![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
The WP:LEDE is too short and unsourced. The lede only says "Michael Herschel Greger is an American physician, author, and professional speaker on public health issues, particularly the benefits of a plant-based diet and the harms of eating animal products." without sources. QuackGuru ( talk) 21:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
I think he is. Is it ok to mention this? Greger does actually say in one of his videos (somewhat tongue-in-cheek) "The Government blames the Jews" and then goes on to talk about Maimonides, who was a Jewish physician. The discussion was about milk and mucus. 78.151.30.121 ( talk) 15:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
When Hall is described as "physician and skeptic" that makes "skeptic" to be a title, akin to a job title (like "welder") or an ascribed status title (like "woman"). What exactly does this mean? I hold that it's incorrect and meaningless. I am a skeptic but i have no degree in "skepticism" and neither does Hall. She belongs to a subculture of people who call themselves "Skeptic" and who subscribe to "Skeptic" discussion lists and magazines, etc. But this is a self-identification that is not necessarily correct to apply. The word itself is an abstract word that would require others who judge her to be so. In other words, "skeptic" is not an occupation nor an ascribed status and Hall has no "degree in Skepticism" and the use of the word there is misleading to the readers of the article and it is not NPOV to use this word as a title form for Hall. SageRad ( talk) 13:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Where does the source say she is a "physician and/or skeptic"? I requested verification. The article must verify the content. See WP:V. QuackGuru ( talk) 19:49, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
note the SciAm source also references "skeptic" in her nickname-- actually the opposite: the Shermer piece uses the word "skeptic" exactly once, and not in reference to Hall, unless i've missed something. Shermer is a self-professed "Skeptic" and so his mention of Hall in SciAm is sort of within the subculture self-promotion realm. He's got that column and uses it to promote the subculture. That's my reckoning. Secondly, i have read the Scientific skepticism and i especially note the section on pseudoskepticism. I do not know why you say
please do read what is at that link, which you do not seem to have done yetwhich seems to be an insinuation of ignorance on my part about the meaning of the term. I think you have plenty of evidence to know that i understand the meaning of the term. Could we talk with fewer barbs, please? I am tired of deconstructing undertones of scorn. I understand the full argument being made about Greger in reference the content guideline of WP:FRINGE and the like, but i disagree with the interpretations in light of that guideline and in conflict with the spirit of WP:BLPSPS as wel as the policies in WP:NPOV and WP:RS. SageRad ( talk) 17:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
To be clear: the current content is:
Physician Harriet A. Hall, who is known for applying critical thinking to health claims, [1] [2] [3] has written ...
References
- ^ Kranish, Michael (July 24, 2009). "Senators seek coverage for alternative therapies". The Boston Globe. Retrieved August 8, 2009.
- ^ Swoopy; Colanduno, Derek (June 10, 2008). "Ep. #079 - Interview: Dr. Harriet Hall - The Doctor Is In!". Skepticality. Skeptic Magazine. Retrieved November 27, 2011.
- ^ Shermer, Michael (January 2007). "Airborne Baloney: The latest fad in cold remedies is full of hot air". Scientific American. Retrieved August 9, 2009.
What exactly is the problem with support? Jytdog ( talk) 22:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Here let me beat this to death - refs we are not citing that support the same thing:
"Too often, some of the most intriguing academic conferences take place behind closed doors, off limits to the public. But the two major events in the annual Lorne Trottier Public Science Symposium, coordinated by the McGill Office for Science and Society, are open to the public - and for excellent reason.
It's in the public's best interest to differentiate between good and bad science. Or, more to the point, science that is based on proven fact. Too many false prophets lurk, and not just in the shadows, offering false hope to the desperate and/or naïve looking for a panacea for what ails them or family members. Last year's symposium, featuring a panel of international scientists and authors, tackled pseudo-science and was an eye-opener for skeptics and believers alike. This year's symposium, Alternative Medicine Under the Microscope, should be even more provocative, as four experts in the field will delve into one of the most contentious current subjects. Monday evening at Centre Mont Royal, the symposium will showcase speakers Harriet Hall, also known at the SkepDoc; Paul Offit, a leading advocate of childhood immunization; and Robert Park, author of Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud. Tuesday evening at McGill's Fieldhouse Auditorium in the Leacock Building, the sole speaker is Edzard Ernst, a former homeopathic practitioner and now a critic of alternative medicine. Moderator for both free events is McGill professor and Gazette columnist Joe Schwarcz, also the organizer of the symposium the last two years.
"The goal of this program is to promote science to the public and to promote critical thinking," Schwarcz says.
Really? Jytdog ( talk) 23:09, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated the sourcesprohibits this kind of citing general profile info as a shortcut for actual RS evaluating the validity of her criticism.
References
Due to the ongoing issues I have fully protected the page for 10 days. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 23:14, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
See here. I've added a recruiting tag to the top of this page. Jytdog ( talk) 19:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Kia ora, and gidday!
A Spanish friend - a teacher of Spanish at a university - kindly translated the current English text of this page into Spanish for us. I'm a new user, so cannot upload it yet. If you're an established user, please feel free so to do. You have permission from both of us. Tena koe, and Gracias!
Michael Greger
Nacimiento 1972 (age 44–45) Educación Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences Tufts University School of Medicine Website www.drgreger.org Medical career Profesión Medicina general Especialización Dieta y nutrición
Michael Herschel Greger es un científico americano, autor y ponente en temas de salud general, y en particular en dietas vegetarianas y los perjuicios del consumo de alimentos de origen animal. Es vegetariano y creador de NutritionFacts.org.
Contenidos
1 Carrera
2 Publicaciones
3 Referencias
4 Enlaces
Carrera
Greger se graduó en Cornell University School of Agriculture, donde escribió sobre los peligros de la encefalopatía espongiforme bovina (bovine spongiform encephalopathy)en una página publicada en 1994.[1][2][3] En el mismo año trabajó en la enfermedad de las vacas locas en un Farm Sanctuary, cerca de Cornell, y se hizo vegetariano después de una visita de trabajo a un criadero en el Farm Sanctuary.[1] En 1998 testificó en calidad de experto en encefalopatía espongiforme bovina en el proceso judicial por difamación que enfrentó a los productores de carne y Oprah Winfrey por las declaraciones de esta última sobre el riesgo de los productos cárnicos en 1996.[1][4]
Asistió la programa de doctorado en Tufts University School of Medicine, aunque finalmente, solo completó su licenciatura médica.[5] Se graduó en 1999 como médico general, especializado en nutrición.[1] En 2001 se hizo miembro de Organic Consumers Association para trabajar en la enfermedad de las vacas locas al mismo tiempo que los primeros casos empezaron a aparecer en EEUU y Canadá [1][6][7][8] en lo que él llamó "La plaga del siglo XXI."[9][10][11]
En 2004 creó su página web y publicó un libro crítico de la popular Dieta Atkins y otras dietas bajas en carbohidratos.[1]
En 2004, El Colegio americano de medicina y estilo de vida tenía su sede en Loma Linda,[12] y Greger era miembro fundador[1], uno de los primeros en formar parte de la asociación.[13]
En 2005 formó parte de la división para el bienestar de animales en granja, en Humane Society , como director de la salud y bienestar de los animales en granjas.[1] En 2008 testificó ante el Congreso[14] a raíz de la publicación de un video grabado secretamente en Westland Meat Packing Company por Humane Society mostrando animales moribundos entrando en la cadena de alimentación, lo cual obligó a la USDA a retirar 143 millones de libras de ternera, parte de ellas destinadas al programa nacional de alimentación escolar.[15]
En 2011, fundó la página NutritionFacts.org[16] financiada por la fundación Jesse & Julie Rasch.[17]
En sus clases, videos y escritos sobre nutrición intenta persuadir a los consumidores de cambiar sus hábitos alimenticios de una dieta occidental a una dieta vegetariana—idealmente una dieta vegan—y argumenta que este tipo de dieta no sólo puede prevenir sino incluso revertir muchas enfermedades crónicas.[18][19]:10 Critica la actitud de otros doctores por no difundir entre sus pacientes dietas vegetarianas y evitar alimentos de origen animal.[19]:1–12 y es contrario a la actitud del gobierno americano por restar importancia a los consejos médicos sobre llevar una vida sana a través de la dieta y nutrición, con el objetivo de favorecer los intereses económicos de los productores —especialmente productores de comida rápida y productos animales.[20]
Harriet A. Hall, científica retirada, conocida por la aplicación de razonamiento crítico en las cuestiones de salud, [21][22][23] escribió que, aunque es sabido que es más sano comer una dieta de origen vegetal que una dieta animal, con frecuencia Greger sobrepondera los beneficios de la primera y los perjuicios de la segunda, (por ejemplo, en una ponencia argumento que una sola comida rica en alimentos animales puede perjudicar las arterias), y que en ocasiones no comenta sobre evidencias que contradicen sus declaraciones.[18] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjpw1234 ( talk • contribs) 09:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Does the blog post by Harriet A. Hall referenced in this article violate WP:BLPSPS? Sammy1339 ( talk 00:32, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. Such material, although written by an established author, likely lacks the fact checking that publishers provide. Avoid using them to source extraordinary claims. Self-published information should never be used as a third-party source about another living person, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer (see WP:Biographies of living persons § Reliable sources).There have been two substantive objections to applying BLPSPS. One is that the blog is not self-published due to its editorial policy. However, this policy applies to outside submissions from the general public, not to the blog authors' posts, which are not subject to editorial oversight. The other is that Hall's criticism concerns claims made by Greger but not Greger himself. I believe this is transparently false. -- Sammy1339 ( talk) 00:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject ( see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs.
