. There are other websites for that. Perhaps you should play ‘pope’ on those as the ‘doctor’ charade is not fooling anyone.

          1. People can discuss what they want and under a topic of evolution, it is only fair that others can say that they personally believe in creationism. Your intolerance is childish. Indeed, science is a tool, saying you believe in a Creator and not all the theories of evolution is 100% ok to do, but keep whining about it if you find it that fulfilling.

        3. I heard that Washington had a Bible on his table near his death bed. If the doctor had read that, he would have read, “The life is in the blood.” How is that for modern science?Science now knows that the blood is a living stream delivering oxygen and nutrition to every part of our body and carrying away waste. Now, if the Bible was right about that thousands of years before Washington’s death, don’t you think we could be able to trust it about where life came from instead of believing in the modern version of spontaneous generation, renamed “evolution”?

          1. Marcy,

            I have no idea what the phrase “The life is in the blood” even means.

            And even if this inscrutable phrase is “correct,” as you posit, that does not mean that everything in the Bible is “correct.” Even a broken clock is “correct” twice a day (maybe once a day, if it shows a 24 hour day).

            1. OK, if went to kindergarten and you were there was a glass of water on your desk, and the teacher told you that there was sugar in the water, would you understand the teacher to mean that if you poured water from the glass you were pouring out the sugar, even if you could not see any sugar in the water? If any living thing with blood in its circulation system, had its blood removed the life would be removed along with it because the life of that animal is in the blood. Many times the Bible describes murder as shedding blood. Even today when we say a murderer has blood on his hands. Now how can we say that spontaneous generation is real science, when it has been scientifically proven that life cannot come from something without life? Who made the clock you spoke about? Did it take someone intelligent to make it happen? Maybe it happened because there was a big bang somewhere. Evolution teaches that nothing exploded with a big bang and that created all the universe along with all the laws of nature that led to life itself. Real science comes from observation and experimentation. For many years scientists have experimented and observed nature, but no one wrote down what they saw billions or even a million years ago, so anyone who says they know what happened before recorded history is lying, because even those “scientists” who believe evolution keep changing their story. Isn’t it strange that people take the THEORY as fact?

        4. DC, there is an inherently unscientific position posited when you start with the proposition of something for which there is no evidence as a given. Whether you believe the earth is 4 billion plus years old or 10,000 year old is of no consequence. You have firmly placed yourself within an epistemological practical that is outside of scientific inquiry.

          Even the supposed historical references to Darwin as the originator of “social Darwinism” that was used to justify manifest destiny and indeed fascism is at best misleading. In reality Darwin was not connected to either but that is scarcely relevant to the point. Misuse of scientific knowledge has by no means been unique to racists. Furthermore, even assuming that Darwin agreed with social Darwinism would in no way invalidate what was manifestly a major historic advance.

          The reality is that Darwin laid out a hypothesis that was a major contribution to evolutionary theory regardless of any misuse of said theory. Subsequent development of the understanding of genetics has reinforced this tremendously. Certainly there are errors in some of the conclusions derived from the practice originating with Darwin’s work but error and rectification are in the nature of scientific development.

          Your substantive denial of science leaves me with the idea that Laurie in Canada may have the best response with “a huge eye roll or giggle.”

        5. And how is something known to be pseudoscience if it is not questioned and refuted? Are we to make of some men Popes, whom we have to listen, accept and not to question but to submit to our superiors? That’s what may have made the Middle Ages became the Dark Ages.

          When pseudoscience is mentioned by an evolutionist, he doesn’t really mean some doctrine that is refutable with scientific evidence, but rather “Any field of study that poses a challenge to naturalism.” The Darwin Dictionary. https://creation.com/darwin-dictionary.
          For that reason, to read about censorship from an evolutionist is not surprise to me.

          During the time of Jesus, the Jews expected a Messiah with power and wealth to set up a temporal kingdom, but the reality was the contrary. When Jesus began his ministry, the Jews asked for a sign to prove he is the Messiah. Throughout his ministry, he made plenty of signs that he was the Messiah that near the end of his ministry, the Jews no longer asked for sings but instead counseled among themselves on how to put him to death.
          Similar with Stephen:

          “Then there arose certain of the synagogue, which is called the synagogue of the Libertines, and Cyrenians, and Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia and of Asia, disputing with Stephen. And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake… And they stirred up the people, and the elders, and the scribes, and came upon him, and caught him, and brought him to the council.” (Acts 6:9-10, 12 [KJV]) But unable to refute him “they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord, and cast him out of the city, and stoned him.” (Acts 7:57-58 [KJV])

          Such course is and will be of many whose cherished ideas are built upon a foundation of sand. When unable to refute those whose doctrines aren’t in harmony with theirs, they counsel among themselves on how to silence them.

          “If Ben Stein’s 2008 documentary film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed was the tip, then Dr. Jerry Bergman’s Slaughter of the Dissidents is the rest of the iceberg. With clarity and thoroughness, Bergman provides detailed accounts of 17 of the over 300 scientists and educators he has interviewed, all of whom have advanced degrees. Though their views range from creation science to intelligent design to evolution, all of them expressed some doubt regarding neo-Darwinism, observing that selection of mutations is not creating life’s diversity. And all of them have received some form of discrimination.

          “Dr. Bergman has observed that evolutionary elitists incorrectly lump all ‘Darwin Doubters’ into one group, ‘creationists,’ who are then categorically ridiculed. Though highly qualified, these scientists and educators are verbally and physically threatened, lose privileges, lose opportunities for promotion, and lose jobs and whole careers, just for expressing some measure of doubt about the standard evolutionary story.” Book Review: Slaughter of the Dissidents. https://www.icr.org/article/book-review-slaughter-dissidents/

          “No scientific evidence supports these [creationists’] viewpoints.” https://www.nationalacademies.org/evolution/science-and-religion
          Many evolutionists are like Charles Darwin, liars. See:
          The Plan to Replace God. https://www.icr.org/article/the-plan-to-replace-god//
          Natural Selection – A Creationist’s Idea. https://www.icr.org/article/natural-selection-creationists-idea

          Claiming there is no evidence for their viewpoints when there are scientists doing research and presenting them like ICR:

          “ICR conducts laboratory, field, theoretical, and library research on projects that seek to understand the science of origins and Earth history. ICR scientists have conducted multi-year research projects at key locations such as Grand Canyon, Mount St. Helens, Yosemite Valley, and Santa Cruz River Valley in Argentina, and on vital issues like Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE), Flood-Activated Sedimentation and Tectonics (FAST), the human genome, soft tissue in fossils, and other topics related to geology, genetics, astro/geophysics, paleoclimatology, paleobiochemistry, and much more.” https://www.icr.org/who-we-are

          1. I love that Stein documentary. I must have watched the entire movie on Youtube seven or more times. And I watched the interview with Dawkins at the end maybe 10-12 times. Fascinating! You can learn a lot about the man in this 10 minute interview.

