Our youngest daughter is about to head off to college while our older daughter has landed back at home after her own graduation.  Between the two of them and their friends, our house has been busy with a flow of wonderful young people full of energy and idealism.  I love the lively conversations we've been having while sharing delicious meals, and feel incredibly blessed for the time we've had together. One of the big topics of conversation around here lately -- especially now that I have decided to run for a position on the board of the Lawrence Community Mercantile, is free speech.

To my surprise, I have learned that my daughter's generation -- especially those educated at more selective liberal arts schools, often do not share our family's view that free speech is an extremely important legal right, that we need to watch closely and protect. In fact one of my daughter's friends said that she didn't think free speech was that important -- and that she thinks it is MORE important to be able to restrict speech  considered offensive -- especially when it is racist or derogatory to religion.)

So I wanted to share some quotes from this FABULOUS book we've been reading.  It has really opened our eyes. The book is called Unlearning Liberty -- Campus Censorship and the End of American Debate.  Here are just a few passages that we loved:

     It may be very tempting for high school students entering college to have sympathy for the advocates of speech codes, but that is only because they misunderstand the purpose of the First Amendment and lack knowledge of the legal, philosophical, and historical principles that support it. The First Amendment exists to protect minority point of view in a democracy, and anything that undermines it necessarily gives more power to the authorities. It is ultimately the best protection of the weak, the unpopular, the oddballs, the misfits, and the underdogs. If the only price that we have to pay for this freedom is that we sometimes hear words that we find offensive, it is well worth it.

    One predictable result of working so hard to prevent offense is that students quickly learn that claiming to be offended is the ultimate trump card in any argument. After all, if you knew you could immediately win an argument by calling the other person’s position offensive, wouldn’t you be tempted to use that tactic?

      Prohibitions on hateful speech do nothing to stop hate, but they let resentments simmer, and they also prevent you from knowing who the hateful people even are

     Probably the simplest but most successful argument for restrictions on speech I hear today is that censorship can protect people from hurtful or bigoted speech. The implicit question I run into all the time on campuses is, “Can’t censorship be acceptable if one’s intentions are pure, compassionate and generally good?”
     History tells us that the answer is flatly “no”. I cannot think of a single anti-free-speech movement in American history that did not sprout from someone believing that they were fighting for truth, justice, decency, and goodness itself. This is so common a friend of mine has an acronym for it: the “GIRA Effect,” standing for “Good Intentions Run Amok.”. John Adams thought he was saving the country from ruin by instituting the Alien and Sedition Acts. Northerners who believed that abolitionists needed to be silenced thought they were preventing a bloody civil war. 

     Having pure intentions, steadfast goals, and an unwillingness to consider that you might be wrong is the formula for some of the worst evils mankind has ever wrought upon one another, from inquisitions to the twentieth century’s disastrous experiments with totalitarian utopias. As pushy as those of us who defend civil liberties may seem, the right to freedom of speech and freedom of conscience rests on a deep-seated humility: I know I am not omniscient, and I suspect you aren’t either. Therefore, I have no right to tell you what you can’t say, 

​     A system that allows for censorship must necessarily put actual, flawed people in charge of deciding what does not get to be said. This is probably the most important reason to take that power out of the hands of authority. Even if we think authorities should be empowered to regulate opinion, they are likely to be too self-interested and self-deceived to do it fairly or, even, competently. Time and time again, those with the power to censor see criticism of themselves as what needs to be banned. 

Unlearning Liberty can be checked out from the Lawrence Public Library by clicking on the image of the book above.

​Directions:

1) Place the carrots, celery, onion and garlic into a powerful blender and blend on high until you have a mixture the consistency of applesauce.  Transfer the mixture to a large bowl

​

     (Guest Post by Marla Rose of Vegan Street)

​From within the vegan movement, I have always observed a tendency toward painting one another as either hard-line ideologues or compromising doormats and the tinderbox that is online communication has only made things more fractious. This is also nothing new. What is new, though, is the attitude that I’ve seen pushed with more and more frequency and more and more certainty by mainstream vegan “thought leaders” that by making concessions on our vegan practices to accommodate those who are inconvenienced, confused or threatened by them, we are making strategic advances for the animals. In recent months, I’ve even seen some make the wholly Orwellian claim that by eating animal products on occasion, we are actually helping the animals overall by appearing to be less extreme, more approachable, just generally nicer. It seems that by eating animal products on advantageous occasions, we can help to assure their eventual liberation, or at least the liberation of their future generations. This line of reasoning only works, though, if you have bought into the false dichotomy that it is more beneficial to be helpful and pragmatic than to be judgmental and dogmatic.

