Discussion Board

Your interview with Tim is just what the doctor ordered.

I am a classroom teacher, now pompously referred to as an "educator", and Tim's death presented to you what we call "a teachable moment". You don't get them that often, but when they present themselves, you have to seize the moment. Proof of this is the volume of feedback you're getting.

As for the critics, all of whom cited "poor taste", I ask "what poor taste?" You didn't mock him, so where's the poor taste? Since we're all just speculating when we speak of "respect for the family", I would assume that the family would be grateful that someone (you) who has the data to back it up, uses the sad occasion of his death to save the living from his fate. Your motive was not in any way commercial, so where's the poor taste?

I spoke with Tim shortly after your interview and he just sighed and said "I wish I had done my homework on my heart condition as thoroughly as I prepared for "Meet The Press".

Dr. McDougall:

Though provocative to some, your July 2008 newsletter was saturated in truth. This is what people have come to expect from you - a man who, through scientific vigour, conveys what he has come to know and understand.

Hippocrates, the Father of Medicine, once wrote, "There are, in fact, two things: science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance." Since the words you speak are based on scientific fact (statistical significance) rather than mere opinion, truth is the outcome. After having read 'The Pleasure Trap,' I carry with me a greater appreciation for those individuals who clearly do not understand the three-pronged dissection of human intent - The Motivational Triad.

All this to say that I enjoyed your July 2008 newsletter and to keep up the superb effort!

Kind Regards,

Ethan

Hi Dr. McDougal. As a long time vegetarian who knew of you many years ago, I just recently visited your site. I just read the "interview" and I support you. I felt there was no intended disrespect at all and was very clever. I am sorry for grieving family members but maybe it would be good for them to rejoice in helping others...that would be the highest way to react to your interview.

**************

I do have one complaint though, from a long time ago. The reason I stopped wanting to read your books or visit your site is because a loooong time ago you refused to call yourself a "vegetarian". You said "we eat turkey once a year so we don't call ourselves vegetarian"...as IF being veg is a bad thing.

Now, THAT offended me. I am veg mostly for ethnical reasons. IMO, it's a beautiful and noble ideal to care about the fellow creatures on the planet. We should not be embarrassed about it even though many in the world want to condemn us because they lack the same sensitivities. I think the health benefits are GREAT....however, the most NOBLE reasons for being veg are not wanting to harm other feeling beings. I hope you feel the same now after being in the biz for so long.

I think this is why I connect more with ethical vegetarians more than health vegetarians...because health vegetarians are doing it for themselves, ONLY...while the ethical folk have a deep concern for animals and the planet. The ethical ones are more passionate.

Onetime I met a health vegan...he was explaining to me that he does it for health mostly and not all are "animal rights activists". Okay, fine. I told him for me, it's a passion, I LOVE my diet. He could not understand this...he felt it was about feeling denied and deprived. I told him I love the creativity, the color, the taste, and the fact it's a cruelty free diet. Suffice to say, I was not attracted to this man!

I am glad I finally got to express this. I hope you have considered the beauty of being an ethical vegetarian.

Speaking for myself, this kind of moral superiority is what drives me from "vegetarian" and "vegan" communities. You've said "health" vegs are insensitive, lack passion, do not care about their fellow creatures and lack noble instincts. Amazing that any of us could possibly not want to align ourselves with you.

In a "real" vegetarian community, if two people behave in exactly the same way and eat exactly the same things but one does it for "animal welfare" and the other for "personal health" then the latter is seen as a selfish excuse for a human being and almost worse than people who eat meat (in the "they know not what they do" vein). I know this doesn't describe every ethical vegetarian, but it's an overwhelming undercurrent that is frequently verbalised on every vegetarian community I've ever visited over the last 15 years. I finally left another online community because I couldn't stand this condescending superiority. Also I got tired of the philosophy of animal rights excusing the ignorance about nutrition and science.

I think the reason McDougall doesn't call himself vegetarian is that simply cutting out animal products does not necessarily create a healthier diet and that's all vegan means at the dietary level. Vegetarian is far worse with the dairy and eggs. A vegetarian, even a vegan, can have a diet that's just as bad or worse as someone who isn't vegetarian. I'm sure you also know many vegetarians and vegans who eat any old junk as long as it didn't come from an animal. And that's why McDougall doesn't classify himself into this very large group. His diet is based on health principles.

I respect your right to your beliefs. Just don't try to tell me that you're a better human being than I am and that I just need to see the light.

This board is a refuge for me from the religious fervor of ethical veganism. There are many ethical vegetarian and vegan communities - you are well catered for. There is only one McDougall board. Long may it continue to be secular.

