OT: re: Russert/McDougall Interview

July 2, 2008

Someone asked me on the List about how I found it respectful.

The tone.

It was a measured, friendly, almost affectionate, and gentle approach as a

Doctor with good bedside manner would use when discussing a serious issue with a

patient. I found nothing offensive in the interview. It's a technicality

whether Russert's prior symptoms were " heart disease " or " heart

disease " -related, imho.

Fact is, Russert's advised medication, diet, regular exercise, and regular

monitoring by conventional medicine didn't solve the underlying problem: the

need for a low-fat vegan diet to enable the plaques to diminish and not form in

the first place. Stress didn't matter; exercise didn't matter.

Exploitative? Sure, but not in a mercenary sense. Russert's sudden death

brought attention to a devastating epidemic that's killing a tremendous number

of people in this country. Envisioning a discussion with Mr. Russert and

explaining what happened, most likely why, and how it can be prevented, is

entirely appropriate and the kind of activism that, again, imho, is

thought-provoking and takes advantage of the general short-term memory of most

people in this country.

McDougall a zealot? Nope, not partisan (part of the definition). He's been

talking about this for decades. Ornstein, Esselstyn, Barnard... Lyman... they

all speak from the research. Sometimes you have to keep raising your voice and

bringing the truth out. It's accepted that any successful " movement " usually

first, must get attention, then the education begins.

If McDougall's interview causes people to RESEARCH and educate themselves, power

to him. I take heat (nothing like he does, I'm sure) for my sometimes

" excessive " attitude about no-fat, but then occasionally people write me and

tell me that they've reversed their heart disease from being pointed in the

right direction by something I was ranting or writing about.

The sudden death of a vital 58 year old well-liked and known celebrity from

heart disease brought the issue to focus for a few days, and in that window,

more can learn that it doesn't have to be that way. The medical establishment

is blind. They can't make profit out of people curing themselves.

I applaud McDougall for his interview, the succinct information therein, and

pointing out that (and I monitored this too) none of his contemporaries either

did the minimal research (or had the huevos) to talk about the need for changes

in how we eat. Ironic, I've read several experts discussing Russert's death and

plaque all saying there's nothing we can do about the plaque. What a crock!

Fact is: Russert ate a lot of bad fatty animal products (boasted about it), had

a post-mortem that showed cardiovascular damage, and research by Ornstein and

Esselstyn have independently shown how to reverse and prevent it in the first

place.

Opportunistic? Sure... but a opportunity for more to learn and see the truth.

I read no disrespect in the interview, although I can well understand how some

people (particularly those who knew Russert) could fly off emotionally about it

all. Any worse than people voicing dissent over factory farming taking

advantage of Vick's dog-fighting? Maybe it's that it's a person's death that

freaks people out. Dunno.

Fact remains, though: a very low-fat vegan diet generally reverses and prevents

heart disease. Russert's doctor used conventional means and they failed. They

will always fail as they treat symptoms and not the underlying cause. Odds are,

if Tim Russert had followed a very low-fat vegan diet, his heart disease

symptoms would have reversed in about a month and there would have been no

" food " to " fuel " formation of the plaque that killed him.

The truth isn't always pretty.

Let's NOT clutter up this List with this issue and responses. I'm not the

owner, but I just don't think that would be appropriate and it's doubtful I'd

answer or respond to this issue here after sending this note.

I'll post a version of this note on my blog in a day or two and all are welcome

to respond. I'll let any comments through, disagreeing with me or not, as long

as they are polite and not abusive.

