Journal firestorm: JAMA documents orchestrated backlash

The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) has a fascinating, almost chilling, account this week that shows the depths of dissent and deception now roiling in the fields of nutrition research.

The in-depth article documents the orchestrated backlash from a lobby group that tried to intimidate editors at another prominent journal into not publishing a series of scientific papers that found research to date was too weak to find that red meat is a significant health risk.

The article also notes the deliberate breaking of a publication embargo to mount that backlash, which is a serious ethical breach in the research community. The article also exposes the hidden ties to various players in the food industry — on all sides — of nutritional research.

Diet Doctor has often noted that the field of nutrition research is rife with undeclared bias and poor quality research, such as observational studies that don’t establish cause-and-effect relationships.

As noted Stanford researcher Dr. John Ioannadis notes “the whole field is in need of radical reform.”

If you ever wanted more evidence of that desperate need for reform, take a look at this almost shocking account of what happened when the Annals of Internal Medicine was about to publish their series of research articles on red meat.

JAMA: Backlash Over Meat Dietary Recommendations Raises Questions About Corporate Ties to Nutrition Scientists