Hmmmm.....I just want to make myself clear.

I think it's great what Dr. McDougal is doing. He is helping solve a major problem in the world and that is disease. This is huge and he is to be commended for it. We need to clean up our medical system so it really helps us and not just the industries it supports. This effects so many aspects of life...from vivisection to the economy to the environment and to animal welfare.

I also think it's great that others want to improve their health with a plant based diet. That is wonderful and should be encouraged.

I just didn't think it was right how he rejected ethical vegetarians. That is not right IMO because becoming veg for the reason of not wanting to inflict suffering is a noble act. I am not saying vegetarians are better than all meat eaters...no. There are many fine meat eaters. We are complex individuals. There are many aspects of nobility...I do think the diet is more noble because it is peaceful and has all kinds of tanglible and not so tangible benefits for humanity.

My post was not meant to denigrate those who choose this diet for health...although I can see how it seems that way. I encourage you completely. I just know I identify more with those who are morally repulsed by cruelty more than those that are blase about it. And I wish Dr. McDougal didn't denigrate ethical vegetarians. It was a long time ago, I can forgive him...I hope he has chosen differently now.

Good luck and may you have beautiful health.

Hi, Soleil. That's a beautiful name.

From your message, I get the impression that if I don't want to label myself "vegetarian", that I'm rejecting people who do call themselves vegetarians. Is that really what you meant?

For example, I don't label myself a "woman" (cause I'm a male ), and I don't reject women.

People have lots of different motivations for their choices. I'm glad you feel good about your reasons for choosing veg'ism. I think health, animal rights, and ecology are all good reasons for choosing a plant-based diet. And I'm grateful we don't all have to agree on our reasons for the choices we make.

When you say, "I encourage you completely. I just know I identify more with those who are morally repulsed by cruelty more than those that are blase about it," I feel judged, despite the encouragement. Can you see why that might be?

No, not really.

Background: A long time ago, Dr. McDougal made a point of not calling himself a vegetarian. He said he ate turkey at Thanksgiving so that no one would call him a vegetarian.

Like he was embarrassed to be a vegetarian.

It was something a long time ago. When I read it, I felt he was purposely distancing himself from vegetarians, the ethical ones, the ones who never eat meat.

My only point in this thread is that while I think it's great to be in the business of the health aspects of a plant based diet, he shouldn't reject the ethical reasons for being veg. IMO, they are very good reasons and they should be respected and admired, not rejected.

I hope this makes sense. It's very hot outside and I am loopy. I am researching the flouride issue in water and I am freaking out.

Hi again, Soleil.

Yes, what you say makes sense to me. I agree that it has been very warm lately. And what I've read about fluoride stressed me out, too.

I've heard Dr. McDougall say things like what you describe, and fairly recently (within the last two years). I've heard him say that he won't call himself a vegetarian until vegetarians start eating more healthfully.

What I understood him to be saying was that it's easy to avoid animal products and still eat an unhealthy diet. I didn't hear him saying that ethical reasons for veg'ism are not valid or that one kind of vegetarian is better than another.

I thought he was distancing himself from the label "vegetarian" (but not from people) without regard for motivation. In other words, my impression is that Dr. McDougall would not want to be called a "health vegetarian", "ethical vegetarian", or "ecological vegetarian" because calling him any kind of vegetarian doesn't really describe what he stands for. If I tell you I'm a vegetarian, you know what I don't eat. You don't necessarily know what I *do* eat.

Dr. McDougall's December, 2006 newsletter has an article about the ecological reasons for eating a plant-based diet, and he has started a "Global Warming" forum here on his discussion board. My impression is that he acknowledges and respects all the different reasons folks have for avoiding animal products, and he shares some of them. What he teaches goes beyond just avoiding animal products and focuses also on choosing the plant foods one uses to be as healthy as possible.

Only Dr. McDougall could tell us exactly what he meant by the different things he has said. I hear that whatever it was that you heard him say, it didn't settle well with you.

there are communities where vegans might gather for ethical reasons; this just isn't the raison d'etre for this particular group. not a rejection; but rather dr. mcd is abundantly clear that his inspiration is drawn from a concern for health.

he wasn't rejecting those who choose these dietary options for ethical reasons, just making it abundantly clear that he's driven to provide info for medical reasons. (it's to strengthen THAT concern/argument/point)

(and doesn't he indulge in turkey every OTHER year these daze?

Thanks for the thoughts. Its not a huge issue for me and it was along time ago.

