I don't know man. The podcast with Graham Hancock, Randall Carlson, and the skeptic guy was a slideshow heavy episode. But at least those guys were relatively chill. This vegan guy acts like he just downed 500 mg's of adderall.
@@robske no from them constantly trying to convince people plants are the only thing you should eat while on this planet for 80 years, fuck that I’m eating everything because I’ll be dammed if I get hit by a bus on Thursday while on my way to work, when if was actually my day off, and have never had a bacon cheese burger, vegans can eat carrots and grass all their life, I’m not stopping them but don’t try to tell me that plants are better than a fuckin cheeseburger, if that was true vegans wouldn’t be eating plant based shit that taste like meat.
@@RememberPOGS Nobody is telling you how to live your life. It’s just a documentary you can do whatever you want with it. Stop being triggered by people that are healthier than you. Fat ass
@@edvinbukvic9564 LOL what makes you think I’m fat, why because I’m not malnourished from an all plant diet so I must be fat, maybe you shouldn’t let fat people trigger you if you’re such a namaste Birkenstock wearing hippie, that gets up set when someone pokes a little fun at people who clearly think just because they eat nothing but grass they are better lol give me a steak you can have my parsley that comes on top.
@@neverforgettodofacepulls782 did you miss the entire podcast chris kresser spent trying to falsely debunk James' movie? Guess thats good character in your standing....
The question was “do eggs and Daisy cause cancer?”. 84% of the meta analysis studies said no, 16% said yes. James said the meat guy (not joe) was being misleading when he actually wasn’t and James didn’t understand that. I’ve been vegan for 4 years and I believe meat probably causes certain cancers and definitely has other health defects if it accounts for more than 20% of diet, but on this one point the meat guy wasn’t wrong to summarize the findings the way he did.
@@HD-uh7nj who is the one getting loud and rowdy and saying milk causes cancer lmao. it's almost like you wanna believe what sounds similar to your own beliefs lmao
@@thedoublea147 Yeah, if you believe in magic then talking to people who don't believe in magic would be frustrating I suppose. Always asking for evidence and facts. Bastards
I believe this was the last time we'll see him on JRE, the other guy was so dominant that even if he was wrong (he isn't on some points) he always comes on top ... He destroyed his reputation
lol For me I do whatever she asks me to but she appreciates it and can really expresses it whether by hugging or saying she loves me. Same goes the other way.
The bald guy. I dont know he seems knowledgeable but speaks over everyone and tries to silence them with an emotional conversation. It's just abrasive in my opinion.
It's simple. When you put the no evidence + decreased risk it makes the 71% and 13% feel more like 42% (no evidence) and 42% (decreased risk). That's what James was trying to say.
At the same time you wouldn't add "no evidence" and "increased risk" because those statistics don't fit together. People only care about what's neutral and good, or what's bad. Neutral in its own way is good, since it isn't bad.
@@davidgutierrez8297 The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. What 71% no evidence means is that either 1) In these experiments is shown that milk does not cause cancer, that is why there is no evidence OR 2) In these experiments we could not replicate results that show that milk causes or doesn't cause cancer. So its either one or the other. Which means that the 71% can not be used to make either one or the other case. People make the correlation that 71% of people did not get cancer. But this 71% is not people but the experiments themselves. That is why you can not use the 71% to claim that the is no correlation OR you can not use the 71% to claim that there is one.
@@giorgosissaris but we figure out which one of the scenarios is true (by reading the paper), we'd find out in what way 71% is to be interpreted. I wonder why James didn't do that (can't expect Chris to read the entire studies lol).
The point is the burden of proof is on the evidence of cancer side. If dairy causes decreased risk I'll eat it, if dairy has no change on cancer risk I'll eat it, if dairy increases cancer risk, I won't eat it. What matters is whether I will or won't eat dairy. Most of the data shows there is no increase or risk by eating dairy.
He probably did it because he owns a vegan company but that is not the same as manipulating science based on what you sell (and that goes for vegan or non vegan studies)
James Wilks not addressing Chris Kresser directly but saying "I am going to show you what HE did" is just really bad for conversation. This is just not how you talk to/with people (regardless of the actual talking points).
In regards to scientific studies, the focus is recordable data. If you ignore the 70% no evidence and focus on the evidence that was found (you will not always find evidence. Some subjects may not get cancer until 10+ years of eating dairy) you have two percentages that are directly relevant to eachother. Example) Below are the applicable percentages that need to be paid attention to. 16% (evidence of causing cancer) 13% (evidence of reduced risk) To simplify there is more evidence suggesting a direct link to cancer and dairy. Indicated by the 3% difference. No evidence, does not mean that some participants are not at risk, at some point throughout their lives (which are vastly different from one another.)
@@jeremytoon8106 that's not true tho, if your study has 71% of no evidence supporting your claim, that's a huge significance. To even suggest to throw that out makes no sense. An to make the claim milk increases your chances of cancer based on a study where the majority of the evidence shows nothing happened, is disingenuous. The 71% goes against the assertion made by that point. If you mess with the numbers enough you could say, "potentially, drinking milk has a 3% higher chance of causing cancer, than not causing cancer". Where as the real claim is, 71% of the study showed no evidence supporting our claim, 13% showed it was against our claim, and 16% showed in support. Anyone reading that would just keep drinking milk.
We literally discussed this in Statistics class as an example of a fallacious claim. Countries that can’t afford dairy products have a higher percentage of death from treatable illnesses and illness related to starvation. Countries where most people can afford dairy like the US have a higher percentage of cancer related deaths, because the healthcare is better and not many die of perfectly treatable illnesses
90% of smokers don’t get lung cancer. That is to say that 90% of the data in smoking shows no correlation. Still it’s pretty consensual that smoking is not exactly healthy right? Because you have to throw the 90% out to look at the data and understand the relationship between smoking and cancer. Same with dairy.
@@ylonmc2 that is conpletely different 😅😅. 84% of studies showing no association is huge. Pretty much all smoking studies show a strong association with lung cancer
@HiiiPower well I'm just not a fucking idiot. The main 400 meter racer in the film is a shell of herself since starting the diet(she cant even beat high schoolers now) an suffers from depression and the parkour guy they were going to use told them to take him out of the movie because he isnt vegan anymore, the diet worked for about 4 years an his body started having issues, he did all the bs they cited in the movie an came out stating he thinks the diet can be very dangerous an to listen to your body. Vegan advocates came out against the stupid gladiator argument, and film footage came out showing how one of the feats of strength in the movie cut out the strong man taking a break halfway through the lift to show the strength of being vegan. That's not mentioning the evidence against milk causing cancer, the fact conor McGregor had an infection in his first fight with nate Diaz, the lies on green house gasses, and the stomach lining issues that frequently happen with vegan diets. Eh, listen to james tho. Try being vegan for around 10years an let me know how your body feels. You'll probably need to correct your diet multiple times with a nutritionist because your body will be breaking down. I'll be enjoy some ground beef and chicken with a salad, like a normal omnivore.
@@aeronevans4337 naw, I saw that diet destroy the stomach lining of a friend. An he communicated with 4 nutritionists before he got one that understood his body well enough to switch him off the diet. I'll just keep doing what I'm doing. I've been exercising since I was 8 and my body has been doing fine. I can run 3 miles a day easily, bench 300lbs and still have plenty of energy for work. I think more than veganism there needs to be a movement towards getting people to stretch or do yoga. You're welcome to be vegan, but the diet isnt easy on the body in the long term and isnt for everybody. An I have never felt unhealthy from my current diet.
