Have the medical and consumer communities ignored nutrition to the detriment of our health?

I agree.

Indeed. I have no qualms with the drug industry except when it works to the exclusion of nutrition as a major contributor to wellness issues.

My favorite soundbite – good health makes a lot of sense, but it doesn’t make a lot of dollars.

It’s cute – allows for an assumption of conspiracy that I find slightly unsettling, but it’s still a good point.

I heard that MD’s receive one day training in nutrition . They will advocate certain supplements if and only if they’ve been researched. A good friend of mine was told to take fish oil by her doctor then he said to double the dose since it was working so well with her cholesterol !! Her old doctor never mentioned FO, and just kept doubling her meds dose and it never worked.

@Aster – one day!?! That’s even less than I’ve heard. Doesn’t that seem like a ridiculous undereducation for our medical professionals as to how the body works?

It seems like there’s an assumption that it’s drugs or nutrition.

There also don’t really seem to be any significant instances of vitamin, and instances of supplement poisoning seem to be relegated mostly to extreme doses to children or infants, or fetuses, whereas the instances of prescription drug deaths are always on the rise.

You left out the food industry among your culprits.

The medical profession has done very little substantive research into nutrition. Much of our thinking on it dates from the time of Brillat Savarin.

Considering the epidemic of obesity, where are the doctors calling out for more organized exercise, encouraging exercise, asking for smaller plate sizes (plate sizes have increased significantly in this country) and smaller portions in restaurants and food packaging?

As for supplements, don’t get me started. First, there is absolutely no regulations of this industry. There is no assurance that what they say in in the bottle is actually even in the bottle. That is because they have powerful lobbies that whip people up into a frenzy whenever regulation is proposed. A recent study found that : “Using a new and simplified technique, the researchers analyzed 11 products marketed as black cohosh. Three contained the Asian adulterant, and one contained both genuine black cohosh and the Asian imitator. Products containing only black cohosh varied significantly in the amounts of the compounds believed to relieve menopausal symptoms.” Source

The FDA does not herbal supplements. That is why , they claim, they could be very dangerous because we do not regulate them! It just came out today that over 90% of “drug trials that use placebo do not divulge what is in the placebo pill, possibly rendering all past drug trials worthless!! For instance, they could have put sugar in diabetes drug trials. The FDA does not make them tell what’s in their placebos! They can put olive oil in a heart drug trial, for instance, which would scew the results in their favor.
It’s all such a racket and it’s all about the money, people; not about our health. http://www.naturalnews.com/030209_placebo_medical_fraud.html

@marinelife – I inherently include the food industry in consumer communities. You’re right, of course, but considering that the Surgeon General has pointed out the gravity of the problem, the lack of the medical community demanding nutrition alternatives as a #1 priority, and particularly considering that obesity is surpassing smoking as the #1 killer in the U.S., is disturbing.

What’s also amusing is the fact that FDA regulations of supplements push a lot of things that could be marketed in one way into the supplement market, and therefore they get a bad rap with the “bad” supplements.

My concern is not that the supplements will cause harm, but that things that might produce a benefit are relegated to a market because they can’t meet FDA standards to prove worth, and therefore are oddly discredited.

@Aster – FDA regulation should, considering the amount of information potentially available in the market, be relegated to preventing harmful products from getting on the market. And oddly, that appears to be what people generally think that the FDA does rather than understanding that it’s really a gateway now to allow you to market a certain product in a certain way. Scary racket, indeed.

I can’t say how much training Doctors receive in nutrition, though it would probably be a mistake to have a blanket statement, as some probably get more than others, I would suspect. But I know that there are medical nutritionists who specialize in that the way that there are pediatricians and gynecologsts.
I understand that food source nutrients are peferable to supplements because of the composition, which chages or is altered in supplements. For instance; Omega 3 found in fish oil. The sources are not from the best part of the fsh and many sources contain heavy metals that are not desirable at all.
When you say the consumer community, do you include yourself?
I agree that a lot of people make a lot of bad choices in their diets, but I also know that the information is out there and readily available, sometimes adnauseum. I also know that what is considered healthy changes occasionally as new discoveries are made. The bottom line is that fresh, unrpocessed food is generally best, though even that can be suspect, and tainted with things like e-coli. Remember the lettuce a couple years ago?

Yeah, a close friend of mine was just put on prednisone for allergies and she is going nuts. Her husband was given a drug on top of a drug and almost had a breakdown. He was pacing the floor saying , ‘what won’t somebody help me?” They took him off the second drug.

They are supposed to get a minimum of 25 hrs in nutrition. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/16/health/16chen.html But my doctor is always recommending exercise and did a video standing in a gym that is above his office!!

@iamthemob

“the dismissal of raw food movements”

For this one, I think the issue is that raw foodies make a lot of claims that are scientific nonsense. I don’t know anyone who won’t state that eating lots of fresh, raw fruits and veggies (as long as they aren’t contaminated!) is good for you. However, the raw foodies make claims that are simply wildly wrong, such as that you need to eat raw foods to get “enzymes” because many people are “enzyme deficient.” Well, the digestive system thoroughly breaks down proteins into their component amino acids- no enzymes survive the process intact. So this claim is flat-out wrong- yet it keeps being made.

Yes, the raw food diet is very much in question. Thank heavens for that !

“The bottom line is that fresh, unrpocessed food is generally best, though even that can be suspect, and tainted with things like e-coli. Remember the lettuce a couple years ago?”

Indeed – but much of e-coli breakouts seem to be associated not with fresh vegetables per se, but rather vegetables processed or that had come in contact or from ‘fast food’ and CAFO-style food industries.

For years the NIH has given excellent information on a healthy diet. It is there for all to see. Sadly folks choose to make poor choices in their diet. Most folks also know that they need physical exercise but fall far short of what is needed in order to maintain good health. It is so easy for them to point fingers at evil corporations that made them unhealthy.

For most people, there really is no excuse for being over-fat and out of shape.

@crisw

I think the issue is that raw foodies make a lot of claims that are scientific nonsense.

I think you’re completely right – and indeed, always become uncomfortable when blanket, particularly “miracle”, statements are made in the movement. BUT, I also think that those claims are used to discredit the movement as a whole, and are part of a mainstream medical establishments willingness to dismiss any claims from a raw-food perspective.

In so many ways, I think it’s become a marketing and industry issue as opposed to a health issue. Both sides have the best of intentions, but neither seems willing to work with the other. I place the blame mostly on the mainstream medical and marketing establishment not because they shoulder most of the “claim blame,” but because they have the most power to incorporate and acknowledge the valid claims, and research the claims generally, of the other side.

