The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by BSR.

Gamera is really neat!
He is full of turtle meat!
We are eating Ga Me Ra!

-MST3K

also *promote because it's badass

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - findthumb requested by Fantomas.

It's CAN-berra, not Can-BER-ra by the way

You keep saying that, but have never offered a single example where I misunderstood or misrepresented anything, just a mistaken accusation that I added my own term "hypersensitives" out of bias, but it was actually in the title AND the paper.
Present one. What, exactly, am I misrepresenting? Use quotes and be specific.

I think you must not understand plain English then, because that Hopkins synopsis is in plain English and contradicts your original blanket contention I took issue with-"rheumatoid arthritis is a flare up caused by dairy and certain meats".
That might be true in some cases of patients with food hypersensitivities, the science isn't yet clear, but it is clear that your original all encompassing statement is just wrong in most if not all cases and overreaching exaggeration in the extreme as written, something which is specifically warned against in the paper itself. ( "the science is not able to reliably identify specific triggers for individuals." , "These studies are few in number and should be interpreted and extrapolated to real life only with careful thought and caution.")
I personally know 2 long term (over 30 years) vegans in my family with active rheumatoid arthritis, and know of many more. If your statement was correct, that would be impossible.

Edit: had you said 'it appears that, in some people, RA flare ups can be caused by meat and/or dairy.' instead of "rheumatoid arthritis is a flare up caused by dairy and certain meats" you would not have been contradicted. If you could accept that the exaggeration makes your statement unsupportable instead of defending it blindly and zealously with mistaken assumption and misplaced insult, this would have been a single post instead of a whole thread.

Changing diet seems to help relieve symptoms for some people, temporarily, not long term, but spontaneous remission also happens with no diet change, so much more, double blind study is needed before making definitive statements like the one you first made.
Prime allergy suspects, not necessarily causes, and only for some food hypersensitives, not everyone.

I agree, if the studies of fish oil were only for people on certain ra drugs they certainly should make that abundantly clear.

What you've quoted is that's the same thing I said in my OP -JH acknowledges that changing diets helps. They specifically say meat and milk are the prime allergy suspects.

There isn't any disagreement here :-)




But..........I do have a bone to pick with Hopkins. The fish oil study they reference on the Hopkins site, is a bit sus when you dig deeper.
Everyone in the study was also given disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs along with the fish oil..... so Hopkins isn't really giving us the full story here, which is: Fish oil helps remission in people on RA drugs.

Great, now RA sufferers have to buy toxic liver destroying drugs, and also buckets of fish oil supplements too(the doses were 10x the daily recommended amount of fish oil).... I guess they're line of reasoning is that you make more money if you can sell them two pills for the same disease.

They even try to hide the drugs part by calling it "DMARDs" after the references (which people don't usually read). Technically it's not lying I suppose, but it's very unethical. If I didn't go all the way through and find the research it'd have never figured that out. Turns out John Hopkins is largely industry funded, which doesn't surprise me now that they're approach is to push more pills, instead of less.

Sincerely, I have to thank you for bringing that to my attention. I like to keep a list of this misleading stuff.

You weren't wrong when you said there are some scummy misleading people in the medical field.

According to the JH website, it's not only wrong, the study could not show what you claim by it's design.
Excuse me...let me use their exact words....

Food Hypersensitivities and Their Link to RA

In some patients, specific foods have been shown to exacerbate the symptoms of RA.(ref 5) Avoiding these foods or food groups has been shown to have limited, short term benefits but no benefits long term. Even though different forms of dietary modification have reportedly improved symptoms in some patients, people with RA may have spontaneous temporary remissions. Therefore, it is important to perform double-blind, placebo controlled trials to differentiate diet effect from spontaneous remission. You may identify a food that is a particular trigger for you, and this phenomenon is real. However, the science is not able to reliably identify specific triggers for individuals.

Diet elimination therapy is a method of determining food hypersensitivities with patients. Elimination diets avoid a specific food or group of foods such as milk, meat or processed foods that are known to be prime allergy suspects. These foods are eliminated from the diet for a specific period of time. Foods are then gradually reintroduced one at a time, to determine whether any of them causes a reaction.

Panush and colleagues, demonstrated temporary improvement in the signs and symptoms of RA with diet elimination and modification in a controlled study where the symptoms associated with food sensitivities were studied.(ref 5) During this study when the patient was fasting or on a severely restricted diet, the patients symptoms improved significantly. However, when the patient had milk reintroduced into the diet, episodes of pain, swollen and tender joints and stiffness were experienced. Similarly, Kjeldsen-Kragh and colleagues(ref 6) noted that fasting may be effective in reducing the symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis, however most patients relapsed as new foods were reintroduced into the diet. Pain and discomfort frequently returned once a patient reverted to a normal diet. These studies are few in number and should be interpreted and extrapolated to real life only with careful thought and caution.

So, no vegan has arthritis, but the entire medical community just missed that fact? Not true.
One more total misrepresentation of the science by your guru....the ACTUAL science, from Hopkins, says....
"In some patients, specific foods have been shown to exacerbate the symptoms of RA.(ref 5) Avoiding these foods or food groups has been shown to have limited, short term benefits but no benefits long term. Even though different forms of dietary modification have reportedly improved symptoms in some patients, people with RA may have spontaneous temporary remissions. Therefore, it is important to perform double-blind, placebo controlled trials to differentiate diet effect from spontaneous remission. You may identify a food that is a particular trigger for you, and this phenomenon is real. However, the science is not able to reliably identify specific triggers for individuals."
So only in hyper sensitive patients that have allergies to dairy, meats, or processed foods has this appeared to be somewhat effective temporarily, not long term, not for everyone....and it seems only anecdotally at this point (they imply that there have not been double blind, placebo controlled studies yet).
Fish oils are FAR more effective, but, you know, that's an animal product, so McDougal (as he is want to do at every turn) dismisses it in favor of false claims about miraculous veganism and misrepresentation of the science.

I downvoted your comment for using misrepresentational propaganda and unverified anecdote masquerading as scientific data from a known liar with undeniable bias to support your unsupportable position(s), that veganism cures everything including cancer.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - findthumb requested by eric3579.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by oritteropo.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - findthumb requested by eric3579.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - findthumb requested by Fantomas.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/aug/05/donald-trump/donald-trump-wrongly-says-hillary-clinton-wants-ra/

I still think saying something like "the beginning of everything" is a little presumptuous for us recently technological monkeys to say. I feel like there is an awful amount of knowledge that we don't know or understand, yet. I love thinking about it though - kinda like that Sun Ra song - "There are other worlds (they have not told you of)" A Big Bang might just be a small aspect, that happens all the time all over a vast multiverse, outside multiverses, inside multiverses, folded into trillions of dimensions that exist as free flowing holographic data, that really just exists inside a super-technological golden egg, on the table of a very wise alien and your life was just you dreaming and then you wake up as the wise alien and you say "How the hell did I forget about this strange ass egg?!"