Okay, first, when I see a title that contains the words, "The Truth About..." I know there will be some inaccurate info. This just seems to be a thing with human beings. And this video was no exception. The title gives the viewer the impression that everything they will be hearing is, well, the truth. But while Graham said some things that are accurate, much of what was said was inaccurate. And this is not based on opinion, but is based on objective facts. On science. His ardent followers will no doubt disagree, but so do the ardent followers of those educators who teach that the Earth is flat when I try and explain that it is definitely globe-shaped.

It should be noted that Doug and I have a history. We are colleagues, although I no longer identify as a colleague of his because I lost all respect for him over time when I realized that he does not adhere to, "First, do no harm", which is an oath all health educators should abide by. There was a time when he and I lectured at the same annual raw vegan event, but we were teaching a few diametrically opposed things. This confused people, and during the Q&A portions of our talks, we'd both get questions about this conflicting info. I was able to adequately explain why my info was accurate and Doug's was inaccurate. Doug was not able to do the same, and he only confused those attending his talks even further. This was one of the reasons he is no longer invited to speak at this event, and I am still invited to speak.

And this is not the first video he's made addressing nutritional supplements. I posted a rebuttal to the first one where an interviewer asked Doug specifically about the green powder supplement I recommend. Many of Doug's comments then have been repeated in this recent video, and are still just as inaccurate and just as obviously ridiculous. Only now he is saying that he is not "anti supplement". This label has been associated with him thanks in part to the educating of the raw vegan community that I've been doing over the years. But saying you're not something while still being that something doesn't give the same things you've been saying any new credibility.

Now to the specifics of this video.

Graham says that supplements are typically isolated nutrients. He doesn't directly address the green powder supplements which are made from plants, with nothing isolated. They are just plants that have been juiced and the water removed. But he steers clear of mentioning Daily Green Boost by name, or even using the correct term, "green powder supplements". Having been a supplement industry insider, I can say with 100% certainty that over 95% of the supplements sold in stores are worthless, and even some of the green powder supplements are overpriced and over-hyped. But 95% is not 100%, and Graham does not speak to this.

In the video Graham said that "supplements have saved people's lives by addressing a deficiency so they, hopefully, can live a smarter way and not have these deficiencies again". But his definition of a "smarter way" is eating a "whole, fresh, ripe, raw, fruit-based diet" with no supplements. He still will not concede that agri-industry grown fruit is grown in such a way that it doesn't provide what I term, "enough of all" (the nutrients we require that fruit used to provide a very long time ago). More on this in a moment.

He says that 95-98% of all nutritional problems are due to excess not to deficiency. For those eating the typical Western diet, their issues are due to both excesses (of junk food, animal foods, grain products, etc), and of deficiencies (of certain nutrients). I've stated before that it is impossible to put a percentage to this issue, but Graham continues to say that most of their problems are due to excess, 95-98%. I don't attach percentages to this issue, instead just laying out both sides. But when it comes to raw vegans, when they fail to thrive, it can also be due to excesses and insufficiencies. Too much fat, and not enough of certain nutrients. Again, it's not helpful to try to assign a percentage, but if I had to for those eating an 80/10/10 diet where they don't have any excesses, only insufficiencies, it would be close to 100% (their ill health being caused mainly by nutritional deficiencies). And we know that their ill health was due to nutritional insufficiencies, because when they addressed this, their health improved. They didn't change what they were eating, or the amounts, they just added worthwhile nutritional complements to their diet. And these are people I've personally counseled, so this is not anecdotal info, this is empirical evidence.

Technically, yes, of course. But to be supportive of human health, this would require getting "enough of all", and Graham has said, "Once you start eating enough fruits and vegetables you don't have to worry about nutrition". And while this is a lovely notion, and was true a very long time ago, it is nevertheless not true for many people today, due to the nutritional quality of the fruit and greens they are buying.

He mentions that sunlight is our sole source of vitamin D, and does not mention the other equally important sunshine-provided nutrients. I take every opportunity to mention them so that people who test low in D don't turn to a D supplement to resolve their D insufficiency because a D supplement only contains D and none of those other nutrients.

He says that the body's creation of B12 has nothing to do with food. But if dietary cobalt is lacking, the body can't make cobalamin (B12).

"As a doctor, I say throw the philosophies out the window..."

He's not a doctor, he was a chiropractor. Yes, they are technically a doctor, but many people assume he's a medical doctor because he refers to himself as a doctor. If I was a chiropractor, and then I learned about health restoration and maintenance and I stopped doing chiropractic work and instead did health education based on the tenets of Natural Hygiene, I would not have people introduce me as "Doctor Bennett" when I lectured, and I would not refer to myself as a doctor because my chiropractic training had nothing to do with what I'm teaching now. But Graham uses this title even when he's let his chiropractic license expire... so technically he really shouldn't even be referring to himself as a doctor. A small point, but it gives you an insight into his personality, which is always important to discover when researching health educators IMO.

Actually, there is more than enough empirical evidence now to demonstrate that there are some nutrients that many vegans and raw vegans do become deficient in over time. So supplementing those nutrients so that they don't become deficient in them over time is actually a wise approach to optimal health. It is irresponsible for him to say, "Maybe they won't". Is it a better approach to wait to see if someone develops a nutritional deficiency before supplementing that nutrient to resolve the deficiency? No! Because there will have already been damage done. So now, not only does a preventable deficiency need to be reversed, but there is healing that is now needed (and often this increases the need for certain nutrients).