For most people, there really is no excuse for being over-fat and out of shape.

@gondwanalon

But if people who are poor can only get a decent amount of food if the amount of food they get is bad, is there really “no excuse”? If they don’t have time to cook because they are working 12 hour days, and the food available on their block is Popeye’s, Burger King, and the bodega…is there really “no excuse”?

@Trillian – I totally include myself in the problem. But if I can’t afford to buy really good foods all the time, is my choice really “free”?

Personal accountability is a huge factor, you’re right. I wonder at how much we can be held responsible, however, when affordability comes into the picture…if I can’t afford to really eat well, or it’s so tempting to eat cheaply, how many options do I really have?

@iamthemob

It isn’t the medical establishment’s fault that people choose fast food over healthy food when both are available.

We have evolved as animals that crave high-energy foods, because for most of our evolutionary history such foods were scarce. Our primate brains don’t know how to handle surplus very well.

@crisw

You can’t say that it isn’t the medical establishment’s fault. However, to say that it’s not solely or even primarily it’s fault, that’s valid. It’s also why I included the consumer community as part of the problem.

I think that it’s problematic, however, that the medical establishment doesn’t have a more vocal presence in nutrition over most other forms of health-related issue. I can’t remember the last time I went to a doctor and he or she made a major issue of my diet – and it’s probably because I am a fairly athletic looking person, but that’s exercise.

This is my issue – and I’m not trying to lay blame or accuse you – but your first reactions are not to recognize a responsibility but (1) discredit the other side, and (2) shift the blame to another industry. Isn’t it the responsibility of all sides to recognize how they most contribute to the detriment of U.S. health?

I don’t know dude. I’m not an MD, but I feel like they suggest a healthy diet and exercise pretty frequently. The oncology clinic I collaborate with has a handout with ten things you can do to keep your cancer from recurring, and one of them is to eat a healthy, balanced diet. This is something that every patient gets on every return visit while in remission and is discussed at every appointment.

What exactly are you looking for from the medical community that would satisfy you?

edit—come to think of it, the last time I went to the gynecologist for a yearly checkup, she too asked about my diet and exercise.

@nikipedia

one of them is to eat a healthy, balanced diet. This is something that every patient gets on every return visit while in remission and is discussed at every appointment.

This is a good point. It has nothing to do with what would satisfy me, but rather whether work is being done, and in an appropriate measure. For instance, where is the information about a healthy, balanced diet coming from? If there is only 25 hours minimum of nutrition training through four years of medical school, is this an appropriate source for what is a healthy diet? Is the concern solely about the type of food or also where the foods come from? Is there information on getting your vegetables locally or fresh as opposed to frozen or canned, where nutrients may be lossed?

And is this valid? Is it true to say that we lose half of the nutrients in food five days after it’s been produced? And what are the value of superfoods in the equation?

The problem is the vague nature of the information that we get about food, as opposed to the specific information we get about drugs.

“This is a good point. It has nothing to do with what would satisfy me, but rather whether work is being done, and in an appropriate measure.”
I believe the FDA has that pretty well sewn up. A regular MD cannot possibly keep abreast of all the new studies in every area of medicine. There are just too many areas of expertse. This is why they rely on government agencies who devote all their time and energy to this issue. The same goes for the CDC. A doctor can read up if there is an outbreak, but otherwise, there is just too much information out there. A regular MD has enough to do to keep current with general medical information, drugs and drug interactions.

@Trillian – absolutely true. The wealth of information seems, ironically, to be part of the problem. We rely more on more on people we know less and less about to sort out the good information from the bad.

But if it’s generally accepted that diet is a fundamental part of wellness, why isn’t that the primary focus of the medical community? No judgment, just a question.

@iamthemob: Not to be a dick, but not everyone’s pet issue can get the full attention we want it to get in medical school. For instance, my research pertains to women’s health, and there has recently been a movement to include this in the curriculum, which makes me happy, but at the cost of what else? Med students are already so overworked—the ones I know are chronically sleep-deprived and they have high rates of depression and burnout… putting more on their plate (har har) seems unfair.

Many states do require Continuing Medical Education credits for MDs to stay licensed, so that might be one good way to get nutrition education in.

Drugs are a lot easier to give specific information about because there is really only one variable: the drug. Diet is so much more complex—within each food item there are dozens if not hundreds of variables: vitamins and minerals, sugars, proteins, fats, the ratio of these things to one another, the time of day you eat them, caloric value… not to mention subject compliance and accuracy of reporting.

I don’t think it’s fair to put nutrition research itself on the medical community unless you’re specifically including research in the life sciences as part of the medical community. And I do think a great deal of research is being done by research scientists in this field—if you search “nutrition” in google scholar and limit results just to 2010, there are 16,400 article returned.

So it has been my experience that this is a very important issue being researched and promoted heavily on all sides.

@nikipedia

Not to be a dick, but not everyone’s pet issue can get the full attention we want it to get in medical school.

I don’t know if that’s you being a dick, but I don’t think it’s a “pet issue.” If you’re google search is accurate, then it’s a significant and fundamental issue.

My problem is not that no attention is being paid, but less attention than should, and more attention to drugs – which are patented and profitable – than should.

If every doctor is really really focused on making sure you’re eating right, shouldn’t the data they have be as accurate as possible? I’ve heard that doctors state that vitamin supplements aren’t necessary…is that true? Consider this overview of supplements, which includes the statement: “In only a few cases are vitamin and mineral supplements really necessary.”

What’s the danger in suggesting diet supplements at all?

As a lawyer subject to CLE (legal) much like CME requirements, I think that’s a really, really good suggestion – the problem I wonder about is whether medical much like legal professionals are inclined to go for continuing ed that will make their practice more profitable, which is a question clear on the legal side as business versus, let’s say, asylum CLE will be better attended, as you have to invest your money and you want pay back.

@iamthemob: Diet and exercise are a great way to maintain your health and prevent illness, but by the time you’re seeing a doctor, there’s not much they can fix. Drugs, on the other hand, are designed to intervene at that point.

As far as I know, if you eat a healthy, balanced diet, supplements really and truly are not necessary. So I don’t see any reason for doctors to recommend them except in extreme cases, e.g., iron supplements for anemia—which I believe doctors readily do.

Diet and exercise are a great way to maintain your health and prevent illness, but by the time you’re seeing a doctor, there’s not much they can fix. Drugs, on the other hand, are designed to intervene at that point.

