Talk:Michael Greger

Criticism and praise

I attempted to clean up a few things in the article and had my edits reverted. There are two references supposedly criticising him, while one actually encouraged his videos, and the other, one could easily argue rests on a shaky foundation. I made a section specifically for opinions about Greger and clarified that the Joe Schwarcz reference is mostly positive yet skeptical (the article melts it into the Harriet Hall reference to make it look as if Joe's criticism was similar to Harriet's and not in favor of Greger) and provided a counter criticism to Harriet Hall's criticism, while also providing a reference for the largest healthcare organization in the US promoting Michael Greger's website as a resource for its patients.

My edit was reverted with a simple claim that my edit was "non-neutral." When I reverted it back, I was told I was "pov-pushing." I take this to mean that the point-of-view of the person who reverted my comments is the proper point-of-view the article must have, that their point-of-view only allows negative comments about this person, and that if you aren't biased against the person the article is about and attempt to say anything that isn't blatantly against him then you're to be considered "non-neutral" and banned from editing.

Can you explain how I was in the wrong? And particularly, so in the wrong that my entire edit had to be undone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:5408:6000:3973:6790:4D4:64BA (talk) 20:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

In general we avoid "criticism" sections (WP:CRITS) as it leads to a non-neutral article with "sides". We need to include noteworthy criticism in the WP:LEDE (which you removed), avoid using low-quality blogs as sources - and when we use sources we should not give partial summaries to favour a POV. Having this source (not great) to imply somehow Greger was endorsed by Kaiser would seem spectacularly dishonest, given that the source just lists his site for recipes and specifically disclaims any kind of endorsement (page 15). Finally be aware of WP:EW and maybe try to stick to WP:BRD for any future edits? Alexbrn (talk) 08:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I felt it made sense to have a criticism section of some kind since we currently have his criticism posted in two random areas of the article, which looks very sloppy. I also disagree that Harriet Hall's criticism should be considered noteworthy enough to include in the lead section. I understand if published diet author Don Matesz isn't official enough to cite here, but let's not act like Harriet Hall is the queen of objectivity and an amazing resource to reference. I also tried to clarify that the reference to Joe Schwarcz was not negative, but actually encouraged watching his videos, stating that the science is sound although Greger shows a bias towards plant foods. His use of the phrase cherry-picking was followed by "that doesn't mean the cherries he picks are rotten, they're fine" and then a link to sign up for a subscription to the latest nutritionfacts videos.

As for the Kaiser Permanente pamphlet, I have to hope you're joking with me. As the pamphlet itself shows, they obviously recommend a plant-based diet to their patients, which they define as "[an] eating plan [that] encourages lots of plant foods in their whole, unprocessed form [and]... does not include animal products." All of their references "for informational purposes" are to other websites that advocate plant-based diets, including Greger's. Of course for legal reasons they have to say "Kaiser Permanente does not necessarily endorse the information on these websites" because they don't run these websites and wouldn't want to be held accountable for everything each of them say. It's incredibly naive though to say that they're directing their patients to Greger's websites by listing it in a healthy eating pamphlet but actually don't want them to go to this website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:5408:6000:9D63:8C07:B93B:D7C0 (talk) 16:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes a plant-based diet (which is not necessarily vegan) is exactly what mainstream public health advice about healthy eating calls for. He goes much farther than that in pushing people to be vegan, and he goes beyond credibility with the claims he makes about the health risks of non-vegan food/health benefits of veganism. Jytdog (talk) 16:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

In the context of Kaiser Permanente's educational pamphlet, plant-based diet does mean vegan, being devoid of animal products (atleast ideally, though they do recommend trying for 80% plant-based if one can't achieve 100%). Regardless, while Greger is a proponent of vegan diets, he doesn't claim that a strict vegan diet is absolutely necessary for good health or force people to give up all animal-sourced foods. That's what someone might believe if they only know of Greger through Harriet Hall's PoV. Typically, he uses the phrase plant-based diet to mean a diet of predominately plant foods, not necessarily devoid of any and all animal foods. From his book, How Not to Die : "This book is not about vegetarianism, veganism, or any other kind of -ism. There are people who completely eliminate any and all animal products as part of a religious or moral stance and may indeed end up better off as a side benefit. But strictly speaking from a human health standpoint, you would be hard pressed to argue, for example, that the traditional Okinawa diet, which is 96% plant based, is inferior to typical Western, 100 percent vegan diet." "Sometimes peoples' diets take on a religiosity of their own. I remember a man once telling me he could never 'go plant based' because he could never give up his grandma's chicken soup. Huh? Then don't!... The problem with all-or-nothing thinking is that it keeps people from even taking the first steps. The thought of never eating a pepperoni pizza again somehow turns into an excuse to keep ordering it every week. Why not scale down to once a month or reserve it for special occassions?... It's really the day-to-day stuff that matters most."