no self-published sources are allowed in BLPs, regardless of what they're used for.I believe BLP indicates otherwise.
If this were a group blog writing in support of alternative medicineIt would fail WP:FRINGE and ARBPS spectacularly.
It's an ideological agenda pushing to include this here.You sure about that? If so, do clarify because it sounds like it could be a ArbCom violation going on here. -- Ronz ( talk) 15:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
*No Summoned by bot. At first blush this appeared to be a self-published blog, and I hastily said so (comment reverted). However, a bit of further examination indicates that this published commentary falls within the exception stated in the policy. Note that I am just addressing the BLP issue, not any other that may be relevant (such as weight,
WP:V, etc.)
Coretheapple (
talk)
14:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
it calls into serious question the bona fides of the website in questionCould you explain, as I seem to be missing how WaPo article you link address their reliability? -- Ronz ( talk) 20:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Casual statements, or even seriously stated evaluations based on slips of memory or casual wording or misconceptions in matters in which there is room for disagreement can happenBut that's not the case with this specific reference. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:03, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Take Hall's position that Greger's claim that arteries are crippled by one bad meal. This claim was based on several clearly referenced studies 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 yet Hall presents it as being based on one bad study. Why would she ignore the science and misrepresent Greger to make this statement to seem like a weak claim? The only answer can be that she is misleading readers in order to smear her high-profile target. This is the problem with using contentious content from a blog entry written by a poorly informed surgeon (not a dietary nutritionist).
[1] Zhao, S. P.; Liu, L.; Gao, M.; Zhou, Q. C.; Li, Y. L.; Xia, B. (2001-11-01). "Impairment of endothelial function after a high-fat meal in patients with coronary artery disease". Coronary Artery Disease. 12 (7): 561–565. ISSN 0954-6928. PMID 11714996.
[2] Acute Effect of a Single High-fat Meal on Forearm Blood Flow, Blood Pressure and Heart Rate in Healthy Male Asians and Caucasians. ProQuest. 2008-01-01. ISBN 9780549871781.
[3] Ong, P. J.; Dean, T. S.; Hayward, C. S.; Della Monica, P. L.; Sanders, T. A.; Collins, P. (2016-12-18). "Effect of fat and carbohydrate consumption on endothelial function". Lancet (London, England). 354 (9196): 2134. ISSN 0140-6736. PMID 10609824.
[4] Chung, Woo-Young; Sohn, Dae-Won; Kim, Yong-Jin; Oh, Seil; Chai, In-Ho; Park, Young-Bae; Choi, Yun-Shik (2002-12-04). "Absence of postprandial surge in coronary blood flow distal to significant stenosis: a possible mechanism of postprandial angina". Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 40 (11): 1976–1983. ISSN 0735-1097. PMID 12475458.
[5] CUEVAS, ADA (2004). "Diet and Endothelial Function" (PDF). Biological Research. 37: 225–230 – via SciELO.
[6] C. Giannattasio et. al (2005) Effect of High-Fat Meal on Endothelial Function in Moderately Dyslipidemic Subjects. Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology. Feb, 2005. DOI: 10.1161/01.ATV.0000152231.93590.17
[7] Bae JH, Bassenge E, Kim KB, Kim YN, Kim KS, Lee HJ, Moon KC, LeeMS, Park KY, Schwemmer M. Postprandial hypertriglyceridemia impairs endothelial function by enhanced oxidant stress.Atherosclerosis. 2001;155:517–523.
[8] Muntwyler J, Sutsch G, Kim JH, Schmid H, Follath F, Kiowski W,Amann FW. Post-prandial lipaemia and endothelial function among healthy men.Swiss Med Wkly. 2001;131:214–218.
[9] Anderson RA, Evans ML, Ellis GR, Graham J, Morris K, Jackson SK,Lewis MJ, Rees A, Frenneaux MP. The relationships between pos-prandial lipaemia, endothelial function and oxidative stress in healthyindividuals and patients with type 2 diabetes.Atherosclerosis. 2001;154:475–483.
[10] Fard A, Tuck CH, Donis JA, sciacca R, Di Tullio MR, Wu HD, BryantTA, Chen NT, Torres-Tamayo M, Ramasamy R, Berglund L, GinsbergHN, Homma S, Cannon PJ. Acute elevations of plasma asymmetricdimethylarginine and impaired endothelial function in response to ahigh-fat meal in patients with type 2 diabetes.Arterioscler Thromb VascBiol. 2000;20:2039–2044.
[11]Simpson HS, Williamson CM, Olivecrona T, Pringle S, Maclean J, Lorimer AR, Bonn Bogaievsky Y, Packard CJ, Shepherd J. Postprandial lipemia, fenofibrate and coronary artery disease. Atherosclerosis. 1990; 85:193–202.
[12] Schinkovitz A, Dittrich P, Wascher TC. Effects of a high-fat meal on resistance vessel reactivity and on indicators of oxidative stress in healthy volunteers. Clin Physiol. 2001;21:404–410.
[13] Vogel RA, Corretti MC, Plotnick GD (1997) Effect of a single high-fat meal on endothelial function in healthy subjects. Am J Cardiol. 1997 Feb 1;79(3):350-4. PMID: 9036757-- Dariusburst ( talk) 22:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
The dispute concerns the use of a blog post by Harriet Hall in the article on Michael Greger. The post comes from Science Based Medicine, a "nonprofit opinionated education and advocacy group" which applies editorial oversight to submissions from the public, but apparently not to the primary contributors, including Hall. I believe that the use of this source, in context, violates WP:BLPSPS and that the relevant section of WP:RS makes clear that self-published expert sources cannot be used for claims about a person. Other editors feel that the claim is about Greger's work, and that therefore the policy doesn't apply.
A presumption that Greger is a quack underlies this whole conversation, and the extreme derision and dismissive attitude of most of the editors involved has rendered discussion impossible. This view of Greger is flatly contradicted by another skeptic blog, which explicitly says of his advocacy work "the science was sound." [4] Now, he is an activist, openly so, and is opinionated. This blog post notes this, and also his avoidance of reporting on studies which say nice things about animal-based food. ("While there is some zealotry here, the studies that Dr. Greger enthusiastically talks about are from respected journals and merit our attention. I think his videos are worth watching, but keep in mind that there is some cherry picking of data. Of course that doesn’t mean the cherries he picks are rotten; they’re fine.") I think this is a fair criticism, and a reason to regard his work skeptically, but it's not the same as him being a crank TV doctor. In fact he is a highly cited researcher and is better credentialed in his subject area than Hall.
Hall is not wrong about the science, but it seems that her post misrepresents Greger by assuming that everything he says is part of an argument that veganism is the optimal diet. In fact, as far as I can tell, Greger never claims that the science supports the idea that veganism is healthier than low-meat diets, which it doesn't. One editor tried to change "veganism" to "a plant based diet" in this article, which was accurate to what Greger actually says, though not to the Hall source.