I think that’s part of the issue – doctors, ironically, much in the same way as lawyers, are provided an incentive to withhold information until you need them. I’m NOT saying this is a conspiracy, but in cases where you’re an expert and you’re needed only when there is a problem.

You should be seeing a doctor every six months or so to make sure you’re all good – shouldn’t there be suggestions on continuing health or ways to make yourself healthier even when there’s no problem?

It’s odd – I see it as being backwards in both the medical and legal industries.

Getting in on this discussion late, but your question presupposes two facts that are not in evidence:

1) Supplements are good for you.
2) Raw food is good for you.

I say that both are NOT in evidence and therefore the question is flawed. The FDA is opposed to supplements because they are unregulated and you can’t be sure what you’re getting. The supplement industry is a multibillion dollar unscrupulous industry who are out to make a buck on consumer fears and unfounded claims.

Cris already effectively discussed the raw food nonsense.

@Aster “I heard that MD’s receive one day training in nutrition”. I’m an MD and that statement is absolute bullshit.

@Rarebear

You make some extremely broad statements, and it evidences the fact that you haven’t read the thread. Please look again, as this isn’t about supplements, raw food, or anything specifically, and you also haven’t stated anything to contradict @Aster or provide contrary sources.

This is the problem – you are shifting responsibility rather than demonstrating what is being done about nutrition for the benefit of citizen’s health. I actually, despite the fact that I don’t want to get into a flaming issue, wonder what you’re afraid of that you seem to characterize the other argument rather than present one of your own.

@iamthemob I read the question and responded to the question. And yes, I did read the thread. If you see what I wrote about Cris you’ll see I agreed with her.

@Aster made a “I heard that…” statement. She heard wrong. I’m the medical director of nutritional services at my hospital and I’ve received extensive training in nutrition. Our medical residents also get extensive training both inpatient and outpatient in various aspects of nutrition. It really pisses me off when people make generalizations about physicians that are blatant lies.

@Aster also pointed to this, so she didn’t just hear it, she supported it.

You can agree with Cris – that’s fine. But that doesn’t mean you’ve supported anything, and no generalizations have been made without support. Provide counter-support and your statements will carry weight. Being pissed off doesn’t carry any weight, particularly when we are trying to get at real answers from all sides, and specifically I asked the medical community to weigh in, and have not placed the entire problem on their shoulders.

React intelligently, and not emotionally.

The medical community isn’t knowledgeable about nutrition and considers it unimportant, in my opinion. As far as consumerism…any player in that game ignores or lauds it for a reason and that is profit…people are stuck between poison and uber organic expensives while the two play games…lose weight, gain health is big business. This topic is near to my heart, tried to get at it here but didn’t get many satisfactory responses.

You seem to have encountered the same problems I am here, @Simone_De_Beauvoir. Thanks for the link – all should read it.

@iamthemob Sure thing, :)

@Rarebear geez you don’t have to get all snippy . LOL ! I was wrong ; it’s 25 hours. Sorreeeee

(@Aster – slightly over one day. ;-))

@Aster

He had every right to “get snippy”- but he didn’t. He simply pointed out that, once again, you are wrong. And what he said about blatant lies was right on target.

You have made many “I heard that” statements that turn out to be false, and you are continuously bashing everything having to do with modern medicine, rationality and science. It doesn’t help your credibility any.

Nutrition is a contentious and important issue, and access to reliable, researched information is vital. Using physicians as targets for misplaced vitriol is indefensible; but using incorrect information to do so is even more reprehensible.

@crisw – @Rarebear stated: “I’m an MD and that statement is absolute bullshit.”

That seems the definition of “snippy.”

“Using physicians as targets for misplaced vitriol is indefensible; but using incorrect information to do so is even more reprehensible.”

I don’t think physicians specifically have been targeted at all. The comments by @Aster are directed more at medical education than anything.

@iamthemob

In these days of managed care, most people don’t exactly get to sit down and chat for hours with their physicians. I am not understanding why you place the blame on them. Especially because (as is obvious from the plethora of questions here having to do with health issues where doctors are roundly disparaged) most people don’t listen to their doctors- even when they give the information that you are looking for.

Why do you place so much burden on the doctors?

For the record, my doctor ALWAYS mentions diet and exercise when I talk to him- but I am the one who is responsible for actually following the recommendations- not him.

@iamthemob

“That seems the definition of “snippy.””

No, it seems to be to be a true statement. Bluntness is quite different from snippiness.

@crisw

“I am not understanding why you place the blame on them.”

Please indicate where I have placed blame on physicians. If I have done so clearly, and not specifically the opposite, or asked that some blame be recognized as opposed to placing “the blame” on anyone, then your comments will be valid. Otherwise, you’re just being snippy. ;-)

@crisw Yeah, and I said my doctor emphasizes exercise. So there. (stomps foot)

snippy ;-)

It doesn’t help your credibility any.
Oh, dear . I don’t have any cwedability.

@iamthemob

Statements like these:

“both communities have contributed in a detrimental fashion to our health generally”

“Doesn’t that seem like a ridiculous undereducation for our medical professionals as to how the body works? It seems like there’s an assumption that it’s drugs or nutrition.”

“You can’t say that it isn’t the medical establishment’s fault.”

“I can’t remember the last time I went to a doctor and he or she made a major issue of my diet”

“My problem is not that no attention is being paid, but less attention than should, and more attention to drugs – which are patented and profitable – than should.”

“I think that’s part of the issue – doctors, ironically, much in the same way as lawyers, are provided an incentive to withhold information until you need them.”

@crisw Wow! You put a lot of work into that one! Good job!

An op-ed essay piece by one physician does not constitute proof of a generalization of all physician training, and to say it is is a logical fallacy of grand proportion. I told you about what we do in our residency program. I don’t have the time nor inclination to type out the entire curriculum for you.

Another fallacy is to assume that physician get all their training and then stop in medical school and residency. Any physician worth her salt knows how to use the Cochrane Database, Dynamed, Up To Date, Pubmed, and other resources to answer clinical questions. That’s called using science or evidenced based medicine. Any physician who does NOT use evidenced based medicine to make clinical decisions is a physician you really want to avoid.

Someone on this thread (I’m on an airplane typing this now so I don’t have access to the poster) mentioned CME courses. Yes, there are CME courses, and many on nutrition, but you have to take CME courses with a huge grain of salt. A CME course is simply getting credit for a lecture given by another physician who may or may not know more about the subject matter than you do. That physician will look at some papers, and then boil the subject matter down to a few Powerpoint slides. That physician will usually have an opinion on the subject matter and will infuse their opinion into the presentation. (And I say this through experience. I travel around the country giving CME presentations so I know of which I speak). I’d much rather go to a physician who never goes to CME courses but keeps up on evidenced based reading rather than vice versa.