In the world I live in, though, there are many ways to live as a vegan within the brackets of these polarities that do not rely on an obvious straw man caricature as the boogeyman. According to this convenient duality I’ve seen pushed with an increasing confidence, vegans can only choose between being supportive, smart pragmatists or angry, irrational ideologues. While I will wholeheartedly agree that all of us need to communicate better, I also believe that it is entirely possible to not behave like shrieking militants while still maintaining our commitment to veganism. If we bend over backwards to accommodate what we think people are threatened by, if suddenly eating something with “a little egg” or “a little butter” is the difference between someone thinking we’re reasonable and that same person thinking we’re puritanical, where do we draw the line? What if someone who I really want to appeal to thinks it’s dogmatic that I won’t eat bacon? What then? Do I eat the bacon? Why end there? A little beef? I am to understand from our new pragmatic leaders that we should eat cows over chickens. Why not just make it a regular part of my life to consume some beef and dairy to be more accommodating and model for the world that eating cows is preferable to eating chickens? Why not? Maybe I will become the ultimate vegan by not being vegan anymore. This may sound absurd and rightfully so but it is the obvious outcome of the Orwellian claptrap I’ve seen championed by thought leaders in the vegan movement for the past year or so: The best vegans are the ones who are not even vegan at all.

I came home tonight pretty upset and heartbroken after hearing yet another vegan speaker promoting this view of the helpful pragmatist and the out-of-touch idealist, an out-of-touch idealist who is so very extreme that he or she won’t even intentionally consume animal products. As my husband said when I came home and told him about it, here we are, closer than ever to gaining legitimacy and beginning to make real inroads for creating change and the real challenge to our progress is coming not from well-funded industries or powerful special interests but from within the vegan movement. By making the term “vegan” so nebulous and shape-shifting it for what we see as strategic gains, we are cutting the ethical basis out of our social justice movement. Those are our own hands doing the cutting. It’s not industry. It’s not special interests. We are on the precipice of powerfully positive change and here we are voluntarily holding the scissors. Snip, snip, snip. Cut that pesky meaning from the word. Let’s make everything all nice and neat and non-threatening.

All of this is to say that I will not knowingly consume animal products because if someone’s convictions about living with compassion and justice are so tenuous and flimsy that I need to eat yogurt-covered pretzels in order to convince them that I am a reasonable person, this is not someone I am going to focus on influencing. I will move on. I will continue to show that it is entirely possible to be a vegan who maintains her standards while remaining friendly, welcoming, engaging, accessible and helpful. Just as I wouldn’t expect domestic violence activists to engage in “a little battery” to convince the public that, hey, they’re not so high and mighty with their whole anti-violence thing, we should not be expected to compromise our values to be effective. We can be effective without it.
​
I have gotten dozens and dozens of messages from people over the years who have learned about veganism through positive but honest advocacy and they are deeply grateful for being able to access and unlock this incredibly rich, rewarding and empowering reservoir they never knew was inside of them. Their intelligence, strength and basic goodness was respected. These are people who had never envisioned themselves as vegan but saw the possibilities because their capacity to grow was trusted. Intentionally eating some animals to score perceived tactical points with “normal people” violates the very foundational premise of veganism, which is that we don’t knowingly use other animals for our purposes. This isn’t about purity; it isn’t about judgment. It’s simply about consistency and believing in the foundational principles of veganism. As my husband said when we talked about it, we have worked really hard for this word vegan to mean something and to bring awareness to not only what it means but also why we do it. People who largely eat a vegan diet but advocate eating some animals on some occasions under the pretext of effectiveness need to call themselves something else. This isn’t splitting hairs. They are simply promoting something other than veganism. Oh, and, hey, look at what just showed up in my Google alerts this very morning: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry... . Sample quote: "I think 'seagan' fits a huge need for vegans who want variety and, for health reasons, they now realize they can eat this." Yup. When animals are eaten by vegans, we are truly in an Orwellian reality of our own doing. My sincere apologies to the animals. The “vegans” have sold you down river.

​

My thanks to Marla Rose, Co-Creator of Vegan Street for allowing me to post her essay here on my blog. Be sure to check out VeganStreet's wonderful collection of over 500 Memes HERE

Quick....what is usually the first question people ask when they find out someone is vegan?   If you guessed some version of, "Where do you get your protein?"  You were right.  Now consider for a moment.....WHY is concern about not -enough protein the first thing that pops into the mind of those unfamiliar with the benefits of plant-based nutrition? How many people do you know in America that have died from not getting enough protein? Probably none. Protein deficiencies are mostly associated with not getting adequate calories -- like impoverished people, those in a famine, and occasionally from certain diseases that impair metabolism or digestion.   Now  how many people you know that have died from getting too much protein?  If you think the answer to that question is, "none."  Then you are probably unfamiliar with what the bulk of nutritional science has to say on this issue, and thus not able to connect the dots of what has been happening right in front of you.   The fact is, anyone who has died from heart disease, or any of the more common cancers, or kidney disease or complications of type two Diabetes very likely their over-consumption of protein -- especially protein derived from animals played a role in both the development and progression of their illness.  Together these four chronic conditions are responsible for most of the premature deaths in America.   Yet due to a combination of tradition, social pressures, and almighty capitalism, most people in America incorrectly believe that not getting enough protein is a bigger threat to their well-being, and continued functionality into old age and than getting too much.

