New York, USA
Ms. Minger makes extraordinary claims, and extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. The strength of a conclusion is a function of the
quality of the evidence provided in its support and the a priori probability of the claim being supported. Suppose, for example, that a reasonably
reliable source tells me (a) that former President Bush choked on another pretzel and (b) that Dick Cheney has switched to the Democrat party. I would be much more confident of the truth of the first report than of the second,
even though the source is identical. The difference lies in the a priori plausibility of the claims.
In her Facebook profile, Ms. Minger lists one college: a community college in Flagstaff, Arizona, and notes that she is a "Professional Sock Puppeteer" - hardly comparable qualifications to Campbell's 50+ years researching and publishing on nutrition and health.
Because Ms. Minger's claims have a very low a priori probability, it means that potential biases and research flaws are more plausible as explanations for her claimed "findings" than is the truth of the claims.
The real mystery is why a "Professional Sock Puppeteer" would attack such well-defended findings of a noted expert that have already survived scrutiny by more informed, better trained and more thoughtful people, but I won't waste time investigating her motives - if I turn to her expertise in the future, it will only be to watch her play with her sock puppets.
I posted several comments, all in a measured tone, on Dr. Mercola's site to rebut his claims about Dr. Campbell's work, and my most direct comment, in which I pointed out factual errors in Dr. Mercola's comments, was deleted! When I posted again and asked if others had their comments deleted--lo and behold--I could no longer access the site (the site claimed they were doing 'list maintenance').
Dr. Mercola's attempt to tear down decades of work and dozens of peer-reviewed papers with baseless rhetoric and uncited, unsupported claims of observations from his own practice have no place in any honest discussion of nutrition, biochemistry, human health, or any other field for that matter.
No posts published so far.
Congratulations Mrs Minger for study in depth the subject. For his clear explanation. A notice of Languedoc in France
Mark, Spark's question is valid, in fact anybody's questions are valid, and he was quite reasonable. His question is interesting, and KEY to go from a somewhat informed omnivorous diet to an informed vegan/vegetarian diet, when Health is what is valued. I am vegetarian more because of my ethics than health, but some people are more interested in what diet would be optimal, not ethical. Plus defining well what an optimal diet REALLY is, its important regardless. A diet abundant with vegetables & leafy greens, herbs, Ancient grains (no wheat), some tubers & fruit, and supplemented with some quality animal protein and fat seems to be close to optimal, from what I've learned. Personally Im only interested in optimizing my vegetarian diet, but still itch to know what would be optimal, and what diets are best for treating & preventing illnesses like cancer. Steve Jobs didnt survive his cancer, and he was seemingly going with the Ornish approach (I am aware of the other problems that may have gotten in the way of sucessful diet/lifestyle intervention), now I would love to see someone that believes in a lower carb, meat, fat & plant rich diet, intervene with THAT diet and see if its more protective.
Would you take Ancel Keys seriously, simply because he was a Scientist? What about his flawed Lipid Hypothesis?
All people -- Scientists, Doctors, English Majors -- are fallible. The person of value and integrity is the one that can say "In light of this new data, I can see that my previous position was wrong."
People all over the world thrive on a variety of diets. Stop placing people on a pedestal and claiming their way is the "only" or the "right" way.
A fact is only a fact until it's proven wrong.
So many things over the last 50 years (especially) have been proven wrong. Yet, we keep the misinformation alive in the collective psyche by continuing to regurgitate it without actually doing our own research.
Example: "Everyone KNOWS that saturated fat causes heart disease!" Right? WRONG!
I'm not trying to convince anyone to eat meat, not eat meat, or debate anyone about the ethics of eating animals. That's none of my business.
What I AM suggesting, however, is to become TRULY informed, before rendering a life-altering decision about what you put into your body. Then, living with the consequences of your decision.
This means going beyond the headlines of CNN and Yahoo. It also means going into the opposition's camp with an inquisitive mind and a desire to find what's true for you -- not simply for the sake of being "right."
In closing, no matter what path people follow, I hope they do it with enough information from ALL sides. Then, they become responsible for their own health, rather than abdicating it to others. When we get so entrenched in a position, we become more concerned about being "right" than being "correct." I wish for everyone to thrive.
I cannot believe this is true neither. Fun though to see how tough the discussion has got (: to be ostheopath or not to be (:
Please read and check this site as well:
Copyright ©2012 VegSource Interactive, Inc. Reproduction of material from any VegSource pages without written permission is strictly prohibited.
VEGSOURCE ® is registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office as a trademark of Mostly Magic Productons, Inc.