@@Joshpower57 That's a lot of bias and anecdotal reference you're making. I call massive bull shit. Just take your daily dose of reality and that should fix you up in a jiffy.
I think because if 16 out of 100 people have an increase and the others had no change, that maybe it is something other than Dairy that could be causing the increase. Or they cant digest it. So that would be like having someone Allergic to peanuts, forced to eat peanuts and then be surprised they had cancer.
!!WARNING BEFORE YOU WATCH!! They argue about 1 study most of the time in circles. The dude with the British accent gets bullied a little bit because Joe and the skinny dude like meat and milk. The British veggie dude is annoying and none of it was productive because they just want to be right
I feel like Joe and skinny guy were very reasonable and considered vegan guys perspective, but his conclusions didn't make sense. They felt like weird attacks on skinny guys character. But I do agree that it was a really unproductive interaction overall, sheesh
Except he was also being irrational. Joe tried to get to the point multiple times that if you're lactose intolerant that could lead to inflammation and therefore cancer, and either that went over Chris' head or he was being intentionally diversionary by repeatedly saying that dairy doesn't inflame. That's not what Joe was saying, he was pointing out that for people who are intolerant that must lead to inflammation, that's what usually happens with intolerance, but multiple times Chris ignored his point and straw manned his way out. I started out disliking James but they're both hacks imo
After watching the film, only once I found it very easy to understand that the meat industry uses the same technique that the tobacco industry it’s very simple to understand that
If 90% of the people who smoke don't have cancer that doesn't mean smoking isn't increasing possibility of getting cancer or that is not unhealthy. This topic was related to the possibility of getting cancer, and it is shown in a study that 84% of people who consume dairy don't have increased possibility of cancer.. I think it's clear to people who want to listen, be objective about it and not push their agenda using false logic.
Why people are confusing this is because they think that the statistic "71%" is a neutral. Why they believe that? Because they aren't looking at the aim of the study. The aim of the study is to find any relations between dairy and development of cancer. When they say 71% show no evidence. It doesn't mean that they didn't find anything and hence it was inconclusive as to if dairy and cancer are inversely or directly related. No. It means that 71% showed no evidence to correlate dairy with cancer. That's a good news for dairy. It means dairy does not cause cancer. And in 13% of the cases it treats cancer which means 84% of the cases are a good news for dairy.
This is an inaccurate comparison. The study in the podcast is about the whether or not dairy increases the risk of cancer, not whether or not it gives people cancer. Just because something increases the risk of cancer doesn't mean it is the cause of cancer in certain people. We can't determine exactly whether dairy causes cancer because there are other variables in peoples lives, like smoking, drinking, eating sugar and processed foods, all of which are also associated with cancer risk. To your point, if we look at smoking and the increased risk of cancer, most studies agree that is increases the risk of cancer, but again, that does not mean that everyone who smokes develops lung cancer. In comparison to the the statistic in the podcast, most studies did not agree that dairy increases risk of cancer. Nice try, you almost fooled me!
This guy really doesn't seem to understand if you're claiming a link to something you need positively show that there is a statistically significant risk.
Kresser was right here. James's point about simply discarding the 71% studies showing no evidence is nonsense. When you're out to test a hypothesis, you start with a "null hypothesis" (in this case: dairy doesn't cause cancer) and the alternative hypothesis, the one you are trying to test the validity of (dairy does cause cancer). It's clear that 71 + 13% studies DON'T favor the alternative hypothesis, while 16% studies favor it. So it makes no sense to discard the 71%. It also doesn't make sense to add 71 and 16 since they represent different hypotheses - the 71 favor the null hypothesis, while the 16 favor the alternative.
this. It is basically just a basic statistics you study in undergrad. Null hypothesis and statistical significance. The whole point of various statistical tests is to prove that. My head hurts hearing James argument here. He is just using strawman argument all the time.
@@ggh_-ts6pn the funny thing is the other talk where ppl say "Kresser lost" it's the exact same thing. Where James says eating fat raises tryglicerides right after and thus a low carb diet which lowers overall longterm trygl. is useless. While they use the EXACT same argument when it comes to insulin, "oh just go high carb/lowfat and eventho you eat for 12h all day spiking your insulin the overall thing gonna go "down". So it's the typical, if it fits our agenda it's good. If it doesn't it's not. We need people who don't give a fk about ethics and chase healthinformation
Daniel H this is true 100%. Only complete idiots don’t yet grasp this concept. Eat high quality plants and animals In moderation in an amount that leaves you strong and lean and doesn’t make you fAt or emaciated
@@XxWhitewolfxX-go6tj Most important question : do you? Or do you just burgerking and kfc on the weekly and use this bullshit argument as en excuse ? "You know my nephew used to eat aligator scales boiled in patatojuice mixxed with fried bannaleafs." you know a chicken is a tropical bird right? belongs in the jungle not in Cages to be tortured and drugged.
@@Truthiness10 Well, but he could have said that "mostly" they know they're wrong or that there is "usually" a correlation, thus there are some instances where this does not apply. I'm just trying to show you what Dustin did here. Let me finish.
Everytime he was wrong he quickly moves on. And when he's wrong he pulls out some guy to say well this guy is more qualified and that makes you wrong chris which is hilarious.
@WoundrousMindTrick it's not satire sadly. People are serious when they say they don't know that milk is reptilian seed. I'm glad the word is getting out
@@user-bt9kw6zn2d Look up "appeal to authority". It literally is the same thing. If you think there's a difference, you don't understand the fallacy. If a doctor tells you tangerines make you sick, do you believe him because he's a doctor? Dudududuhhhh you ask for evidence, then evaluate the evidence. That's the point: the authority is just interpreting evidence. Einstein destroyed physics in a day, and he didn't even have a classic education.
10:45 why would he put NEGATIVE In his claim to support his argument?? Plus he included that there was the 16% in the slide BEFORE. This guy is just trying to figure out dumb way to destroy his claim and it’s not working
xxBlazee 90% of smokers don’t get lung cancer. Meaning that 90% of the data shows that smoking does not cause lung cancer. Yet we all know that’s not really how it works, don’t we?
Do you notice how James tried to dominate the conversation and dominate both Joe and Chris, realized he was unable to dominate Joe and so then tried to bring Joe over to his side to dismantle Chris?
@@Music-Is-Real-Love his rudeness is acceptable since these two spent 3 hrs on another podcast shitting out lies on his greatest life work, his documentary.
@@NatiukMedia EXACTLY. The counter-argument here isn't a decrease risk, but rather NO RISK/DECREASE RISK. He is arguing against James' claim's that meat/dairy INCREASE RISK to cancer. whats the counter-argument? NO RISK/DECREASE RISK. Which is why the summation of percent that Chris did was a correct assumption, and why James is defending his point grasping at straws.
Joe: "If out of 100 studies, 70 showed an increase risk of cancer would you say that thing causes cancer?" James: Yes Joe: "So if out of 100 studies, 70 showed no risk for cancer, wouldn't you say theres no risk for cancer?" James: That's now how that works Well golly if that sentence didn't just put a pep in my step..
Talk about cognitive dissonance holy shit. This guy it's full if shit because the guy is an ideologue with a 3rd grade level understanding of epystomolgy and has no fucking clue what a logical fallacy is.
I gave you $10, by my math you owe me $30 because banks make a lot of money. Do you agree banks make a lot of money? If you do, then you must concede that you owe me $30.
I wish someone would come out with something already that says, “Everything is linked to cancer, shut up about everything being linked to Cancer. We know.”