Garth Davis MD a Bariatric Surgeon who spent a good part of his life unquestioningly promoting the mythology that encourages many of us to over-consume protein has written an entertaining, book that details his own failing health -- which he tried to hide, while attempting to help patients by encouraging them to consume more protein.  Amazingly, Dr Davis, did decide to explore the evidence for himself and once he saw what the science really said, he changed his ways, recovered his health and then put everything he learned into this fabulous book.  Proteinaholic, will engage you, hold your hand, and most importantly, help  you understand the published science, spanning both controlled studies and epidemiological reviews.  In addition you will gain an understanding of the many forces that work together to obscure these facts and keep people addicted, sick and dying prematurely from the food born illness that is our nation's number one killer: Cardovascular disease.

If you'd like to be inspired, learn how to eat more healthfully, and finally get over any anxiety you might have about, "how will I get enough protein?"  Or If you'd like to understand exactly how much protein we really do need (He covers the science on that too) this book is for you!​

​
Vaxxed The Movie was recently previewed in Kansas City.  There was a lot of negative press about this movie, and I heard that Robert De Niro appeared to cave to pressure to pull it from his film festival.  In addition it was reported that at screenings around the  country mothers who had not even seen this movie were protesting outside of movie theaters objecting to it even being shown.  I was curious to know what specifically this documentary said that might elicit such responses...so I went to see for myself. 

I was shocked. 

​I'll be honest -- when I heard that Andrew Wakefield, a highly accomplished gastroenterologist/scientific researcher had directed it, I was skeptical at how good a movie it would be.  How good would a scientist/doctor be at film directing, when he had never done something like this before?  But the documentary turned out to be an engaging, professionally done, easy to follow and fast paced presentation that focused mainly upon one thing:   A CDC senior scientist had come forward alleging the CDC had deliberately destroyed data from a study suggesting that  African American boys given the MMR vaccine at 18 months DID show a highly significant increase in autism diagnosis, compared to those who received this vaccine after 3 years of age.  The documentary also featured a number of families with autistic children who shared their stories of watching their once perfect and healthy little toddlers regress into Autism after being given the MMR vaccine.    It was gut wrenching to think about what these parents had gone through, but it got even worse when you learned that after speaking out to try to prevent what happened to them from happening to others,  they have been attacked and even vilified.

​I thought this movie did an extraordinary job of presenting  evidence from multiple sources, including credible doctors and scientists to back up their assertion that the CDC failed in their duty to protect Americans.  They also suggested that the  American media's failure to investigate -- even after Congress was alerted, is evidence of the power and economic influence of big pharma. 

​After watching Vaxxed, and seeing that the movie was not even advocating that people not vaccinate -- (as one would have thought based upon those who opposed it being shown) I looked on-line to see what the movie's detractors were saying.  What could they possibly find so terrible -- had I been misled in some way that I did not notice?
​
​And that is what I found so shocking.   The criticisms did not point out any factual misstatements in the movie (leaving me to believe that they couldn't find any) instead all they did was attack the character of those in the movie -- in fact, one site began its review by first reminding readers that Andrew Wakefield had been professionally discredited and his paper on the MMR vaccine retracted.  For those who might have found such ad hominem attacks compelling, be sure to read this essay about Dr Wakefield, which will explain the parts of the story, the mainstream media has chosen to not share:

                                      Who is Dr Andrew Wakefield?

​Then I hope that you will watch Vaxxed the Movie, and make up your mind for yourself about what is really going on here.  If you know anything about science, then you know that a study that fails to find a link, can never be proof that a link does not exist – (which is what the media keeps alleging about the MMR vaccine and autism) but rather, it may in fact, just mean that THAT study was not designed in a way that could find a link!  (And I can tell you that when I worked in the pharmaceutical industry -- I was in meetings between the marketing department and scientific department, where the first actually told the second what sort of data they needed for marketing purposes and the latter then suggested a university that likely would do the study and set parameters exactly as we needed to create the desired data-- if we gave them a nice grant for a new autoclave!) Furthermore, if you have common sense and a healthy amount of skepticism, consider why so many entities don’t want you to even see this movie – when all it's doing is questioning what happened at the CDC, and sharing the perspective of a scientist who suggested that autism risk might be reduced if we replaced the MMR vaccine with THREE individual vaccines given at THREE different times.  What an outrageous and dangerous idea...right?