The Hall post is also polemical, framing Greger's work in the context of the zealotry of vegan activists he has nothing to do with. It cites a thoroughly debunked article by Steven Davis, half of whose citations are devoted to criticizing it and correcting its blatant factual errors. To me, this adds some irony.
None of this should really be necessary to mention, as BLPSPS is straightforward and unequivocal, and should end this dispute. But it explains why invoking BLPSPS here is not just a technicality. -- Sammy1339 ( talk) 00:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
The argument is that Harriet A. Hall is notable or reliable. If any notable or reliable person makes a comment on a blog then that comment is reliable to use in Wikipedia. Correct me if I'm wrong. QuackGuru ( talk) 06:18, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
I left a note in my edit summary at Harriet A. Hall. QuackGuru ( talk) 06:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
This point of the dispute keeps being overlooked. Is it about the person, or only about the claims? I hope by raising it to this level of visibility we can get editors to respond. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:09, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
The sections below provide evidence (ad nauseum) that there is controversy arising from the fact that no reliable secondary sources have commented on Hall's criticism of Greger. There is disagreement over whether to label Hall a "(retired) physician" and/or "skeptic", whether to cite articles unrelated to Greger which give background on her qualifications and reputation, which background information (if any) to include, and so on. These debates are, needless to say, very difficult to resolve without sources, and as a result they are straining AGF.
To me, this is further evidence that the material should not be included. If WP:PARITY should seem to demand it to counter Greger's claims, then those should be removed as well. FourViolas ( talk) 03:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Does anybody think we need a formal close here? Please review the !votes before you reply. Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 02:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Given that this RFC is well over 4 months old at this point, I'll attempt to move it towards (non-admin) closure... or at least to move it into a state where it can be more easily closed by someone else.
I'll leave this for at least 36 hours for comment on this approach (flagged at the
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests_for closure), and to see if anyone else feels like closing this. ~
Hydronium~Hydroxide~
(Talk)~
07:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Samples |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
As the close is on hold, I'd like to respond to a point Jytdog made, because it's an important point to address.
He wrote: "random blogs are what BLPSPS is about". No. I helped to write WP:SPS (part of WP:V) and WP:BLPSPS, and I can say for certain that that's not correct.
The point of SPS was to allow expert self-publishers to be used as sources, but only if they're recognized as experts in the field in question—not in a field deemed related by editors who want to use the source—and if they are published experts in that field.
The point of BLPSPS was solely to make sure the BLP subject could be used (a) for details that usually come from the subject, e.g. date of birth and cv; and (b) for rebuttal, in case the article made allegations that needed to be addressed. No other form of self-publication is permitted in BLPs, by design, because we need a professional editorial process to screen comments about living persons before they are repeated by Wikipedia, for legal and other reasons.
BLPSPS is a well-established and thoroughly accepted part of a core content policy, and it ought not to be ignored for the sake of convenience in one article. If you feel too much is made in this article of Greger's claims, then reduce that material, rather than trying to counter it with a self-published source. SarahSV (talk) 20:54, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
According to the close it is a blog. See "After having read this RFC and the applied policy in question, the current wording of BLPSPS is worded such that this blog post is not a violation of policy as those answering no to the question argue". [6] Where does WP:BLP allow blogs in BLPs? I am curious. QuackGuru ( talk) 23:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
The problem with Hall's critique of veganism is that it manipulates readers into believing that Greger's claims are based on single, problematic studies. Greger's video in fact links to nutritionfacts.org, where each claim is backed up by a large number of peer-reviewed, independent sources. Some claims have over 20 references, yet Hall presents them as being based on one or two weak leads. The total references behind his summary video numbers in the thousands if you combine each claim's content, and they are all made clearly available in nutritionfacts.org's "Sources Cited" tab. Hall's misrepresentation of nutritional science is manipulative and unethical at best, and certainly inappropriate to appear in Greger's living biography.
Take Hall's position that Greger's claim that arteries are crippled by one bad meal. This claim was based on several clearly referenced studies 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 yet Hall presents it as being based on one bad study. Why would she ignore the science and misrepresent Greger to make this statement to seem like a weak claim? The only answer can be that she is misleading readers in order to smear her high-profile target. This is the problem with using contentious content from a blog entry written by a poorly informed surgeon (not a dietary nutritionist).
"Crippled" in the context that Greger employed it obviously means "impairs endothelial function". He was addressing a broad audience, and quibbling over semantics here is really pointless. See my references above if you need to be convinced that a clinician can feed subjects a meal rich in animal fats and then measure an impaired endothelial response. As Zhao et. al discuss, one bad meal can induce angina and a heart attack in patients with coronary artery disease. So, "crippled" isn't the worst way to describe the effect
Hall mischaracterizes Greger, and plant-based nutrition more broadly, as relying upon one or two weak sources. However, in this case, Greger included multitudes of peer-reviewed sources for each. Greger's sources are clearly visible alongside each video in the "Sources Cited" tab. The sources I've posted are specific to the question of how a single meal can inhibit (AKA cripple) endothelial (AKA artery) function in human subjects. If you seek reviews linking cholesterol-rich diets to atherosclerosis, there are many. Animal products are the only source of dietary cholesterol, thus, Greger advises against their consumption. This suggestion stands in agreement with the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (2016)14, and the American Dietetic Association (2009)15.
[1] Zhao, S. P.; Liu, L.; Gao, M.; Zhou, Q. C.; Li, Y. L.; Xia, B. (2001-11-01). "Impairment of endothelial function after a high-fat meal in patients with coronary artery disease". Coronary Artery Disease. 12 (7): 561–565. ISSN 0954-6928. PMID 11714996.
[2] Acute Effect of a Single High-fat Meal on Forearm Blood Flow, Blood Pressure and Heart Rate in Healthy Male Asians and Caucasians. ProQuest. 2008-01-01. ISBN 9780549871781.
[3] Ong, P. J.; Dean, T. S.; Hayward, C. S.; Della Monica, P. L.; Sanders, T. A.; Collins, P. (2016-12-18). "Effect of fat and carbohydrate consumption on endothelial function". Lancet (London, England). 354 (9196): 2134. ISSN 0140-6736. PMID 10609824.
[4] Chung, Woo-Young; Sohn, Dae-Won; Kim, Yong-Jin; Oh, Seil; Chai, In-Ho; Park, Young-Bae; Choi, Yun-Shik (2002-12-04). "Absence of postprandial surge in coronary blood flow distal to significant stenosis: a possible mechanism of postprandial angina". Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 40 (11): 1976–1983. ISSN 0735-1097. PMID 12475458.
[5] CUEVAS, ADA (2004). "Diet and Endothelial Function" (PDF). Biological Research. 37: 225–230 – via SciELO.
[6] C. Giannattasio et. al (2005) Effect of High-Fat Meal on Endothelial Function in Moderately Dyslipidemic Subjects. Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology. Feb, 2005. DOI: 10.1161/01.ATV.0000152231.93590.17
[7] Bae JH, Bassenge E, Kim KB, Kim YN, Kim KS, Lee HJ, Moon KC, LeeMS, Park KY, Schwemmer M. Postprandial hypertriglyceridemia impairs endothelial function by enhanced oxidant stress.Atherosclerosis. 2001;155:517–523.
[8] Muntwyler J, Sutsch G, Kim JH, Schmid H, Follath F, Kiowski W,Amann FW. Post-prandial lipaemia and endothelial function among healthy men.Swiss Med Wkly. 2001;131:214–218.
[9] Anderson RA, Evans ML, Ellis GR, Graham J, Morris K, Jackson SK,Lewis MJ, Rees A, Frenneaux MP. The relationships between pos-prandial lipaemia, endothelial function and oxidative stress in healthyindividuals and patients with type 2 diabetes.Atherosclerosis. 2001;154:475–483.
[10] Fard A, Tuck CH, Donis JA, sciacca R, Di Tullio MR, Wu HD, BryantTA, Chen NT, Torres-Tamayo M, Ramasamy R, Berglund L, GinsbergHN, Homma S, Cannon PJ. Acute elevations of plasma asymmetricdimethylarginine and impaired endothelial function in response to ahigh-fat meal in patients with type 2 diabetes.Arterioscler Thromb VascBiol. 2000;20:2039–2044.
