> Scientists are like every other human being - subject to belief.
> Ornish is famous for viewing science through the lens of his particular
> agenda.
> Reading many of the postings on this list seem to indicate that we
> suffer from this same subjective lens tendency (trumpeting studies that
> seem to indicate support for our dietary beliefs and finding fault with
> those that seem to contradict our dietary beliefs).

Ornish is particularly pernicious, however, and is not like other scientists
and scientifically-minded people (like Eaton, Cordain, Lindeberg, Eades,
Taubes, or even Andrew Weil) for a number of reasons. He claims the
scientific high road and points to his flawed studies to back up that claim.
He gets funding for his new-age, politically-correct, pro-grain studies
while the studies that Cordain, Lindeberg and other scientists from the
Paleolithic nutrition field suggest are desperately needed go largely
unfunded. Ornish promotes a vegan-yoga way of life without ever mentioning
how and why he got into that (can anyone say "lack of full disclosure" and
"conflict of interest"?). I do yoga myself, but I wouldn't include it in a
DIETARY study. You don't need a PhD to know that doing so would obscure the
results. When the American Medical Association attacked the Atkins diet and
other low-carb diets they were cheered by the media and the medical
establishment, but when they strongly condemned Ornish's freakishly low-fat
diet they were largely ignored. Why the discrepancy? Ornish claims his diet
can't be beat, yet it has been beat in a third-party study by the Atkins
diet and he never tests it against a Paleo diet. I could go on and on.

> But I don't doubt that you could reduce PSA numbers by 4% through a
> low-fat diet and exercise.  What's really remarkable, I think, is not
> the 4% reduction, but rather the fact that it wasn't a greater
> reduction. 

Yes, and that reminds me of the Quaker Oats commercials where the people
giving testimonials are all excited about puny improvements in their
cholesterol scores that pale in comparison to the typical improvements
mentioned in the Paleo diet testimonials and in my own experience.

> And, despite what Ornish says, we already knew that diet
> and other environmental factors could affect gene expression.
> The real problem, as demonstrated in Taubes book, is not necessarily
> with the study or data itself.  It is with the interpretation
> presented.

Yes, as I mentioned, his study is merely a confirmation, not a discovery.
There is already a whole field dedicated to the study of the principle (and
its consequences) that environment can affect gene expression, from the womb
onwards--it's called epigenetics.

> ... But in this case, you can see that Ornish himself is
> pushing for the radical interpretation (even though his data doesn't
> really support the claims, and even though the study doesn't isolate
> the "vegan" aspect - for all we know (and all he knows), it was the
> exercise that caused the result - the very small result).  But because
> Ornish has an agenda - veganism and the sale of diet books - he will
> present the smallest of results from the least-controlled studies (I
> know of no scientist who would combine 3 elements like this (diet,
> exercise and stress management) into one study.  

And there you hit upon the crux of the matter. I don't mind him making a
living off his diet if it's good (everyone has to make a living), but I do
mind him claiming that science supports his diet while putting forth
pseudo-scientific studies to back that claim (and generally keeping silent
about his real motivation, which he revealed years ago).

> We must all be wary of science (or anything else for that matter) that
> is designed to prove a belief.
> gale

Whatever belief or principle the science is being used to prove should be
disclosed openly and frequently. Cordain, Eaton and Lindeberg frequently and
bravely discuss the theory of biological discordance that underlies their
scientific reports, despite the harsh attacks on them that this generates,
but Ornish generally keeps mum about the religious views that underly his
reports. Therein lies the biggest difference.

> It saddens and frustrates me that our governments produce, at taxpayers'
expense, eating guides and other such propaganda that touts one theory as
some ultimate "truth". I believe that their propaganda is causing untold
suffering and multitudes of premature deaths. 
Who is running this insane asylum anyway? 
Best Wishes,
Ron

Well said, as usual, Ron. I wish that most politicians, scientists and
multinational agribusiness executives shared your real concern for the
health of the multitudes. The government is of course influenced by the
grain and dairy (and yes, commercial meat production) industries that help
to fund its workings with their tax dollars and political contributions.
It's no coincidence that the main political instigator of the bizarrely
extreme food pyramid (11 servings of grains a day? Good heavens!), Sen.
George McGovern, was from a farm state. That whole story is told in detail
by Gary Taubes in his book. 

Money is the basic motivator that this "insane asylum" runs on. Money is
what we need to survive in a modern economy. It's what funds the
politicians' campaigns, it's what fills the government treasuries, pays for
the scientists' studies, satisfies shareholders and enables us to pay for
gasoline. Maximizing profit is great for building economic wealth, but it
doesn't necessarily lead to maximized health. I don't know how we are going
to square these sometimes conflicting motivations. Totalitarian government
is obviously not the solution, and the job of corporations is to maximize
shareholder profit, not consumer health. So the key factor seems to be to
educate the people (such as Cordain is doing) so they can better manage
their own diet and health and to discourage consumption of what nearly
everyone agrees are harmful food products, such as sugars, hydrogenated
oils, artificial ingredients, refined grains, candy, ice cream, twinkies,
donuts, margarine, etc.

> Taubes is actually not a scientist, he is a science writer.
> But in my limited experience working with scientists, he is quite
> highly regarded as a science writer.

And indeed he should be. He's the science editor of the New York Times. He
was highly regarded by nearly everyone until he published an article ("What
if It's All Been a Big Fat Lie?" New York Times Magazine, 2002) that
contained politically incorrect, but scientifically accurate, information
about low fat diets that corporations, political elites and the medical
establishment didn't like.

> I'm sure there are many many out there, from vegans and vegetarians to
> the manufacturers of twinkies and corn flakes that will issue quite a
> bit of vitriol toward the fellow.
> But I don't think he'll care.  lol.
> gale

That's right. Taubes made the mistake of reporting what he found instead of
shaping the news and information to fit the standard political agenda. My
guess is that it's only a matter of time before the NYT decides that he is
not sufficiently towing the political line and get rid of him.