In my presentation titled: The Real Reason Paleo is so Popular -- Why the Issue of Gluten is so Important, I lay out evidence to suggest that far more people are adversely impacted by consumption of gluten than any of our current testing is capable of revealing.   For example, one study, looked at close to 100 people with refractory iron deficiency anemia (anemia so bad, that the only way that they could keep their iron levels up was to keep having blood transfusions) and tested these individuals for Celiac Disease using a variety of tests.  They  found that only 13% had flattened villi, only 5% were positive for Anti TGt2 antibodies (considered diagnostic for CD) and only 2/3 even had the genes considered necessary to have CD and/or gluten sensitivity -- yet 92% of these patients had a complete recovery from the anemia when they followed a strict gluten free diet long term.

​Given that so much science indicates that meat, via multiple different mechanisms, increases the level of inflammation in the body -- and the fact that inflammation plays a significant role in most chronic disease, studies like this one make an important contribution to our understanding of what is going on.  It is worth noting that although most of those embracing the current paleo craze shun beans, the two dietary factors that all the blue zones (the longest lived healthiest populations in the world) have in common is:

1. They eat a low-protein diet with very little food of animal origin and
2. They all consume legumes (beans, peas lentils).

I believe gluten explains why so many people believe that Paleo (which is mostly if not entirely gluten free in the way most people interpret it) is helping them to feel better in spite of overwhelming science suggesting that eating more meat and less beans adversely impacts health outcomes over the long term and probably shortens lifespan.  In addition many authors have pointed out that popular beliefs about what stone age humans ate falls short of common sense -- there was obviously enormous variability in the amount of plant-food vs animal food eaten in various regions -- with only perhaps humans living in extremely cold  environments eating anything close to the proportions suggested by most Paleo authors.  There was great variability by region as to what was eaten, and the archeological record suggests that very few of our Paleolithic ancestors regularly even had the option of eating the large amounts of animal protein that are being encouraged by current paleo devotees.

​Now a new video by Dr. Michael Greger explains some interesting research that sheds additional light on this subject.  He points out the fallacy of assuming we are most adapted to eat what our Paleolithic ancestors ate, since the Paleolithic Period accounts for only about 10 % of hominid evolution -- with the other 90% of our DNA having evolved during the Miocene Era.  Scientists agree that hominid diets in the Miocene were overwhelmingly plant based in all regions that our hominid ancestors inhabited.  Watch Dr. Greger's new video on the Miocene route -- or read the short transcript just below the video on that same page.​

I first met Dr Fuhrman about a dozen years ago at a conference and found his concept of maximizing "nutrient density" while minimizing "caloric density" (which he expresses in the equation: Health = Nutrients/Calories) so sensible and easy to understand, that I went right out and bought his book, Eat to Live.  For years Eat to Live was my "go to" reference for providing people interested in maximizing their health a framework they could easily use for making sense the growing body of nutritional science.  Although I have read additional books by Dr Fuhrman in the years since, none of them had surpassed Eat to Live -- until now.  With coronary artery disease our nation's number one killer (and that has definitely been the case in my own extended family) The End of Heart Disease joins a growing cadre of evidence -based books offering something much better than the conventional risky surgeries and drugs with horrific side effects that are draining our health care system, while doing little to actually stop progression of this fatal disease.  Although Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn's book, Prevent and Reverse Heart Disease is excellent too, and his approach has certainly saved and enriched many lives, The End of Heart Disease has some additional and wonderful contributions to make.   Esselstyn (and Pritikin and Ornish too)  all demonstrated reversal of blocked arteries using a very low fat (10% of calories from fat) diet.  While this diet unquestionably  improved many lives (as shown in the fabulous documentary, Forks Over Knives) over time some people appear to not do so well on such a low  fat diet -- but I was not aware of any research demonstrating reversal of blockages using a diet that included nuts and seeds -- until now.  While all these doctors are still in agreement that oils (including like olive, and coconut have no place in diet to reverse coronary artery disease, Fuhrman presents evidence that with oils being excluded, and building the diet on whole unprocessed plant foods, the addition of nuts and seeds makes a profound contribution -- as long as they are not eaten in amounts that cause overconsumption of calories.  I personally know someone who wanted to reverse his heart disease using diet, but was slender and not a big eater, who couldn't stay on Esselstyn's diet, because he was losing too much weight and simply could not eat enough to stay satiated, energetic and maintain his weight, without the addition of something more calorically dense, and had no idea that nuts and seeds  would have provided this benefit, without damaging his arteries, and ended up going back to fish and chicken, and now remains on drugs.
      One of the things I loved about this book, was the detailed explanations of vast amounts of published research --much of it I was not familiar with.  For example in the section about IGF-1 and Heart Disease, he not only explains how those with the highest blood levels of this growth hormone have increased cardiovascular mortality (and consumption of animal protein is established to increase blood levels of this hormone) but then goes on to describe a 2014 study that added more clarity by comparing low glycemic high in animal protein (low-carb/high protein) with diets low in both refined carbs and animal protein.  6000 people followed for 18 years found a four fold increase in cancer mortality and 75% increase in all-cause mortality.  Researchers further isolated the negative effects of high protein as being ONLY from animal protein, not plant protein.
     Other sections of the book thoroughly explain popular headlines that have confused many about the contributions of meat, cheese and butter to heart disease, by showing reductions of specific biomarkers when these foods are substituted for refined carbohydrates.  It turns out that BOTH refined carbs (like sugar and white flour) and animal foods are profoundly harmful -- and substituting one for the other can make certain markers improve -- but not a single study has demonstrated such changes can morbidity or mortality long term -- while the plant-based diets have.
     Many other subjects are addressed in a similarly comprehensive and clear way and always well-referenced.  For example he discusses salt and stroke risk, summarizes the pros and cons of various cardio protective diets, the impact of saturated fats on inflammation, the risks and overselling of statin drugs, to name just a few.  In addition his dietary recommendations are thoroughly explained -- along with the justifications and the book includes a large section of recipes.  Including the index, there are 430 pages -- a real  bargain at $29.00 when you consider the cost of the book against just a single month's prescription of drugs that can probably be avoided by reading this book.
     If you know someone motivated to avoid being cut open or placed on powerful drugs for the rest of their life, this is THE book to have them read!

