Jordon Peterson claims drinking a glass of apple cider caused him to not be able to sleep for 25 days straight and his daughter claimed that putting pepper on a steak caused joint pain, acne and anxiety for three weeks. But she can drink voldka and bourbon.
That sort of batshit crazy magical thinking isn't worth discussing. Period.
The article the GP posted has the money quote:
>The idea that alcohol, one of the most well-documented toxic substances, is among the few things that Peterson’s body will tolerate may be illuminating. It implies that when it comes to dieting, the inherent properties of the substances ingested can be less important than the eater’s conceptualizations of them—as either tolerable or intolerable, good or bad. What’s actually therapeutic may be the act of elimination itself.
Please reread the comment you are replying to, I didn't say "it's crazy to think a mono-diet of meat might have some therapeutic effects" or even anything like it.
Those people are also mentally ill. Their symptoms are mostly psychosomatic and the "therapeutic effects" of a meat diet are entirely sure to the placebo effect.
Are malicious comments like this -- calling one's fellow human beings reporting what worked to cure their health "mentally ill" or "batshit crazy" -- actually allowed on HN?
Where are the facts, then? We have two people who claim to follow an all-beef diet, and built a business around giving advice to people regarding their diet.
Similarly, breatharians make claims about their diet and built businesses around giving advice to people regarding their diet.
Both the Petersons and breatharians make huge claims about their purported diet, but don't have the evidence to back their claims up. There isn't even evidence that the Petersons follow their own diet advice. There are only claims and consultation fees.
Even if an all beef diet had amazing health benefits, it's still bat shit insane magical thinking to claim that a glass of apple cider makes you unable to sleep for 25 days straight. Not hyperbole, he claimed it literally. Assuming it's even possible to not sleep for 25 days. That's /r/thatHappened material.
For another example of the same sort of outrageous obviously false claims (similar to breatharianism) see the "fasting girls." (One of which died of starvation while being monitored)
> There isn't even evidence that the Petersons follow their own diet advice. There are only claims and consultation fees.
What they do to earn their living is irrelevant. Including your convenient disbelief (in the name of "evidence") of their factual reports. Unlike you, I take what people say with face value in order to establish a prima facie case -- there is no need to believe or disbelieve.
Had I listened to the Internet cynics like you I would not have resolved my own chronic condition.
> What they do to earn their living is irrelevant.
No, it is very relevant. There's a blatant conflict of interest and that you chose to ignore it, and just take them on their word without evidence, speaks volumes.
I wish you luck in treating your chronic condition.
It is irrelevant, as it does not automagically make a factual report suddenly false. This is such basic comprehension; I have no idea why some people don't get it.
"Conflict of interest" and "complete lack of evidence that so-called practitioners even practice their diet" don't mean that their report is automatically false, it just calls into question their integrity and their report's basis in reality.
Yet that is what you are implying. You inject your (presumably agenda-based) disbelief onto their factual reports and then buttress that disbelief by channeling attention into irrelevant matters (thereby suppressing discussion of the therapeutic effects of the diet), instead of opening up a conversation with any modicum of curiosity.
Unless a person is lying -- like that notorious vegan did when submitting a deliberately false report to meatheals.com -- one's report is indeed factual. Intelligent people are not stupid enough to blindly believe what others say, instead of taking it at face value in order to establish a prima facie case.
I don't think that's true. It's not that they don't recommend the diet, it's that they are very careful to say that it works for them and that they have no evidence or expertise to say if it will work for someone else.
The auto-immune benefit was just one of many benefits they claimed. Both also suffered from depression and they said those symptoms went away as well.
There's no evidence that either of them follow their "all beef diet", but there's ample evidence that they charge $120+/hr for consultations based on this diet[1].
