This was originally posted with the following statement from Dr. Garth Davis: Many of the comments I see on my posts both amuse me and sadden me. I used to answer the comments thinking it was an opportunity to teach, but there are many who just troll. No interest in learning, so I have stopped reading. Of course, this only applies to a vocal few, but the others have to understand how these few can cloud the truth and therefore do harm. I started this page because I used to practice a sort of dogma. I had been trained in Western medicine where diseases are separate entities seemingly unrelated to the person and the lifestyle. The cardiologist treats the heart, the oncologist the cancer, and the endocrinologist treats the diabetes. Nobody asks about diet. We take long history and physicals, but even as a specialist in obesity I never saw any diet logs. I even wrote a book that suggested eating high protein diet. I ate a high protein diet myself, having done Atkins in the past. But then I saw people getting sicker. I got sick. i started actually treating the whole patient. Looking at diet logs. I began extensively studying the science of nutrition. Reading countless journals and attending countless scientific meetings. I changed the way I practice and the results make me so happy to be a doctor and so happy to have discovered that lifestyle and proper nutrition are the true path to health. As I studied the research, and saw its application in practice, I became shocked and deeply concerned that so few people knew this science. We are the sickest country in the world and yet we are still following the same old diet plans we have been following for years. Why are people so confused? Well industry has a very large part to play. They pay scientists to counter any piece negative to their product. The Beef, Dairy and egg boards are extremely powerful. As you can see from this study, money can really buy science so you have to know how to read the science. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17214504 Additionally we become confused because of the media/social media and their pseudo experts. Whenever people argue with me online they seem to always quote blogs. Books are written by people who never treat patients. Studies are misinterpreted or cherry picked and then go internet viral or become headlines on the news. These trollers often spotted on my page actually have a scientific name: denialists. There was actually a discussion amongst scientists as to how to deal with denialists. The denialist will do anything to look past the evidence, even though the evidence is so strong. Nothing will benefit human health and increase the chances for survival of life on earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet. —Albert Einstein Of course, Einstein was merely speculating at the time. Since then, however, science has truly come out in recognition of the importance of, at the very least, increasing fruits and veggies and limiting meat and dairy. While it may appear that scientists are constantly disagreeing, the fact is that there is a tremendous consensus that including plants in the diet and limiting animal protein is the best thing for our health. The reason you may not hear these things is that the true scientists simply don’t have time for twitter. They do not write snarky, grandiose statements in 140 characters or less. A true scientist is always second guessing and always learning. Kasier Permanente is the country’s largest Health Maintenance Organiztion. HMO’s actually make money by keeping people healthy, not through treatment. Unlike the traditional health care models, Kaiser collects money from its subscribers and whatever tests or treatments need to be done comes out of the subscription fee. Therefore, there is a strong financial incentive to actually keep people well. After thoroughly reviewing the latest science, they released recommendations to all their doctors emphasizing the importance of recommending a plant based diet to their patients. Obviously the science was convincing enough to this very large healthcare organization. The World Cancer Research Fund recently teamed up with The American Institute of Cancer Research and The World Health Organization and got experts from around the world to review all research on diet and disease. They came up with a huge report called ” Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity and the Prevention of Cancer: A Global Perspective” From the introduction: ” This was a systematic approach to examine all the relevant evidence using predetermined criteria and assemble an international group of experts who, having brought their own knowledge and experience to bear, and having debated their disagreements, arrived at judgments at what all this evidence really means. We reviewed all the relevant research using the most meticulous methods, in order to generate a comprehensive series of recommendations on food and nutrition designed to reduce the risk of cancer.” So what did this huge, meticulous review of ALL the science by THE world experts conclude. Among other things, reduce meat. There was a clear correlation between meat consumption and many forms of cancer. They recommended that diets should mostly be of plant origin. Interestingly, while this was designed to look at cancer, they did state that the research holds true for heart disease. In fact, there have already been studies showing that following these guidelines actually does lead to less cancer (Vergnaud, Romaguera et al. 2013). The American Dietetic Association recently released a statement that vegetarian diets, “are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes.”(Craig, Mangels et al. 2009) The National Research Council, The American Heart Association, The American Institute for Cancer Research and many more have emphasized the importance of cutting back on animal protein and eating more fruits and veggies. The may not say, “Go Vegan”, because they are trying to be middle of the road. The Harvard School of Public Health has published numerous excellent articles showing that animal protein and fat relates to disease. One of their top researchers was asked why they do not tell people to be vegetarian. His response in a Reuters interview was telling. “We can’t tell people to stop eating all meat and dairy products. Well we could tell all people to be vegetarians . . . If we were truly basing this on science we would, but it is a bit extreme.” Extreme? Western medicine is extreme. Finally, “The Dietary Guidelines of America” released by US department of health and human services contains an article entitled “Finding Your Way to a Healthier You. Recs included focusing on fruits and veggies, eat grains, lean proteins with fish, beans, nuts and seeds. You can imagine the amount of peripheral influence this committee is put under, yet they still found the science compelling enough to stop recommending meat and start recommending predominately plant based meat alternatives. As you will soon see there is an enormous body of research that shows animal protein can contribute to disease. Despite the evidence there will be naysayers. There are people out there that you cannot convince, regardless of the evidence. These vocal people can often dominate the public conversation and confuse people. There has actually been a scientific article written about these people, who have been termed “Denialists”.