I wrote this  article over a dozen years ago.  I just reposted it here (from my old website) because it provides some important relevent history for the presentation  I just gave at the Cleveland Vegfest.  Keep in mind, this article was written PRIOR to the explosion of Paleo/Primal -- which is what I am now specifically addressing in my talks.
                                -----JoAnn

DIET TRUTH SEEKERS Beware! While the benefits of plant based-diets have been gradually becoming more well known, an insidious pseudo-scientific movement has quietly been laying the foundation to confuse, misdirect and undermine the efforts of many who aspire to improve their health and live in a more sustainable and humane way.  As many mainstream health and nutrition organizations are finally coming around and endorsing meatless diets for their health promotion and disease reduction, less well known entities are attempting to whittle away at the scientific basis of vegetarianism.

Recently, I have found myself drawn into this "underworld" of nutrition "information." I would like to expose some of what I have found, to prepare you for when you too encounter what at first may appear to be very valid arguments about the "DANGERS" of vegetarian diets. The good news in all of this however is that as I have delved deeply into the anti-vegetarian propaganda, I have found no one except those associated with the dairy industry who seem to support consumption of dairy products. Even those claiming we have a biological need for beef, chicken, fish or eggs seem to recognize that the downside of dairy products is just too obvious for them to try to foist that on the nutrition truth-seekers. Almost everyone who has gone without dairy products for a few weeks (and is careful to not consume dairy proteins like casein, whey or nonfat milk powder hidden in their breads, cereals, soy cheeses etc.) recognizes quickly that they feel much better!  Acne, sinusitis, seasonal allergies, menstrual cramps and gastrointestinal distress are some of the more common things people notice improving when they eliminate dairy.

At the outset since I will be speculating upon the motives of these anti-vegetarian forces let me just disclose that I too am motivated by more than just a desire for the healthiest diet possible. I want clean air, clean water, clean soil and clean food for everyone. I want my children and grandchildren to live on a planet that can sustain them and enable them to have a good quality of life. I want them to be free of threats of war caused by too many people fighting over limited resources to grow food and live. I also feel a moral imperative to strive to live my life in a way that does not deprive others of their lives. If you read the biographies of individuals involved in the abolitionist movement it is amazing to discover that some of those working to end slavery, were still opposed to women's rights. Otherwise compassionate, educated, civic-minded individuals who believed slavery was wrong scoffed at the idea that women should be allowed to vote. And many historic people who aspired to live righteous lives quoted the bible as justification for the continuation of slavery.

The parallels between civil rights, women's rights, and animal rights are clear for those whose hearts and minds aren't clouded by their perceived dependence on animal slavery to maintain their lifestyle! These are the reasons why I eat only foods derived entirely of plants. Now let me tell you the story of how I came to find myself seeking the truth about anti-vegetarian propaganda.