Throughout the video, Graham keeps harping on isolated supplements and their not working in the body in the same way as naturally occurring nutrients do. But the specifics are never explained, and they should be. Yes, the "pre-plant" form of nutrients (found in soil and rocks) are not anywhere near as bioavailable as their "post-plant" form (found in fruits and greens). Five percent bioavailable versus 95% bioavailable. But that doesn't mean that pill-type nutritional supplements can offer no benefit at all, or that they do more harm than good. That is simply not true. If I had the choice of getting my iodine needs met with post-plant form iodine, I'd prefer that. But if I can't get that form, do I say no to the pre-plant form from a tablet because it's not as bioavailable? Of course not.

"I'm not going to take supplements in advance of having a problem."

This is clearly not a wise approach to health as I outlined above. And it demonstrates the flaw in Graham's approach to optimal future health.

And the interviewer never asked Graham, "What about the notion that today's fruits and greens, because of the way they are grown, are not as nutritious as they need to be to provide us with enough of what we need?". This is because it wasn't a journalist interviewing Graham, it was someone who worked for him, asking the questions that Graham wanted asked. So, no "hardball" questions.

And he is so wrong about iodine it's appalling. On this one issue he discredits himself so severely it isn't funny. At an event where he and I were both speaking, he came up to me and asked, "Don, do you know anything about hypothyroidism?" He had heard that I was teaching about the importance of being iodine sufficient, especially for optimal thyroid health. I answered. "Yes, I do." He opened his mouth to say something, paused, and then just walked away! He had wanted to ask me something specific, but couldn't bring himself to do it, likely because his ego wouldn't allow it. And it turns out it involved the health of a loved one, and he couldn't engage me in conversation, and the info I could have shared with him could have spared that person from a lifetime of medical intervention. There is no excuse for this. This is why arrogant, egotistical people should not be police officers, judges, or health educators IMO.

And he makes one of the most spurious arguments about the fallacy of soils not being nutritious enough I have every heard. He made the same ridiculous argument when he spoke out against the green powder supplement I highly recommend (Daily Green Boost), and you can listen to that, and to my rebuttal at the link I will provide below. And this alone should, to any person that has critical thinking skills, discredit him from providing any nutritional advice. And this is sad, because as I said above, he and I teach about 90% of the same accurate info.

He mentions that farmers who've been growing crops for generations, why wouldn't they grow nutritious crops for their children? And do the farmers that grow the plants that the plant-based supplements are made of know something about growing crops that the farmers who grow our fruits and greens don't know? Sorry, but these are some of the most ridiculous things to say in support of today's fruit and green crops being adequately nutritious. These are two different products: lettuces for your salads grown by agri-industry growers who grow for profit and not for nutritional content, and the barley grass growers who grow specifically for nutritional content because their crop is used as a nutritional supplement. An apples-to-oranges comparison. And he's been making this same ridiculous point for decades.

He says he hasn't taken nutritional supplements in over 20 years, and he doesn't feel the need to, and that he hasn't done any testing because he feels fine. This is flawed reasoning. He knows full well what degenerative disease is. He knows it develops very slowly over time. So to say that he doesn't care to do any testing at this time because he feels fine is irresponsible info if taken as advice by someone who doesn't know any better. Please read the article that speaks to this very important issue that I cite below.

And his remarks about the uselessness of testing because they are "just snapshots in time... they may be going up they may be going down" is also irresponsible. It takes months to "move" your blood level of vitamin D, not days. And the correct B12 test is an invaluable test, as are iodine tests (that also "move" very slowly). I still cringe when I think about his reply to someone in one of his Q&A segments who asked him, "So if I think I have a B12 deficiency, you're saying not to take a B12 supplement?" and Graham responded, "No, if you think you have a B12 deficiency, then sure, take a B12 supplement." This is a very irresponsible thing for a health educator to say. Why? The correct response should have been, "If you think you have a B12 deficiency, then first do an MMA test to be sure, because if you don't have a B12 deficiency and you assume you do and take B12, you will not be addressing what's causing the symptoms that you misdiagnosed to be symptoms of a B12 deficiency. And if you do have a B12 deficiency, without testing, how would you know how much B12 you need to take? Is it so low that you need a B12 injection ASAP, or is a sublingual B12 sufficient, but even there, how much should you be taking? And that depends on a MMA test result." That's the reply I give. Compare the two replies.

IN SUMMARY: His discussion of nutrition as it relates to nutritional supplementation is irresponsible. It has been for a long time, and he knows what I teach about it but IMO he is too arrogant to peer-to-peer and to change what he teaches, maybe because he's concerned about losing credibility for being so inaccurate for such a long time about something so important. I don't know. But I do know he is wrong about supplementation, and he shouldn't be speaking about it. And this is a shame, because his 80/10/10 Diet is one of the best write-ups about a raw vegan diet there is. But I don't recommend it because of this one huge flaw.

 

Here is the other rebuttal I wrote regarding Graham's comments about Daily Green Boost specifically.

And here is the article that speaks to the issue of not taking any supplements because you feel fine.

The original video is here.