Jun 22 2011
There are a few “laws” of the blogosphere, one of them being that a response to a post that comes more than a few weeks later is generally useless or crazy. But once in a while, someone takes the time to look at an old post and formulate a thoughtful response.
This is not one of those times.
Or maybe it is. I’ll report (and editorialize), you decide.
Regarding a piece I first published in September of 2010, a reader writes:
Dear Dr. Gorski:[our managing editor]
I am writing regarding your comments on the following blog
I am not a doctor but am pursuing an MA and hopefully a PhD in nutrition and public health. I am very familiar with Dr. Fuhrman and his work. I have heard many of Dr. Fuhrman’s lectures and if anything they are all based on concrete scientific research. I must express my disappointment about both the tone and factual content of the article written. I read extensively about nutrition, exercise and their health benefits. Much of the research done in this field has been conducted in small clinical trials or in the laboratory. There is a good reason for this. Only the government has the financial ability to pay the tens of millions of dollars needed to conduct large scale clinical trials in this area since a drug company would in all probability not have any financial gain from a clinical trial showing that individuals eating 10 servings of vegetables each day have a significant reduction in chronic disease. I do feel that all epidemiological as well as clinical work done points to the very clear fact that people die years before they need to due to the poor diets they have. It is also very clear that most physicians have very little knowledge about nutrition since it is generally a very minor part of their education. I agree with doctor Fuhrman that any debate should be both science based and held to the highest ethical standards. From what I see the article written as well as your comments do not meet these standards. I find that most disconcerting due to the fact that individuals put their lives in their hands when they consult with you as a physician.
In closing I would like your comment on the follwing statement that was made by Dr. William Castelli, who ran the Framingham Study for about 20 years. An interviewer asked him what percent of heart disease could be avoided through proper nutrition and exercise. His response was very brief. 100%!! Do you agree with one of foremost reaearcers of the 20th century or do you consider him to be a quack too.
I await your response.
What is instructive here is the usual thoughtful but incorrect “reasoning” used by someone with just enough knowledge to think he understands the topic at hand well enough to rebut. The rebuttal, however, makes use of the usual fallacies that are the fallback position for the ignorant and the mendacious (and I must point out that I think our Dear Correspondent is the former).
Since I wrote the piece, not Dr. Gorski, I take full responsibility for its content and defend my writing personally. A bit of a fisking is in order to help us all better understand how to think about these questions properly.