Or, from his 2015 speech , "As one eats more and more plant-based, there appears to be a stepwise drop in the rate of diabetes down to a 78% lower prevalence among those eating strictly plant-based. Protection building incrementally as one moved from eating meat daily, to less than daily, to just fish, to no meat, and then, to no eggs and dairy either. A similar pattern was found for the leading cause of vision loss among the elderly—cataracts. This suggests that it’s not all or nothing; any steps we can make towards eating healthier may accrue benefits."

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:5408:6000:9D63:8C07:B93B:D7C0 (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

You cannot cherry-pick stuff that way. Even in the intro to his 2015 book he pretends like the mainstream medical establishment is not acutely aware that, and discusses all the time how - behavioral choices like diet and exercise and not smoking are absolutely essential to health, and most of medicine - and most of the medical spending in the developed world - is trying to fix the chronic problems that we cause with our lifestyle choices. And he pushes the vegan "meat is poison" line very, very hard; he talks about "a quarter of a chicken breast" like it is a gram of cyanide. In other words, he over hypes all the time; he is a bit of the Dr Oz of veganism. Somewhere in there is good advice, sometimes. Jytdog (talk) 21:25, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

The more we throw around the phrase "cherry-picking," the less meaning the phrase has. I just refuted the idea that he's a rabid vegan propagandist out to make everyone 100% vegan at any cost. We no longer need to push that pov, which is based on Harriet Hall's criticism of one presentation he gave 5 years ago, that she reviewed as if the video was titled "PETA Activist Michael Greger Explains Why Veganism is Great." Yes, he's of the opinion that the more plant-based a diet is, including up to 100% plant-based (or vegan), the better a diet is in general, and he presents why he believes this to be true in hundreds of videos he has uploaded to his website, compiling thousands of studies. Yes, it's taboo, but the fact that he has this opinion shouldn't be so offensive. If meat looks bad in a study, should talking about that not be allowed? Should he not be allowed to have the opinion that meat is better avoided in favor of other foods, even if the evidence he has reviewed suggests to him that this is true, because some people with a fondness for meat believe that mentioning the negatives of regular meat consumption is "over-hyping" things? To make a pov-neutral wikipedia article, we all need to consider our biases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:5408:6000:385A:4247:821A:8086 (talk) 05:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I just cited you things from the book he published last year. He presents what he says as facts. His views are not mainstream and the key role that the Hall source plays here is providing the mainstream view. This complies perfectly with WP:NPOV. You are free to believe about diet, if what you want, of course, as is Greger. Jytdog (talk) 05:21, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I saw you mention the book but I'm not sure what you cited exactly. It's very vague criticism. He referenced research and you thought he should have just ignored it instead? Why? He says things he thinks are true instead of saying things he doesn't believe to be true, therefore he's some sort of charlatan? And while I disagree that Harriet Hall alone should represent the medical mainstream and be the ultimate authority on this man's character and the tone of the article, why could we not atleast include something about him that isn't based on her negative remarks? The Joe Schwartcz reference, as I tried to clarify, is generally positive, to the point of providing a subscription link to his videos. Kaiser Permanente does list him as a resource and advises a diet much like the one he describes. These were rejected because it's already been decided from Harriet Hall's blog post that everyone must treat Greger as a villain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:5408:6000:385A:4247:821A:8086 (talk) 06:13, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

No it is very specific criticism. Just read the intro. He goes on about how mainstream medicine pays no attention to behaviorial things like diet. This is ludicrous; it is discussed endlessly. I can't remember the last time I went to my doctor and he didn't ask me about diet/exercise etc, and it is discussed in medical journals and med schools endlessly, and has been for at least a decade. I get it how that fits into his pitch, but it is just baloney. (heh) Jytdog (talk) 07:05, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

He makes a fair point in the intro that doctors receive very little nutrition training if any and that they have a penchant for quickly prescribing medications where lifestyle modification would be safer and more effective. When diet advice is given, it's typically generic food pyramid guidelines rather than the more extreme diet changes someone with a chronic illness might need to adopt. His grandmother anecdote is meant to show us what the climate of the medical profession was like in the 1970s, when it was thought that lifestyle modification couldn't be as effective as drugs or surgeries, and how even in the modern day, after a study like Dean Ornish's lifestyle heart trial was published, most doctors still rely on cholesterol and blood pressure medication rather than routinely offering something like the Ornish Program (which is available and even covered by Medicare).