You have avoided my initial point, that you’ve assumed facts not in evidence. Your question makes the implication that raw food and nutrition therapy (like vitamin therapy) are good things. It is up to you to prove the positive—it’s not up to me to prove the negative. Sharing news reports, opinion pieces, and anecdotes do not do that. Showing the results of a Cochrane analysis does.

But I do agree with you on one point—this has gotten me uncharacteristically upset (for reasons that are personal and completely unrelated to this question). So I’ll stop following this question and let Cris, who is much more on an even emotional keel right now, take the lead again.

@crisw

Way to edit!

”it seems that both communities have contributed in a detrimental fashion to our health generally.”

Not an assertion, and also shows that both contribute in their own ways, which means neither is solely to blame. No support.

“Doesn’t that seem like a ridiculous undereducation for our medical professionals as to how the body works? It seems like there’s an assumption that it’s drugs or nutrition.”

Again, aimed at the education of the community. Also, not aimed at physicians. No support.

“You can’t say that it isn’t the medical establishment’s fault.”

Followed by However, to say that it’s not solely or even primarily it’s fault, that’s valid. Therefore, stating that the blame was not solely on one side. Also, not aimed at physicians, but all parties. No support.

“I can’t remember the last time I went to a doctor and he or she made a major issue of my diet”

This was a personal observation. Indeed, it does point at the physicians, but again, doesn’t place blame on them This at least provides some support. But really? ;-) Please, you know that this is dishonest in the context.

“My problem is not that no attention is being paid, but less attention than should, and more attention to drugs – which are patented and profitable – than should.”

No mention of physicians. Admitting that attention is being paid, but stating that maybe more should be. All qualified statements. No support.

“I think that’s part of the issue – doctors, ironically, much in the same way as lawyers, are provided an incentive to withhold information until you need them.”

This is a critique of the professions – and in it, I critique my own profession as much. It’s a commentary on the business side of it as opposed to physicians generally. No support.

You have selected parts of sentences and decontextualized others in a way that demonstrates nothing about either side of the argument. All of the above were made in the context of “where are the real problems” and not about blaming one side or the other. If you interpreted them that way, you should perhaps re-read.

@Rarebear

Your question makes the implication that raw food and nutrition therapy (like vitamin therapy) are good things. It is up to you to prove the positive—it’s not up to me to prove the negative.

Nope. It simply asked a question. If you’re answer is no, that’s fine. If you don’t want to support it, that’s fine. But I’m not trying to prove anything. I’m wondering.

It’s amazing that you place yourself in the position of privilege here. If your answer is no, support it. If you decline to do so, personally, I will afford it the weight it deserves.

Please remember the difference between a question and an assertion.

What ever happened to personal responsibility? My former doctor used to pass out nutrition guides regularly, and he frequently referred patients to a dietician/nutritionist. He held monthly seminars in his office.

We are currently members of Kaiser, and they send me nutrition/diet/exercise e-mails every week. They have provided my own, person chart to keep track of my progress with diet and exercise, and an e-mail comes in once a month asking me update it.

@iamthemob I said “most people” have no excuse for the physical condition they are in. And that is so sad. Most people know what junk foods are and they know that they don’t exercise nearly as much as they need to. Then when they reach my age (60) and are in terrible shape due mostly to the years of abuse to their body by poor diet and a sedentary lifestyle they turn to doctors to heal them. But that is not likely to happen. Also some folks are worse off still through the use of tobacco, alcohol and other recreational drugs.

I still work full time (with some >12 hour shifts with weekends and late evenings) I always make time to give my body the exercise that it needs. I jogged 2 marathons, 2 half marathons and a triathlon this year. In January 2011 I’m jog another marathon and in April 2011 I’ll do Boston. I never get sick (and when I do, I never admit it-HA!). Life is good when you take responsibility for and control of your own health.

@gondwanalon

I think that stating “most people,” however, advocates a position where we’re not taking into account what influences and limitations actually take place in a person’s life. If a pound of cheap ground beef is cheaper than the same amount of vegetables, not only will you eat that, but you might eat it to the exclusion of vegetables. Simple example, and not representative exactly, but when we consider the (1) availability of food, (2) the price of it, (3) whether there is a single-earner in the house, (4) the number of dependents, (5) the education level, (6) the job market, (7) the cost of maintaining a home, then it might very well be that a person is unable to afford anything but the unhealthy alternative, and doesn’t have health insurance to see a doctor to tell them how to live properly.

And when a person’s only luxury may be a cheeseburger, that as @crisw pointed out we’re at a strange evolutionary disadvantage because we produce sugars and salts that we crave in abundance when they occur rarely in nature and therefore are not programmed to “shut down” our cravings, and that two hours of television may be the only relief they get…can we really say that “most people” have no excuse?

@YARNLADY

As to personal responsibility, see above. I agree in personal responsibility – but it may be that situations outside your control actually do contribute more to poor health rather than your own real choices.

I do think that “wellness programs” are a good step in the right direction, and that it sounds like you have an awesome one.

@YARNLADY

I have Kaiser too, I agree with you that they are very active in the prevention department!

Well, I find it interesting that you continue to totally evade my point. It’s up to the person that makes an assertion to prove the assertion to the positive. I assume the null hypothesis. Show me a placebo controlled, double blinded, randomized controlled trial that “vitamin therapy” or raw meat makes a clinical difference in morbidity or mortality in patients who are otherwise completely healthy, and I’ll pay attention. There are clinical indications for certain specific vitamins in certain specific clinical diseases, but that’s not what I’m talking about here.

@iamthemob

Your question is “iHave the medical and consumer communities ignored nutrition to the detriment of our health?”

The answer is “No.”

Nothing you have provided gives any evidence of any other answer being truthful.

It’s up to the person that makes an assertion to prove the assertion to the positive.

Indeed. If I had made an assertion, I would attempt to prove it. Your interpretations that I have made an assertion about “vitamin therapy” or “raw meat” are incorrect.

My concern, as I’ve expressed, has been more in the realm of dismissal or acts of omission (not schooling or making information readily available regarding what a person should or how they should be eating). Again, that’s a concern, not an assertion.

I do love how you seem to constantly frame my inquiries as assertions, though I am getting tired of it.

@crisw

Why not? And neither have done so?

