Since you’ve not provided any evidence on why is this propaganda, I consider it to be just your opinion. Mine is different, I think Nutritionfacts is one of the best sources on this subject available online. Regarding cherry picking – Greger made well over a thousand videos, many quoting multiple studies. That’s a lot of cherries all pointing in one direction… If Greger is biased, what about Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (largest US organisation of this type with over 100k members)?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27886704
Although his website is not the easiest to navigate, the recommendation to supplement with B12 is far from buried considering he made around 10 videos on this alone. He also warned multiple times in other places to supplement B12 if you follow whole food, plant based diet. Other than that, this diet covers everything human body needs, not to mention it can even reverse some chronic diseases.Dragline wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2017 9:51 pmHe just cherry-picks the epidemiological studies that supports his view -- yes, I have looked into this in detail. If you look carefully at that site, you will also find (nicely buried) that even he admits that the diet he recommends is nutrient deficient and requires supplements.
Glad we agree on processed meat then. WFPB doesn’t do other processed foods either.
Why is it important for me to know someone like this and how would I even know their lifestyle to this level of detail? It’s about probabilities of developing an illness and your lifestyle/diet decisions either increase or reduce the chances of contracting the illness. And since there’s nothing you can get from meat, that you can’t get from plants while also avoiding all the dangers of meat, I don’t see any rational reason to take the chance.
What’s wrong in changing recommendations as science advances and new evidence becomes available? And yes, red meat is associated with cancer (it’s in group 2A which in their terminology means there’s strong evidence it’s carcinogenic in humans, but at present it’s not conclusive). For me, that’s enough to stay away, you do as you wish.Dragline wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2017 9:51 pmWHO/IARC now readily backtrack and waffle on their "conclusions", which are routinely mis-cited by the public. In fact, they admit that that their studies as to non-processed red meat is not causal, but merely associative -- meaning that other life factors could be at play. As for the central issue of the OP, WHO punts and offers no conclusion whatsoever, because it ACTUALLY DEPENDS ON OTHER LIFESTYLE FACTORS, McFLY:
"22. Should we be vegetarians?
Vegetarian diets and diets that include meat have different advantages and disadvantages for health. However, this evaluation did not directly compare health risks in vegetarians and people who eat meat. That type of comparison is difficult because these groups can be different in other ways besides their consumption of meat."
These limitations of WHO's review and others are described here: http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/
In other words, what you cited from WHO has no bearing on what is at issue here -- they did not consider it.
I’m not really sure what point are you trying to make. Do you just disregard all the epidemiological studies because there are other factors which could contribute?