By now you've probably heard of some of the popular diet books that are promoting high protein diets. About every twenty or thirty years it seems, books like these become popular all over again. The idea of a diet personalized and tailored just for us is sexy! High protein diets can cause rapid and dramatic water weight loss.  Meat and dairy can be addictive and addicts want to be told that "bad" foods are ok! But history shows that these diet fads run their course and fade away. Why? Because they are inherently unhealthy, they stress the kidneys, increase inflammation, and may increase the risk of osteoporosis, appendicitis, and gout, while giving you bad breath, increasing your body, odor are constipating and not sustainable. Although I knew that these books were bestsellers, I had seen several intelligent rebuttals of them and dismissed them outright, figuring only the very naive would be seduced and would soon enough learn the downfalls and move on. There are several good articles on the web that address these diets specifically and I encourage you to read these:

Dr. Furhman - The Atkins Diet
Blood Type Diet
Fad Diets Exposed
Atkins "Nightmare" Diet.

That way I can use the rest of this space to share with you my own little journey.

A couple of months ago, my husband went to a new chiropractor who was highly recommended and purportedly treats many of the area's professional athletes. This doctor IS very skilled at adjustments and immediately gained my husband's respect. But then, upon finding out my husband is a vegetarian (vegan in fact!)  he proceeded to share information about the "dangers" of vegetarian diets. He claimed to have come to his views after experimenting with vegetarianism and not feeling good, (I do not know how long he did this or exactly what HIS diet consisted of) He also claimed that his vegetarian patients generally "responded poorly." My husband felt this doc spoke with great authority and conviction. Even though my hubby has experienced a lessening in both frequency and duration of illnesses and allergies since becoming vegetarian himself he started to question the wisdom of our dietary choices.

As a result of my prodding, my husband asked the doctor for some documentation of what he was espousing. A one page typed sheet titled "vegetarianism" was sent home. It spoke of protein deficiencies, and linked a whole host of problems to a lack of tyrosine, including adrenal insufficiency, blood sugar problems, joint problems and ileocecal valve syndrome. Without articulating exactly how these "problems" might be experienced symptom-wise, this paper alluded to these things as being very serious with far reaching effects. It used plenty of big words, scientific sounding jargon and gave no references. I would have found it laughable were it not for the fact that this doctor is in a position of authority and stands to sabotage the health building advances of his patients. He even recommends on this sheet that patients "...eat some lean red meat daily in the rarest form possible." (Obviously this doctor feels that the growing threat of E-coli, Salmonella, and Campylobactor pale in comparison to his hypothetical and totally unsubstantiated syndromes that are mowing down vegetarians the world over! -- while the vegetarian Mafia keep all these victims out of the news.) This doctor appeared so poorly informed and misguided that I felt compelled to educate him. I typed him a seven page letter, the tone of which was not too polite. (Probably not a smart move on my part, but his stuff was so wacky, not referenced, and being presented with an air of authority, that quite frankly I was outraged. I don't have the space here to cover each of his assertions individually and the overwhelming, well-documented evidence to the contrary. Instead I would rather emphasize this one point: EVEN IF WHAT HE ARTICULATED WAS A SERIOUS THREAT TO A FEW SELECT INDIVIDUALS (And he presented not a shred of evidence for this) IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT IN THIS COUNTRY ONE IN TWO PEOPLE WILL DIE OF HEART DISEASE AND MANY OF THE REST WILL SUFFER FROM AN INVASIVE CANCER. in my opinion it borders on the criminal for a health-care practitioner to dissuade a patient from adopting a plant-based diet without having clear and compelling evidence that it is causing THAT individual serious harm! Heart disease, Cancer, Diabetes, Kidney Disease, and Osteoporosis are all linked with consumption of animal protein. There is overwhelming evidence that vegetarians have a much reduced risk of all of these. And these diseases -- nothing else-- are the primary threats to health and long life in this country! I know hundreds of meat-eaters, and most of them, by later middle age are showing symptoms of at least one of these five diseases. I also know hundreds of long term vegetarians, and not one of them has ever mentioned to me that they are struggling with "ileocecal valve syndrome" or "protein deficiencies" while "adrenal insufficiency" has become the, "disease du jour" and most of those saying they have it, have been life-long omnivores.  Furthmore I have met a few hypoglycemics and diabetics who became vegan and found their illness easier to manage or completing disappearing.