Everyone might want to be acquainted with the flouride issue in our public water. You can look it up on the net.

Sodium Flouride is being added to our water under the idea that it saves children's teeth. This is ahuge controversy....many say SODIUM Flouride is toxic and is an industrial waste. Only Calcium Flouride helps the bones and teeth.

And even if they did add Calcium Flouride...why should government put any kind of drug or supplement in our water supply?

Anyway, I know this is another topic...its on my mind these days and I am spreading the word.

I wouldn't say he rejects the ethics of being vegetarian and think that you got the wrong end of the stick. An ethical vegetarian, however well-intentioned and wonderful a person s/he might be, can have a diet that makes them just as sick as a non-vegetarian. I think that McDougall wants to make very clear that just cutting out animal products is not enough to achieve good health. If he called himself vegetarian or vegan, then many people would switch off and say, "oh, I do that already and that means I'm healthy." In my experience, the vast majority of vegans and vegetarians eat fairly unhealthy diets (when a McDougall-type diet is the reference standard).

Rightly or wrongly, labeling oneself a vegan or vegetarians carries with it connotations of a belief system - and this is strongly encouraged by the larger vegan/vegetarian community (again in my experience). If McDougall went out on a vegetarian/vegan platform, he probably would be rejected out of hand by the majority of people who do not see that using/killing/eating animals is unethical. Those people might be willing to listen to the health & scientific reasons for reducing or eliminating animal products, especially if they already buy free range and/or organic.

Given his association with PCRM and their association with PETA, I would expect that McDougall is fairly sympathetic to animal welfare. But I don't know for sure.

Soliel,

First, I absolutely see where you are coming from, as I'm approaching veganism as both a physical health and mental health (trying to understand the respect the varied and valued experiences of all creatures) discipline. I do feel offended when people display any sort of dismissive attitude towards ethical veganism, and Dr. McDougall talking about eating turkey every other Thanksgiving does fall under this umbrella. However, I forgive him, because I know that I would have been able to progress in coming to a deep ethical vegan perspective had I not been able to be a successful dietary vegan, and Dr. McDougall helps people to do just that. I wasn't the healthiest vegan before I found the McDougall website. I bought a lot of dumb dietary myths, and depended on a lot of processed and packaged foods. But, I've been slowly converting to the McDougall diet, and thanks to help from this board I also discovered that I had a gluten sensitivity. Now I feel much better.

As far as helping people to understand the value of ethical veganism, I think a lot of people need to get their foot in the door diet-wise first. When people are able to let go of animal products in their diets a lot of their secret moral dilemmas might be resolved, or perhaps they'll come to mind for the first time. (Why DID I eat those animals, etc...) Ironically, they'll probably more willing to take the dietary plunge being coached by someone who, at least superficially, distances his or herself from vegetarianism, because they'll understand that the person really has health in mind primarily.

Sadly, when I first started wrestling with the meat/no meat conflict, I felt like a lot of vegetarians didn't take good enough care of their health, and possibly didn't care about the health of others so long as their movement succeeded. The ethical vegan speakers that came to my college campus looked pale and scrawny, and I had just recovered from an eating disorder so I was turned off by their appearances.

So, while I am offended at the mention of meat on holidays, I'm aware of the real necessity of people like Dr. McDougall to open people's eyes to the health benefits of a healthy vegan diet. That's why I'm not too concerned about his choice to distance himself as he has.

I had the privledge of hearing Dr. McDougall present this Interview at the Celebrity Chef's weekend. in Santa Rosa several months ago. I think it was the first time he had just written it and that it was the first time he had presented it. As he began, most of the audience looked rather confused as he told us that he had "just come from and interview with Tim Russert. Knowing Tim Russert was deceased, it took a few seconds to realize what Dr. Mcdougall was trying to get acrossed but it soon became apparent that he was very moved by what he saw as a very untimely and unnecessary death. I thought it was brilliant and it never occurred to me that he was disrespectful or that it was in poor taste. He just didn't come acrossed that way as he presented. Dr. McDougall is so passionate about his beliefs that his passion and desire to save folks from disease and death overshadowed anything else. a couple of months later, in my husband and I were in Costa Rica with the McDougalls and I asked him if he would repeat the Interview for one of our "before dinner lectures." He was hesitant to do so, indicating he had had alot of negative comments re the "Interview," and didn't think it would be a good idea. I think it was one of the most brilliant pieces he has written and I have heard several...Maybe it was the timing as Tim Russert had only been gone a couple of weeks when Dr. McDougall did the presentation to us. Just my opinion for what it is worth.