But, let's not let a dislike of the intro of his book distract from everything else I've brought up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:5408:6000:385A:4247:821A:8086 (talk) 15:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Those kinds of distortions are present throughout his oeuvre. He is an activist and this is what activists do - they exaggerate in order to make their arguments. As mentioned, per NPOV this article needs to acknowledge that. Jytdog (talk) 19:21, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Sure, he's an activist; he has a message and tours the country giving presentations about what he believes is an important issue. Now why does your personal disagreement with him mean that this supposedly neutral wikipedia article has to be pov-negative towards him? Are we going for pov-neutral or pov-Jytdog? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:5408:6000:385A:4247:821A:8086 (talk) 20:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I have never said anything about my personal views; you have no idea if a I am a vegan or a rabid meat eater. I have discussed what mainstream advice is about healthy eating (see healthy eating) and how his message fits with that. Hall expresses that. Again, this is what the WP:NPOV policy requires. Jytdog (talk) 21:51, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

As I see it, there are three competing PoVs in our pool of references. Hall's point of view, which is distinctly anti-vegan and because of that, anti-Greger, Joe Schwarcz's point of view, which is generally positive although cautious, and the HMO Kaiser Permanente, which is in full agreement with his views, the latter two even recommending Greger's website. I'm not understanding why you selected Hall as the PoV for the article. Harriet Hall feels that the benefits of the diet he describes are overblown and not impressive. An actual healthcare organization, one of the largest in the United States, disagrees with her

References

--— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:5408:6000:B4CC:8DE4:A8DD:87BA (talk) 05:08, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Hall's view is not "anti-vegan". Hall, like the Kaiser Journal article, is actually perfectly in line with mainstream advice about healthy eating: The 4 authors of the journal article you cite (PMID 23704846) actually cite MyPlate and define a plant-based diet as "The recommendations for patients who want to follow a plant-based diet may include eating a variety of fruits and vegetables that may include beans, legumes, seeds, nuts, and whole grains and avoiding or limiting animal products, added fats, oils, and refined, processed carbohydrates....A plant-based diet is not an all-or-nothing program, but a way of life that is tailored to each individual. " (emphasis added) It not strictly vegan, and it doesn't try to scare the bejesus out of people by talking about a quarter of a chicken breast like it is pure poison. It is not what Greger advocates in his book and talks. (and don't ascribe the views of the 4 authors in the journal to the KP organization; that is just is silly) Jytdog (talk) 07:14, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

So then logically, what Greger says is also in line with mainstream advice, since KP is in agreement with him. I've already shown you, in both his book and his talks, that Greger doesn't believe 100% compliance to a vegan diet is necessary, and he even said "it's not all-or-nothing" and that black-and-white thinking was dangerous. To claim Greger says only a 100% vegan diet is beneficial would be a strawman. KP's eating plan that encourages whole plant foods and discourages animal foods and refined foods is exactly what Greger's videos are about, and the fact that their informational pamphlet specifies that the eating plan does not include animal products when followed fully shows that a 100% plant-based diet, or vegan, would also be in line with their recommendations. Don't ascribe the views of the 4 authors to KP? It's a message to the physicians in the KP network, published in The Permanente Journal, alongside a pamphlet clearly from KP meant to show patients how to eat that sort of diet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:5408:6000:B4CC:8DE4:A8DD:87BA (talk) 14:34, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Just for your general knowledge, please read [the about page for the journal and then read Scientific journal. A journal =/= the publisher of the journal, and all a journal "owns" is the fact that it published an article; the views in any scientific article are the author's own views. You do not understand scientific publishing.

On this topic, Greger consistently says and writes things that go well beyond what mainstream science can support. This is what activists do. You have already acknowledged above that he is an activist. If he stayed within the bounds of what mainstream science can support, like Hall and PMID 23704846 do, we would not be having this discussion. You are personally free to ignore his unsupportable claims or even to believe his exaggerations or even enjoy them; WP cannot ignore them. I won't be responding here further; I have given you a lot of time already. Jytdog (talk) 00:43, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

This isn't JAMA or the Lancet we're talking about, but The Permanente Journal, wherein 4 affiliates of Kaiser Permanante published a memo instructing their physicians to use plant-based diets as first-line treatment for their patients, in tandem with a pamphlet you can agree was put out by KP to educate patients on what a plant-based diet is and how to follow it. Author Carol Bortolotto is "Senior Consultant for Regional Health Education for the Southern California Permanente Medical Group" and Philip Tuso is "Regional Co-Lead for the Complete Care Program of the Southern California Permanente Medical Group and the National Physician Lead for the Care Management Institute’s Total Health Program." To say the article doesn't reflect Kaiser Permanente's views is ridiculous.