Best to all, Mark (now, a posthumous interview with George Carlin, THAT would

be a challenge to write!)

http://www.soulveggie.com

July 3, 2008

Mark, I think you made some great points. I did not feel that Dr. McDougall's tone reflected disrespect either. I felt that he's deeply saddened by the fact that Tim Russert's life ended prematurely. Especially in light of the research facts that a low-fat vegan diet can reverse heart disease. The point I felt Dr. McDougall was making is that the medical community and the press let Tim Russert down by not educating the public about the choice to alter lifestyle to prevent such tragedies. The medical community treats the symptoms rather than the cause. I have read the newsletter several times and I just don't detect the negativity that some individuals read into that article. I

respect Dr. McDougall for having the integrity to tell it like it is, knowing that he's going to receive flack. And unfortunately, controversy is one of the greatest methods for getting your message heard in our western society. No need to blame the messenger. Anyway Mark, I just wanted you to know that you're not the only one who believes the way you do. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion on this subject. And we do a fine job of voicing our opinions in this group. Respectfully to all concerned,MarthaMark Sutton <msutton Sent: Wednesday, July 2, 2008 5:06:04

PM OT: re: Russert/McDougall InterviewSomeone asked me on the List about how I found it respectful. The tone. It was a measured, friendly, almost affectionate, and gentle approach as a Doctor with good bedside manner would use when discussing a serious issue with a patient. I found nothing offensive in the interview. It's a technicality whether Russert's prior symptoms were "heart disease" or "heart disease"-related, imho. Fact is, Russert's advised medication, diet, regular exercise, and regular monitoring by conventional medicine didn't solve the underlying problem: the need for a low-fat vegan diet to enable the plaques to diminish and not form in the first place. Stress didn't matter; exercise didn't matter. Exploitative? Sure, but not in a mercenary sense. Russert's sudden death brought attention to a devastating epidemic that's killing a tremendous number of people in this country. Envisioning a discussion with Mr. Russert and explaining what happened, most likely why, and how it can be prevented, is entirely appropriate and the kind of activism that, again, imho, is thought-provoking and takes advantage of the general short-term memory of most people in this country. McDougall a zealot? Nope, not partisan (part of the definition). He's been talking about this for decades. Ornstein, Esselstyn, Barnard... Lyman... they all speak from the research. Sometimes you have to keep raising your voice and bringing the truth out. It's accepted that any successful "movement" usually first, must get attention, then the education begins. If McDougall's interview causes people to RESEARCH and

educate themselves, power to him. I take heat (nothing like he does, I'm sure) for my sometimes "excessive" attitude about no-fat, but then occasionally people write me and tell me that they've reversed their heart disease from being pointed in the right direction by something I was ranting or writing about. The sudden death of a vital 58 year old well-liked and known celebrity from heart disease brought the issue to focus for a few days, and in that window, more can learn that it doesn't have to be that way. The medical establishment is blind. They can't make profit out of people curing themselves. I applaud McDougall for his interview, the succinct information therein, and pointing out that (and I monitored this too) none of his contemporaries either did the minimal research (or had the huevos) to talk about the need for changes in how we eat. Ironic, I've read several experts discussing Russert's death and plaque all saying

there's nothing we can do about the plaque. What a crock! Fact is: Russert ate a lot of bad fatty animal products (boasted about it), had a post-mortem that showed cardiovascular damage, and research by Ornstein and Esselstyn have independently shown how to reverse and prevent it in the first place. Opportunistic? Sure... but a opportunity for more to learn and see the truth. I read no disrespect in the interview, although I can well understand how some people (particularly those who knew Russert) could fly off emotionally about it all. Any worse than people voicing dissent over factory farming taking advantage of Vick's dog-fighting? Maybe it's that it's a person's death that freaks people out. Dunno. Fact remains, though: a very low-fat vegan diet generally reverses and prevents heart disease. Russert's doctor used conventional means and they failed. They will always fail as they treat symptoms and not the

underlying cause. Odds are, if Tim Russert had followed a very low-fat vegan diet, his heart disease symptoms would have reversed in about a month and there would have been no "food" to "fuel" formation of the plaque that killed him. The truth isn't always pretty. Let's NOT clutter up this List with this issue and responses. I'm not the owner, but I just don't think that would be appropriate and it's doubtful I'd answer or respond to this issue here after sending this note. I'll post a version of this note on my blog in a day or two and all are welcome to respond. I'll let any comments through, disagreeing with me or not, as long as they are polite and not abusive. Best to all, Mark (now, a posthumous interview with George Carlin, THAT would be a challenge to write!)http://www.soulvegg ie.com

July 3, 2008

What is Ornstein's first name? Thank you.