Fine. And I’m getting tired how you say stuff like this:

“the reaction against supplements (from the medical community including specifically the FDA), and the dismissal of raw food movements, it seems that both communities have contributed in a detrimental fashion to our health generally.”

What I object to is your statement that “it seems” that the FDA and the medical community are contributing “in a detrimental fashion to our health generally.” with the implication that they’re doing so by their “dismissal” of the raw food movement and their “reaction” against supplements. Your words, not mine.

Really? You feel that the medical community and FDA are contributing detrimentally to your health? Really? Tell me how I’m misinterpreting your statement.

@Rarebear – In that sense, personally, I wanted to know whether there was information that I was missing. I also asked if there was real science suggesting we shouldn’t be paying attention to vitamin content in our diet. And indeed, it seems that, as you are proving, the medical community does seem to dismiss alternative diet information, or at least aren’t giving all the information.

I’m ASKING for information, rather than assuming something based on the sources I’ve looked at. I BELIEVE that the medical community appears to take a “trust us, we’re doctors” mentality rather than providing for diet along with standard treatment methods. I endeavored to include that I am totally pro drug therapy, but wonder why we get served crap food in a hospital.

I WONDER if this is the case, and wonder if there aren’t benefits we’re missing. If you don’t want to help, though, you may exit the thread.

If you do, glad to hear it. ;-) I just ask you stop being snippy. Really.

You’re not just ASKING. You made two grossly misleading statements that I’m going to continue to press you on until you either a) Agree that that’s what you meant. or b) Say that you made a mistake in your wording.

The medical community doesn’t just “believe” or not. The medical community provides medical advice based upon best evidence. If that best evidence is vitamin therapy, then fine. Vitamin therapy it is. But there HAS to be evidence. You don’t just say, “Oh, I think I’ll give some vitamin C because what’s the harm? You give a medical therapy if there is evidence that the medical therapy works. Period.

I reserve the right to be snippy. My sister just died. Deal with it.

@Rarebear – and you’ve grossly misstated what I’ve said without looking at the whole thread, once again. If you want to interpret it that way, fine. I’ve not accused the medical community of anything. I’ll leave it at that.

@iamthemob How can I “grossly misstate” your own words?” You said, “it seems that both communities have contributed in a detrimental fashion to our health generally.”

Or did you not write that?

No. We have.

Nobody shoves the food down your throat folks.

@Rarebear – surely I said that! However, if you would read through the whole thread, and note that in that line above, I said both communities (of which physicians are a small, small part in the public sense, and includes the insurance, regulatory, and big pharma side of things as well as Monsanto and various other FDA-influencing and poor marketing influences), you’ll see that you can quote, then paraphrase, take things out of context, and it ends up being the same effect as misstating.

If you don’t understand my question, or even if you think you do, I would appreciate you responding to the question rather than stating the implied assertions and demanding proof. Until you do, I can’t really believe you have anything productive to add to the conversation.

@Blondesjon

We have contributed in our own ways, true – but if you look at the discussions on personal responsibility, that doesn’t mean that other industries aren’t contributing in a fashion to. The idea of saying “It’s a personal responsibility thing” is a simple solution that ignores a lot of the real limitations in people’s choices and the information they’re given.

I haven’t read the whole thread (I will), but let me jump in on the side of the medical community. Most of the confusion over nutrition is based on the fanciful psuedo-science that companies hoist on unsuspecting hippies.

Statements like: “The bottom line is that fresh, unrpocessed food is generally best” are much of the problem. This just sounds so true that it is assumed to be so. Of course, it isn’t. Generally speaking, produce grown with pesticides is healthier than food grown without them. Generally speaking food with preservatives is healthier than food without them. It is called the “Naturalistic Fallacy” and seems to be the dominant argument in the nutritional debate despite there being no evidence to support it.

@iamthemob You specifically mention supplements and vitamins. Science has yet to find any efficacy for these things. There is no nutritional value to taking vitamins or dietary supplements. More importantly, people who take them often feel that it is a valid reason not to get a vitamin rich diet so, at least anecdotally, taking vitamins and supplements can be harmful to your health.

The fault for American obesity and general unhealthiness comes from a number of sources including our sedintary lifestyle, our love of fast food, the merciless bombadment of misinformation about health and our propensity for doing the worst types of exercise imaginable (compare weight lifting or push ups to cycling, swimming or even rearranging your furniture), but it is certainly unfair (and uninformed) to lump the medical industry in with all the scam artist and BSers.

Generally speaking, produce grown with pesticides is healthier than food grown without them. Generally speaking food with preservatives is healthier than food without them. It is called the “Naturalistic Fallacy” and seems to be the dominant argument in the nutritional debate despite there being no evidence to support it.

That I haven’t heard at all – I would love to see some links on that.

More importantly, people who take them often feel that it is a valid reason not to get a vitamin rich diet so, at least anecdotally, taking vitamins and supplements can be harmful to your health.

That’s a good point, and one that hasn’t been raised yet. But does that mean that there isn’t a way to make up for a less enriched diet if one, arguably, can’t take the time to actually pay good attention to what they’re eating (let’s just accept that they have an acceptable argument ;-)).

The fault for American obesity and general unhealthiness comes from a number of sources including our sedintary lifestyle, our love of fast food, the merciless bombadment of misinformation about health and our propensity for doing the worst types of exercise imaginable (compare weight lifting or push ups to cycling, swimming or even rearranging your furniture), but it is certainly unfair (and uninformed) to lump the medical industry in with all the scam artist and BSers.

I don’t think it’s unfair, again, to place blame where it should be placed. Obviously, the majority of the blame should rest on those, essentially, conditioning an unhealthy lifestyle. But the medical community participates in this to some extent actively (if we consider the revolving K Street/Capital Hill employment relationship between Monsanto and the FDA as an example). My main concern is that there doesn’t seem to be a significant enough “proper diet” push in a smart way by the rest of the medical community, and we rest on treatment rather than prevention, which results in billions in lost health care cost.

It’s kind of like looking at unemployment and crime statistics from an education perspective. If people got proper education we might solve a lot of societal ills. If people got a proper diet in an affordable way, we’d have less diabetes, etc.

@iamthemob: I have to ask you again, what would be “enough”? What are you looking for? Like I told you (anecdotally) every doctor I can remember going to and the doctors I work with have specifically emphasized nutrition as a preventative measure. What else do you want?

@nikipedia – if I had a clear idea what was enough…then I wouldn’t have asked the question.

@iamthemob: Okay, then what else are you looking for other than doctors asking about nutrition and emphasizing its importance during yearly checkups and procedures wholly unrelated to diet-based problems?