            I personally don’t lump Dawkins into the generic atheist camp. He doesn’t respond like a rank and file atheist. It almost seems like he’s mad at God for some terrible thing he believes God did to him (or failed him) in the past. No, not mad at God… maybe furious at God. I have prayed that God would save his soul – if you can imagine that. He could be the next Josh McDowell or C.S. Lewis. =]

            Haven’t read that one by Bergman, but I know him. I think he has more advanced degrees in scientific disciplines than he has fingers or toes. Wish I were that smart…

        6. I believe Dr Greger directly addressing comments like Cobalt’s would fall into the trap of creating a sense of importance that Cobalt’s irrational lunacy does not merit. People susceptible to that nonsense are disinclined to reason anyway. So instead of lowering ourselves into the mire if irrationality, better to just call it what it is and move on.

      2. FF, that’s all well and good, but who are these all-knowing arbiters who get to decide what is True?
        Looking at the history of science, we find a very long list of people laughed at, rejected, even persecuted for presenting what was later proven to be truth.
        Some of them long ago, Copernicus, kepler, Avogadro, Mendel, Wegener, for example.
        More recently people like Fred Kummerow and Barry Marshall.
        What you find ridiculous, not held up currently by ‘studies’ (so often done with a predetermined outcome based on prejudice), may, in fact, turn out to be right.
        Also, currently, so much ‘science’ is contaminated by politics.
        I, for one, am sick of those claiming they get to decide what information is available. That ‘fake news’ should be banned.
        Admit that we are all fallible, everyone has a bias and can be eventually proved wrong.

        1. Marilyn Kaye,

          Science is a process of answering questions about the world and university around us and within us. And it is constantly questioning even its generally accepted conclusions, which may be revised or even discarded in light of new information. So what we accept as correct today may need to be revised tomorrow. It is the gradual accumulation of information and knowledge. So I don’t think it’s a matter of “getting to decide what is True.”

          And I don’t accept your conclusion that everyone “can be eventually be proved wrong,” though I agree that we are fallible, some more than others, and that we all probably have biases.

          dr cobalt’s big tell that he is not a scientist is his use of the word “Darwinism.” It’s a theory of evolution, which is extremely robust and powerful. If you have read about viruses mutating, and becoming transmissible, or more or less virulent, then you are reading about evolution in action.

          1. Dr. J, I’m well aware of what science is. I’m married to your proverbial ‘rocket scientist’, and we have some pretty lively discussions on the subject. In fact that was my point, that science itself evolves.
            But some people do want to decide what is true based on science and studies done yesterday. When perhaps, those done today and tomorrow, not yet peer reviewed and published, will show previous ‘facts’ to be wrong.
            Even Einstein believed he could be wrong on some things and thought Tesla knew more than he did.
            So, yes, I think that anyone can eventually be proved wrong. Maybe some humility would be in order, and make people a bit more civil.
            The site etiquette is often ignored, and maybe it would benefit some to review it.

          2. The mutation of a virus is just as much evolution in action as the Corvette is a result of the evolution from a Model-T. I have studied viruses and the scientists themselves say they are not alive. They have DNA, but cannot replicate outside of some living animal. So were did they come from? There was never any virus in existence before people began being vaccinated. Vaccinations mess up the immune system. What causes them to mutate? That is a story too long to explain here, and even when it is put out to be published, they call “it fake news” and try to censor it. You can count on it that almost everything they call “fake news” is a lot more accurate than what the networks peddle as truth.

        2. Marilyn,
          While I am put off by political groups claiming the lab coat for themselves in some discussions, the examples you give support the strength of science. While free people are all capable of determining what they believe, the ability to say what is true belongs to those…with the demonstrated ability to say what is true. So if you take issue with a hypothesis, by all means produce better science. When you demonstrate the ability to do so then you have the ability to say what is true in your work. I consider this a better standard for who can say what is true than chucking a beer can at the TV when a scientist says something you don’t like.
          An example of political groups “claiming the lab coat” is the pro gene modification camp. Scientists have found problems with gene escape in salmon and mustard crops as well as the increase of glyphosate in roundup ready food crops, but the pro GMO PR efforts paint any objection as unscientific.
          But using Copernicus as an example of the weakness of rational thought is bizarre. He published posthumously to avoid church retribution. He was criticized by religious scholars while being appreciated by scientific minds. All the example you give prevailed because of the methods and considerations of scientists. It is truly bizarre to misuse them as examples against science. Having different opinions and holding on to dogma is a human characteristic. Science is a method to break dogma.

          1. Jack, wow, you really did not understand what I was saying.
            You say “the ability to say what is true belongs to those with the demonstrated ability to say what is true”
            Demonstrated to whom? Semmelweis was absolutely correct, but those with the lab coats in his day locked him up in a mental ward.
            My point was, who is to decide what is true? If we stifle those who are able to ‘think outside the box’ what will we lose? There are always those who will fight new ideas.
            You say you are put off by some “claiming the lab coat“. Well, the author of the article posted, Timothy Caulfield, is one of those. He is a professor of law, with a Bsc in some unnamed discipline. He doesn’t have a ‘lab coat’. And while I can agree with some of his points, I am wary of his conclusions.
            The argument you use, and Caulfield’s, can easily be used against Dr. Greger and other doctors like him.
            So be very careful in choosing the position you support.