But it depends on what the interpretation is of such a relationship, the given data set’s content and scope of analysis is important to understand prior to interpretation of the relationship’s strength between the respective coefficients. Essentially, in this case the scope indicates that almost 1 in 5 subjects (assuming a 4% standard error, given James’s point about industry based studies being biased and Chris’ point about not taking them all out). holds a possible relationship between dairy consumption and Cancer. Given America’s population, approximately 60 million people will develop Cancer linked to dairy, if all were to consume dairy.
The James guy made a really good point about manipulating statistics. Political media does this all the time. They lump the middle majority in with their side and it's particularly persuasive to people who don't understand how words are nuanced.
Kresser was right here. James's point about simply discarding the 71% studies showing no evidence is nonsense. When you're out to test a hypothesis, you start with a "null hypothesis" (in this case: dairy doesn't cause cancer) and the alternative hypothesis, the one you are trying to test the validity of (dairy does cause cancer). It's clear that 71 + 13% studies DON'T favor the alternative hypothesis, while 16% studies favor it. So it makes no sense to discard the 71%. It also doesn't make sense to add 71 and 16 since they represent different hypotheses - the 71 favor the null hypothesis, while the 16 favor the alternative.
@@praveen25 that Last Paragraph is crucial. Adding 71% and 13% is disingenuous Just as adding 71% and 16% would be. The findings where at best inconclusive but adding the percentages distorts the result.
@@doctordaro2112 It's not misleading to say 84% because he's disputing that is causes cancer. If he was making a counter point that it helped cancer, only then it would be disingenuous to add the numbers together.
He is dealing with people like yourself who have been conditioned and brainwashed into thinking they desperately need to eat animal flesh and secretions ALL their lives with phony industry funded "studies" encouraging them to embrace their bad habits that now have become "immovable culture"
@@musicworship4520 unlike you I actually listened to the entire show and I said what I said. James started the show with a long rant about dairy that was asinine and wouldn't let it go until Joe finally let him know he wasn't making sense. Maybe if he ate some meat he would've been able to grasp that.
Chovosky Jackson his anxious wide eyes make me suspicious. He’s not calm and collected, and willing to discuss, but is coming into this expecting a fight or maybe even wanting one.
@@Ls-jz7xe that's fair and I had the same thought in regards to their energy level, but James is pretty full of shit, he constantly moves the goalpost and ignores every rebuttal.
Deeky 123 that’s what someone says when it’s not worth arguing about. He dominated the conversation and picked what fit his POV. He’s annoying and so was watching the video. he still hasn’t convinced me that being a vegan improves performance over someone who eats fruits, veggies and meat. Many athletes went vegan and their careers have fallen off and they’ve been having trouble recovering from injuries. Have a good night.
Deeky 123 Deeky 123 I’m actually arguing both. Claiming a pbj has the same protein as steak and somehow believing that’s superior to meat is not evidence, fact or whatever, it just proved Chris said something stupid. All he did was prove Chris didn’t do enough research. Still never proved anything. Regarding the “no evidence” comment, James used no evidence and evidence interchangeably and when it was convenient. That was my point. Can’t just throw around “there’s no evidence” just because a study hasn’t been funded on something that’s otherwise common sense.
There's more nuance to the milk debate. I'm no vegan, myself. Nonetheless, I recommend a book titled "Devil in the Milk." It doesn't demonize milk as a whole but, rather, shows studies indicating that milk is linked to detrimental conditions in the body when it contains a certain enzyme produced by certain kinds of cows.
Is it so hard to comprehend that he is there to defend himself? After they pretty much slandered his film. Of course he will be heated and speak the most. As he should. Dumb fucking pet
If you dont realise its 2v1 against James, plus joe and Chris had already done a video slating James’ claims in the Game Changers, so in actual fact James has less airtime than them both. Plus can’t you hear how much chris interrupts James for the first 15 minutes?
The ethical arguments against dairy should be enough for anybody with even a shred of moral fibre to boycott it. The fact that the bodily effects of dairy consumption are contentious should remove all doubt that it's an industry that needs to go to the wall ASAP
@@Number1FanProductions finger on the pulse are first to being on the cutting edge of the most updated news the pulse as the heart of the research pumps out the latest facts and findings
xxBlazee yeah but Chris has called him a liar so therefore he (Chris) assumes he knows more...atleast that’s what I took from that . He could also just be a rude condescending prick lol
@@nomadicpersuasions8156 the guy was asking what the other guy's opinion on how many would be invalid. He was making a claim that research is biased and when asked to what extent it is, basically said, "idk, you should know more than I."
The %showing risk?? What type of dairy?? What type of Meat?? I'd assume processed milkshakes and burgers would show higher risk than grass fed dairy and meat. I'd also assume that plants sprayed with weedkiller and pesticides would have higher risk. No studying necessary! Just common sense.
Yet he comes as the smart guy wtf does that say about vegan dude. And the acupuncturist doesn't claim to be a doctor just a guy reading the conclusion s of several studies.
It’s not against him dude. 90% of smokers don’t get lung cancer. 10% is more than enough to have a scientific consensus that smoking does cause cancer. Never mind that 90% of the times the data shows no correlation.
Marcelo Carvalho. No, it is saying 16% of studies showed a link between consumption of dairy and cancer; not that 16% of people get cancer. Your point that only 10% of smokers get cancer is irrelevant. You could have 100% of studies showing that there is a positive link between smoking and cancer and still only have 10% of smokers getting cancer.
So there is a ex-mma fighter claiming bia- conspiracies about everything that doesn´t fit his opinion and trying to explain how to correctly interpretate metaanalysis studies
He obviously doesn't know that the point is to show an increase risk and only 16% showed an increase out of the whole 153 studies. That's not even close to proving without a doubt that dairy causes an increased risk for cancer. With all the other factors in the lives of people that percentage is less than the common average of contracting cancer regardless of nutrition
James spent the debate arguing how good vegetables are, but who the fuck didn't know that already. I just wanted to see him justify advocating cutting meat out but he never really gave a reason
This is the hardest Jamie has ever worked in his entire Joe Rogan podcast life
I don't know man. The podcast with Graham Hancock, Randall Carlson, and the skeptic guy was a slideshow heavy episode. But at least those guys were relatively chill. This vegan guy acts like he just downed 500 mg's of adderall.
alp
*Underpaid Construction Worker:* I 😴
*Jamie pulling up articles for a podcast:* Real Sh#t 😮
@@JRF32185 because he thinks hes fighting for something
Specify that you mean Thee Young Jamie. This other Jamie has never tried harder at anything in his life
Lmao
Consumption of this debate gave me cancer.
Lmfao
To be fair, though, the other videos reveal a much better debate overall. 😅
I was literally just thinking of posting a comment just like this one. This wasn't a debate, it was two guys having a pissing contest.
David Graney This part of the debate was rough for sure, but I think the vegan guy did a better job of defending himself in the rest of the interview.
He looks like Tyler1
He's so well prepared that "...can we go to slide 2,743 please?"
Then he shot himself in the foot lol
Jesus Christ this guy moved the goalpost so many times this conversation started in LA and ended in New York.
I don't know how he can front game changers when they've lied lol
Just don’t eat meat and don’t eat plants. Problem solved.
Todd Weidler - Hahaha but bread and pasta is bad too?! 🤔
@@Elgringo2180 bread is made from grains, which are plants.
😂😂😂
and don't breath, Oxygen is aging.
yeah, have a heart - eat a rock !
