18 Month Old Vegan Baby Dies Of Malnutrition

[Herbie]

His bones are protuding and robust, since his face is mostly bones the collagen reaper wont do much

Is that a tumor on the right side of his jaw in that gif

Going by his younger photos, he was very blessed by his parents and living off of what they gave him. There is no way young people of today are going to have the robustness to withstand that kind of diet for as long as this fool has.

Disclaimer: I do have optimism for RP vegan diet/vegetarian diet incase the plant based agenda gets serious and meat is banned by the government we will have no choice but to eat potatoes, greens, oranges, chocolate, coffee, preg, prog, test.

 

[Homo Consumericus]

Creatine is absent in plant foods. And ther are studies showing that people who don't eat meat have lower creatine levels. So you can't really get the same nutrients of meat from a plant- based diet. Carnosine and carnitine are also lacking.

And taurine. Even Joel Con admitted this to Chris Kresser in their debate (), at which point Con used the opportunity to plug yet another supplement (most of which he just so happens to sell) to his audience.

Con's a Conman, you might ask? Well, his name was listed by the whistleblower along with seven other doctors who knowingly participated in an insurance fraud scheme, receiving $700,000+ annually in compensation. The hospital lost a suit and was commanded to pay over $80 million. Can Con be trusted to commit insurance fraud but not medical fraud? According to the whistleblower, Dr. Felten (forced out of the hospital for refusing to participate in scheme), "If someone demonstrates a lack of integrity in their financial dealings, why should I believe that they will show integrity in clinical practice or research?"

(The original video exposing this, uploaded by Veg Source, has been pulled to limit fallout from vegan-on-vegan violence. However, the legendary army surgeon Shawn Baker, covered the crime here: . Veg Source, to his credit, seems to focus on exposing rich manipulative vegans preying on poor gullible vegans, and recently also aimed his spotlight on another Joel-- Joel Fraudman-- for commiting fraud at every stage of conducting, publishing, and promoting the the now infamous "study" repudiated by his closest collegues: .)

 

[shine]

Veganism is a depopulation agenda. Feed them plant based kibble, make them infertile and reduce the population to "save the planet".

 

[MetabolicTrash]

One of the "leaders" of raw veganism movement.

Around 1998:

Less than 20 years later:

He's younger than Peat. I have to say his skin and hair looks good. But his mental ability seems to have declined.

I honestly don't think that's saying too much. I see lots of older people around that age who look similar and aren't vegan -- or if anything are just fatter a bit. I know some more weight can help older people, but aside from that the aging part itself visually doesn't differ too much between most vegans and meat eaters on average I don't think. Looks like an average (age wise) 70 something guy in the second video -- just a very lean one (though maybe not as "vibrant" as other 70-80+ I've seen).

Point being that most people end up like that following a normal Western lifestyle/diet/etc. and other regimens by that age anyways, more or less (and meat or not). Sure, the diet matters and I wouldn't think veganism alone is highly optimal -- but age-wise in the looks department at least it likely doesn't make a big difference between your average meat eater by comparison. Also, someone heavier might possibly look younger because the fat can act like a "cushioning concealment" of some aging signs.

 

[boris]

Exactly, at the least he is living proof that we will be able to survive even a long time of famine.

 

[Kunstruct]

Veganism is a depopulation agenda. Feed them plant based kibble, make them infertile and reduce the population to "save the planet".

As far as i see certain veganism aspects are business driven. For example pea protein is pushed hard because it is being produced a lot and now the big producers are pumping for years money into studies so that their yellow peas can be consumed on large scale and get more cash. Look for various hollywood stars have jumped into vegan and peas protein documentaries.

Also the fact that on youtube all kind of steroid vegans are pushing the vegan thing is highly deceiving to the naive population that as far as I have seen they for years keep this diet and expect for the results like the steroid guys, nothing happens but they keep hoping.

 

[bk_]

Veganism is a depopulation agenda. Feed them plant based kibble, make them infertile and reduce the population to "save the planet".

I’m beginning to believe that this is a factor behind the promotion of veganism.

It’s no secret that the Rockefellers were influential in eugenics and population control. It was fashionable before WW2 to promote eugenics and many leaders and politicians were openly promoting the idea. Mass sterilization programs had already been implemented in North America and Europe on so called “undesirables” such as the mentally ill and convicts who Rockefeller saw as having too many children and causing over population.