    2. Mr Fumblefingers, you pose a very interesting question and it made me think about what the pros and cons would be. While I absolutely agree with your premise, where I go into the “weeds” is when I try to think about how this could be implemented and what are the costs and unintentional consequences of the different implementations. One of the unintentional consequences I see of removing some of the comments that points to garbage science is that the reader of the comments would also loose the responses of why the original poster is wrong. I think you and others do a fantastic job of replying with what the “counter” is to the pseudoscience and bunk with pointers to the research that shows why it is wrong or misleading. I’ve learned a lot of what to look for by reading the comments and then following the rabbit trail to expand on my knowledge. I also wonder what the cost would be for the people monitoring comments on all the different platforms and trying to keep up with their other jobs and the science. Guess the devil is in the details on how your suggestion would be implemented.

    3. Excellent point Tom. I am torn between wanting to have such nonsense posted in order to expose it to scientifically based critical responses. On the other hand I do like the idea of a BS free zone.

    4. Fumbles, I know your intentions are good, but if you’re advocating for “censorship”, I’ll have to respectfully disagree with you. Here in the USA we have this thing called Freedom of Speech protected by the First Amendment of our Constitution!

      I think that most regular commenters here are smart enough to filter out the pseudo-science from the more well-established science. Remember how Galileo was persecuted because he had such a radical idea that opposed the established scientific beliefs of the day, that the earth was the center of the universe and all the heavenly bodies revolved around it.

      And all areas of nutrition are definitely not proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. There are many disagreements between the Whole Food Plant Based doctors such as Drs Greger, Campbell, McDougall, Furhman, Klaper, etc.

      1. “There are many disagreements between the Whole Food Plant Based doctors such as Drs Greger, Campbell, McDougall, Furhman, Klaper, etc.”

        I would say more like “almost none”. On the contrary, they’re in 99.9% agreement. Of the one’s who don’t sell supplements the only thing they disagree on on is supplementing vitamin D that I know of.

        1. Blair, Yes, I agree that they agree on the vast majority of the concepts of eating WFPB. What I had in mind was, things like the recent change in the recommendation for supplemental algae oil or DHA by Dr Klaper. He now recommends against it until more data is collected. And also some of these doctors recommend eating nuts and some don’t. It ‘s the details that some disagree on.

          1. “Scientists” tell us that you cannot make B12 in your body that can be absorbed for your requirement. Apparently that is true not only for humans, but also for cattle and every other animal, so where do all the other vegan animals get the the B12 found so plentifully in their meat? “Scientists” say they get a little dirt along with their grass. It would take a lot of dirt to get enough B12 for health. How much dirt does a panda, giraffe or sloth eat in the wild? Wouldn’t you have to say that these animals eat only a tiny bit rarely? Herbivores do not take B12 supplements. I raised my children from birth without supplements on a WPFD and they never had B12 deficiency when tested. Organic plants have a harmless fungus on their surface that produces abundant amounts of B12. It does not wash off in the rain, so if you eat organic or wild areal parts of plants, only rinsing them, not scrubbing, you will get what you need from plants. Cooked or raw, you get the benefits.

      2. Don’t you love how people whine about ‘censorship’ while choosing to ignore that they are on a private website that is not public domain? It is called violating the TOS.

        1. Reality bites, how about those who ignore the rules of etiquette on this site, in regard to Name-Calling and Rude Comments.
          I quote from section 4, “Please do not attack or insult another user for any reason whatsoever”.
          Yes, you are on a private website, TOS.
          Seems some people want more rules when they are ignoring the ones already listed.

      3. Sure but it’s not an issue of free speech. There are a zillion websites for antivaxxers, creationists, conspiracy theorists and alternative medicine believers. No one I think begrudges them those (although mandatory health warnings or similar disclaimers might be a good idea)

        Nor is there a problem with people asking questions. It’s just that trolling actual science sites with absolutist assertions is a different matter. Especially when their (false) claims can put people’s lives and health at risk if followed. Like anti-vaxxers and the false covid-19 cures on the internet. It also appears to be the case when people promote alternative medicine (AM) in place of conventional cancer treatment (CCT)

        ‘Patients who initially chose AM for treatment of curable cancer in lieu of CCT were rare and had statistically significantly worse survival. After controlling for sociodemographic and clinical factors, the magnitude of difference was largest for breast cancer because women who used AM as initial treatment without CCT had more than a fivefold increased risk of death. Patients with colorectal and lung cancer had a more than fourfold and twofold increase in risk of death, respectively.’
        https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/110/1/121/4064136

    5. Mr. Fumblefingers,

      Did I miss is? Or wasn’t there a double-blind study proving it?

      Meaning, will it be stopping pseudoscience that saves the world from COVID?

      Is it going to be stopping the flow of conversation by the public or increasing conversation at all levels causing new ideas to come forward that will help us?

      Should it only be the experts of the experts who think about things and only the lock-step who comment?

      Or does freedom have a positive side, too?

      Should we listen to the concept of wanting dogmatic crushing of freedom of expression without them showing a random double-blind study?

      1. In many ways, I have learned more from the public about so many subjects than the experts and it isn’t that I am not learning from the experts. I am going to the experts, but the experts said that it wasn’t going to be a big deal in the USA and waited to call it a pandemic and told me not to wear masks and then changed their minds back and forth. The public is talking about prepping things and how to do things and giving all sorts of practical advice and they have been since last fall.

        Last fall, I could find preppers talking about which masks to buy and how to make one if you didn’t have one and they have been showing me the difference between scam UV lights and real ones on the internet and how to distill water and all sorts of things.

        Yes, they have also said words like elderberries before any science was in, but those heads up got me studying foods and viruses and, yes, not one of them has been proven effective for COVID, but, boy, if I wait for the studies to come in I could die before then. It is different than chronic illness.

        Because of public discussions, I am going to be putting salt and citric acid on one of my masks, just to try it and that is what the people selling masks are trying and it sounds interesting to me.

        I also saw that putting a procedural mask under the nose bridge of my N99 mask stopped my glasses from fogging up and putting some salt and citric acid on that feels safer. Is it safer? I don’t have a lab testing center to know for sure. But I did find PubMed articles and doing it makes me feel better when I go to work or to the post office or when I am delivering to companies.