As a result of my 7 page letter, this chiropractor responded by giving me reams of articles to substantiate his point-of-view. He photocopied a section of a physiology textbook that talked at length about ileocecal valve syndrome (I had chastised him for presenting it as some horrible malady without explaining what this was or why it was so awful -- since most people have never heard of this!) According to his own documents ileocecal valve syndrome is linked with LOW-FIBER DIETS! Since only plants contain fiber (there is none in meat, eggs or dairy) this could hardly be a condemnation of a plant-based diet. I of course pointed all this out to him in additional correspondence. (he has since told my husband that he will be pulling this allegation from his paper on "vegetarianism") What caught me off guard however, was all of the other stuff that he sent in the second round, much of it downloaded from the internet, most of it sounding far more credible and most of this subsequent stuff WAS thoroughly referenced. It no longer sounded wacky in fact at first glance, much of appeared quite CREDIBLE. However as I scrutinized his references (most of them from scientists I had never heard of) a different view emerged. Much of what he was claiming as proof of the unhealthiness of vegetarian diets were really just data showing the deleterious effects of trans fatty acids, polyunsaturated extracted vegetable oils (like safflower oil and corn oil etc.) refined sugar, processed carbohydrates (breads, pastas, cereals etc.) and reduced fat foods (like diet cupcakes and cookies) While these foods ARE health disasters, they are hardly a reason to include animal protein and saturated fat (which are also health disasters) in the diet. The last time I looked, Doctors McDougall, Ornish, Barnard, Harris, Campbell and Klaper were not suggesting that vegetarians build their diet on processed foods anyway! In fact they all stress the benefits of building diets on whole, minimally processed plant foods.

Several of this chiropractor's references did stand out. They were from researchers associated with the Framingham Heart study. This is an ongoing study started about fifty years ago looking at lifestyle and heart disease. Its researchers are often quoted in vegetarian material because their research is generally seen to substantiate low-fat plant-based diets as reducing one's risk of heart disease, so it really caught my attention when Framingham researchers were being quoted to dispel the "myth" that animal fat was linked with heart disease. (Note: some well-respected researchers like T-Collin Campbell have in fact proposed that animal fat might not be the biggest culprit after all -- that dubious distinction may go to ANIMAL PROTEIN, which is seldom examined in isolation from animal fat and so its risks may be obscured.) One page that the chiropractor gave me had been photocopied from the book, Diet Evolution by Charles Hunt. It contained 12 quotes on page 22, and one was attributed to a Dr. Mann associated with Framingham. I went to the Framingham web site, and scanned the bios section. There was no mention of this doctor. So I emailed a half a dozen of the doctors listed wondering how to get a hold of this one doctor, and they all emailed me back that they had never heard of him. Was his name made up? Another quote on this page was attributed to Dr William Castelli, the director of Framingham, and seemed to suggest that Dr Castelli doesn't believe that fat and cholesterol are linked with heart disease. It quoted him as saying:
     "In Framingham, Massachusetts, the more saturated fat one ate, the more cholesterol one ate, the more calories one ate, the lower people's serum cholesterol...the people who ate the most cholesterol, ate the most saturated fat, ate the most calories weighed the least and were the most physically active."  I emailed Dr Castelli to see if he had said that. He admitted that he had, but then added that a number of popular diet books were misunderstanding his data and his statements. He told me:
     "That quote is correct but its interpretation by Atkins and Sugar Busters and others is wrong." He went on to say, "The data are saying that people can work off a bad diet if they indulge in enough physical activity.....Over a dozen diet trials in the history of medicine which took people off the high fat diet lowered their cholesterols and 4-5 years out they lowered their heart attack rate."

In addition, another article provided by my husband's chiropractor was titled "Your Health at Risk" This paper quoted a different Framingham researcher, Dr. William Kannel as saying:
     "No discernible association between the amount of cholesterol in the diet and the level of cholesterol in the blood regardless of how much or how little animal fat in the diet"  So I emailed Dr Kannel and he replied: 
     "The quote about fat in the diet is definitely contrary to what I believe about the influence of diet on atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. I have no idea where that quote came from."  

I think these examples simply speak to the fact that the Framingham study is very well-respected. Those who wish to attack the scientific basis of vegetarianism must be aware that this is one of the studies that strongly suggests that low-fat plant-based diets reduce the risk of coronary artery disease. I think this also demonstrates how you can't take at face value this type of propaganda. Considering how few of these quotes I actually bothered to follow up, I can't help but wonder if I had tracked down additional "experts" quoted in the propaganda that this doctor gave me if they too would have told me the overall perspective presented here is inconsistent with their views.

So that brings up another question....WHY? Why would anyone not obviously connected say with the dairy industry, or feedlots etc. attempt to discredit vegetarianism? I have my own theories. First off, so many of us grew up with the four food groups ingrained into our consciousness. For some these beliefs are intricately bound up in their brains with strong emotions. I believe that at a fundamental level-- tucked away in some dark recess of their mind, some people truly BELIEVE they must eat meat. There is good evidence that what is going on in the mind can dramatically impact our physiology and reality. I remember hearing once that some cases of people with multiple personality disorder were found where some of the personalities had clinical cases of allergies that other personalities (sharing the same body) did not. This suggests that emotions and/or beliefs can have tremendous influence over how we feel and physiologically respond to the environment. I have also heard of a few individuals who are vehemently anti-vegetarian AND anti-communist, who perhaps in their minds link vegetarianism with some sort of outgrowth of liberalism. (Despite some surveys that suggest vegetarians can be found across the political spectrum. (A desire for health and longevity is not exclusive to the right or left.)