(Diethelm and McKee 2009). I want to go through what denialism in science is so that you can better understand the noise you may hear from the opposing side. 1) Denialists believe peer reviewed journal articles are some sort of conspiracy. If there is an article that counters their belief they will invent a conspiracy to slander the findings. Medical societies are not conspiratorial organizations designed to fool the public. In fact, it is very difficult to get doctors and scientists to agree on anything, much less a conspiracy. Yes, there are individual articles that, as I have previously mentioned, have had monetary influence. However, peer review will bring these to light. At scientific conferences, when presenting an article, you actually have to list your financial interests. 2) Denialists like to denigrate experts. This I find extremely odd. When arguing with people on line, if I refer to an expert in the field the comment is waved off due to “appeal to authority”. Why would you not want to hear from an authority who has studied a topic all of their life. I have studied this science for years. While others are doing their work I am reviewing the literature and treating patients with my findings. Why would you not want to hear my opinion? There was an interesting event on line that will shine more light on this. A young school teacher, who believes she is a nutrition expert, published a blog aimed at discrediting Dr. C. Colin Campbell, author of The China Study. I have since seen many people say that Dr. Campbell has been discredited and reference this blog for proof. The blogger had basically looked at the raw data that Dr. Campbell collected and saw that one region of China ate lots of wheat and had high amount of heart disease, which is counter to what was asserted in the book. What she did is a univariate analysis. She did not look at any other factors that could have caused the relationship. Turns out this region of China ate very little vegetables and lots of meat. An epidemiologist commented on her blog, “it was crude and irresponsible to draw conclusions based on raw, unadjusted, linear, and nondirectional data.” The blogger was fairly hostile to any criticism from anybody that was an “authority”. Interestingly, Dr. Campbell actually wrote a response: “ I am the first to admit that background and academic credentials are not everything, and many interesting discoveries and contributions have been made by outsiders and newcomers in various fields. On the other hand, background time in the field, and especially peer review, all do give a one of a kind perspective”. He explained that the biochemical effects he saw in his lab studies established fundamentals and concepts that lead to biologic plausibility that he went into the field to test. The china survey is just one point in a lifetime of study for a man who dedicated his career to investigating the effects of diet on health. How can you just brush off someone with so much knowledge and experience? 3) Denialists are very selective of articles. Only articles that prove their point of view are considered valid. A true scientist should doubt his views and test his hypothesis. A trues scientist should look at the wide breadth of available information in order to judge the validity of a single article. (Murad and Montori 2013). The dentist searches for a single argue to prove a point even if they do not understand how to read the article and what it says. 4) Denialists create absolutely impossible expectations from research. To a denialist, nothing is true unless the study is a randomized placebo controlled prospective study over many years. In nutritional research that is just not possible. When you put someone on a diet and try to study them long term there is a very good chance that will quit the diet. The treatment and the control groups start looking very similar, causing the trial to fail. (Willett 2010). Denialists favorite type of research to criticize is epidemiologic research. Epidemiology is the study of populations over time trying to ascertain causes for disease. The denialist will tell you that epidemiologic studies show correlation but not causation, and then dismiss the article. My question is, “what in the world is wrong with finding correlation”? Modern day epidemiology uses all kinds of fancy statistical methods. Like I showed earlier, if you are looking at, for instance, the relationship between saturated fat and heart disease, these studies utilize what is called multivariate analysis, where all possible other causes for heart disease are eliminated. So if you are looking at a group of people to see if there is a relationship between fat and heart disease you need to remove smoker, obese people, etc. Modern day statistical analysis is very powerful. The studies may show correlation, not causation, but if there is a significant correlation in a modern epidemiologic study, you better believe that where there is smoke there is fire. In fact, it is more common that the rigorous statistical methods can actually erase a correlation that actually exists {Jacobs, 1979 #135}. I will tell you that if a well done modern day, peer reviewed, epidemiologic study shows a correlation, you should definitely take note. 5) Finally denialists misrepresent data. Statements are taken out of context or conclusions are misread. Many critics of Gary Taubes claim that he took much of what they said out of context for his book. In fact, one of the articles he used to show that saturated fat does not cause heart disease ending up actually proving there was a correlation. So I shall continue posting the research on this page. I will not however get into petty arguments with denialists. For those who visit my page to learn I welcome and honored by the opportunity. Please ignore the denialists and their childish antics. https://facebook/drgarth?fref=nf
Posted on: Sat, 11 Oct 2014 05:01:10 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015