        The truth is the doctors at hospitals are trying things right now and some of those things will help people and some will harm them and it will take time for those studies to come out.

        The studies probably aren’t going to come out until way after the peak of this is over and in the USA right now we are doubling cases every 4 days and we have over a million cases. I am thinking that we will stop doubling soon, but anyway, if I had waited for the experts, I wouldn’t have done almost any of the things I have done. They are mostly talking to each other.

      2. Confining comments on science sites to discussions of actual science is hardly ‘dogmatic crushing of freedom of expression’.

        There are huge numbers of sites catering to conspiracy theorists, antivaxxers, creationists, alternative medicine believers, flat earthers and the like. People who believe those kinds of things really have no need to troll and/or spam science sites like this with their assertions and ideologies. They are perfectly free to express themselves all they want It’s just a bit much when they insist on also doing it on sites dedicated to evidence-based science.

          1. I don’t think it’s banning discussion of alternative medicine that’s the issue on the table. I see no harm in discussing the evidence for and against.

            It’s the posting of posting demonstrably false ‘facts’ (eg the Chinese Govt is telling its citizens to take vitamin c supplements to prevent covid 19) and assertions that all evidence refuting specific alternative ‘cures’ or demonstrating the safety and effectiveness of eg measles/smallpox/polio vaccines has been faked by some mysterious global conspiracy, that I see as problematic.

            Given that pretty much every health authority around the world advises people to eat more vegetables, fruits and whole grains, i don’t see how Greger’s position can be considered alternative. The only difference is that Greger uses the term whole food plant based diet and they don’t ….. but a rose by any other name etc etc A WFPB diet isn’t necessarily totally vegetarian either … it’s a diet based on plants not necessarily consisting exclusively plants. Even there though, both the US dietary guidelines and the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics state that well planned completely vegetarian diets are healthful. I doubt anyone would seriously try to claim that the US dietary guidelines are alternative medicine.

    6. And, Tom, I always appreciate you and your role here.

      You bring the studies.

      I just see his sentences as a scientist venting a pet peeve during a pandemic, but that same pet-peeve is a talking point for Dr. Hyman and Dr. Axe and Dr. Amen and it is also a talking point against people like those exact people and I saw it on the news.

      It has been discussed often right now and often the press is talking out of both sides of their mouths about things.

      They present the malaria drug as an option, then come against Trump for mentioning it, and then, have the articles are the places that used it like the Texas nursing home where everybody lived and the Lupus doctor who had 800 patients not get it, and only 1 did. But then the studies are going to find it dangerous, but they are still studying it and the logic will bounce back and forth for a while.

      But so many internet DOCTORS talked about it AND don’t want the public talking about it.

      But the public is watching them talk about it and so was Donald Trump and he is not scientific minded enough to word things the same way MedCram does and it just seems like that concept is part of a greater discussion on the internet and in the press.

      I find it better to hear both sides of everything. I like it when I hear Peter or Greg come in and argue about milk. I especially like it because Dr. Greger and people like you will also bring in your information and when I go to a party sometime in the future when milk comes up in the discussion I will not be lost. I will understand the bigger culture in the USA and now in the world because of the internet and I value that. I guess that is my point. I value open discussions. I have learned almost as much from the open discussions and even the knock-down-drag-out fights on this site than if I had just watched the videos.

      1. I feel like I will be exposed to every pseudoscience and odd theory possible on the internet and within my family and friends. I have already had friends drink bleach and other crazy things.

        Having the topics come up here, to me, is like a vaccination. When I go to a party and the people who are rabidly anti-soy start talking, I can have a more full conversation because I know the arguments from both sides. It has stopped the war in my family. It took a long time, but it has stopped the war.

        I no longer have “soy police” or “gluten police” or “keto police” in my family. I do still have people who want me to go keto and who think keto is better, but I can have fuller conversations and they learned enough from me that they softened and eat more vegetables.

      2. Greg and Pete aren’t a problem. They use scientific evidence and rational argument to discuss important questions. IMHO they are valuable contributors to the discussion here.

        People who make demonstrably false statements, promote absurd conspiracy theories and deny basic science are another matter entirely.

    7. Tom, or Mr Fumbles, I think that is a ridiculous assertion.

      Yeah there is problems with misinformation, but the greatest cause for that isn’t folklore, it’s big agenda from commercial industries. To hold supplement companies more accountable (in general and in their claims) and to hold other business more accountable for their claims, to hold self-proclaimed “doctors” to more legal responsibility in their claims, to make it more difficult for industries such as animal agriculture industries to lie to the public.. these would be helpful things. But I think the most helpful thing of all is to educate the public more and make them more aware that lying is going on and overall more aware about the way things actually work in the world… that’s really the key to it which would inevitably make it harder for industries to lie and all of the above and more which is incidentally what Dr Greger and team are doing. But I’m trailing off… My point is that you can never actually create a “pure” world or “pure” society, there is always going to be issues and there will always be lies and there will always be misinformation. To suggest taking away free speech to control these things is absurd and really going into some iffy waters… That kind of control doesn’t even work in societies who utilize it. What you’re basically saying is that we need censorship. No, horrible idea… We just need a more educate society and that is doable without restricting the most basic freedoms.

    8. One of the great things about this site is lack of censorship. There are a lot of unknowns in nutrition and medicine and I appreciate the free expression of ideas.

  2. I watched Blood Sugar Rising on PBS last night and the healthy food desert topic came up and a wise elderly woman was talking about this topic. She talked about how it wasn’t only that you can’t buy fruits and vegetables in these areas. It is also that every few feet there is junk food available. Where when she took transportation to a wealthy area, their storefront was fresh fruits and vegetables.

    She and a neighbor started a neighborhood garden and said that it quickly became the heartbeat of the neighborhood.

    That she was talking about it as the “heartbeat of the neighborhood” – rather than saying “and nobody was interested” tells me that there is a part of the brain other than the dopey dopamine-seeking part of the brain.

    A doctor who was in the documentary said that it used to be that 1 out of every 20 patients had Diabetes and now 1 out of every 2 of his patients have diabetes and that they have a whole amputation limb preservation department now. It didn’t seem that they had any concept at all of WFPB. Just counting carbs.