As for Greger, that's your subjective view. You believe that he exaggerates things, well that has nothing to do with whether what he says is correct or not, just whether or not you think it's important enough to care about. You believe his claims are unsupportable, well he cites research that supports them. His views are virtually identical to the Kaiser Permanente paper, which you already agreed represents mainstream, supported science. If you could accept that a plant-based diet that minimizes animal foods is agreeable, mainstream advice, then why, when a man gives a presentation explaining why that very diet is good, does it suddenly become unsupportable and exaggerated? I agreed that he's an activist, which just means he campaigns for a social change, in this case a shift towards a plant-based diet. Activist isn't a bad word. But, if you're done responding, so be it. Hopefully in the future, this article will have a more rounded perspective.

References

Bad Compromise

The last sentence in the intro, "Greger's promotion of veganism has been criticized for including exaggerated claims of health benefits and for cherry-picking research even though the vegan diet can be a healthy one" is a great example of a bad compromise, perhaps a remnant of a bygone edit-war, and I'd like to change it. However, all of my edits were reverted by Alexbrn who, in his edit notes, said "not an improvement".

I'm open to discussing the best way to improve that sentence. But first let me make the case that there's a lot of room for improvement. "even though the vegan diet can be a healthy one" is a tacky, out-of-place addition to this sentence. The main subjects of the sentence are: 1. Michael Greger's promotion of veganism and 2. Criticism of this. But the healthiness of a vegan diet is itself not the point of this sentence!

It comes across like it was written by a bipolar person in the middle of a mood swing. And I know exactly why. Critics of Dr. Greger wanted to include criticism, and proponents praise. They had a war, and they compromised by writing this atrocious sentence.

Consider the following sentences and tell me if you think they would belong in the headers of the respective persons:

"George Bush has been criticized for committing US troops to the war in Iraq by exaggerating claims of increasing regional stability, even though the war in Iraq may have led to greater regional stability."

Or, to keep things politically balanced:

"Barack Obama has been criticized for his role in promoting the Affordable Care Act by exaggerating its reduction in health care expenditures, even though the act may have reduced US health expenditures."

Or, moving beyond politics into religion:

"Jesus has been criticized for exaggerating claims of his divinity, even though he may have been the Son of God."

These are terrible sentences! And they are on par with that sentence in Dr. Greger's intro. We can do better on Wikipedia at making things sound encyclopedic rather than bipolar.

My proposed change is this: quote the article that mentions cherry-picking, and include enough of the quote that both critics and proponents will be just as satisfied (or dissatisfied) as they were for the original compromise. "There is some cherry picking of data. Of course that doesn't mean the cherries he picks are rotten; they're fine." That may be too long to include in the intro, but the nice thing about such a short article is that nothing gets "buried" in the article, so this could be moved to the next section.

Perhaps there is an even better alternative, and I'll wait for input before editing again, but Alexbrn, ANYTHING is an improvement over that wretched sentence.

Bluemousered (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, so what. -Roxy the dog™ woof 15:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I tried to fix that as well but the people who rule over this part of wikipedia would prefer to leave the cherry-picking quote out of context. As you can see from the above conversation, if they disagree with you about something, you're not getting anything changed no matter how strong a point you have or how weak theirs is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:5408:6000:7D47:5396:3290:C1C2 (talk) 06:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I have little motivation to improving this article when Alexbrn, who seems to be oblivious to his own agenda, keeps forcing his point of view as neutral and just reverts all edits without actual discussion. Looking through his post history, he seems to be on a crusade on this topic and has made such fine edits like this one https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_A._McDougall&diff=677431201&oldid=677429048, where he decides to state the diet is "fad diet" that causes farting as general truth. The farting part was only removed after other long-time editors stepped in. He forces the exact same thing in this article where the header has criticism but doesn't tell who criticizes. I have no patience for the kind of passive-aggressive behavior he exhibits. --Sapeli (talk) 20:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

This sentence does not make sense. "Physician and skeptic Harriet A. Hall analyzed one of Greger's videos in which he claimed that death was largely a "food-borne illness" and wrote that while it was already generally accepted that plant-based diets with less red meat conferred health benefits, the evidence for them "is nowhere near as impressive or definitive as the true believers think".[ What does "the evidence for them" mean? Who is "them"? The evidence for whom? And what are "true believers"? I don't have a pos or neg pov, I just think this is a very awkward sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.82.73.246 (talk) 20:57, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Page protection

Because of the persistent disruption on this page by IPs and "fresh" accounts I now think a request for permanent semi-protecton here is in order. Do others agree? Alexbrn (talk) 18:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Oui. -Roxy the dog™ bark 19:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I like how you guys immediately turn to censorship when you disagree with how an edit should be handled.

Removal of sourced content

User: Iloveinfo22 please come and explain your objection. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:10, 26 August 2016 (UTC)