kerri <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Same thing, let's just say mister atkins or whomever,'s heart stopped. girn.

But it's not quite the same thing, when we're using it to "prove" his diet
is harmful.  It's like saying "Don't exercise - did you know Jack LaLanne
was rushed to the hospital for back surgery?" if he had had a back injury
in a car accident.  IE, totally unrelated to the exercise, therefore it's
not a valid reason to diss exercise.  Likewise, Dr. Atkins' cardiac arrest
was no more related to his diet than if he'd been electrocuted, so it's
not a valid reason to diss his diet.  And, since the point seems to be
to link his diet to heart disease, the fact that he was a doctor who
specialized in cardiac medicine is very important.  He, of all people,
would have known if his diet was bad for people's hearts.  Quite the
contrary, he, and many others, have found it beneficial to blood lipids
and blood pressure, which are two of the primary factors in heart disease.
So, his credentials are relevant to supporting his diet, and shouldn't
be ignored.  To ignore his credentials, and use an unrelated event to
discredit his diet, is inaccurate at best.  And, when people's health is
at stake, shouldn't we try to be as accurate and informed as possible?

Roberta