Uniform Charlie said...
^You posted a different article that references the very same case study.
The case study that was published by a pro-vegan group, authored by a psychiatrist, and published in a corrupt* journal that accepts payments in order to get something published.
*Their entire board resigned last year due to unethical behavior on the part of the publisher.
Thanks for the info beave. Sloppy posting on my part RE the repost.
I assume beave was talking about
Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine and Dr. Neal Barnard. PCRM, I guess you can dismiss them as a "pro-vegan" group (as if that is a bad thing?) but they are promoting plant-based vegan diets for health reasons. He does speak out about
unnecessary, cruel animal experimentation, yes. I se that as a good thing, and if you don't, that has no merit on the study Uniform Charlie posted (or all of the studies i posted that had no association whatsoever with Dr. Barnard). However, the entire reason Dr. Barnard created PCRM was because he wanted to shift the focus from reactive medicine (treating sick people) to preventative care (teaching people how to not get sick in the first place).
To address your other claim, Neal Barnard isn't currently a practicing psychiatrist. Second, there are 4 other doctors listed before his name on the study, but beave leaves them out. A quick Google search told me this: "Barnard shifted his focus in medicine from psychiatry to internal medicine. Today, he is a nutrition researcher and adjunct associate professor of medicine at George Washington University School of Medicine in Washington, D.C. He's also the author of 14 previous books on diet and health, including "Dr. Neal Barnard's Program for Reversing Diabetes" and "Breaking the Food Seduction." He was a fellow with the American College of Cardiology in 2015 and works in internal medicine at George Washington's School of Medicine.
None of that really matters though because all the studies i posted had nothing to do with Dr. Barnard.