[11] Simpson HS, Williamson CM, Olivecrona T, Pringle S, Maclean J, Lorimer AR, Bonn Bogaievsky Y, Packard CJ, Shepherd J. Postprandial lipemia, fenofibrate and coronary artery disease. Atherosclerosis. 1990; 85:193–202.
[12] Schinkovitz A, Dittrich P, Wascher TC. Effects of a high-fat meal on resistance vessel reactivity and on indicators of oxidative stress in healthy volunteers. Clin Physiol. 2001;21:404–410.
[13] Vogel RA, Corretti MC, Plotnick GD (1997) Effect of a single high-fat meal on endothelial function in healthy subjects. Am J Cardiol. 1997 Feb 1;79(3):350-4. PMID: 9036757.
[14] Melina V, Craig W, Levin S (2016) Position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics: Vegetarian Diets. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2016 Dec;116(12):1970-1980. doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2016.09.025. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/27886704/
[15] American Dietetic Association (2009) Position of the American Dietetic Association: Vegetarian Diets. July 2009 Volume 109 Number 7. 0002-8223/09/10907-0019$36.00/0doi: 10.1016/j.jada.2009.05.027. http://www.vrg.org/nutrition/2009_ADA_position_paper.pdf -- Dariusburst ( talk) 00:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
The article said Greger promotes a "plant based diet", I change this to a "whole foods plant based diet". Greger uses this term all the time and it's in loads of the refereneces to this article. But I got instant-reverted because it's "unsourced".
I clarified the article's claim that Greger encourages people to eat a "vegan diet" by saying he promotes a "vegan diet with a focus on health". Once again, this is already evidenced by the content of the article and the existing references. And he specifically tells people that vegan diets can be unhealthy, for example "junk food vegan diets", such as followed by many students, or the 100% plant based diets of pure alcoholics. But again, I was reverted because "unsourced".
And I removed a part of a sentence that was in brackets where the use of the word "crippled" is used to show why Hall disagrees with Greger. I don't think that reflects the points Hall was making. I was reverted for "removing sourced content", but the only thing quoted from the source was the word "cripple", and I didn't remove the reference or the sentence (other than the part in brackets).
Revert, revert, revert (and when I ask for reasons on a user_talk page I get told to go ask here). C'mon people, new contributors to an article aren't enemies. I put some thought into that edit, I could have been doing something else. Every Wikipedia article needs more contributors.
Forget it, I've lost interest.
(I'll come back because I love the Wikipedia project, but it's hard to want to when the culture has become so unfriendly. AGF? Ha. Those were the days.) Great floors ( talk) 03:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
What is the purpose of a YouTube video? I thought it is unreliable. QuackGuru ( talk) 18:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Dr. Greger has announced this date as his birthday several times, including at the Boston Vegetarian Food Festival when he spoke on that date, telling the crowd that it's his birthday. Why don't you just Google for it; it's out there. [1] [2] [3] [4]
October 25, 1972References
MaynardClark ( talk) 04:53, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Quotes criticizing Dr. Greger are well sourced and from notable persons. They have been discussed on this talk page previously, extensively, and kept each time. I feel there are more negative things which could be said about his work - for instance, some of his early statements on "mad cow disease" now look wildly alarmist - but I feel what we have here is quite reasonable. Brianyoumans ( talk) 21:38, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Additionally:
Not only did a recent anonymous edit remove criticism of Greger, it also tried to add info on a "24 country world tour" of his supposedly beginning with a talk at the Sydney Opera House. Looking online, this appears to be completely fabricated - no such tour is talked about at DrGreger.com, for instance, or at Nutritionfacts, and the Sydney Opera House schedule had no mention of it. Brianyoumans ( talk) 01:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Looks like it's been removed again. 174.29.37.138 ( talk) 00:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
This isn't an encyclopaedia entry, it's a commercial. Vapourmile ( talk) 12:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Michael Greger is Jewish, I have also asked him by email and he confirmed it, I have a the email (and a picture of it) as a proof, how can I upload it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nimce ( talk • contribs) 07:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Michael Greger has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add "American Jews" category to Michael Greger, he is Jewish, I also have an email from him as a proof :) I can show you the email (picture). Nimce ( talk) 07:32, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In order to promote veganism, i have recommended via a pending change, to remove Harriet Hall reference. We want the world to go healtby and vegan, and therfore undue critique only serves to drive this away. As a vegan, I have cured my prostate and liver cancer fom plants and reversed my heart disease. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:D47C:DC00:ED12:FD7B:2CC8:D703 ( talk) 15:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Michael Greger eats a whole food, plant-based diet, which isn't vegan. He has on many interviews said this. Vegan says what you don't eat and plant-based says what you do eat. Zabby owens ( talk) 20:55, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi everyone! i have removed the harriet hall section because it doesn't meet the standards of good clinical medical analysis. It also doesn't specifically suggest that Greger's work is faulty or bad, thefefore it isn't relevant here. Hope you are all well and have a nice day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.224.243 ( talk) 13:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There has been a lot of discusion about Greger becoming the next Surgeon General under the Biden Administartion. We need to now come to grips with this, and create an appropriate entry in his wikipedia page. May I suggest: "Greger has been named in medical circles as being the next Surgeon General in 2021 under the Biden Administration. THis would be a tremendous step forward for Veganism and Plant Based health. There has also been some word that Biden himself might go vegan after meeting Greger! This is due to be confirmed in early 2021." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.199.7.62 ( talk) 12:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hey guys! I ujst noticed that harriet hall is mentioned in the article!!! I think she should be removed. She's pretty baised in her views and a lot of her evidence isn't backed up by studies. It's generic. My vote is that we remove her paragraph as a sign of good faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:D19A:D900:F0AF:3987:6ADB:A0B3 ( talk) 04:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Sure, but let's use the enthusiasm of Greger being announced overnight, as the next surgeon general; to start a new topic on this and really clean this page up! there's a lot of anti-vegan shite on here. Needs to be cleaned! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:D19A:D900:F0AF:3987:6ADB:A0B3 ( talk) 04:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
What I meant is that I don't see any sources for the idea that Greger is being considered for surgeon general. As for sources about veganism, this isn't an article about veganism - it's about Greger and his career. Brianyoumans ( talk) 12:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I can't resist adding that, if there are rumors or proposals that Greger be Surgeon General, they need to be sourced, but also, that the suggested text just does not have the neutral tone necessary for an encyclopedia article. Hypothetically, if it could be sourced, I would say something more like, "After the 2020 election, Greger's name was mentioned as a candidate for Surgeon General in the Biden administration. Proponents hoped that a Greger nomination would advance the cause of veganism and plant-based health." Brianyoumans ( talk) 16:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I was thinking that protecting a talk page was pretty extreme, but I think I've changed my mind. Brianyoumans ( talk) 05:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Would be good to see some reference in the article to his Charity Work. Greger has become recognised for charity work and is a member of "Giving What We Can", a community of people who have pledged to give at least 10% of their income to charitable causes. We should include this, so as to show what type of man he is. Gives a good picture into his personality and dedication to people and just causes. https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/about-us/members/gregermichael — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:D19A:D900:5C6D:B866:DA67:AA00 ( talk) 12:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
There is a person named Michael Greger on their membership list. The link above doesn't work, at least for me. So, I'm not sure this is the same Michael Greger. I don't see anything else online connecting him to the organization. Brianyoumans ( talk) 14:01, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
As I understand it Healthline is not considered a reliable source for medical or nutritional content and is often removed from Wikipedia articles but is being used on Greger's article and a few other biographies. The review of Greger's book at Healthline [9] was written by Denise Minger. Minger is not a qualified dietician or practicing physician, she is not actually qualified in anything. According to her website "I spend my free time researching near-death experiences, psychic phenomena, therapeutic potential of psychedelics, astral travel, paranormal stuff, and evidence of post-death consciousness. I’ve been studying and practicing astrology since I was 12, and my first-ever statistical nerd project was on astrological patterns that show up in long-term relationships (contact me if you want to hear more about it! Or if you want a reading!" So basically this is a paranormal nut [10], she is not qualified to be talking about nutrition. I believe the Healthline link should be removed. Neither the source or the author are reliable to be citing on Wikipedia. Am I correct in thinking the source should be removed? Psychologist Guy ( talk) 17:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
The WP:LEDE is too short and unsourced. The lede only says "Michael Herschel Greger is an American physician, author, and professional speaker on public health issues, particularly the benefits of a plant-based diet and the harms of eating animal products." without sources. QuackGuru ( talk) 21:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