Hearing Chris Kesser speak 3 words a minute is tough
Dude talks like someone glued his lips to his teeth
@@LockheedLazar hahah yes he looks so frail too
Maybe if he had a healthy diet.... lmao
@@dreamz808 He's a recovering vegan himself.
His white privilege ego was bruised
Dairy gives me diarrhea. That's enough for me to keep myself away from it.
Vegans give me diarrhea
@@RememberPOGS How? Do they give it in a bag or something?
@@robske no from them constantly trying to convince people plants are the only thing you should eat while on this planet for 80 years, fuck that I’m eating everything because I’ll be dammed if I get hit by a bus on Thursday while on my way to work, when if was actually my day off, and have never had a bacon cheese burger, vegans can eat carrots and grass all their life, I’m not stopping them but don’t try to tell me that plants are better than a fuckin cheeseburger, if that was true vegans wouldn’t be eating plant based shit that taste like meat.
@@RememberPOGS Nobody is telling you how to live your life. It’s just a documentary you can do whatever you want with it. Stop being triggered by people that are healthier than you. Fat ass
@@edvinbukvic9564 LOL what makes you think I’m fat, why because I’m not malnourished from an all plant diet so I must be fat, maybe you shouldn’t let fat people trigger you if you’re such a namaste Birkenstock wearing hippie, that gets up set when someone pokes a little fun at people who clearly think just because they eat nothing but grass they are better lol give me a steak you can have my parsley that comes on top.
Not a single comment bashing James’ attitude has been able to refute any of his points. Lol
exactly 👍🏽
When you're in denial, just attack the person's character or other attributes.
@@neverforgettodofacepulls782 did you miss the entire podcast chris kresser spent trying to falsely debunk James' movie? Guess thats good character in your standing....
The question was “do eggs and Daisy cause cancer?”. 84% of the meta analysis studies said no, 16% said yes. James said the meat guy (not joe) was being misleading when he actually wasn’t and James didn’t understand that. I’ve been vegan for 4 years and I believe meat probably causes certain cancers and definitely has other health defects if it accounts for more than 20% of diet, but on this one point the meat guy wasn’t wrong to summarize the findings the way he did.
@@neverforgettodofacepulls782 did you notice all the research he showed us?
Not going to lie. That was exhausting.
dude was toxic
@@joys8634 well chris kresser is the one who's making ridiculous claims and has veered out of his domain of expertise.
@@HD-uh7nj yeah lol.
@@HD-uh7nj who is the one getting loud and rowdy and saying milk causes cancer lmao. it's almost like you wanna believe what sounds similar to your own beliefs lmao
@@joys8634 or it's that I've read the literature and it just so happens that the loud and rawdy individual is the one who's correct
When you can't argue with facts, you attack the character or the process.
How I feel arguing with a Thiest
Person: "your argument lacks merit and consistency but also contains many logical fallacies"
Other Person: "Well, you're ugly"
@@traditionallyuntraditional2032 more like arguing with atheists.
@@thedoublea147 Yeah, if you believe in magic then talking to people who don't believe in magic would be frustrating I suppose. Always asking for evidence and facts. Bastards
This comment may be better suited on a Fox News comments section
Kresser has severe protein deficiency in the lip region
😂😂😂
I believe this was the last time we'll see him on JRE, the other guy was so dominant that even if he was wrong (he isn't on some points) he always comes on top ... He destroyed his reputation
All that Dairy is clouding his brain, agreed.
Broooooo looooooooool im deaaaad
@@EinsamPibroch278 actually he just recovered from veganism at this point.....So dont be hard on him
just imagine what would happen if his girlfriend confront him about washing the dishes
Yeh, can't imagine that this guy has a girlfriend
lol For me I do whatever she asks me to but she appreciates it and can really expresses it whether by hugging or saying she loves me. Same goes the other way.
@@thumpertorque_ you do whatever you are asked? Gross
This discussion deserves it's own SNL episode
Joes picturing this guy in a anaconda choke hold the whole interview!
I was going to press like but the I saw the 69.👍👍👍😁
Yeah thats the problem with thinking this way you'll never have a normal talk when you think you're winning the while time.
You do realize James holds two black belts in Martial arts and a history in UFC? It could go either way haha
William Cendejas James and Joe in different weight classes
James would merk Joe.
It's sad to see people become so invested in a particular agenda that they risk their credibility defending it to the death; pursue the truth.
After watching this on my TV, I had to open up the UA-cam app just to read the comments.
Hahaha man ive done that before
Me too
@Alex Haes sorry you're a miserable person
James Wilkes the whole podcast:
👁👁👀👁👁
cocaine is one hellava drug
Hahahaha
Lmao oh man😂🤣🤣🤣🤣
This guy is incredibly frustrating to listen to.
DM C it’s worse on my endothelial function than a McDonald’s buffet.
Which one...
Which one?
DM C which one?
The bald guy. I dont know he seems knowledgeable but speaks over everyone and tries to silence them with an emotional conversation. It's just abrasive in my opinion.
Funny how the cig corps stopped throwing dairy under the bus when there’s a Kraft Foods purchase...
It's simple. When you put the no evidence + decreased risk it makes the 71% and 13% feel more like 42% (no evidence) and 42% (decreased risk). That's what James was trying to say.
At the same time you wouldn't add "no evidence" and "increased risk" because those statistics don't fit together. People only care about what's neutral and good, or what's bad. Neutral in its own way is good, since it isn't bad.
@@davidgutierrez8297 The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. What 71% no evidence means is that either 1) In these experiments is shown that milk does not cause cancer, that is why there is no evidence OR 2) In these experiments we could not replicate results that show that milk causes or doesn't cause cancer. So its either one or the other. Which means that the 71% can not be used to make either one or the other case. People make the correlation that 71% of people did not get cancer. But this 71% is not people but the experiments themselves. That is why you can not use the 71% to claim that the is no correlation OR you can not use the 71% to claim that there is one.
@@giorgosissaris but we figure out which one of the scenarios is true (by reading the paper), we'd find out in what way 71% is to be interpreted. I wonder why James didn't do that (can't expect Chris to read the entire studies lol).
No it doesn't fool lmaoooo
The point is the burden of proof is on the evidence of cancer side. If dairy causes decreased risk I'll eat it, if dairy has no change on cancer risk I'll eat it, if dairy increases cancer risk, I won't eat it. What matters is whether I will or won't eat dairy. Most of the data shows there is no increase or risk by eating dairy.
Didn’t James Cameron help make this Doc and he’s an owner of a plant based company?
So did Arnold, who has a whey protein line. Cameron invested in his protein company after becoming a vegan and already being passionate about it.
Doesn’t Joe Rogan normally trash Vegans and he’s sponsored by butcher box?
Bahahaha conflict of interest! Stupid vegans, meat is for humans!
follow the money
He probably did it because he owns a vegan company but that is not the same as manipulating science based on what you sell (and that goes for vegan or non vegan studies)
James Wilks not addressing Chris Kresser directly but saying "I am going to show you what HE did" is just really bad for conversation. This is just not how you talk to/with people (regardless of the actual talking points).
James is a fucking narc
Totally agree that's extremely rude especially in an intellectual debate
What do you expect from an MMA fighter? haha
James "I won 16% of the fight, therefore I'm the winner" Wilks
Joshpower57 best comment
That's exactly how ridiculous his argument was. At the end of the show he listed this as a win for him.
In regards to scientific studies, the focus is recordable data. If you ignore the 70% no evidence and focus on the evidence that was found (you will not always find evidence. Some subjects may not get cancer until 10+ years of eating dairy) you have two percentages that are directly relevant to eachother.