@iamthemob

OK, so see if I get this. The poor eat unhealthy foods. The poor are likely to be uninsured and never see a doctor except in the emergency room. Yet doctors are supposed to educate these people so they don’t eat unhealthy foods?

@iamthemob Here is a link regarding organic foods. This is a blog post from Dr. Steven Novella, one of earth’s smartest people. Here is another from a less reputable source (but it seemed at a skim that the science was sound).

As far as your notion that we should accept that vitamin pushers have an “acceptable” argument, I strongly urge you to do some research on the subject. Vitamin supplements are 100% useless for virtually every person in the world. The vast majority of the active ingredient is passed in your urine and the rest cannot metabolize usefully in the absence of the types of enzymes present in the foods we usually get our vitamins from.

The notion that people can supplement a bad diet by taking vitamins is precisely why they are so dangerous. There are a number of good articles on the subject, though I only had a few seconds to grab them. (pauses to give crisw a GA)

The problem is a mixture of misinformation and people who are willing to swallow it like a freaking vitamin. I think you’re going out of your way to smear the blame on a much larger swath of the public sector than is needed. The medical industry is hardly to blame. Keep in mind that the FDA is not part of the medical industry, but rather part of the government and is thus subject to pressure from the voting populace as well.

@crisw

The poor are likely to be uninsured and never see a doctor except in the emergency room. Yet doctors are supposed to educate these people so they don’t eat unhealthy foods?

YES! Why not? Lawyers should be expected to assist poor people who would never be able to afford them through pro bono programs and law school outreach programs like “street law” – why shouldn’t doctors work to improve the health of all?

@crazyivan -“As far as your notion that we should accept that vitamin pushers have an “acceptable” argument”

Yes, that’s just what I said. It’s funny, because I’m personally generally distrustful of vitamin supplements generally as my concern is that, more often, any “supplement” isn’t absorbed by the body (as you later mention).

My problem is still with the fact that there seem to be “supplement scare tactics” -well, an inability to separate the misinformation from the information in a way which really helps us to make well-informed decisions – which group food-derived supplements or discussions regarding superfood supplements (whole foods, mind you) with chemically-derived or “sports supplements,” etc. I think it’s a good point to state that the fact that vitamin supplements might be useless could actually be dangerous if people use them to replace a full and nutritious diet.

“I think you’re going out of your way to smear the blame on a much larger swath of the public sector than is needed.”

Thanks! I didn’t know that I had a greater purpose, but I’m always glad when you attribute a cause to me! I should get a cape….

“Keep in mind that the FDA is not part of the medical industry, but rather part of the government and is thus subject to pressure from the voting populace as well.”

That’s why I said medical community. Keep in mind that I’m not leveling blame at any one particular area.

No, but you’re certainly resisting any attempt anyone makes to exonerate a particular area. Hell, you just got done telling crisw that doctors should be expected to chase down poor people that aren’t under their treatment and lecture them on proper diet…

(1) everyone carries some of the blame, so no one can be exonerated. (2) I said doctors should be expected to educate poor people not under their direct care as part of their goal of improving human health, which is different than what you said I said.

I’m not alone in that, either: the AMA Code of Ethics states that, “A physician shall recognize a responsibility to participate in activities contributing to an improved community,”

@iamthemob Again, I did read through the whole thread. And by cutting and pasting your entire original post, I am not quote mining. Quote mining is when you take things out of context and twist them to your own purposes. I am merely restating what you said.

You said, “However, after looking into some of the information, including the increase in U.S. obesity, the reaction against supplements (from the medical community including specifically the FDA), and the dismissal of raw food movements, it seems that both communities have contributed in a detrimental fashion to our health generally.” (Not quote mining).

I asked you to clarify.
You evade
I ask you to clarify again.
You accuse me of misstating.
I say I’m just rewriting what you wrote.
You say you did write that, but that I’m misstating it. (basically accusing me of quote mining.)

Let me ask you a simple binary yes/no question.
Do you believe that the medical community is contributing detrimental fashion to our health?

Yes or no.

@Rarebear I’ve been in enough debates with @iamthemob now to know that evading and mischarecterizing the positions of others is essentially all he has in his quiver.

@iamthemob As for the BS of “everybody carries the blame so nobody can be exonerated”, I hope you recognize that what you are saying here is that you’ve placed yourself and your “expertise” over everyone else in the world. Nobody but you is smart enough or learned enough to contribute anything to this conversation because, according to you, on your own authority and with no evidence to back you up, you’ve decided that everyone, even the groups that fight the hardest to solve a problem, will all share in the blame.

The “raw food” gurus and the supplement/snake oil salesman lie to people, misprepresent their products, discourage people from making effective choices, foster doubt in science, convolute the internet with misinformation and directly contribute to the problem you’re talking about.

The medical community does none of the things listed above. Further, as a community it is actively trying to solve the problem and doing more than any other group. I dare say that the lowest person on the medical community totem pole has done more to fight obesity in this country that the highest one on the “alternative food/naturopathic” pole.

@Rarebear – Yes.

@crazyivan – Thanks. But I’ve only placed myself above everyone who denies blame for contributing in any negative fashion to our health generally. I’ve also specifically recognized my own negative contribution.

The “raw food” gurus and the supplement/snake oil salesman lie to people, misprepresent their products, discourage people from making effective choices, foster doubt in science, convolute the internet with misinformation and directly contribute to the problem you’re talking about.

The medical community does none of the things listed above.

If you think that members of the medical community has never lied, misrepresented, or discouraged people from making effective choices, and directly contribute to the problem, you are underinformed.

The way you are generalizing the argument (as I’ve learned is essentially all you seem to have in your quiver) is part of the problems still. Rather than one side attempting to discredit the other community as a whole, why are there not any more public discussions cooperating to attempt to find valid and scientifically demonstrated methods to more effectively improve the nutritional side of our health.

It’s not BS to say that everybody carries the blame. To say so demonstrates how ignorant you actually are.

Good job generalizing in paragraph 2 and then faulting me for doing it in paragraph 3. I was talking about the community (which is abundantly clear in the quip you extracted). The raw food gurus, etc as a whole do those things. It’s all they do. It’s why they exist. It’s the only thing that keeps them in existence.

Individuals within the medical community certainly lie. I never said they didn’t, I never implied they didn’t and I never implied that I said they didn’t. The community as a whole, however, is governed by strict scientific standard, peer review and double blind testing. The same is not true of the naturopathic community.