I think he is. Is it ok to mention this? Greger does actually say in one of his videos (somewhat tongue-in-cheek) "The Government blames the Jews" and then goes on to talk about Maimonides, who was a Jewish physician. The discussion was about milk and mucus. 78.151.30.121 ( talk) 15:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
When Hall is described as "physician and skeptic" that makes "skeptic" to be a title, akin to a job title (like "welder") or an ascribed status title (like "woman"). What exactly does this mean? I hold that it's incorrect and meaningless. I am a skeptic but i have no degree in "skepticism" and neither does Hall. She belongs to a subculture of people who call themselves "Skeptic" and who subscribe to "Skeptic" discussion lists and magazines, etc. But this is a self-identification that is not necessarily correct to apply. The word itself is an abstract word that would require others who judge her to be so. In other words, "skeptic" is not an occupation nor an ascribed status and Hall has no "degree in Skepticism" and the use of the word there is misleading to the readers of the article and it is not NPOV to use this word as a title form for Hall. SageRad ( talk) 13:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Where does the source say she is a "physician and/or skeptic"? I requested verification. The article must verify the content. See WP:V. QuackGuru ( talk) 19:49, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
note the SciAm source also references "skeptic" in her nickname-- actually the opposite: the Shermer piece uses the word "skeptic" exactly once, and not in reference to Hall, unless i've missed something. Shermer is a self-professed "Skeptic" and so his mention of Hall in SciAm is sort of within the subculture self-promotion realm. He's got that column and uses it to promote the subculture. That's my reckoning. Secondly, i have read the Scientific skepticism and i especially note the section on pseudoskepticism. I do not know why you say
please do read what is at that link, which you do not seem to have done yetwhich seems to be an insinuation of ignorance on my part about the meaning of the term. I think you have plenty of evidence to know that i understand the meaning of the term. Could we talk with fewer barbs, please? I am tired of deconstructing undertones of scorn. I understand the full argument being made about Greger in reference the content guideline of WP:FRINGE and the like, but i disagree with the interpretations in light of that guideline and in conflict with the spirit of WP:BLPSPS as wel as the policies in WP:NPOV and WP:RS. SageRad ( talk) 17:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
To be clear: the current content is:
Physician Harriet A. Hall, who is known for applying critical thinking to health claims, [1] [2] [3] has written ...
References
- ^ Kranish, Michael (July 24, 2009). "Senators seek coverage for alternative therapies". The Boston Globe. Retrieved August 8, 2009.
- ^ Swoopy; Colanduno, Derek (June 10, 2008). "Ep. #079 - Interview: Dr. Harriet Hall - The Doctor Is In!". Skepticality. Skeptic Magazine. Retrieved November 27, 2011.
- ^ Shermer, Michael (January 2007). "Airborne Baloney: The latest fad in cold remedies is full of hot air". Scientific American. Retrieved August 9, 2009.
What exactly is the problem with support? Jytdog ( talk) 22:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Here let me beat this to death - refs we are not citing that support the same thing:
"Too often, some of the most intriguing academic conferences take place behind closed doors, off limits to the public. But the two major events in the annual Lorne Trottier Public Science Symposium, coordinated by the McGill Office for Science and Society, are open to the public - and for excellent reason.
It's in the public's best interest to differentiate between good and bad science. Or, more to the point, science that is based on proven fact. Too many false prophets lurk, and not just in the shadows, offering false hope to the desperate and/or naïve looking for a panacea for what ails them or family members. Last year's symposium, featuring a panel of international scientists and authors, tackled pseudo-science and was an eye-opener for skeptics and believers alike. This year's symposium, Alternative Medicine Under the Microscope, should be even more provocative, as four experts in the field will delve into one of the most contentious current subjects. Monday evening at Centre Mont Royal, the symposium will showcase speakers Harriet Hall, also known at the SkepDoc; Paul Offit, a leading advocate of childhood immunization; and Robert Park, author of Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud. Tuesday evening at McGill's Fieldhouse Auditorium in the Leacock Building, the sole speaker is Edzard Ernst, a former homeopathic practitioner and now a critic of alternative medicine. Moderator for both free events is McGill professor and Gazette columnist Joe Schwarcz, also the organizer of the symposium the last two years.
"The goal of this program is to promote science to the public and to promote critical thinking," Schwarcz says.
Really? Jytdog ( talk) 23:09, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated the sourcesprohibits this kind of citing general profile info as a shortcut for actual RS evaluating the validity of her criticism.
References
Due to the ongoing issues I have fully protected the page for 10 days. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 23:14, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
See here. I've added a recruiting tag to the top of this page. Jytdog ( talk) 19:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Kia ora, and gidday!
A Spanish friend - a teacher of Spanish at a university - kindly translated the current English text of this page into Spanish for us. I'm a new user, so cannot upload it yet. If you're an established user, please feel free so to do. You have permission from both of us. Tena koe, and Gracias!
Michael Greger
Nacimiento 1972 (age 44–45) Educación Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences Tufts University School of Medicine Website www.drgreger.org Medical career Profesión Medicina general Especialización Dieta y nutrición
Michael Herschel Greger es un científico americano, autor y ponente en temas de salud general, y en particular en dietas vegetarianas y los perjuicios del consumo de alimentos de origen animal. Es vegetariano y creador de NutritionFacts.org.
Contenidos
1 Carrera
2 Publicaciones
3 Referencias
4 Enlaces
Carrera
Greger se graduó en Cornell University School of Agriculture, donde escribió sobre los peligros de la encefalopatía espongiforme bovina (bovine spongiform encephalopathy)en una página publicada en 1994.[1][2][3] En el mismo año trabajó en la enfermedad de las vacas locas en un Farm Sanctuary, cerca de Cornell, y se hizo vegetariano después de una visita de trabajo a un criadero en el Farm Sanctuary.[1] En 1998 testificó en calidad de experto en encefalopatía espongiforme bovina en el proceso judicial por difamación que enfrentó a los productores de carne y Oprah Winfrey por las declaraciones de esta última sobre el riesgo de los productos cárnicos en 1996.[1][4]
Asistió la programa de doctorado en Tufts University School of Medicine, aunque finalmente, solo completó su licenciatura médica.[5] Se graduó en 1999 como médico general, especializado en nutrición.[1] En 2001 se hizo miembro de Organic Consumers Association para trabajar en la enfermedad de las vacas locas al mismo tiempo que los primeros casos empezaron a aparecer en EEUU y Canadá [1][6][7][8] en lo que él llamó "La plaga del siglo XXI."[9][10][11]
En 2004 creó su página web y publicó un libro crítico de la popular Dieta Atkins y otras dietas bajas en carbohidratos.[1]
En 2004, El Colegio americano de medicina y estilo de vida tenía su sede en Loma Linda,[12] y Greger era miembro fundador[1], uno de los primeros en formar parte de la asociación.[13]
En 2005 formó parte de la división para el bienestar de animales en granja, en Humane Society , como director de la salud y bienestar de los animales en granjas.[1] En 2008 testificó ante el Congreso[14] a raíz de la publicación de un video grabado secretamente en Westland Meat Packing Company por Humane Society mostrando animales moribundos entrando en la cadena de alimentación, lo cual obligó a la USDA a retirar 143 millones de libras de ternera, parte de ellas destinadas al programa nacional de alimentación escolar.[15]
En 2011, fundó la página NutritionFacts.org[16] financiada por la fundación Jesse & Julie Rasch.[17]
En sus clases, videos y escritos sobre nutrición intenta persuadir a los consumidores de cambiar sus hábitos alimenticios de una dieta occidental a una dieta vegetariana—idealmente una dieta vegan—y argumenta que este tipo de dieta no sólo puede prevenir sino incluso revertir muchas enfermedades crónicas.[18][19]:10 Critica la actitud de otros doctores por no difundir entre sus pacientes dietas vegetarianas y evitar alimentos de origen animal.[19]:1–12 y es contrario a la actitud del gobierno americano por restar importancia a los consejos médicos sobre llevar una vida sana a través de la dieta y nutrición, con el objetivo de favorecer los intereses económicos de los productores —especialmente productores de comida rápida y productos animales.[20]
Harriet A. Hall, científica retirada, conocida por la aplicación de razonamiento crítico en las cuestiones de salud, [21][22][23] escribió que, aunque es sabido que es más sano comer una dieta de origen vegetal que una dieta animal, con frecuencia Greger sobrepondera los beneficios de la primera y los perjuicios de la segunda, (por ejemplo, en una ponencia argumento que una sola comida rica en alimentos animales puede perjudicar las arterias), y que en ocasiones no comenta sobre evidencias que contradicen sus declaraciones.[18] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjpw1234 ( talk • contribs) 09:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Does the blog post by Harriet A. Hall referenced in this article violate WP:BLPSPS? Sammy1339 ( talk 00:32, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. Such material, although written by an established author, likely lacks the fact checking that publishers provide. Avoid using them to source extraordinary claims. Self-published information should never be used as a third-party source about another living person, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer (see WP:Biographies of living persons § Reliable sources).There have been two substantive objections to applying BLPSPS. One is that the blog is not self-published due to its editorial policy. However, this policy applies to outside submissions from the general public, not to the blog authors' posts, which are not subject to editorial oversight. The other is that Hall's criticism concerns claims made by Greger but not Greger himself. I believe this is transparently false. -- Sammy1339 ( talk) 00:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject ( see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs.