Example) Below are the applicable percentages that need to be paid attention to.
16% (evidence of causing cancer)
13% (evidence of reduced risk)
To simplify there is more evidence suggesting a direct link to cancer and dairy. Indicated by the 3% difference.
No evidence, does not mean that some participants are not at risk, at some point throughout their lives (which are vastly different from one another.)
@@jeremytoon8106 that's not true tho, if your study has 71% of no evidence supporting your claim, that's a huge significance. To even suggest to throw that out makes no sense. An to make the claim milk increases your chances of cancer based on a study where the majority of the evidence shows nothing happened, is disingenuous. The 71% goes against the assertion made by that point. If you mess with the numbers enough you could say, "potentially, drinking milk has a 3% higher chance of causing cancer, than not causing cancer". Where as the real claim is, 71% of the study showed no evidence supporting our claim, 13% showed it was against our claim, and 16% showed in support. Anyone reading that would just keep drinking milk.
@@Joshpower57 I agree with that.
We literally discussed this in Statistics class as an example of a fallacious claim. Countries that can’t afford dairy products have a higher percentage of death from treatable illnesses and illness related to starvation. Countries where most people can afford dairy like the US have a higher percentage of cancer related deaths, because the healthcare is better and not many die of perfectly treatable illnesses
Even when this dude is calm he is aggressive hahaha blue shirt looks irritated being there haha
yet he stays soo calm and cool ..mad props to him
@@aqbs7892 he's toxic
He’s irritated because the dude across him is dumb affffffff
I think he's intimidated by the MMA fighter with bulging eyes yelling at him and not letting him get a word in edgewise
James is a moron. Him not understanding 84% shows no increase risk with the Dairy causing cancer debate shows it.
Some one please give this guy 87% of a snickers, he is not himself when he is hungry
Mitchell Andrew this nigga needs the whole damn bar
He needs a big glass of milk 🥛
Lol 87
Hahaha this gave me a legit chuckle. Love it!
A vegan snickers though... just the peanuts.
Both of these guys make me wanna be a breathatarian
because you depend on guys arguing instead of seeing the obvious
James “LETS JUST THROW OUT THE EVIDENCE” Wilks
lmao
Spoken like a true cow milk made cheese addict!!! 👏👏👏
90% of smokers don’t get lung cancer. That is to say that 90% of the data in smoking shows no correlation. Still it’s pretty consensual that smoking is not exactly healthy right? Because you have to throw the 90% out to look at the data and understand the relationship between smoking and cancer. Same with dairy.
@@ylonmc2 exactly
@@ylonmc2 that is conpletely different 😅😅.
84% of studies showing no association is huge. Pretty much all smoking studies show a strong association with lung cancer
I love it "that's not how it works" *collective gasp and almost in unison* "well how does it work 😂😂😂😂😂😂
I don't enjoy listening to this guy talk over everyone.
@HiiiPower so you want to listen to the guy talking over everyone who acts like hes on drugs?
@HiiiPower well I'm just not a fucking idiot. The main 400 meter racer in the film is a shell of herself since starting the diet(she cant even beat high schoolers now) an suffers from depression and the parkour guy they were going to use told them to take him out of the movie because he isnt vegan anymore, the diet worked for about 4 years an his body started having issues, he did all the bs they cited in the movie an came out stating he thinks the diet can be very dangerous an to listen to your body. Vegan advocates came out against the stupid gladiator argument, and film footage came out showing how one of the feats of strength in the movie cut out the strong man taking a break halfway through the lift to show the strength of being vegan. That's not mentioning the evidence against milk causing cancer, the fact conor McGregor had an infection in his first fight with nate Diaz, the lies on green house gasses, and the stomach lining issues that frequently happen with vegan diets. Eh, listen to james tho. Try being vegan for around 10years an let me know how your body feels. You'll probably need to correct your diet multiple times with a nutritionist because your body will be breaking down. I'll be enjoy some ground beef and chicken with a salad, like a normal omnivore.
@@Joshpower57 I hope that you can be better and not be so stupid that's all. fingers crossed for you brother. Go vegan
@@aeronevans4337 naw, I saw that diet destroy the stomach lining of a friend. An he communicated with 4 nutritionists before he got one that understood his body well enough to switch him off the diet. I'll just keep doing what I'm doing. I've been exercising since I was 8 and my body has been doing fine. I can run 3 miles a day easily, bench 300lbs and still have plenty of energy for work. I think more than veganism there needs to be a movement towards getting people to stretch or do yoga. You're welcome to be vegan, but the diet isnt easy on the body in the long term and isnt for everybody. An I have never felt unhealthy from my current diet.
@@Joshpower57 That's a lot of bias and anecdotal reference you're making. I call massive bull shit. Just take your daily dose of reality and that should fix you up in a jiffy.
71 no evidence
13 decrease risk
16 increase risk
It's simple 16 increase is more statistically significant
I think because if 16 out of 100 people have an increase and the others had no change, that maybe it is something other than Dairy that could be causing the increase. Or they cant digest it. So that would be like having someone Allergic to peanuts, forced to eat peanuts and then be surprised they had cancer.
No.
@@ajdoyle9559 yes.
That's not how statistics works.
@@dakotataylor4696 no, it means there is no association.
The hypothesis is dead
"I, Chris Kresser represent the expert consensus in all fields". Haha
No different than James saying I represent for the experts in their respective fields who were in that film.
Long form discussions allow the truth to surface. Love this stuff.
"Joe.. Joe.. Joe.." - James Wilks
!!WARNING BEFORE YOU WATCH!!
They argue about 1 study most of the time in circles. The dude with the British accent gets bullied a little bit because Joe and the skinny dude like meat and milk. The British veggie dude is annoying and none of it was productive because they just want to be right
Thanks for the heads up, saved me alot of time :D
I feel like Joe and skinny guy were very reasonable and considered vegan guys perspective, but his conclusions didn't make sense. They felt like weird attacks on skinny guys character. But I do agree that it was a really unproductive interaction overall, sheesh
Still made me laugh though
Thanks lol 😂 ill skip it.
All I know is I fart too much when I drink milk, so I can go without it.
The world's best example of emotional argument versus scientific consensus.
Except he was also being irrational. Joe tried to get to the point multiple times that if you're lactose intolerant that could lead to inflammation and therefore cancer, and either that went over Chris' head or he was being intentionally diversionary by repeatedly saying that dairy doesn't inflame. That's not what Joe was saying, he was pointing out that for people who are intolerant that must lead to inflammation, that's what usually happens with intolerance, but multiple times Chris ignored his point and straw manned his way out. I started out disliking James but they're both hacks imo
who is the emotional side
@@bigbobabc123 theyre both psychos..who fucking care who eats what
@@TheDrunkMunk well I'm glad you saw it that way too.
@@lostvagabond365 It isn't about who "cares" it's about the scientific literature. Were you even paying attention?
Vegan advocates always seem to have a hysterical demeanor.
Because they have more energy and faster brains due to their diet.
@@brianlehmkuhl8162 good joke
@@XxWhitewolfxX-go6tj Thanks, my mind works incredibly fast.
They're just hungry bro
Because they're liberals
After watching the film, only once I found it very easy to understand that the meat industry uses the same technique that the tobacco industry it’s very simple to understand that
As does the pro vegan industry
@@lisaspencer1057 Money is made by selling you red meat not by selling cheap vegan legumes . Follow the money trail.
Haha, yes there was a meat industry for thousands of years yet humans didn't got wiped out by cancer 😂
@@smeshnoymatvey2054 naive
every industry does this.