So nice try… well, actually, no, pathetic attempt, but zero points. If the problem is that the ship is sinking it is BS to fault the guys caulking it for not caulking fast enough. The problem is with the person who poked the holes in the hull (and continue to do so).

You could either advance your argument by making a new point, or you could basterdize it by misrepresenting the criticisms of others while actively avoiding responding to them. I’m guessing you go with option B.

(And get your own snide jabs)

@crazyivan – I generalized in the initial question, tried to break it down in the details, and have been attempting to do so further as we go through the thread. If you are going to assert that the raw food gurus, as a whole, always lie, you’d better back that up with clear, scientifically verifiable proof that not one person who has advocated a raw food diet has ever told the truth.

Nice try on your side. I’m going to go with option B, you’re right. Maybe for the first time. ;-)

So if I’m talking about the institution of medicine, why would I be talking about every single raw food guru?

I can’t help but wonder if you are capable of making a point at all without adding a ridiculously loaded straw man like “clear, scientifically verifiable proof that not one person who has advocated a raw food diet has ever told the truth”. Obviously I never said anything remotely like that. Shouldn’t that be a red flag in your own mind that you are on the wrong side of this? If you can’t even reflect my point without adding all kinds of modifiers and absolutes, doesn’t that tell you that you have insufficient rebuttal?

There is no scientific standard in “hippie-diet-guru-world”. There are no double blind tests. There is no peer review. Once again, you’ve simply misconstrued my argument while avoiding defending your point. What was the purpose of responding at all?

It has taken society 50 years to expose nicotine as an substance causing addiction.

It will take society another 10 years to expose fast food and certain flavor enhancers as substances causing obesity and other serious health risks.

@mattbrowne great answer, but I think it is a cautionary tale in more ways than one. The overwhelming consensus of science throughout the last seventy years has been that smoking is a terrible burden on one’s health. This was kept hidden and unclear through continuous efforts at balancing correct information with contrived information.

The tobacco companies made concerted efforts to push bogus science as legitimate and even when the media should have known better, they reported both sides of this illusory controversy. You can see the same thing happening right now with global warming and (to a lesser extent) second hand smoke.

Hopefully we will eventually learn to trust the consensus of science instead of listening to individual scientists with conflicts of interest.

@crazyivan Thanks. I’m glad it’s not just me
@iamthemob Okay. So we’ve established that you feel that the medical communities are contributing negatively to our health (which, contradicts the first thing you said in the OP, but I’ll let that go. I’ll also not ask you for evidence to back up this statement because I’m feeling generous).

What I really want to know from you is that if you feel that medical communities are contributing negatively to our health, who do you feel is contributing positively?

@Rarebear – the medical community (but not, generally, the consumer one).

Okay, now I’m confused. The medical community is contributing negatively to our health but the medical community is contributing positively to our health?

First two sentences in the details:

I fully believe that medical science has done a significant amount to extend our lives and make us healthier when dealing with specific illnesses. I don’t have the same faith when it comes to the consumer culture.

Communities easily contribute in both a positive and negative manner. I make no claim as to the overall negative or positive contribution (although I fully believe that the medical community has, of course, contributed in a much more positive fashion than negative one).

Two steps forward and one step back, for example (although I would argue that for the medical community generally (outside specific business and government interests within it) that it’s more of a five steps forward and one step back scenario).

You’re not confused at all – except maybe in assuming that it must be (or I think it must be) either one or the other.

@crazyivan – Good point. I agree.

I agree with you.
I eat whole foods. I eat lean organic or minimally processed chicken, wild fish, nuts,seeds, fruits and vegetables .
I don’t eat processed junk or chemical food.

All food is made of chemicals.

All chemicals should not be considered food.

Whole foods are chemical free. They come out of the ground not a box.
I don’t eat genetically altered food.

Nothing tangible is chemical free. If it is an object with mass exists, it is made of chemicals.

And good luck with that not eating GM foods thing. It’s not like they’re labeled. There’s no real way for a consumer to know that they’re eating genetically modified foods. The organic label has nothing to do with GM.

And Iamthemob, the people who think that die out pretty quickly when they encounter all natural arsenic.

@crazyivan – Think what?

@philosopher

“I don’t eat genetically altered food.”

Wow- what do you eat, then?

The entire process of domestication has involved genetic alterations.

@crisw

The entire process of evolution has involved genetic alterations.

Really – these catty comments about these statements are getting ridiculous. You know what @philosopher means when stating GM. If you want to flesh out a topic, do so. I’m getting tired of this bullshit.

@crisw
I buy organic and minimally processed .
Whole Foods has great food, Shoprite and Stop and Shop have organic sections.
Even Costco has food with out chemicals.
I prepare my own males.
Who can eat as you like.
My health is find and I am over forty. I am thin and fit.
You obviously don’t have a clue.
Your fooling yourself if you think it does not matter.
Your nasty attitude shows that you are obviously insecure.
You are actually laughable.
Do as you like I couldn’t care less.

@philosopher‘s reaction is wholly understandable now. And that’s why I’m getting tired of this bullshit. I don’t see the point of the way the comments at @philosopher were phrased, when it was clear what the user was trying to get at.

There are things to be careful about when we talk about organics, etc. But when you all start going at it like you did, this is what happens. I feel like there’s only one way I can respond to @crisw‘s and @crazyivan‘s comments above: grow up and talk about what you want to like adults.

@iamthemob
I agree.
I am aware that sometimes things are labeled organic but are not.
I work hard to maintain good health despite that I have a stressful life.
I have even surprised my Doctor.
I think people are entitled to eat as they choose but; if they become ill because of their bad judgment we shouldn’t be asked to pay for their health care.
This why everyone should be taught the right way to eat.
I have had women say mean things to me because I am thin and that is how crisw sounds.

@iamthemob “I’m getting tired of this bullshit.” Then stop following the question. Cris is right. Domestication and breeding is genetic modification.

@philosopher Wow. You must be a pretty insecure person for all the insults you just hurled at @crisw. I hope you feel better now.

@Rarebear – Oh, I think you misinterpret what I mean by “tired.” By tired, I mostly mean I’m not really going to hold my tongue publicly at this point. I go through cycles on that bit, as do many of us.

This isn’t about whether the statement is objectively right. It is. I said it was. But @crisw knew what @philosopher was saying, and could have commented on it.

I would say that @crisw is more insecure than @philosopher in this case. If she wanted to be informative, she could have. Instead, she was merely snarky. That @philosopher lashed out makes perfect sense. It’s not the best response, but it’s a human one. So let’s point the fingers where we should if we’re going to deal with the “childish” aspects of this. @crisw started it. The fact that you like her shouldn’t interfere with your ability to objectively see that. Let’s see if it does.