no self-published sources are allowed in BLPs, regardless of what they're used for.I believe BLP indicates otherwise.
If this were a group blog writing in support of alternative medicineIt would fail WP:FRINGE and ARBPS spectacularly.
It's an ideological agenda pushing to include this here.You sure about that? If so, do clarify because it sounds like it could be a ArbCom violation going on here. -- Ronz ( talk) 15:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
*No Summoned by bot. At first blush this appeared to be a self-published blog, and I hastily said so (comment reverted). However, a bit of further examination indicates that this published commentary falls within the exception stated in the policy. Note that I am just addressing the BLP issue, not any other that may be relevant (such as weight,
WP:V, etc.)
Coretheapple (
talk)
14:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
it calls into serious question the bona fides of the website in questionCould you explain, as I seem to be missing how WaPo article you link address their reliability? -- Ronz ( talk) 20:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Casual statements, or even seriously stated evaluations based on slips of memory or casual wording or misconceptions in matters in which there is room for disagreement can happenBut that's not the case with this specific reference. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:03, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Take Hall's position that Greger's claim that arteries are crippled by one bad meal. This claim was based on several clearly referenced studies 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 yet Hall presents it as being based on one bad study. Why would she ignore the science and misrepresent Greger to make this statement to seem like a weak claim? The only answer can be that she is misleading readers in order to smear her high-profile target. This is the problem with using contentious content from a blog entry written by a poorly informed surgeon (not a dietary nutritionist).
[1] Zhao, S. P.; Liu, L.; Gao, M.; Zhou, Q. C.; Li, Y. L.; Xia, B. (2001-11-01). "Impairment of endothelial function after a high-fat meal in patients with coronary artery disease". Coronary Artery Disease. 12 (7): 561–565. ISSN 0954-6928. PMID 11714996.
[2] Acute Effect of a Single High-fat Meal on Forearm Blood Flow, Blood Pressure and Heart Rate in Healthy Male Asians and Caucasians. ProQuest. 2008-01-01. ISBN 9780549871781.
[3] Ong, P. J.; Dean, T. S.; Hayward, C. S.; Della Monica, P. L.; Sanders, T. A.; Collins, P. (2016-12-18). "Effect of fat and carbohydrate consumption on endothelial function". Lancet (London, England). 354 (9196): 2134. ISSN 0140-6736. PMID 10609824.
[4] Chung, Woo-Young; Sohn, Dae-Won; Kim, Yong-Jin; Oh, Seil; Chai, In-Ho; Park, Young-Bae; Choi, Yun-Shik (2002-12-04). "Absence of postprandial surge in coronary blood flow distal to significant stenosis: a possible mechanism of postprandial angina". Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 40 (11): 1976–1983. ISSN 0735-1097. PMID 12475458.
[5] CUEVAS, ADA (2004). "Diet and Endothelial Function" (PDF). Biological Research. 37: 225–230 – via SciELO.
[6] C. Giannattasio et. al (2005) Effect of High-Fat Meal on Endothelial Function in Moderately Dyslipidemic Subjects. Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology. Feb, 2005. DOI: 10.1161/01.ATV.0000152231.93590.17
[7] Bae JH, Bassenge E, Kim KB, Kim YN, Kim KS, Lee HJ, Moon KC, LeeMS, Park KY, Schwemmer M. Postprandial hypertriglyceridemia impairs endothelial function by enhanced oxidant stress.Atherosclerosis. 2001;155:517–523.
[8] Muntwyler J, Sutsch G, Kim JH, Schmid H, Follath F, Kiowski W,Amann FW. Post-prandial lipaemia and endothelial function among healthy men.Swiss Med Wkly. 2001;131:214–218.
[9] Anderson RA, Evans ML, Ellis GR, Graham J, Morris K, Jackson SK,Lewis MJ, Rees A, Frenneaux MP. The relationships between pos-prandial lipaemia, endothelial function and oxidative stress in healthyindividuals and patients with type 2 diabetes.Atherosclerosis. 2001;154:475–483.
[10] Fard A, Tuck CH, Donis JA, sciacca R, Di Tullio MR, Wu HD, BryantTA, Chen NT, Torres-Tamayo M, Ramasamy R, Berglund L, GinsbergHN, Homma S, Cannon PJ. Acute elevations of plasma asymmetricdimethylarginine and impaired endothelial function in response to ahigh-fat meal in patients with type 2 diabetes.Arterioscler Thromb VascBiol. 2000;20:2039–2044.
[11]Simpson HS, Williamson CM, Olivecrona T, Pringle S, Maclean J, Lorimer AR, Bonn Bogaievsky Y, Packard CJ, Shepherd J. Postprandial lipemia, fenofibrate and coronary artery disease. Atherosclerosis. 1990; 85:193–202.
[12] Schinkovitz A, Dittrich P, Wascher TC. Effects of a high-fat meal on resistance vessel reactivity and on indicators of oxidative stress in healthy volunteers. Clin Physiol. 2001;21:404–410.
[13] Vogel RA, Corretti MC, Plotnick GD (1997) Effect of a single high-fat meal on endothelial function in healthy subjects. Am J Cardiol. 1997 Feb 1;79(3):350-4. PMID: 9036757-- Dariusburst ( talk) 22:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
The dispute concerns the use of a blog post by Harriet Hall in the article on Michael Greger. The post comes from Science Based Medicine, a "nonprofit opinionated education and advocacy group" which applies editorial oversight to submissions from the public, but apparently not to the primary contributors, including Hall. I believe that the use of this source, in context, violates WP:BLPSPS and that the relevant section of WP:RS makes clear that self-published expert sources cannot be used for claims about a person. Other editors feel that the claim is about Greger's work, and that therefore the policy doesn't apply.
A presumption that Greger is a quack underlies this whole conversation, and the extreme derision and dismissive attitude of most of the editors involved has rendered discussion impossible. This view of Greger is flatly contradicted by another skeptic blog, which explicitly says of his advocacy work "the science was sound." [4] Now, he is an activist, openly so, and is opinionated. This blog post notes this, and also his avoidance of reporting on studies which say nice things about animal-based food. ("While there is some zealotry here, the studies that Dr. Greger enthusiastically talks about are from respected journals and merit our attention. I think his videos are worth watching, but keep in mind that there is some cherry picking of data. Of course that doesn’t mean the cherries he picks are rotten; they’re fine.") I think this is a fair criticism, and a reason to regard his work skeptically, but it's not the same as him being a crank TV doctor. In fact he is a highly cited researcher and is better credentialed in his subject area than Hall.
Hall is not wrong about the science, but it seems that her post misrepresents Greger by assuming that everything he says is part of an argument that veganism is the optimal diet. In fact, as far as I can tell, Greger never claims that the science supports the idea that veganism is healthier than low-meat diets, which it doesn't. One editor tried to change "veganism" to "a plant based diet" in this article, which was accurate to what Greger actually says, though not to the Hall source.
