"Natural" (plant-based) Health Solutions

That’s a big red flag. It’s not proof that they are quacks - but if they don’t have solid studies backing their claims, then they are.To be fair, I can imagine a whole food diet helping diabetics with managing blood sugar levels, but that’s hardly a surprise.

The big red flag is claiming to treat many diseases with just diet.I note that you don’t offer a clear reference to even one study, and a reduced risk of cancer or heart disease is not the same as improving let alone reversing a patients condition.

No, you have to actually research the studies. If you can’t get enough to do that out of the video, then why should anyone else be able to ?

quote:

---

I do what I'm able to do, if it isn't enough for you I can't do anything about that

---

If you aren’t able to properly evaluate the claims then you shouldn’t be promoting them. And I find it hard to believe that you are incapable of doing better. It’s not exactly difficult to find out that there are questions about the China Study, for instance.The problem, Faith, is that you are gullible. Not that the rest of us aren’t.

You obviously aren’t properly evaluating them. As proven by the fact that you tell us to look at videos or books instead of referring to studies.

quote:

---

I'm properly evaluating it, I expect intelligent people to take my word for it.

---

Expecting intelligent people to be stupid is hardly sensible.How many of these studies have you critically examined ? If you can’t do it yourself have you looked for informed criticism from other sources ?

quote:

---

What you said about questions about the China Study reminded me that science is wrong a lot of the time when it does statistical kinds of studies, which is one reason I don't care a lot about what studies have to say. It's worth noting conclusions they come to but I wouldn't trust them any more than, or even as much as, a good anecdotal account of the effect of eating a certain kind of diet.

---

So, you prefer worse evidence. Statistical tests - when done properly - are pretty much essential in these sort of studies.

quote:

---

In the film I keep mentioning a very earnest government agency dietitian preaches the low fat high protein diet we've all been taking for granted for so many decades. She's wrong but she believes every word she says and she has tons of studies to back her up.

---

In other words she disagrees with the people you have decided to believe and she likely has good evidence.

quote:

---

Putting science on a pedestal hasn't done us much good healthwise for a long time. It's necessary and useful but as I said simple anecdotes may be more trustworthy in some cases

---

And they are often far, far worse. There are reasons why quacks prefer anecdotal evidence. You might want to think about that.

Ah, using ad hominem to cover up the fact that you haven’t investigated the claims properly and use poor standards of evidence.

Yawn. If you sent anything it would be unpleasant I’m sure. And you’ve said you want to hit me more than once. So, I’ll pass. The satisfaction of deflating your false pride again is all,the reward I need.

Oh it isn’t personal at all. That’s just your false pride speaking again. Maybe you should try being a Christian and show a little more humility and concern for the truth.

I was only stating the obvious. I know you want to suppress all criticism. But you would do better not to deserve it in the first place.

quote:

---

Faith, no-one is disputing that some health problems are caused or exacerbated by diet. But just because some problems can be tackled through diet doesn't mean that all are.

​

I agree that most of the diets you're talking about are healthy; I just take issue with the claims of active curative properties, for which I see little evidence, especially in the case of nutritional cancer therapies.

---

Exactly. I’m suspicious of the claims about diabetes, too. Less processed food and less sugar is certainly likely to be good for diabetics, but the only diet-based treatment that seems likely to reverse diabetes (type 2 diabetes, not type 1) is an extremely calorie-restricted diet. It works in mice, and I seem to recall it shows some promise in humans.But proper testing is the key. Anyone who makes claims of cures based only on anecdotes is almost certainly a quack.

quote:

---

Watch Lim's presentation.
Watch Forks over Knives.
Watch What the Health

---

In other words look at the advertising instead of trying to dig into the facts.Why would that be a good idea ?

quote:

---

Because I may not be doing the best job of getting across the necessary information.

---

Looking at the videos is not a good way of getting the necessary information. Digging into the facts is a much better way of doing that. So again, why should we look at videos rather than digging into the facts ?

They seem more about pushing a particular point of view. What the Health sounds especially bad. Try reading this reviewFilm and video is also not a great choice for actually investigating the real facts. And relying on it is probably one reason you have trouble finding - or even naming - studies to support your claims.

Text still beats video for conveying factual information. And if you are going to dismiss sources purely for bias then I guess yours go as well.I say that comparing sources with different biases - and taking the biases into account - is, in fact, far better than only looking at one side.