http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com...ornish-replies/

Can't quite bring myself to read it... maybe after a nap

During a nap?

just take the nap and forget the article....

Oops, forgot to read it. What's it say? Same old?

It sure looks like he's deployed his flying monkeys in the comments area. They're all over it, fawning, obscuring, and otherwise muddying the water.

I actually read only the comments on the article and they're pretty much declaring DO as the next savior of the world...bleh...left a bad taste in my mouth.

After he got annihilated in the last entry's comments, I'm sure he or someone connected with him had their troops ready. It's far too fawning to be authentic commentary - too many people claiming Dean saved their lives, profusely thanking him for his brilliance, etc.

i know.. sickening...

Gosh, it's almost like politics! Line up those fawning toadies and you're ready to go.

Well, I think there are people who go on a severely lowfat diet and lose weight and really feel that is the way, the truth, and the light.

I'm sure we pity them as much as they pity us.

As many former vegetarians, even vegans, are now lowcarbers because it made them fat and sick, for all I know there are former lowcarbers in the lowfat world swearing LC made them fat and sick. Maybe it really is different for different people.

The real difference between Ornish and Taubes is that Ornish's whole life is vested in everything he's said in the past being considered currently true, while Taubes has nothing vested except one book which is only his latest topic. His previous work on other topics and as a science journalist is going to stand regardless of whether this or that detail in his latest book is evaluated well or badly, and in the larger scheme of things, aside from unlikely potentials like "maybe insulin doesn't really matter" or "maybe saturated fat really does kill you", aside from those major points, it really doesn't matter WHAT science finds today, tomorrow or next week as far as Taubes's work is concerned. Ornish however has his entire professional and personal reputation on the line with every single scientific study that gets done that is not funded by pharma/food.

Is it any wonder he's hysterical.

well i'm not so sure. I agree that Ornish is much more invested in his pack of lies and more than a little desperate at this point. If not he's more deluded than we ever imagined.

But Gary has invested a lot of himself in this and he really does care. Also on the practical side of things, if somehow his book was seriously discredited (pretty much impossible), that would make it more difficult to obtain new work and new book deals.

Ornish is clinging to that statement from the original press story that vegetarian sources were recommended. ONE OF THE SCIENTISTS IN THE STUDY SAID THAT WASN'T TRUE.

I had to comment. Yucky.

I have one nagging question about that. I read the email exchange between Eric Westman and Iris Shai (lead author of the NEJM study) and understand Shai's answer completely.
But why did the authors say that in the first place? Was it the press that was saying 'vegetarian sources' or the scientists. And if the latter, why?

Shai was pretty clear about the LC diet being as close to Atkins as possible while also adhering to religious needs, but counseling participants to choose vegetarian sources of protein? That should have been explained better.

And that's why the Ornish crowd jumped on it.

Ornish will survive this- he only needs a few thousand unfortunate vegetarians to keep him employed.

The thing is, if it WAS vegetarian sources counseled, you have to ask yourself, "why?" if the whole point was to compare an ornish-style diet to an atkins-style diet, where the hell did 'vegetarian' sources come from as an idea in the first place?

To me that's on the same level as designating a 'lowcarb' group at 150 carbs a day or something.

It's the lack of being clear, of sharing ALL the data, and of doing it intelligently to begin with, that is really the problem in today's world and I'm getting pretty ticked off at researchers -- this is supposed to be their area of expertise, they're getting money from sources like NIH and NSF that represent a lot of people and even all taxpayers, and all the blurry details and twisted definitions do nothing but create confusion. Which benefits nobody but pharma and food. So unless they are in bed with the wrong side of the health issue, are they just idiots? What excuse is there at this point for the chronic and ridiculous screw-ups and evasions in what science DOES get funded on this topic?