The Hall post is also polemical, framing Greger's work in the context of the zealotry of vegan activists he has nothing to do with. It cites a thoroughly debunked article by Steven Davis, half of whose citations are devoted to criticizing it and correcting its blatant factual errors. To me, this adds some irony.
None of this should really be necessary to mention, as BLPSPS is straightforward and unequivocal, and should end this dispute. But it explains why invoking BLPSPS here is not just a technicality. -- Sammy1339 ( talk) 00:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
The argument is that Harriet A. Hall is notable or reliable. If any notable or reliable person makes a comment on a blog then that comment is reliable to use in Wikipedia. Correct me if I'm wrong. QuackGuru ( talk) 06:18, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
I left a note in my edit summary at Harriet A. Hall. QuackGuru ( talk) 06:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
This point of the dispute keeps being overlooked. Is it about the person, or only about the claims? I hope by raising it to this level of visibility we can get editors to respond. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:09, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
The sections below provide evidence (ad nauseum) that there is controversy arising from the fact that no reliable secondary sources have commented on Hall's criticism of Greger. There is disagreement over whether to label Hall a "(retired) physician" and/or "skeptic", whether to cite articles unrelated to Greger which give background on her qualifications and reputation, which background information (if any) to include, and so on. These debates are, needless to say, very difficult to resolve without sources, and as a result they are straining AGF.
To me, this is further evidence that the material should not be included. If WP:PARITY should seem to demand it to counter Greger's claims, then those should be removed as well. FourViolas ( talk) 03:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Does anybody think we need a formal close here? Please review the !votes before you reply. Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 02:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Given that this RFC is well over 4 months old at this point, I'll attempt to move it towards (non-admin) closure... or at least to move it into a state where it can be more easily closed by someone else.
I'll leave this for at least 36 hours for comment on this approach (flagged at the
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests_for closure), and to see if anyone else feels like closing this. ~
Hydronium~Hydroxide~
(Talk)~
07:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Samples |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
As the close is on hold, I'd like to respond to a point Jytdog made, because it's an important point to address.
He wrote: "random blogs are what BLPSPS is about". No. I helped to write WP:SPS (part of WP:V) and WP:BLPSPS, and I can say for certain that that's not correct.
The point of SPS was to allow expert self-publishers to be used as sources, but only if they're recognized as experts in the field in question—not in a field deemed related by editors who want to use the source—and if they are published experts in that field.
The point of BLPSPS was solely to make sure the BLP subject could be used (a) for details that usually come from the subject, e.g. date of birth and cv; and (b) for rebuttal, in case the article made allegations that needed to be addressed. No other form of self-publication is permitted in BLPs, by design, because we need a professional editorial process to screen comments about living persons before they are repeated by Wikipedia, for legal and other reasons.
BLPSPS is a well-established and thoroughly accepted part of a core content policy, and it ought not to be ignored for the sake of convenience in one article. If you feel too much is made in this article of Greger's claims, then reduce that material, rather than trying to counter it with a self-published source. SarahSV (talk) 20:54, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
According to the close it is a blog. See "After having read this RFC and the applied policy in question, the current wording of BLPSPS is worded such that this blog post is not a violation of policy as those answering no to the question argue". [6] Where does WP:BLP allow blogs in BLPs? I am curious. QuackGuru ( talk) 23:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
The problem with Hall's critique of veganism is that it manipulates readers into believing that Greger's claims are based on single, problematic studies. Greger's video in fact links to nutritionfacts.org, where each claim is backed up by a large number of peer-reviewed, independent sources. Some claims have over 20 references, yet Hall presents them as being based on one or two weak leads. The total references behind his summary video numbers in the thousands if you combine each claim's content, and they are all made clearly available in nutritionfacts.org's "Sources Cited" tab. Hall's misrepresentation of nutritional science is manipulative and unethical at best, and certainly inappropriate to appear in Greger's living biography.
Take Hall's position that Greger's claim that arteries are crippled by one bad meal. This claim was based on several clearly referenced studies 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 yet Hall presents it as being based on one bad study. Why would she ignore the science and misrepresent Greger to make this statement to seem like a weak claim? The only answer can be that she is misleading readers in order to smear her high-profile target. This is the problem with using contentious content from a blog entry written by a poorly informed surgeon (not a dietary nutritionist).
"Crippled" in the context that Greger employed it obviously means "impairs endothelial function". He was addressing a broad audience, and quibbling over semantics here is really pointless. See my references above if you need to be convinced that a clinician can feed subjects a meal rich in animal fats and then measure an impaired endothelial response. As Zhao et. al discuss, one bad meal can induce angina and a heart attack in patients with coronary artery disease. So, "crippled" isn't the worst way to describe the effect
Hall mischaracterizes Greger, and plant-based nutrition more broadly, as relying upon one or two weak sources. However, in this case, Greger included multitudes of peer-reviewed sources for each. Greger's sources are clearly visible alongside each video in the "Sources Cited" tab. The sources I've posted are specific to the question of how a single meal can inhibit (AKA cripple) endothelial (AKA artery) function in human subjects. If you seek reviews linking cholesterol-rich diets to atherosclerosis, there are many. Animal products are the only source of dietary cholesterol, thus, Greger advises against their consumption. This suggestion stands in agreement with the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (2016)14, and the American Dietetic Association (2009)15.
[1] Zhao, S. P.; Liu, L.; Gao, M.; Zhou, Q. C.; Li, Y. L.; Xia, B. (2001-11-01). "Impairment of endothelial function after a high-fat meal in patients with coronary artery disease". Coronary Artery Disease. 12 (7): 561–565. ISSN 0954-6928. PMID 11714996.
[2] Acute Effect of a Single High-fat Meal on Forearm Blood Flow, Blood Pressure and Heart Rate in Healthy Male Asians and Caucasians. ProQuest. 2008-01-01. ISBN 9780549871781.
[3] Ong, P. J.; Dean, T. S.; Hayward, C. S.; Della Monica, P. L.; Sanders, T. A.; Collins, P. (2016-12-18). "Effect of fat and carbohydrate consumption on endothelial function". Lancet (London, England). 354 (9196): 2134. ISSN 0140-6736. PMID 10609824.
[4] Chung, Woo-Young; Sohn, Dae-Won; Kim, Yong-Jin; Oh, Seil; Chai, In-Ho; Park, Young-Bae; Choi, Yun-Shik (2002-12-04). "Absence of postprandial surge in coronary blood flow distal to significant stenosis: a possible mechanism of postprandial angina". Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 40 (11): 1976–1983. ISSN 0735-1097. PMID 12475458.
[5] CUEVAS, ADA (2004). "Diet and Endothelial Function" (PDF). Biological Research. 37: 225–230 – via SciELO.
[6] C. Giannattasio et. al (2005) Effect of High-Fat Meal on Endothelial Function in Moderately Dyslipidemic Subjects. Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology. Feb, 2005. DOI: 10.1161/01.ATV.0000152231.93590.17
[7] Bae JH, Bassenge E, Kim KB, Kim YN, Kim KS, Lee HJ, Moon KC, LeeMS, Park KY, Schwemmer M. Postprandial hypertriglyceridemia impairs endothelial function by enhanced oxidant stress.Atherosclerosis. 2001;155:517–523.
[8] Muntwyler J, Sutsch G, Kim JH, Schmid H, Follath F, Kiowski W,Amann FW. Post-prandial lipaemia and endothelial function among healthy men.Swiss Med Wkly. 2001;131:214–218.
[9] Anderson RA, Evans ML, Ellis GR, Graham J, Morris K, Jackson SK,Lewis MJ, Rees A, Frenneaux MP. The relationships between pos-prandial lipaemia, endothelial function and oxidative stress in healthyindividuals and patients with type 2 diabetes.Atherosclerosis. 2001;154:475–483.
[10] Fard A, Tuck CH, Donis JA, sciacca R, Di Tullio MR, Wu HD, BryantTA, Chen NT, Torres-Tamayo M, Ramasamy R, Berglund L, GinsbergHN, Homma S, Cannon PJ. Acute elevations of plasma asymmetricdimethylarginine and impaired endothelial function in response to ahigh-fat meal in patients with type 2 diabetes.Arterioscler Thromb VascBiol. 2000;20:2039–2044.