@crisw She’s not being snarky. She’s stating facts. In fact, I was going to say the same thing as she did but she beat me too it. It is a fact that domesticated animals and plants are genetically bred. If you’re going to avoid all genetically modified foods, your food supply will be very, very limited.

“Wow- what do you eat, then?”

Wow – really? That’s not snarky?

Stating the facts is different than being an asshole about stating the facts.

You just stated the facts. She was doing it by being an asshole.

Okay, that was a little snarky, I’ll give you that. But she’s not an asshole. I’ve known her for 30 years and she is one of the sweetest people I’ve ever met.

Yes, it was a bit snarky.

But I think it’s not without reason. I really get tired of people stating that they “don’t eat foods with chemicals” or “don’t eat foods that are genetically modified.” And I say this as someone who is pretty careful about what I eat.

The reason I get so tired of it is because such statements are so very wrong. Yes, I know what they are supposed to mean- but that meaning is based on misinformation and it’s a shorthand that does an immense amount of harm because it’s so misleading.

All food is made of chemicals. All of it. Every single bit.

All food derived from domestic plants or animals is genetically modified. All of it. Every single bit.

The sweeping generalizations made about “chemicals” and “GMOs” promulgate fear-based decisions rather than reason-based ones. Are there good reasons to be concerned about some GMOs? Yes. Are there good reasons to be concerned about some chemicals in food? Yes. The blanket dismissal of “chemicals” and “GMOs”, however, makes it impossible to discuss such issues seriously, and usually indicates ignorance about the specifics of the topic.

@Rarebear – I wasn’t saying she was an asshole. I was saying she was being an asshole. We all do it. She was doing it then.

@crisw – I agree with you. However, when you approach the issue like you do, then all you do is put people off to your argument…which is valid. The only people you win are the ones already on your side already.

For both of you, I’ve had difficulty taking anything you say as “good argument” even though we’re on the same side 90% of the time. Is that my fault for not getting over the fact that at times both of you just seem to have no patience for anything? Yes. Could you all make it easier by taking a breath and instead realize that each time you speak to someone new, you have to start from the beginning? Yes.

@iamthemob “at times both of you just seem to have no patience for anything?” I’m not sure what you mean by this.

@Rarebear

I think it refers to our low levels of tolerance for BS.

@crisw Oh. Then he’s right. I have no tolerance for BS.

http://www.doctoroz.com/videos/case-you-missed-it-genetically-modified-foods

Wow. That’s classic. Iamthemob calls everyone’s answers bullshit and calls CrisW an asshole and then suggests that we grow up. Good call. Please enlighten us on the mature debate tactics you’ve mastered there, bro.

And claiming that food is “free of chemicals” or “not genetically altered” is like saying “I only eat food that has no calories” or “I only eat food that comes from Pluto”. It is complete nonsense.

So please @iamthemob, opine in your infinite wisdom on what is the “mature” way to point out that all things contain chemicals. I’m assuming that I didn’t make enough personal attacks or use enough expletives so with your help I’m sure I can fashion it in a more grown up manner.

@crazyivan – I couldn’t care less about trying to enlighten you on any point. I’ve admitted that I’ve given up for the moment, and permanently with you.

I’m not claiming any maturity in the above posts. I just don’t care to be. But if you’re trying to assert that you’re approaching your attempt to have a discussion that actually fleshes out an issue without it being dismissive or snarky, then I suggest you’re wrong. I don’t really care if you agree. But when you reduce your critique to how someone phrased the question “All food has chemicals” you’re really just saying “Na na na na na na.”

I don’t point this out for you. I don’t expect you to listen to anything I say.

@Rarebear, @crisw – You’re confusing the two things – no patience just means you jump to snarky before trying to figure out what a person is saying. You assume that “oh, I’ve heard this before” and go for the jugular.

Having no tolerance for the BS is knowing someone’s particular tactics. I’ve seen you both do the same BS over and over again. You seem to think the same about me. That’s fine. But if you think it’s okay to reply in a snarky manner like a know-it-all as a first resort – well, that’s the kind of bullshit I’m tired of, and that’s what brings out this side of me.

It’s good to let it all out once in a while.

@iamthemob I’m sorry, are you saying that all foods are not made from chemicals? You keep promising that you’ve “given up on me”, but I still haven’t been lucky enough for you to go through with it. Now, I’m sure that you hear “na na na na na” when I say “all foods are made of chemicals”. That’s probably comes from some genetic inability to equate words with the sentences that make them up.

For the record, when I say “all foods are chemicals”, I mean “all foods are chemicals”, not “nanananananana”. If I’d meant “nananananana”, that’s what I’ve said. I can’t help but note that with the exception of simply denying the undeniable fact that all foods are made from chemicals, you’ve chosen to snarkily call everybody an asshole or some equivalent insult.

What’s funny is that you chose to do that rather than defending or making a point. CrisW was making a point. Rarebear was making a point. I was making a point. You were being an asshole. Everyone else in this thread is focused on a discussion.

Some good could come of that discussion. It is probably best that people who say things like “I don’t eat food with chemicals in it” to realize what a silly statement that is. It is probably best for people who abhor GM foods to realize that all foods are genetically modified. Say what you will about our tactics (not that you need my permission), but there is benefit and fact and a fervent purpose that supports all the points we were making.

Your points, on the other hand, are simple personal attacks without substance that cannot carry the debate forward. They seem more designed to polish off the little pedestal you place yourself upon.

And for the record, I’d love to see someone phrase the point that they “don’t eat food that contains chemicals” in such a way that it is not patently absurd. That is hardly a semantic point. The statement is a meta-non sequiter.

I was totally being an asshole. But I was too, making a point – the way you all were making a point (well, not @Rarebear – I think @Rarebear was more defending a friend and making an objective point) by being assholes.

That was my point. You keep missing it because you insist on your right to be an asshole. I agree – you have that right. But I’ve given up in the way that I’m no longer responding to your points without adding that you’re making them in a completely asinine way. It’s you’re right to disagree.

But this is going to be a sticking point where we’re going to have to agree to disagree. And if you think I’m being an asshole in saying what I am, I’ll give you this: you’re 100% right. I just don’t care. That, again, is where I’m giving up.

Speaking from one pedestal to another. ;-)

Oy. Look, can we all step back from calling each other assholes please? I get enough of assholes at work doing colonoscopies, and I don’t need it here.