With the aftermath of WW2 eugenics had a deeply negative connotation with the general public so the Rockefeller’s shifted their message to population control for saving the environment and preserving wildlife habitat though I find their concern for the environment highly questionable given their unethical practices in promoting fossil fuel consumption and interfering with investments into other technologies from the very beginning of the 20th century. Regardless of the motives they employed any means necessary towards this agenda from promoting birth control, feminism, to environmental movements (read any Rockefeller foundation reports from the 40s onwards).

On the surface these movements appear charitable but when you see the heavy hand the Rockefeller foundation and the Rockefellers had in promoting these social movements, it makes one question their motives.

The Rockefellers had deeply unethical practices in manipulating various industries and politicians in areas such as health care itself (Flexner report and their pharmaceuticals), education through endowment funds and policy think tanks, shifting automobiles to use gasoline engine to sell their oil, promoting suburban planning to create a society of commuters (and increased fossil fuel consumption), paying 150 municipalities to remove their electric transport line in favour of diesel powered buses, etc...

Veganism may fit into this picture since it is driven by concern for global warming, the environment and animals at the possible risk to human health and reproduction.

 

[mangoes]

Honestly, people rip into Peat’s appearance at his age but he looks a lot better than that Viktoras guy. He doesn’t have the hump back or the deformed looking hands that so many older people develop. Well, at least in what pictures I’ve seen from him most recently like from the back of a tiger pictures

 

[boris]

At least she strains it.

 

[Herbie]

When the people emigrated to North America and Australia, they made lots of riches from the fertile soil but didn’t manage the land and had to bring in synthetic fertilizer and pesticides, fungicide etc to keep up production.

I believe these early farming practices were a huge **** up and has had a huge impact on humanity today.

Mass mono cropping is not good for the environment and pumping phosphates in the depleted soil and run off into rivers and oceans is not good for the environment and with getting rid of more cow poo this will further destroy the soil from lack of enzymes and bacteria to inoculate the soil (Refer Rudolf Steiner biodynamic farming)

So how can veganism be better for environment... idiots

 

[boris]

The logic is flawed from beginning to end.

This is really beyond orthorexia at this point, I don't know if there is even a word for it. He isn't able to recognize the food as food anymore. All that counts is that the package says "Vegan":

 

[Momado965]

If a vegan diet is insufficient for the nourishment of children than should it carry over that it’s also insufficient for the nourishment of a fully grown adult?

To grow mentally, brains cells have to form new connections. This requires physical processes that are connected with growth. The child grows from every physical system, while the adult’s skeletal system is haltered. Nevertheless, we all want the brain to continue to grow, for how else can we continue to gain intelligence and knowledge of the world. I wouldn’t halter that development for any ideological crusade. It’s literally retarding.

When I’m undernourished it’s impossible for me to learn anything new, and my thoughts strictly tend towards egotistical survivalist tendencies. When I’m well-nourished, which undoubtedly takes animal products, the world becomes irresistibly stimulating.

I noticed the same effects on myself. When Im malnourished I cant learn anything at all.

 

[Rafael Lao Wai]

And taurine. Even Joel Con admitted this to Chris Kresser in their debate (), at which point Con used the opportunity to plug yet another supplement (most of which he just so happens to sell) to his audience.

Con's a Conman, you might ask? Well, his name was listed by the whistleblower along with seven other doctors who knowingly participated in an insurance fraud scheme, receiving $700,000+ annually in compensation. The hospital lost a suit and was commanded to pay over $80 million. Can Con be trusted to commit insurance fraud but not medical fraud? According to the whistleblower, Dr. Felten (forced out of the hospital for refusing to participate in scheme), "If someone demonstrates a lack of integrity in their financial dealings, why should I believe that they will show integrity in clinical practice or research?"

(The original video exposing this, uploaded by Veg Source, has been pulled to limit fallout from vegan-on-vegan violence. However, the legendary army surgeon Shawn Baker, covered the crime here: . Veg Source, to his credit, seems to focus on exposing rich manipulative vegans preying on poor gullible vegans, and recently also aimed his spotlight on another Joel-- Joel Fraudman-- for commiting fraud at every stage of conducting, publishing, and promoting the the now infamous "study" repudiated by his closest collegues: .)