[11] Simpson HS, Williamson CM, Olivecrona T, Pringle S, Maclean J, Lorimer AR, Bonn Bogaievsky Y, Packard CJ, Shepherd J. Postprandial lipemia, fenofibrate and coronary artery disease. Atherosclerosis. 1990; 85:193–202.
[12] Schinkovitz A, Dittrich P, Wascher TC. Effects of a high-fat meal on resistance vessel reactivity and on indicators of oxidative stress in healthy volunteers. Clin Physiol. 2001;21:404–410.
[13] Vogel RA, Corretti MC, Plotnick GD (1997) Effect of a single high-fat meal on endothelial function in healthy subjects. Am J Cardiol. 1997 Feb 1;79(3):350-4. PMID: 9036757.
[14] Melina V, Craig W, Levin S (2016) Position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics: Vegetarian Diets. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2016 Dec;116(12):1970-1980. doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2016.09.025. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/27886704/
[15] American Dietetic Association (2009) Position of the American Dietetic Association: Vegetarian Diets. July 2009 Volume 109 Number 7. 0002-8223/09/10907-0019$36.00/0doi: 10.1016/j.jada.2009.05.027. http://www.vrg.org/nutrition/2009_ADA_position_paper.pdf -- Dariusburst ( talk) 00:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
The article said Greger promotes a "plant based diet", I change this to a "whole foods plant based diet". Greger uses this term all the time and it's in loads of the refereneces to this article. But I got instant-reverted because it's "unsourced".
I clarified the article's claim that Greger encourages people to eat a "vegan diet" by saying he promotes a "vegan diet with a focus on health". Once again, this is already evidenced by the content of the article and the existing references. And he specifically tells people that vegan diets can be unhealthy, for example "junk food vegan diets", such as followed by many students, or the 100% plant based diets of pure alcoholics. But again, I was reverted because "unsourced".
And I removed a part of a sentence that was in brackets where the use of the word "crippled" is used to show why Hall disagrees with Greger. I don't think that reflects the points Hall was making. I was reverted for "removing sourced content", but the only thing quoted from the source was the word "cripple", and I didn't remove the reference or the sentence (other than the part in brackets).
Revert, revert, revert (and when I ask for reasons on a user_talk page I get told to go ask here). C'mon people, new contributors to an article aren't enemies. I put some thought into that edit, I could have been doing something else. Every Wikipedia article needs more contributors.
Forget it, I've lost interest.
(I'll come back because I love the Wikipedia project, but it's hard to want to when the culture has become so unfriendly. AGF? Ha. Those were the days.) Great floors ( talk) 03:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
What is the purpose of a YouTube video? I thought it is unreliable. QuackGuru ( talk) 18:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Dr. Greger has announced this date as his birthday several times, including at the Boston Vegetarian Food Festival when he spoke on that date, telling the crowd that it's his birthday. Why don't you just Google for it; it's out there. [1] [2] [3] [4]
October 25, 1972References
MaynardClark ( talk) 04:53, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Quotes criticizing Dr. Greger are well sourced and from notable persons. They have been discussed on this talk page previously, extensively, and kept each time. I feel there are more negative things which could be said about his work - for instance, some of his early statements on "mad cow disease" now look wildly alarmist - but I feel what we have here is quite reasonable. Brianyoumans ( talk) 21:38, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Additionally:
Not only did a recent anonymous edit remove criticism of Greger, it also tried to add info on a "24 country world tour" of his supposedly beginning with a talk at the Sydney Opera House. Looking online, this appears to be completely fabricated - no such tour is talked about at DrGreger.com, for instance, or at Nutritionfacts, and the Sydney Opera House schedule had no mention of it. Brianyoumans ( talk) 01:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Looks like it's been removed again. 174.29.37.138 ( talk) 00:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
This isn't an encyclopaedia entry, it's a commercial. Vapourmile ( talk) 12:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Michael Greger is Jewish, I have also asked him by email and he confirmed it, I have a the email (and a picture of it) as a proof, how can I upload it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nimce ( talk • contribs) 07:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Michael Greger has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add "American Jews" category to Michael Greger, he is Jewish, I also have an email from him as a proof :) I can show you the email (picture). Nimce ( talk) 07:32, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In order to promote veganism, i have recommended via a pending change, to remove Harriet Hall reference. We want the world to go healtby and vegan, and therfore undue critique only serves to drive this away. As a vegan, I have cured my prostate and liver cancer fom plants and reversed my heart disease. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:D47C:DC00:ED12:FD7B:2CC8:D703 ( talk) 15:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Michael Greger eats a whole food, plant-based diet, which isn't vegan. He has on many interviews said this. Vegan says what you don't eat and plant-based says what you do eat. Zabby owens ( talk) 20:55, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi everyone! i have removed the harriet hall section because it doesn't meet the standards of good clinical medical analysis. It also doesn't specifically suggest that Greger's work is faulty or bad, thefefore it isn't relevant here. Hope you are all well and have a nice day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.224.243 ( talk) 13:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There has been a lot of discusion about Greger becoming the next Surgeon General under the Biden Administartion. We need to now come to grips with this, and create an appropriate entry in his wikipedia page. May I suggest: "Greger has been named in medical circles as being the next Surgeon General in 2021 under the Biden Administration. THis would be a tremendous step forward for Veganism and Plant Based health. There has also been some word that Biden himself might go vegan after meeting Greger! This is due to be confirmed in early 2021." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.199.7.62 ( talk) 12:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hey guys! I ujst noticed that harriet hall is mentioned in the article!!! I think she should be removed. She's pretty baised in her views and a lot of her evidence isn't backed up by studies. It's generic. My vote is that we remove her paragraph as a sign of good faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:D19A:D900:F0AF:3987:6ADB:A0B3 ( talk) 04:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Sure, but let's use the enthusiasm of Greger being announced overnight, as the next surgeon general; to start a new topic on this and really clean this page up! there's a lot of anti-vegan shite on here. Needs to be cleaned! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:D19A:D900:F0AF:3987:6ADB:A0B3 ( talk) 04:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
What I meant is that I don't see any sources for the idea that Greger is being considered for surgeon general. As for sources about veganism, this isn't an article about veganism - it's about Greger and his career. Brianyoumans ( talk) 12:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I can't resist adding that, if there are rumors or proposals that Greger be Surgeon General, they need to be sourced, but also, that the suggested text just does not have the neutral tone necessary for an encyclopedia article. Hypothetically, if it could be sourced, I would say something more like, "After the 2020 election, Greger's name was mentioned as a candidate for Surgeon General in the Biden administration. Proponents hoped that a Greger nomination would advance the cause of veganism and plant-based health." Brianyoumans ( talk) 16:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I was thinking that protecting a talk page was pretty extreme, but I think I've changed my mind. Brianyoumans ( talk) 05:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Would be good to see some reference in the article to his Charity Work. Greger has become recognised for charity work and is a member of "Giving What We Can", a community of people who have pledged to give at least 10% of their income to charitable causes. We should include this, so as to show what type of man he is. Gives a good picture into his personality and dedication to people and just causes. https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/about-us/members/gregermichael — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:D19A:D900:5C6D:B866:DA67:AA00 ( talk) 12:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
There is a person named Michael Greger on their membership list. The link above doesn't work, at least for me. So, I'm not sure this is the same Michael Greger. I don't see anything else online connecting him to the organization. Brianyoumans ( talk) 14:01, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
As I understand it Healthline is not considered a reliable source for medical or nutritional content and is often removed from Wikipedia articles but is being used on Greger's article and a few other biographies. The review of Greger's book at Healthline [9] was written by Denise Minger. Minger is not a qualified dietician or practicing physician, she is not actually qualified in anything. According to her website "I spend my free time researching near-death experiences, psychic phenomena, therapeutic potential of psychedelics, astral travel, paranormal stuff, and evidence of post-death consciousness. I’ve been studying and practicing astrology since I was 12, and my first-ever statistical nerd project was on astrological patterns that show up in long-term relationships (contact me if you want to hear more about it! Or if you want a reading!" So basically this is a paranormal nut [10], she is not qualified to be talking about nutrition. I believe the Healthline link should be removed. Neither the source or the author are reliable to be citing on Wikipedia. Am I correct in thinking the source should be removed? Psychologist Guy ( talk) 17:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)