    They talked about the fact that the cost of insulin has risen 1000% over the past decade and that patients are dying.

    Dr. Greger,

    Thank you for your tireless efforts to change the world.

    The PBS documentary was missing people like you presenting a more hopeful outcome.

    Yesterday, one of the YouTube websites a man said that he just had an aneurysm and I was able to share WFPB with him.

    Then, today, I went to the post office and the workers were talking about hallucinations.

    Yes, so is it from not sleeping or stress from COVID-19 or blood sugar or Homocysteine or aluminum in the brain or maybe it could be that they are in menopause? Anyway, I have a lot of concepts for that one. Not sure which one will help, but I can at least normalize it somewhat.

      1. Blair,

        That may be true.

        But they do start the dialogues and a lot of the WFPB doctors have had specials on PBS.

        It was still a documentary that was worth watching for understanding the reality out there.

        It wasn’t all that good for giving people how to overcome it.

  3. In keeping with this epidemic of obesity series I reviewed this: https://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-effect-of-animal-protein-on-stress-hormones-testosterone-and-pregnancy/. For me it is an integral part of the whole thing. Cortisol elevation is something I (as a T1 diabetic for 50 years) have been particularly aware of due to trying to control blood sugar with differing hormonal activity curves in any 24 hr period. So the discussion of the impacto on cortisol really got my interest.

    There are many many points to consider but one is the impact on sleep. Sleep inadequacy is now chronic or at least close to chronic in todays conjuncture. And,,, that is also a major factor in the development of Alzheimer’s, obesity et al.

    1. Stewart,

      Wow, 50 years as a T1 diabetic. That is an accomplishment already.

      That is a lot of work.

      Yes, cortisol is a good topic for a pandemic and for the economic component.

      Sleep has been such a challenging topic for me.

      Vitamin D has helped me dramatically. It still is helping, but the pandemic has caused more nights of less sleep.

      Vitamin D still rocks though. I had insomnia for well over a decade. Maybe even 2 decades.

      I no longer feel like I have insomnia. I sometimes don’t sleep at night, but it is usually trying to get things done keeping me up later. That is different.

    1. Environmental chemicals may increase Lipogenesis, Fatty Acid Synthase (FAS) expression. These Epigenetic changes are then inherited, passed on to our children. Thank you very much for exposing us to DES-stimulated meat production until 1979, then loading consumer products with BPA and other endocrine disruptors. Glossy magazine paper has elevated BPA content – this is conveniently recycled into toilet paper without any oversight. The skin in the genital area absorbs between 10 and 40 times more chemicals than the skin on your arms. [W.H.O. document: Environmental Health Criteria 235.]. Who’s minding the store ?

  4. While Dr. Greger makes a good point, I believe that obesity is also in many cases an eating disorder. I recently read that fully half of obese people have been sexually assaulted, often in childhood. Becoming large is potentially a way to make people ‘look away’ from you, to not be seen, because being seen may have meant being violated. As with so many issues, there are multiple angles.

    1. Valerie,

      What you are saying is the truth.

      However, Dr. Lisle points out that in countries that don’t eat Westernized food, they don’t get obesity, even though around the world the abuse rates are the same. 1 out of every 3 girls and 1 out of 5 to 7 boys get sexually abused in multiple countries, but countries didn’t start having obesity problems until they ate certain foods.

      Also, if you watch the parts of Dr. Lustig’s video where he shows the effect of free fatty acids causing the brain to not see leptin, he has people who become obese just by having damage to the hypothalamus or by having free fatty acids causing the problem.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zx-QrilOoSM

      In both cases, it is the food (or brain damage) causing the problems.

      Children who grow up being abused DO have brain damage. The brain grows differently in abused children.

      I haven’t seen studies on how many parts of the brain are different, but I would say that if they lose weight doing WFPB, then, it would be the food.

      If they still don’t lose weight eating the right foods, then science would have to examine the brains to see if it is the brains.

      But a lot of people it is just the food they eat, even if they have more vulnerable brains causing them to respond poorly to junk food.

  5. I must say that the title of this video threw me off. I was expecting Dr G to say something like “we each should take personal responsibility for the food we eat and learn to eat healthy”. Instead, it sounds like he’s saying that we’re all victims of Big Marketing!

    If this attitude of “victim-hood” is what he is advocating, I would point out that we are all bombarded by advertising of almost all products.

    “Get my new smart phone or you will be left behind all your peers.”
    “Get my new sports shoes, or you’ll lose the next game.”
    etc., etc.

    All this advertising appeals to our emotions rather than to our rational thinking. At some point we have to take individual responsibility for our actions. Otherwise, we’ll turn further into a “Nanny State” than we already are! ;-)

    Remember the lawsuit that was filed by the lady who spilled hot coffee in her lap! Now we have warning labels on all cups now: “this hot coffee may be hot, be careful”!

    1. Darwin,

      Listening to the science yesterday, even without the advertising, 1/3 of people would be 8 times more addicted than if they had taken cocaine.

      And 1/3 of the people would not even be able to get addicted at all and that group would proudly think they had such self-control when they just didn’t even have the capacity to have problems.

      But I think the whole point is if we started giving babies cocaine, which is less addictive, then, they grew up and we put advertising campaigns for cocaine everywhere and every two steps was a place selling cocaine for 99 cents – every child other than the 1/3 incapable of getting addicted would suddenly get to adulthood and we would tell them, “You did this to yourself” and that is the question. Did they?

      On top of that, if they all spent their whole lives spending billions of dollars trying to get off of cocaine and 99.9% failed every single year, then we just talk about their moral failure and not about the responsibility of the people selling and marketing cocaine and the educators giving the free cocaine for the breakfast and lunch program.

      When 99.9% of the people fail, personal responsibility is probably the least effective way of changing things.

      IMO

      1. There was a woman from a minority culture in America in the documentary last night and she talked about food aimed as a weapon to kill the minorities. The children raised in the war zones and food deserts many have never tasted a vegetable or a piece of fruit. Many aren’t even in walking distance to a proper grocery store and couldn’t buy a piece of fruit if they wanted to. Many have zero role models and have so many odds stacked against them that they are failing en masse.