90% of smokers don’t get lung cancer. According to Joe and Chrys this statistic would prove that smoking is not unhealthy
That's actually James' reasoning in regards to B12 deficiency, because omnivores can also have B12 deficiency the rates don't matter apparently.
If 90% of the people who smoke don't have cancer that doesn't mean smoking isn't increasing possibility of getting cancer or that is not unhealthy. This topic was related to the possibility of getting cancer, and it is shown in a study that 84% of people who consume dairy don't have increased possibility of cancer.. I think it's clear to people who want to listen, be objective about it and not push their agenda using false logic.
Why people are confusing this is because they think that the statistic "71%" is a neutral. Why they believe that? Because they aren't looking at the aim of the study. The aim of the study is to find any relations between dairy and development of cancer. When they say 71% show no evidence. It doesn't mean that they didn't find anything and hence it was inconclusive as to if dairy and cancer are inversely or directly related. No. It means that 71% showed no evidence to correlate dairy with cancer. That's a good news for dairy. It means dairy does not cause cancer. And in 13% of the cases it treats cancer which means 84% of the cases are a good news for dairy.
This is an inaccurate comparison. The study in the podcast is about the whether or not dairy increases the risk of cancer, not whether or not it gives people cancer. Just because something increases the risk of cancer doesn't mean it is the cause of cancer in certain people. We can't determine exactly whether dairy causes cancer because there are other variables in peoples lives, like smoking, drinking, eating sugar and processed foods, all of which are also associated with cancer risk. To your point, if we look at smoking and the increased risk of cancer, most studies agree that is increases the risk of cancer, but again, that does not mean that everyone who smokes develops lung cancer. In comparison to the the statistic in the podcast, most studies did not agree that dairy increases risk of cancer. Nice try, you almost fooled me!
If the desicion is maybe getting cancer, or being a raving lunatic.
I'm rolling cancer
Enjoy the part where u get to helplessly shitting your pants, that’s the best bit
Getting cancer to trigger the vegan libs is tight
@@mitchcallander2608 ill take it over being a vegan lunatic.
@@peterv2599 thats unironically his position
@@peterv2599 I'm dead 😂
This guy really doesn't seem to understand if you're claiming a link to something you need positively show that there is a statistically significant risk.
"an appeal to valid authority" god im fucking dying
Kresser was right here. James's point about simply discarding the 71% studies showing no evidence is nonsense.
When you're out to test a hypothesis, you start with a "null hypothesis" (in this case: dairy doesn't cause cancer) and the alternative hypothesis, the one you are trying to test the validity of (dairy does cause cancer).
It's clear that 71 + 13% studies DON'T favor the alternative hypothesis, while 16% studies favor it. So it makes no sense to discard the 71%.
It also doesn't make sense to add 71 and 16 since they represent different hypotheses - the 71 favor the null hypothesis, while the 16 favor the alternative.
this. It is basically just a basic statistics you study in undergrad. Null hypothesis and statistical significance. The whole point of various statistical tests is to prove that. My head hurts hearing James argument here. He is just using strawman argument all the time.
@@ggh_-ts6pn the funny thing is the other talk where ppl say "Kresser lost" it's the exact same thing. Where James says eating fat raises tryglicerides right after and thus a low carb diet which lowers overall longterm trygl. is useless.
While they use the EXACT same argument when it comes to insulin, "oh just go high carb/lowfat and eventho you eat for 12h all day spiking your insulin the overall thing gonna go "down".
So it's the typical, if it fits our agenda it's good. If it doesn't it's not.
We need people who don't give a fk about ethics and chase healthinformation
Humans are omnivores, who need to eat in moderation. Over indulgence in anything will cause problems. Period.
Yeah we have allways farmed and modified animals in cages fed them a weird diet and drugged them, REAL Omnivore alpha human stuff right there.
Daniel H this is true 100%. Only complete idiots don’t yet grasp this concept. Eat high quality plants and animals In moderation in an amount that leaves you strong and lean and doesn’t make you fAt or emaciated
@@GlobalFolkloreShorts ancient peoples hunted mammoths, buffalo, rabbits, etc.
@@XxWhitewolfxX-go6tj Most important question : do you?
Or do you just burgerking and kfc on the weekly and use this bullshit argument as en excuse ?
"You know my nephew used to eat aligator scales boiled in patatojuice mixxed with fried bannaleafs."
you know a chicken is a tropical bird right? belongs in the jungle not in Cages to be tortured and drugged.
Omnivores, yes. But we arn not obligate-omnivores. Meaning we can digest both, but do not need to.
This just goes the show that the side yelling the loudest is usually the side that knows they are wrong.
Dustin Dumaw not always the case but yea in this case
Lethal Soldier well he did say “usually” so that implies it’s not always the case...
@@Truthiness10 Well, but he could have said that "mostly" they know they're wrong or that there is "usually" a correlation, thus there are some instances where this does not apply. I'm just trying to show you what Dustin did here. Let me finish.
Erki Puusepp lollllllll
Eh, he yells the entire 3.5 hour podcast and yet Joe agrees with him at the end when the entire thing is like this.
"If you'll just let me talk and not say anything back I can make it sound like I'm right.
you must have missed all the research he showed. That could also make you look more correct.
When your right and have the facts to back it up you got to talk a lot sorry baby
Everytime he was wrong he quickly moves on. And when he's wrong he pulls out some guy to say well this guy is more qualified and that makes you wrong chris which is hilarious.
@@dreamz808 his research was all worthless.
There is no evidence dairy causes cancer.
Wilks lost
Cow Milk is actually reptilain seed, consuming it will start the hybrid process. Keep asking questions
What?
I'm hybrid af now🐊
I don't see how more people don't know about this. So ignorant!
@WoundrousMindTrick it's not satire sadly. People are serious when they say they don't know that milk is reptilian seed. I'm glad the word is getting out
??? looked it up and can’t find any info, care to elaborate?
"That's an appeal to authority, James"
James: "That's an appeal to VALID authority"
Yes, James, that's the same thing.
No, I'm Great
@@xxxBradTxxx yes.
No, it's only a fallacy when the authority in question is not recognized as a valid authority in that respective field.
No it's not. Not even close.
@@user-bt9kw6zn2d Look up "appeal to authority". It literally is the same thing. If you think there's a difference, you don't understand the fallacy.
If a doctor tells you tangerines make you sick, do you believe him because he's a doctor? Dudududuhhhh you ask for evidence, then evaluate the evidence. That's the point: the authority is just interpreting evidence. Einstein destroyed physics in a day, and he didn't even have a classic education.
This is what happens when you spend your time reading someone else's research looking for a gotcha instead of doing your own...
reading other peoples research is literally doing research of your own tho
This is what it looks like when someone identifies where they want results to go and then finds facts to support it instead of being objective
Quack Watch yes I am.
The word you are looking for is confirmation bias and it doesnt even apply here lmao. Dumbass
Eating plants sure makes you cranky.
10:45 why would he put NEGATIVE In his claim to support his argument?? Plus he included that there was the 16% in the slide BEFORE. This guy is just trying to figure out dumb way to destroy his claim and it’s not working
xxBlazee 90% of smokers don’t get lung cancer. Meaning that 90% of the data shows that smoking does not cause lung cancer. Yet we all know that’s not really how it works, don’t we?
Marcelo Carvalho you have to include it cause it’s supporting his argument more or less
Vegan's aggressive
Carnivora's gaunt and laid-back
Interesting
I thought vegans couldn’t be aggressive due to low testosterone?