Oh yeah, taurine as well. Extremely important for the metabolism.

It's disgusting to see this stuff happening. They tell people it's the best diet for disease prevention, but then you have to supplement a bunch of stuff just to stay alive. And even then vegans still suffer a lot of damage( muscle loss, hair loss, weak bones and teeth, etc.). Good thing some youtubers expose these fraudulent people. I watched Shawn's video shortly after he posted it.

I honestly don't think that's saying too much. I see lots of older people around that age who look similar and aren't vegan -- or if anything are just fatter a bit. I know some more weight can help older people, but aside from that the aging part itself visually doesn't differ too much between most vegans and meat eaters on average I don't think. Looks like an average (age wise) 70 something guy in the second video -- just a very lean one (though maybe not as "vibrant" as other 70-80+ I've seen).

Point being that most people end up like that following a normal Western lifestyle/diet/etc. and other regimens by that age anyways, more or less (and meat or not). Sure, the diet matters and I wouldn't think veganism alone is highly optimal -- but age-wise in the looks department at least it likely doesn't make a big difference between your average meat eater by comparison. Also, someone heavier might possibly look younger because the fat can act like a "cushioning concealment" of some aging signs.

That's a good point. I think that the similarity may be that people around that age usually eat less food due to less appetite , which means less animal foods as well. Old people are told to avoid sugar, saturated fat, cholesterol, and are encouraged to eat "heart healthy fats"( lol) such as soybean oil as well as fiber to lower cholesterol.It isn't very different from what Viktoras eats.

Meat eaters on a standard american diet eat very little meat( something like 3 or 4 ounces per day). That's one of the reasons why there isn't a huge difference between "normal" old people and vegan old people. But the regular old person suffers from noticeable muscle and boneloss, so we know that being vegan at least won't help with that. As has been mentioned, Peat indeed looks much healthier. Last time I saw one of the clips from "On the back of a tiger", he didn't look emaciated, and he drinks a lot of milk everyday and regularly eats meat, eggs and seafood.

At least she strains it.

lol at least that.

The logic is flawed from beginning to end.

This is really beyond orthorexia at this point, I don't know if there is even a word for it. He isn't able to recognize the food as food anymore. All that counts is that the package says "Vegan":

That was hard to watch. He just can't ignore the animal products in the store: I bet his mouth watered just from saying "pâté".

haha he said: "oil is fine, it's unhealthy, but it's vegan". If it's vegan, it's fine.

So much processed food. He is certainly contributing to the environment...'s destruction.

I’m beginning to believe that this is a factor behind the promotion of veganism.

It’s no secret that the Rockefellers were influential in eugenics and population control. It was fashionable before WW2 to promote eugenics and many leaders and politicians were openly promoting the idea. Mass sterilization programs had already been implemented in North America and Europe on so called “undesirables” such as the mentally ill and convicts who Rockefeller saw as having too many children and causing over population.

With the aftermath of WW2 eugenics had a deeply negative connotation with the general public so the Rockefeller’s shifted their message to population control for saving the environment and preserving wildlife habitat though I find their concern for the environment highly questionable given their unethical practices in promoting fossil fuel consumption and interfering with investments into other technologies from the very beginning of the 20th century. Regardless of the motives they employed any means necessary towards this agenda from promoting birth control, feminism, to environmental movements (read any Rockefeller foundation reports from the 40s onwards).

On the surface these movements appear charitable but when you see the heavy hand the Rockefeller foundation and the Rockefellers had in promoting these social movements, it makes one question their motives.

The Rockefellers had deeply unethical practices in manipulating various industries and politicians in areas such as health care itself (Flexner report and their pharmaceuticals), education through endowment funds and policy think tanks, shifting automobiles to use gasoline engine to sell their oil, promoting suburban planning to create a society of commuters (and increased fossil fuel consumption), paying 150 municipalities to remove their electric transport line in favour of diesel powered buses, etc...

Veganism may fit into this picture since it is driven by concern for global warming, the environment and animals at the possible risk to human health and reproduction.

I think so too. If I don't eat meat for even a day, I start to feel very weak and dizzy. Considering how many nutrients there are in animal products, I don't see how people would be able to have many children if they don't have enough vitality to even be healthy themselves.