Maureen

Mark Sutton <msutton Sent: Wednesday, July 2, 2008 2:06:04 PM OT: re: Russert/McDougall Interview

Someone asked me on the List about how I found it respectful.The tone.It was a measured, friendly, almost affectionate, and gentle approach as a Doctor with good bedside manner would use when discussing a serious issue with a patient. I found nothing offensive in the interview. It's a technicality whether Russert's prior symptoms were "heart disease" or "heart disease"-related, imho.Fact is, Russert's advised medication, diet, regular exercise, and regular monitoring by conventional medicine didn't solve the underlying problem: the need for a low-fat vegan diet to enable the plaques to diminish and not form in the first place. Stress didn't matter; exercise didn't matter.Exploitative? Sure, but not in a mercenary sense. Russert's sudden death brought attention to a devastating epidemic that's killing a tremendous number of people in this country. Envisioning a discussion with Mr. Russert and explaining what happened,

most likely why, and how it can be prevented, is entirely appropriate and the kind of activism that, again, imho, is thought-provoking and takes advantage of the general short-term memory of most people in this country.McDougall a zealot? Nope, not partisan (part of the definition). He's been talking about this for decades. Ornstein, Esselstyn, Barnard... Lyman... they all speak from the research. Sometimes you have to keep raising your voice and bringing the truth out. It's accepted that any successful "movement" usually first, must get attention, then the education begins.If McDougall's interview causes people to RESEARCH and educate themselves, power to him. I take heat (nothing like he does, I'm sure) for my sometimes "excessive" attitude about no-fat, but then occasionally people write me and tell me that they've reversed their heart disease from being pointed in the right direction by something I was ranting or writing

about.The sudden death of a vital 58 year old well-liked and known celebrity from heart disease brought the issue to focus for a few days, and in that window, more can learn that it doesn't have to be that way. The medical establishment is blind. They can't make profit out of people curing themselves.I applaud McDougall for his interview, the succinct information therein, and pointing out that (and I monitored this too) none of his contemporaries either did the minimal research (or had the huevos) to talk about the need for changes in how we eat. Ironic, I've read several experts discussing Russert's death and plaque all saying there's nothing we can do about the plaque. What a crock!Fact is: Russert ate a lot of bad fatty animal products (boasted about it), had a post-mortem that showed cardiovascular damage, and research by Ornstein and Esselstyn have independently shown how to reverse and prevent it in the first

place.Opportunistic? Sure... but a opportunity for more to learn and see the truth.I read no disrespect in the interview, although I can well understand how some people (particularly those who knew Russert) could fly off emotionally about it all. Any worse than people voicing dissent over factory farming taking advantage of Vick's dog-fighting? Maybe it's that it's a person's death that freaks people out. Dunno.Fact remains, though: a very low-fat vegan diet generally reverses and prevents heart disease. Russert's doctor used conventional means and they failed. They will always fail as they treat symptoms and not the underlying cause. Odds are, if Tim Russert had followed a very low-fat vegan diet, his heart disease symptoms would have reversed in about a month and there would have been no "food" to "fuel" formation of the plaque that killed him.The truth isn't always pretty.Let's NOT clutter up this List with

this issue and responses. I'm not the owner, but I just don't think that would be appropriate and it's doubtful I'd answer or respond to this issue here after sending this note.I'll post a version of this note on my blog in a day or two and all are welcome to respond. I'll let any comments through, disagreeing with me or not, as long as they are polite and not abusive.Best to all, Mark (now, a posthumous interview with George Carlin, THAT would be a challenge to write!)http://www.soulvegg ie.com