@@mitchcallander2608 They're prone to mood swings. It's the blood sugar rollercoaster.
Chris isn't carnivore.....fail
funny thing is that he isn’t even a carnivore he is an omnivore
@@zeta2325 The biological definition of carnivore is an species who eats majority of calories coming from flesh, so you sir are incorrect.
Do you notice how James tried to dominate the conversation and dominate both Joe and Chris, realized he was unable to dominate Joe and so then tried to bring Joe over to his side to dismantle Chris?
Chris is suppose to be the expert. Lol. If you watched the whole podcast, he did dominate Joe they both admired he was right many times
YES I DID 😀!.
Has was so rude the entire interview.
@@Music-Is-Real-Love his rudeness is acceptable since these two spent 3 hrs on another podcast shitting out lies on his greatest life work, his documentary.
Stfu soft cock, dude had his film he spent years making
Debunked by a fuck who has a degree from holistic medicine or someshit
17:12 "More showed INCREASED risk(16%) than DECREASED risk(13%)" = TRUE. And 71% showed a NEUTRAL risk.
@@NatiukMedia EXACTLY. The counter-argument here isn't a decrease risk, but rather NO RISK/DECREASE RISK. He is arguing against James' claim's that meat/dairy INCREASE RISK to cancer. whats the counter-argument? NO RISK/DECREASE RISK. Which is why the summation of percent that Chris did was a correct assumption, and why James is defending his point grasping at straws.
lol no evidence doesn't mean neutral it means there is no evidence to support the hypothesis which is dairy cause cancer
Joe: "If out of 100 studies, 70 showed an increase risk of cancer would you say that thing causes cancer?"
James: Yes
Joe: "So if out of 100 studies, 70 showed no risk for cancer, wouldn't you say theres no risk for cancer?"
James: That's now how that works
Well golly if that sentence didn't just put a pep in my step..
Is togashi gonna finish hxh not knowing may cause cancer
Talk about cognitive dissonance holy shit. This guy it's full if shit because the guy is an ideologue with a 3rd grade level understanding of epystomolgy and has no fucking clue what a logical fallacy is.
it’s almost as if james is slightly biased
Feed your kid something that by 30% chances might cause cancer but most likely not. Master risk taking sir
In another video James claims to have read 3000 hours worth of peer reviewed articles
Don't let James ever owe you money. The numbers are not his forte
I gave you $10, by my math you owe me $30 because banks make a lot of money. Do you agree banks make a lot of money? If you do, then you must concede that you owe me $30.
Best comment here lol
18:50 "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence".....my brain has finally dissolved
Joe: "The film was about ONLY eating plants."
James: "No."
You've got to be fucking kidding.
I wish someone would come out with something already that says, “Everything is linked to cancer, shut up about everything being linked to Cancer. We know.”
It's probably Fukushima poisoning everything.
what is the link to Garlic and Cancer?
look it up find the peer reviewed studies
BREAKING: new studies show simply being alive means you have a chance of getting cancer.
They have in CA. Its called prop 65 and the entire state causes cancer.
Take a statistics class and tell me what the R coefficient means.
But it depends on what the interpretation is of such a relationship, the given data set’s content and scope of analysis is important to understand prior to interpretation of the relationship’s strength between the respective coefficients. Essentially, in this case the scope indicates that almost 1 in 5 subjects (assuming a 4% standard error, given James’s point about industry based studies being biased and Chris’ point about not taking them all out). holds a possible relationship between dairy consumption and Cancer. Given America’s population, approximately 60 million people will develop Cancer linked to dairy, if all were to consume dairy.
Even though a low strength relationship occurs, the overall impact is significant when represented in context.
The James guy made a really good point about manipulating statistics. Political media does this all the time. They lump the middle majority in with their side and it's particularly persuasive to people who don't understand how words are nuanced.
Kresser is still so sure about himself at this point in the interview. haha
I think he won this clip, he lost in 2...I don't know if their are more
Kresser was right here. James's point about simply discarding the 71% studies showing no evidence is nonsense.
When you're out to test a hypothesis, you start with a "null hypothesis" (in this case: dairy doesn't cause cancer) and the alternative hypothesis, the one you are trying to test the validity of (dairy does cause cancer).
It's clear that 71 + 13% studies DON'T favor the alternative hypothesis, while 16% studies favor it. So it makes no sense to discard the 71%.
It also doesn't make sense to add 71 and 16 since they represent different hypotheses - the 71 favor the null hypothesis, while the 16 favor the alternative.
@@praveen25 that Last Paragraph is crucial. Adding 71% and 13% is disingenuous Just as adding 71% and 16% would be. The findings where at best inconclusive but adding the percentages distorts the result.
@@doctordaro2112 It's not misleading to say 84% because he's disputing that is causes cancer. If he was making a counter point that it helped cancer, only then it would be disingenuous to add the numbers together.
@@jackoconnor21 Exactly
I'd say jamie had a hard time doin the clips on this podcast
Chris did a good job keeping his cool in light of James constantly attacking him and his points.
He even attacked his overall education.... chris was so tired he didnt even care to respond anymore by the end.
@Kees Kees I agree. Anybody who has bothered to dig into his citations through the years can only conclude he's a liar. Wilks exposed that.
He knows how to have a discussion.
He did a good job of avoiding facts to make it seems like he was attacked. And Joe helped push his point because he loves to eat meat lol.
@@Yumemaru. At the beginning of this JRE I felt Joe was biased. As the show progressed I think he was more balanced and often sided with Wilks.
James was literally just rambling about a technicality that had nothing to do with the topic this entire video. He made a complete fool of himself.
I’ve never seen someone switch topics so many times in one convo... it was like a puzzle putting this together😂😂
Does joe ever tell him to stop talking? Every clip is the same thing
Joe let him take over the show and intimidate Chris by speaking over him every time he tried to counter
He is dealing with people like yourself who have been conditioned and brainwashed into thinking they desperately need to eat animal flesh and secretions ALL their lives with phony industry funded "studies" encouraging them to embrace their bad habits that now have become "immovable culture"
@@musicworship4520 unlike you I actually listened to the entire show and I said what I said. James started the show with a long rant about dairy that was asinine and wouldn't let it go until Joe finally let him know he wasn't making sense. Maybe if he ate some meat he would've been able to grasp that.
The way this bald dude talks makes me think hes lying lol
Chovosky Jackson his anxious wide eyes make me suspicious. He’s not calm and collected, and willing to discuss, but is coming into this expecting a fight or maybe even wanting one.
It's because he is and his entire career is riding on it.
martin_e i mean he is a martial artist so this would make sense, joe literally commentated his fights
@@martinaee doesnt refute anything. Go read the literature
You think he is lying when he's literally showing you the facts? Bit of brain fog from eating all them dead animals ay :P
Listening to James trying to say 84% is misleading give me inflammation of my brain
I’m not vegan but I can just LOOK at james and Kresser and know which one is the healthier individual.
thats a hell of an assumption and fallacy. i think you dont literally mean that and youre just being an ass 😂👎🏻
@@SobeCrunkMonster Compare anyone else and you will see the same...
Compare him to any of the UFC fighters that beat his ass.
@@DoubleDOwnage I was speaking in regards to THIS debate specifically.
@@Ls-jz7xe that's fair and I had the same thought in regards to their energy level, but James is pretty full of shit, he constantly moves the goalpost and ignores every rebuttal.
James Wilks is out of his element. Your slight of hand won't work here in a civil conversation
That was perfect, and I wish I had said it BRAVO SIR!!!!! BRAVO...