      2. Deb,
        I like sweets and salty snacks just as much as anyone. The only way I can stop eating them is not buy them. If they’re in the house, I’ll splurge and make excuses for myself! So I train myself to use logic and reason to overcome my temptations when I shop.

        In the case of parents buying food for their children, yes, they should be counseled by their doctors to provide WFPB healthy food for their children.

        I don’t know about that statistic comparing food to cocaine. Sounds a little exaggerated to me. I’m talking about food here … Drugs are a topic for another day.

        The way I see it, the problem is that people don’t have any consequences for their bad eating habits. If they get sick, they just go to a doctor and ask for a pill to cure their symptoms, which we all know doesn’t work.

        I think the real answer is EDUCATION! Our schools need to teach WFPB healthy eating at a very early age and explain the health consequences of eating junk food. And the parents need to taught, also.

        Dr Greger is doing a superb job of educating us with this website. He is the one who got me to change to WFPB! But I’m just saying the education needs to start much earlier. I really think the WFPB movement is taking off now, due to the efforts of Dr G and other similar doctors.

    2. Yes, victimhood is in. Blaming others for your problems is easy, but doesn’t solve them.
      That’s why the primary trait of successful people is not brilliance, it’s conscientiousness.
      I get frustrated sometimes as I work with people. They don’t like their diseases like cad, gout, type2, etc.
      But, “please don’t tell me I need to change my diet or walk. Can’t you just give me another pill? “

      1. Marilyn,

        I understand that it can look like victimhood is in.

        But, in reality we have global issues that nobody knows how to solve and we like to put it on the individuals, but watching the Diabetes documentary last night, not one of the doctors and experts knew WFPB at all. I listened to a father teaching his child to not be like him and he told the boy to drink milk and what I know is that every single one of the diabetic people in that series is just counting carbs and they are taking responsibility for counting carbs to the best of their ability.

        1. I also think it takes a lot of learning to succeed.

          When I was in college, I took a human service class and the professor talked about failure to succeed and they said that if you are failing at something it is because you haven’t broken it into small enough learnable, actionable pieces.

          Looking at diet information online there is such a big diet war that even trying to figure any of it out already genuinely takes years – and that is even if you are a researcher with pretty good logic.

          People can’t even read or write and they don’t know how to budget money and they don’t know how to cook and they don’t know which pans to use or which brands to buy or all kinds of things.

          My relatives think nightshades and soy and carbs and gluten and lectins and phytates are poison. They are taking responsibility for those choices already. They have doctors leading them into keto and they are taking responsibility for that.

          They are working hard at the process. Very hard.

          And may come out and collapse and not feel like they can succeed for a while and may try Paleo next.

          1. I think people are also working 2 or 3 jobs, over 50 hours a week, raising a family. Don’t know how to cook. Don’t know how to read and write often.

            Sometimes it is the responsibility for managing the diseases that takes a lot out of them.

            My aunt and uncle are 90, but even just having multiple doctors appointments and aids appointments and trying to keep track of multiple medicines takes so much time and energy that they almost collapse at the weight of that.

              1. I think it is the companies who are poisoning as many people in the world with junk food and animal products who want the focus to be personal responsibility and it is only when you step away from that culture that you see countries who didn’t use food as a weapon against its people and their people don’t even have to take any personal responsibility at all. They were raised safe and just have to not being the spiel from the food companies in the USA and other predatory countries.

                Funny that their countries don’t even need to use personal responsibility in eating at all.

  6. Personal accountability will always be secondary to plausible excuses in today’s narcissistic world. Many people prefer to see themselves as the victim of every bad thing that happens in life and they CHOOSE to see no internal control whatsoever. To them they are victims of external forces any time something goes awry. They only want to try to take credit when good things happen to themselves, then they are all over the internet trying to get ‘likes’.

    1. Reality bites,

      I would look at obesity as a pandemic and what I notice is how the concept of how we protect culture changed entirely because of this pandemic.

      Globally, we haven’t felt this corporate sense of global responsibility to change things for obesity and that is what it would require at this point.

      The only reason we haven’t solved it at a corporate, global level is that people are making so much money causing that particular pandemic.

  7. I had to laugh about Dr. Greger’s comment about dietician conventions. Looking around at conventions of medical professionals is distressing. The majority look very unhealthy.
    How can we expect them to bring up nutrition to patients, when they clearly have no clue?

  8. Nutrition news is that researchers in the Netherlands found that Covid patients with worse outcomes had high levels of Dp-ucMPG.
    What that means is that they were low in vitamin K. This on the surface may seem counter intuitive. Covid causes excessive blood clotting. But what vitamin K does is cause normal blood clotting.
    It’s kind of the same thing with vitamin D. When people heard that vitamin D raises ace2 receptors, many decided not to take it. Wrong. Outcomes in people with low vitamin D status are much worse. Again, vitamin D normalizes function.
    Bottom line, eat your greens, and keep vitamin D levels normal.

    1. Thank you Marilyn for all of your comments today. I really appreciate hearing your views and snippets from your expertise. I have tried to prioritize ‘greens’ on my shopping list, and to get outside daily for sun and exercise. I am thankful to be able to do it.

    2. Thanks, Marilyn.

      Thanks for the reminder to eat my greens.

      They are still in my fridge because I forgot all about them at lunchtime, but I will go get them right now.

  9. Marilyn,

    I love that you explained it that way.

    I have been happily taking my Vitamin D3 and I have been looking at things like cranberry and soy and turmeric and other things trying to figure out which foods to emphasize. Greens is an easy one. I like greens.

  10. Perhaps Dr. Greger should look up the definitions of ‘persuasion’ versus ‘coercion’. Advertisers attempt to persuade us to buy their products. They cannot coerce us, unless they enlist the help of government to do so.

    1. Nicholas,

      Yes, the governing authority allows advertising to exploit peoples’ know weaknesses.

      Persuasion can be downright exploitive.

      Going back to who’s responsibility it is, the fact that companies are exporting it to exploit the whole world if they can get it, I think as long as we see it as each and every person’s personal responsibility we will never find out who actually is responsible and who is complicit and how aware they are that they are destroying lives.