I really can't see the elite being worried about the environment. They are just trying to make people think they have to live as if they're poor to "save the planet". Meanwhile, the elite is probably eating extremely high quality food, and living a crazy comfortable life.

Yeah, the Rockefellers are openly in favor of population control, as are other people, such as Bill Gates, But I don't see them having less children themselves.

 

[Ritchie]

I'm finding the anti plant based/vegan sentiment on this forum quite amusing and very misguided. Ray Peat has said many times that a well planned vegan diet in line with his principles is more than suitable for health and high metabolism, ticking all the boxes required. Further, Peat literally advocates for getting the bulk of nutritional requirements (I think Ray suggests at least 60%) from plant sources (sugar cane, fruit juice, sweet ripe fruits, jams, potatoes, refined sugar, coca cola, chocolate, coffee, cocoa, etc). Ray advocates eating raw carrots daily for the insoluble fibre and antimicrobial properties, well cooked mushrooms regularly, cooked kale and other leafy green broths which he say he has at least once a week, coconut oil. This anti vegan, anti plant based, "vegan agenda" type sentiment and the adversity to a plant based diet is kinda ignorant in the context of Ray Peat and his nutritional physiological framework and philosophy. Ideology and nutritional dogma is a waste of time and energy, better to look at the rationale and the physiology. What is indicated and what is not. I mean at the end of the day, that's what Peat is all about.

In the context of this thread, you must understand that "vegan" is not a diet, it is merely a way of eating that excludes animal products and thus can be done in any way one can imagine. You could eat only chips, coke, bread, oreos, chocolate, baked beans and peanut butter and be vegan so of course it is possible to be extremely unhealthy eating a diet like that, just as it is eating an omnivorous one. Do you not think that parents who eat and feed their child an omnivorous diet haven't killed their baby from malnutrition before? There are so many cases of it happening.

For more info see: Peat's Surprising Response To My Email. A "Ray Peat Vegan" Is Possible

 

[Rafael Lao Wai]

I'm finding the anti plant based/vegan sentiment on this forum quite amusing and very misguided. Ray Peat has said many times that a well planned vegan diet in line with his principles is more than suitable for health and high metabolism, ticking all the boxes required. Further, Peat literally advocates for getting the bulk of nutritional requirements (I think Ray suggests at least 60%) from plant sources (sugar cane, fruit juice, sweet ripe fruits, jams, potatoes, refined sugar). Ray advocates eating raw carrots daily for the insoluble fibre and antimicrobial properties, well cooked mushrooms regularly, cooked kale and other leafy green broths which he say he has at least once a week, coconut oil. This anti vegan, anti plant based, "vegan agenda" type sentiment and the adversity to a plant based diet is kinda ignorant in the context of Ray Peat and his nutritional physiological framework and philosophy. Ideology and nutritional dogma is a waste of time and energy, better to look at the rationale and the physiology. What is indicated and what is not. I mean at the end of the day, that's what Peat is all about.

In the context of this thread, you must understand that "vegan" is not a diet, and of course it is possible to be extremely unhealthy eating a vegan diet, just as it is eating an omnivorous one. Do you not think that parents who eat and feed their child an omnivorous diet haven't killed their baby from malnutrition before? There are so many cases of it happening.

For more info see: Peat's Surprising Response To My Email. A "Ray Peat Vegan" Is Possible

Where did Ray say many times that a vegan diet in line with his principles is more than suitable for health and high metabolism? I've only seen him giving sugestions for what vegan people can do to get things like protein and calcium. Nowhere have I heard him talking about how vegans will get creatine, taurine, carnosine, cholesterol, etc. It's like saying that Ray recommends starch, when he clearly thinks that fruit sugar is better. But if you tell him that you can only choose between potatoes and beans, of course he'll say that potatoes are better. When you say that you're a vegan, Ray will try to make the best out of your current situation.

If you look at physiology, you'll notice that vegans are deficient in creatine and have less bone density. The body can't produce enough of it, it adapted to an environment where creatine was present in food. The only foods with sufficient amounts of creatine is meat. If veganism is conducive to health and high metabolism, as you're saying, then why do so many vegans fail? Are they doing the diet "wrong"? What is a "well-planned" vegan diet? Getting protein from beans and legumes is anti- peat. Starch, hard fiber, lectins, fermentable saccharides, etc.