Listen to kessler on low carbs. Kessler was handed his ass there.
He cant understand why this study completely disproves his point
Nicholas Lorenzo right correlation is not causation! It’s crazy, that’s science 101 or not even. A little scary.
This is why I’m a carnivore in the morning and a vegan at night. Best of both gaha
No, you are just a muppet in the morning...
I don’t think James knows what “no evidence” means
Deeky 123 for a guy that wanted to prove everything with surveys, studies, evidence, reports, videos, etc, it’s lame.
Deeky 123 whatever you say.
Deeky 123 that’s what someone says when it’s not worth arguing about. He dominated the conversation and picked what fit his POV. He’s annoying and so was watching the video. he still hasn’t convinced me that being a vegan improves performance over someone who eats fruits, veggies and meat. Many athletes went vegan and their careers have fallen off and they’ve been having trouble recovering from injuries. Have a good night.
Deeky 123 Deeky 123 I’m actually arguing both. Claiming a pbj has the same protein as steak and somehow believing that’s superior to meat is not evidence, fact or whatever, it just proved Chris said something stupid. All he did was prove Chris didn’t do enough research. Still never proved anything. Regarding the “no evidence” comment, James used no evidence and evidence interchangeably and when it was convenient. That was my point. Can’t just throw around “there’s no evidence” just because a study hasn’t been funded on something that’s otherwise common sense.
Yes he just wants to attack chris and he's stubborn to admit it backfired on him
There's more nuance to the milk debate. I'm no vegan, myself. Nonetheless, I recommend a book titled "Devil in the Milk." It doesn't demonize milk as a whole but, rather, shows studies indicating that milk is linked to detrimental conditions in the body when it contains a certain enzyme produced by certain kinds of cows.
Is it linked to the corporate farms mass producing milk and its chemicals used to produce such formula?
The bald dude has bulging eyes..
Never trust anyone with bulging eyes.
For real. This is a recurring trend.
Adam Schiff!!
@@Fulthrotle73 Rudy Giuliani 😳
Crack head eyes.
it’s cocaine. it has to be plant based!
2:23 I love James's reaction of being interrupted here yet he spent the entire podcast speaking over and cutting off Joe and Chris. Priceless.
100%
Is it so hard to comprehend that he is there to defend himself? After they pretty much slandered his film. Of course he will be heated and speak the most. As he should. Dumb fucking pet
If you dont realise its 2v1 against James, plus joe and Chris had already done a video slating James’ claims in the Game Changers, so in actual fact James has less airtime than them both. Plus can’t you hear how much chris interrupts James for the first 15 minutes?
@@lduk941 Just give up man. Like James acted like a bitch here
This James dude confirmed a bunch of vegan stereotypes and made me dislike vegans a little bit more than I did.
I bet you didn't see the deleted debate where James made that meat Eater look like a clown with actual facts. You're brainwashed.
The bald guy def has an agenda
GC 1 thats funny cuz both bald guys do
@@SoliDeoGloria32 Joe Rogan is not a bald guy he is hair challenged.
@@SoliDeoGloria32 I don't agree that Joe Rogan has and agenda. He is one of the most open minded people I have ever listened to.
@Max Harris You would have to demonstrate that claim
Poor guy got destroyed by logic ahahahaa
14:10 WHY WOULD HE PUT NEGATIVE AGAINST HIS CLAIM IN HIS SUMMARY JAMES??
The ethical arguments against dairy should be enough for anybody with even a shred of moral fibre to boycott it.
The fact that the bodily effects of dairy consumption are contentious should remove all doubt that it's an industry that needs to go to the wall ASAP
This was a guy teaching two people how science and statistical analysis really works.
Haha, he didn't do sh*t 😂
LISTEN It can not be confirmed or denied whether or not the bald guy has his finger on the pulse.
I'm confused about what that phrase means, finger on the pulse? fill me in please lol
@@Number1FanProductions finger on the pulse are first to being on the cutting edge of the most updated news the pulse as the heart of the research pumps out the latest facts and findings
16:48 “I hoped you would know more than I” didn’t this guy claim to do like 3100hrs of research ??
xxBlazee yeah but Chris has called him a liar so therefore he (Chris) assumes he knows more...atleast that’s what I took from that . He could also just be a rude condescending prick lol
@@nomadicpersuasions8156 the guy was asking what the other guy's opinion on how many would be invalid. He was making a claim that research is biased and when asked to what extent it is, basically said, "idk, you should know more than I."
The %showing risk??
What type of dairy??
What type of Meat??
I'd assume processed milkshakes and burgers would show higher risk than grass fed dairy and meat.
I'd also assume that plants sprayed with weedkiller and pesticides would have higher risk.
No studying necessary!
Just common sense.
James “can I just finish?” Wilks
James "can i finish but I wont let you finish" Wilks
@@DJCOXnBAWLS808
James “Can I just finish?” Wilks
Joe “No. Meat and cigarettes!” Rogan
What ever the bald guy has been trying to prove, I'm getting tired of listening to his inability to make his point understandable!
Yet he comes as the smart guy wtf does that say about vegan dude.
And the acupuncturist doesn't claim to be a doctor just a guy reading the conclusion s of several studies.
Haha.. open your eyes bud.
It's because he isn't making a point, he is just being contrary to what Chris says.
@alp LoL, you don't like his point so time to switch to ad hominen. "How can he know what he is talking about, he is just a stupid acupuncturist."
that's because vegans don't want to hear a different opinion, they just want to hear their own opinion confirmed by you.
ones aggressive ones laid back, ones hyper aware, one fudges, guess which is which
Well the dynamic is actually opposite of what first comes to mind. The aggressor is the vegan 😂
this feels like the come up of my mushroom trips
was the full podcast taken down?
James Wilks can't explain a thing even with all his slides. He can't even answer one question and can't even say where he stands in the argument.
14:57 LETS JUST THROW OUT THE EVIDENCE AGAINST ME!
great way to win a debate!
It’s not against him dude. 90% of smokers don’t get lung cancer. 10% is more than enough to have a scientific consensus that smoking does cause cancer. Never mind that 90% of the times the data shows no correlation.
Marcelo Carvalho it’s not saying no data it’s saying no correlation. Meaning there is no link
xxBlazee there’s 16% link, more than for smoking and cancer. Go figure
Marcelo Carvalho. No, it is saying 16% of studies showed a link between consumption of dairy and cancer; not that 16% of people get cancer. Your point that only 10% of smokers get cancer is irrelevant. You could have 100% of studies showing that there is a positive link between smoking and cancer and still only have 10% of smokers getting cancer.
So there is a ex-mma fighter claiming bia- conspiracies about everything that doesn´t fit his opinion and trying to explain how to correctly interpretate metaanalysis studies
He obviously doesn't know that the point is to show an increase risk and only 16% showed an increase out of the whole 153 studies. That's not even close to proving without a doubt that dairy causes an increased risk for cancer. With all the other factors in the lives of people that percentage is less than the common average of contracting cancer regardless of nutrition
Mr Rogan you have some really interesting guests! I am fascinated watching this.
"Grasping for straws this guy is." *in my best Yoda accent.*
Are the straws vegan though?
Veggie straws?
EDIT "Grasping for straws he is"
martin_e no Vsco metal straws
@@noblevagabond6907 paper
James spent the debate arguing how good vegetables are, but who the fuck didn't know that already. I just wanted to see him justify advocating cutting meat out but he never really gave a reason
James is just going round and round to confuse Joe.