In Summary, what I have found is that for the most part, anti-vegetarian propaganda is utilizing the following in an attempt to discredit the healthfulness of plant-based diets:

1. Taking quotes from legitimate researchers out-of-context to misrepresent the views of these experts.
2. Attributing quotes to people who may not exist, or at least may not be associated with the reputable institutions to which the quote claims.
3. Attacking vegetarian diets as a whole by picking out a particular unhealthy food (like hydrogenated fat) which some vegetarians may not know to avoid and then making a case for how dangerous this food (hydrogenated fat) is and trying to incorrectly imply that ALL vegetarian diets are bad simply because some vegetarians may include this food (Even though most meat eaters do too!

To your health -- may you follow the example of populations around the world who follow predominantly plant based diets and have a far lower incidence of the major diseases plaguing Americans!

How would you feel, if someone in your suburban neighborhood, frustrated with industrial agriculture and it's egregious crowding of animals, and use of antibiotics and hormones, decided to take matters into their own hands? How would you feel if they use their little subdivision yard to house, raise and then kill animals to eat the meat -- and maybe even sell a bit of it to others?  Supposing these neighbor's traditions included eating cats and dogs -- and they were killing these animals in their backyard too?  Would this bother you?  How would you feel if children in the neighborhood were to grow up learning to accept this sort of violence as normal and not be bothered by it -- would you consider that a good thing?  Would you like to see the routine killing of cats and dogs in back yards become completely acceptable in our community?

I just found out that the Lawrence Planning Commission Staff have recommended revising the current city code to legalize back yard slaughter of small animals as part of their plan to enable and embrace "urban agriculture" and I'd like to explain why I find this so incredibly disturbing.

I first began educating people about the health and environmental benefits of eating plant based nearly twenty-five years ago and pointing out, especially to young adults, the horrific and completely unnecessary violence required to turn feeling, thinking beings into meat.  Overwhelmingly, people would say to me, "If I had to kill an animal myself, I would never eat meat," demonstrating humanity and the natural aversion to violence against animals that most people have.  When I asked people to consider what was the moral difference that enabled them to support killing some animals (cows, pigs, chickens, turkeys, fish) for the frivolous reason of taste or habit,  while opposing killing other animals (cats and dogs) whom they would sometimes welcome as part of their family, this would at the very least, cause most people to pause and consider the cognitive dissonance of this double standard. 

In the past ten years however, with the growth of the small local farm movement, I have witnessed a change in many young adults in our area in terms of how they react to my raising concerns about the violence required for producing meat.  Increasingly I am running into well-meaning college-aged men and women, who have developed relationships with small local farms.  These idealistic young people may have been motivated initially by their opposition to the violence of factory farms.  But after connecting with and volunteering on local farms they came to embrace certain types of violence.  While at first many found killing animals distasteful, after forming meaningful relationships with mentors (the farmers) who had already become desensitized to specific types of violence, these young people learned to accept it as well.  As evidence that this represents a spreading of "desensitization to violence,"  when I ask those who are volunteering on these farms what moral difference justifies killing a pig for food, but not killing a dog for the same reason -- they are very quick to assure me that there IS NO DIFFERENCE -- and in fact, they would now just as soon kill and eat a dog -- if that was our culture.

Now you may argue that the current regulations being considered would NOT legalize killing cats  or dogs in our city neighborhoods -- only traditionally eaten farm animals -- so my concern is misguided. However keep in mind -- increasingly our communities are multicultural -- and other cultures eat cats and dogs the way ours eat chickens and pigs.  Not only is there absolutely no morally relevant criteria by which you can justify killing one and not the other, but to allow the killing of chickens for food, while disallowing killing cats, is a type of racism -- favoring one culture's practices over another.  At some  point, likely such codes would be challenged on these grounds -- and if the legal killing of some animals had come to be accepted in our urban neighborhoods, it is more likely the resolution of this disparity would legalize killing cats and dogs -- rather than the abolishment of killing.  So if this disturbs you, the time to speak up is NOW.  

From a public health/safety standpoint, what the Lawrence City Commission is considering is also problematic.  The majority of infectious diseases plaguing humanity have come from our domestication and use of animals.  Bringing more animals into urban areas, only increases the chances that we will have animal diseases adapting to human populations -- this is in  fact THE cause of newly emerging strains of flu -- all flus were originally "bird flu."

I fully support urban agriculture using plants and allowing people to turn their lawns into food gardens, but I think making it easier for people to raise animals for food in urban areas is a dangerous backwards step.  I urge you to contact the Lawrence City Commission and our mayor and city manager (see contact info in red below) and do all that you can to keep this from happening.