Ray certainly advocates for fruit, and that's fine. I have zero problems with that. The mistake is thinking that just because Ray likes some plant foods, he also thinks that you can have your entire diet made of only plants. Ray certainly praises animal protein and nutrition( liver, milk, eggs, ruminant meat, etc.).

I would think that cases of malnutrition are caused by too many plant foods in the baby's diet. Show me a case where the baby died because it drank too much breast milk, or ate too much meat or too many organ meats. No plant food comes close to the amount of nutrition you'll get from animal foods, especially considering density. Plant foods in combination with animal foods? Great. In some cases, the combination may be even better than just animal foods. But just plants? It's not good.

A vegan diet is one which excludes animal foods in its entirety. If there are elements you can only get from animal foods, then, of course, veganism can't be healthy.

Not to mention the sheer volume of food one would have to eat everyday. For a baby, eating a bunch of kale and fruit juice is a bad idea. Those foods aren't dense enough. The baby will end up bloated and lethargic. It doesn't matter that potatoes and mushrooms have good protein, the density is too low.

 

[Ritchie]

Where did Ray say many times that a vegan diet in line with his principles is more than suitable for health and high metabolism? I've only seen him giving sugestions for what vegan people can do to get things like protein and calcium. Nowhere have I heard him talking about how vegans will get creatine, taurine, carnosine, cholesterol, etc. It's like saying that Ray recommends starch, when he clearly thinks that fruit sugar is better. But if you tell him that you can only choose between potatoes and beans, of course he'll say that potatoes are better. When you say that you're a vegan, Ray will try to make the best out of your current situation.

Yeah he has said it a lot, on radio interviews and email replies. If he didn't think it was, he would just flat out say it isn't possible don't you think? He is not one to promote or advocate for something he doesn't believe in, he is very extreme in all his beliefs and takes them to the logical conclusions. All or nothing type approach, just look at his stance on PUFA. He views even the smallest amount digested to be toxic and avoided as much as possible. Cholesterol is made in abundance from sugar in the body, and the body will make as much as it needs as long as it is supplied with enough sugar, are you aware of that? And if you wanted to boost it more, simply consume extra coconut oil. As far as creatine and taurine many people following Peat supplement with those, however this is more of a tweak/hack style supplement and not necessary as the body in a high energy state will make its own no problem. Do you have any evidence suggesting otherwise? Ie. creatine deficiency or taurine deficiency examples?

If you look at physiology, you'll notice that vegans are deficient in creatine and have less bone density. The body can't produce enough of it.

Any evidence of this?

Ray certainly advocates for fruit, and that's fine. I have zero problems with that. The mistake is thinking that just because Ray likes some plant foods, he also thinks that you can have your entire diet made of only plants. Ray certainly praises animal protein and nutrition( liver, milk, eggs, ruminant meat, etc.).

Agreed. But he also says its perfectly doable to eat a plant based diet and be healthy with high metabolism.

I would think that cases of malnutrition are caused by too many plant foods in the baby's diet. Show me a case where the baby died because it drank too much breast milk, or ate too much meat or too many organ meats. No plant food comes close to the amount of nutrition you'll get from animal foods, especially considering density. Plant foods in combination with animal foods? Great. In some cases, the combination may be even better than just animal foods. But just plants? It's not good.

There are literally thousands of cases of baby malnutrition from parents who eat a standard american style omnivorous diet, just have look. The amount of vegan examples pales in comparison. To say that a vegan diet puts babies at risk and ignore the countless examples of standard american diet omnivorous eaters killing their babies from malnutrition is pure bias. An idiot parent will always be an idiot parent. Of course breast feeding should be practiced, 18 months seems to be ideal from the literature.

 

[Rafael Lao Wai]

Yeah he has said it a lot, on radio interviews and email replies. If he didn't think it was, he would just flat out say it isn't possible don't you think? He is not one to promote or advocate for something he doesn't believe in, he is very extreme in all his beliefs and takes them to the logical conclusions. All or nothing type approach, just look at his stance on PUFA. He views even the smallest amount digested to be toxic and avoided as much as possible. Cholesterol is made in abundance from sugar in the body, and the body will make as much as it needs as long as it is supplied with enough sugar, are you aware of that? And if you wanted to boost it more, simply consume extra coconut oil. As far as creatine and taurine many people following Peat supplement with those, however this is more of a tweak/hack style supplement and not necessary as the body in a high energy state will make its own no problem. Do you have any evidence suggesting otherwise? Ie. creatine deficiency or taurine deficiency examples?