      The fact that countries other than the USA are getting destroyed by it, I feel like the companies are officially responsible. The governments are complicit.

      The masses are thinking it is all their personal moral failure.

      But personal responsibility only works as a concept if people can realistically succeed.

      We use it for dangerous behaviors. You can drink, but it us your responsibility to not become an alcoholic. Alcohol is considered safe enough to say people can take responsibility.

      Drugs aren’t considered safe enough without prescriptions and people with addictive brains will get destroyed and shouldn’t be deceived by the concept that there us a reasonable chance for them to take responsibility properly when 99.9% of that category of people will fail over and over again and we will rarely re-evaluate whether something is safe enough to put on the ”responsibility pathway.”

      We let people drive cars, but we make it harder to get to fly jets.

      We let companies destroy the world with food because the people did it to themselves.

    2. Greger never once uses the term ‘coercion’ or even implies it.

      He does use terms like ‘manipulate’, ‘marketing’ and ‘advertising’. Perhaps you should look up the definitions of those terms.

      Not that industry is averse to using coercion when it can to cook the science
      https://nutritionfacts.org/video/big-sugar-takes-on-the-world-health-organization/

      Over the years too, the US Government has acquired a bit of a reputation of attempting to coerce other countries into accepting imports of US foodstuffs that are banned on health grounds in those other countries eg
      https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/01/us-seeks-greater-access-to-uk-food-markets-after-brexit-trade-deal

  11. Off topic question for anyone who can help! I explained to someone how dietary intervention of a WFPB diet was proven to reverse heart disease. They said that when someone’s heart is really bad and part of the heart is dead, that part can never come back but the other parts can work harder–they said they learned this from doctors. I am a layman here, but is this true? If a part of the heart is essentially dead, can this not be reversed?

    1. S,

      Dr Ornish has had people who needed heart transplants no longer need one and people whose arteries are clogged can reverse that.

      People with congestive heart failure can only reverse it if it is early enough, I think is what doctors say. They can take coq10 I think but that was something Marilyn shared a long time ago and requires double-checking.

      Dr Ornish and Dr. Esselstyn are the ones to look at their sites.

    2. S, it depends on what form of heart disease a person has. If they had a heart attack because of underlying CAD (coronary artery disease) then eating wfpb strictly can be of benefit. If tissue was destroyed during the heart attack then that can not be reversed, but other things can happen.

      Over time, with perfect attention to diet and exercise corollary blood vessels can form (more in some people than others) supplying oxygen rich blood around blockages to functioning heart muscle. Also, atherosclerotic lesions stabilize and firm up allowing greater blood flow past them and making a second heart attack much less likely.

      If a person does have bypass surgery or stents, a wfpb diet will go a long way in maintaining the good results for years to come.

      Not smoking, healthy weight, wfpb, exercise, sleep. All of it works together. Some of the best talks on youtube are by Dr Kim Williams if they are interested S.

      1. *When talking to people I do not say anything about what a wfpb diet can do… especially saying it “reverses” some such disease. A person with CAD will always have CAD, but maybe with eating right and exercise and
        medications they can enjoy a very active healthy symptom-free life. I leave it to people to discover for themselves.

        1. Thank you Deb and Barb!! Very helpful; good information! In regards to saying it can reverse heart disease, I’m basically just quoting Dr. Greger in saying a WFPB diet has been the only intervention that has been proven to be able to reverse heart disease. I don’t go on about it too much, but I am amazed at what a WFPB diet and healthy lifestyle can do and swear by it. Mostly I just try to live as an example.

    3. S

      I think that is true. If the tissue is dead, then it’s dead. WFPB diets however may well help in preventing further damage and reversing existing damage in those other areas of the heart that are still working. I am not aware of any studies showing WFPB diets are successful in regrowing dead tissue.

      There is some work being done on using eg stem cells to regenerate cardiac tissue but that’s another matter.

  12. s,

    I agree with Barb about Kim Williams.

    As far as what to say about WFPB, I would tell them stories like about Dr Greger’s grandmother and the people who were sent home to die.

    It sounds like the person has already accepted that nothing will help and they most likely won’t try it unless they hear testimonials.

    Most people won’t believe it will do anything at all and that us what most doctors will say.

    It is hard to say enough to get anyone to try.

    Testimonials are what works.

  13. S,

    65% of people will just listen to their doctor.

    If it is someone you care about, recommending a Second opinion with a WFPB doctor might help the person be more open.

    The people around me won’t try anything at all once the doctors say there isn’t any hope.

    My brother ate my WFPB food until the day he talked to his cancer doctor who told him that his cancer had nothing to do with diet.

    I have seen that over and over again.

    Most doctors don’t believe in diet and most patients listen to their doctors.

    1. Thanks, Deb. Yeah it is so frustrating… So upsetting about what your brother’s doctor said to him.. shame on him. That is the opposite of a doctor’s job… I so wish you brother wouldn’t have just listened to one arrogant man. Luckily the person I was talking to is pretty open actually, but when they said that it spiked my curiosity because I had no idea and wondered if it were true or not given the fact that a lot of the “known” things out there (such as your brother’s doctor “knowing” diet was unrelated to his treatment) are actually false or changing as we learn more.

  14. Last night, watching the Diabetes documentary, that doctor doesn’t know that he isn’t doing a useful dietary process with his patients.

    I tried to imagine if Dr Barnard or Dr Fuhrman had a whole department just for the amputations.

    1. That doctor is trying to get all of his patients to do personal responsibility on their carb-counting diet and 50% of his patients have diabetes now and he needs a whole amputation department and that is the experience he is building his expertise on.

  15. And their amputation process isn’t even trying things like LLLT or PEMf or infrared light or vie light to increase blood flow to the limb.

  16. I think ”Take responsibility ” is like ”Take Washington St” or maybe ”Take Main St. Then take North Main St. Then take South Main St. Then start to take every Minor St you can think of but never go more than 5 blocks from Main St and North Main St and South Main St.”

    1. Deb,
      There is steam roller profit pressure creating bad health, more so than nefarious minded evil do’ers. Maybe an answer is to put money where health is. Every dollar spent towards good health could save multiples of that spent on bad health. We know that most people do not understand “Eat your peas and carrots” by now. They do understand financial incentives for good health. There are plenty examples of countries using this kind of leverage.

    1. Magic therapeutic mushrooms of the psilocybe family are shown to quickly and durably enhance the psychological mood of people with severe long-lasting depression:

      Psilocybin for treatment-resistant depression: fMRI-measured brain mechanisms
      https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-13282-7

      as well in the context of life-threatening cancer, in a randomized double-blind clinical trial:

      Griffiths et al, Psilocybin produces substantial and sustained decreases in depression and anxiety in patients with life-threatening cancer: A randomized double-blind trial

      and alcholol dependence:

      https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02061293

    2. It’s the usual stuff. Yes, there is an association. However, since many people seem to adopt vegetarianism as a response to health concerns or health crises, an association is unsurprising.

      This study and others like it seldom seem to look at which came first – the adoption of a vegetarian diet or the onset of symptoms. I can only speculate why because it appears to be an important question.

      ‘Vegetarians displayed elevated prevalence rates for depressive disorders, anxiety disorders and somatoform disorders ……The analysis of the respective ages at adoption of a vegetarian diet and onset of a mental disorder showed that the adoption of the vegetarian diet tends to follow the onset of mental disorders.’
      https://ijbnpa.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1479-5868-9-67

      This strongly suggests that the association is due to people with depressive and anxiety disorders taking up vegetarianism in an attempt to address their problems. It doesn’t support a claim that vegetarian diets cause depression/anxiety.

      This is obviously not what meat producers and eaters want to hear. That may be why studies (like the one you linked to) continue to ignore the date of symptom onset/date of diet adoption issue and continue to state or imply that vegetarianism must cause anxiety/depression. It is therefore probably no coincidence that the study you link to was ‘funded in part via an unrestricted research grant from the Beef Checkoff, through the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association.’

    3. Hi Zakeri McDonnell, thanks for your question. I had a quick look at the study you reference. One has to ask what causes depression? One factor could be deficiency of certain nutrients in the diet especially essential vitamins, minerals, and omega-3 fatty acids. The most common nutritional deficiencies seen in patients with mental disorders are of omega–3 fatty acids, B vitamins, minerals, and amino acids that are precursors to neurotransmitters. In the study you reference also mentions if there are deficiency of B vitamins, omega three, magnesium in the diet that could be a factor for depression. So one has to realize many factors are involved in presentation of depression. One factor could be deficiency in any diet be it vegetarian or Vegan or meat eater. I hope this is useful explanation for you.

      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2738337/

  17. I trust Dr Greger and this website for a lot of good solid nutrition and health information however I wish Dr Greger would stick to nutrition science and stay away from his theories on the age of the earth and where human life came from. He clearly does not believe in the Bible and should not use this nutrition science based platform to interject his personal unscientific and unproven beliefs on where life originated. Many people from different backgrounds and beliefs come to this site for health information but bristle at his creation vs. Darwin ideas.

    1. Meat consumption, through its vitamin B12 supply, might partially protect from the life-threatening neurological effects of alcohol consumption.

      That may be why many believers of the Bible appear to like to drink wine and eat meat, as a nutritional combo.

      But the vitamin B12 concentration is also higher in people with habit of alcohol abuse, as the high vitamin B12 concentration “reflects the degree of hepatocytes injury by alcohol.”

      https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20369740/

    2. The US National Academies of Science point out that evolution is a fact no matter what some religious sects and cults might claim. They probably know a bit more about science than you do.

      Might I suggest that you read this below? It’s a free PDF.

      https://www.nap.edu/catalog/11876/science-evolution-and-creationism

      Or you could just read this webpage below. It is considerably shorter

      https://www.nationalacademies.org/evolution/science-and-religion

      1. How the hell did the evolution debate get all the way down here?

        “The US National Academies of Science point out that evolution is a fact”

        Evolution is defined as the gradual development of something. In this way it is evident to say that evolution is a fact. Certainly life evolves on earth. But evolutionary theories in how we came to be are unprovable theories. They can make all the sense in the world but all we can for certain say is a fact, is that what is, is, and we can come up with an idea or ideas of why it is that make sense to us and that we cannot disprove (yet or possibly ever). You can choose to call that a fact, but in reality, it is not a provable thing any more than creationism. But in evolution, you’re strictly looking at the tangible so it’s easier to provide evidence to. With creationism, it’s the spiritual that you cannot see or touch and is therefore much more difficult to provide evidence to. What the “fact” really is and the action of establishing it as a fact, is a strongly agreed upon idea.

        And good thing I value my own thinking over the US National Academies of science.

        Science is a tool used by man to understand what is. What is simply just is, and we’ve learned how to delve deeper and get a better understanding of the nature of things with this tool. It isn’t something to be worshiped, it’s something to be intellectually valued.

  18. Hey everyone,
    I am a huge fan of How Not to Die and the according diet. However since a few years I have had problems with specific foods like tomatoes. Currently I found out, that I have a Histamine intolerance. Sadly that strikes many good foods off my list. I was wondering if anyone has had any experience with this “sickness” and still eating vegan/ healthy and getting all the daily dozens?
    I would love to keep up with my healthy diet while no longer having painful symptoms!
    I hope everyone is staying healthy!

    1. Fortunately many healthy foods are considered low in histamine, so you can still indulge in fresh fruits and vegetables( with th eexception of spinach, eggplant and tomatoes) and many grains. You may not have to give up tomatoes permanently. Often what’s recommended is an elimination diet, where you stick very closely to foods know to have low histamines and then gradually start adding new foods. If tomatoes even in small amounts consistently cause symptoms, then you know that will not be one you can include in your whole food plant based diet. Focus on the ones you can eat and while a trial and error approach isn’t easy, that’s what is usually recommended. This article while it touts unhealthy animal products, does give some times for such an approach: https://www.histamineintolerance.org.uk/about/the-food-diary/the-food-list/ Hope this is helpful

  19. For the love of the….Devil, all we need now is religious zealots & quacks taking over this site with their medieval views. Good riddance!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This