No, I don't think so. He even said to somebody in an email that a meal of salmon, avocado and something else( not sure if it was tortilla) could be ok. He, as I stated, makes the best out of the person's situation. He's not gonna say that they should just throw away that food just because it isn't optimal. He understands that day-to-day life may be difficult to predict. But he said in another one of his articles, I believe, that avocados can be hepatotoxic, so NO, he sometimes recommends less than ideal foods, even if he doesn't think it's that good. Same thing about the starch. He clearly thinks sugar is better, but if starch is all you have access to, then make the best out of the situation.

I just proved he isn't all or nothing regarding diet, at least not without considering the context in which the person to whom he's giving advice is.

I'm aware that fructose can boost cholesterol production, yes, but that doesn't mean you can produce all the cholesterol you need from it. Do you have study saying that? Forum member lampofred had or still has low cholesterol, even though he eats a lot of sugar. This study shows that vegans have lower levels of cholesterol( Vegetarian diet and cholesterol and triglycerides levels. - PubMed - NCBI), and Ray said that low levels of cholesterol aren't good.

Here are two studies showing taurine levels to be lower in vegans:
Plasma and urine taurine levels in vegans. - PubMed - NCBI
Taurine concentrations in the diet, plasma, urine and breast milk of vegans compared with omnivores. - PubMed - NCBI

Any evidence of this?

Yes:
Effect of creatine and weight training on muscle creatine and performance in vegetarians. - PubMed - NCBI
Effect of creatine supplementation and a lacto-ovo-vegetarian diet on muscle creatine concentration. - PubMed - NCBI
Oral creatine monohydrate supplementation improves brain performance: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over trial. - PubMed - NCBI
Comparative fracture risk in vegetarians and nonvegetarians in EPIC-Oxford. - PubMed - NCBI

Agreed. But he also says its perfectly doable to eat a plant based diet and be healthy with high metabolism.

Post the source of it please.

There are literally thousands of cases of baby malnutrition from parents who eat a standard american style omnivorous diet, just have look. The amount of vegan examples pales in comparison. To say that a vegan diet puts babies at risk and ignore the countless examples of standard american diet omnivorous eaters killing their babies from malnutrition is pure bias. An idiot parent will always be an idiot parent. Of course breast feeding should be practiced, 18 months seems to be ideal from the literature.

That's a bad comparison. Much less people follow a vegan diet, so obviously the number of people who malnourished their children with a vegan diet will be smaller than the number of people who malnourished their children on an omnivore diet.

Why are you comparing the shitty american diet with the vegan diet? The former is plant based. They aren't eating pounds of meat or eating liver everyday or drinking a gallon of milk a day. They eat a plant-based diet, with some animal products, which are almost always low quality, so obviously they can and many times are malnourished. As I said, show me a malnourished case of a baby fed a diet high in animal foods.

 

[boris]

The problem with veganism for me is the incredible hipocrisy in all regards. The reasons people go vegan are:

The well being of animals
- but BILLIONS more animals die unnecessarily in crops, from machines, from pesticides and get killed for pest control

It would be good for the environment, because of less cow burps
- but green pastures with ruminants on them are good for the environment, not massive monocrops that destroy the soil and create toxic runoffs

It‘s the non plus ultra for a healthy life
- it‘s not, it‘s possible but actually very difficult to be healthy on a vegan diet

 

[Kartoffel]

The well being of animals
- but BILLIONS more animals die unnecessarily in crops, from machines, from pesticides and get killed for pest control

I don't want to defend the vegans, but that is some screwed up logic. What do you think factory animals are fed with? Corn and soy, which the "farmers" get from fields treated with pesticides, and which is harvested with the machines killing wildlife. It takes much more corn and soy to feed an animal for slaughtering that it would to feed a human (purely hypothetically I mean). It's like running an electric heater in your hose that receives electricity from a powerplant powered by gas. You could just buy a gas bottle and use that to heat your home and avoid the energy loss on the way.

 

[boris]

@Kartoffel it is part of the flawed logic. The animals should feed on pastures not corn and soy.