Nina Teicholz Responds to the News that BMJ Stands Behind Her Article

new-nina

Dear Friends,

The good news to announce today is that last Friday, The BMJ announced that it is not retracting the article I wrote critiquing the science behind the Dietary Guidelines. The BMJ stood strongly by the article, including this comment by BMJ Editor-in-Chief, Fiona Godlee:

We stand by Teicholz’s article with its important critique of the advisory committee’s processes for reviewing the evidence, and we echo her conclusion: ‘Given the ever increasing toll of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease, and the failure of existing strategies to make inroads in fighting these diseases, there is an urgent need to provide nutritional advice based on sound science.’

The retraction request was written by the DC-based advocacy group, Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), which then organized 180+ scientists to sign on—truly one of the biggest-ever retraction efforts in recent history. (CSPI was also the group that earlier this year maneuvered my dis-invitation from that National Food Policy Conference panel, an issue for which many of you signed a petition :) – though sadly, I was not re-invited.)

In the end, the errors in my BMJ article were trivial and did not alter any assertions in the piece.

What was so dangerous in my article that it needed to be deleted from the scientific record? Its main findings – which have now been thrice peer-reviewed and confirmed as correct – are that:

  • The expert report on which the Dietary Guidelines are based is comprised of non-rigorous reviews of the science.
  • The majority of rigorous clinical trial science has been ignored (and has been for decades).
  • Reviews on key issues — including saturated fat and the low-carbohydrate diet — were not properly conducted.
  • The government-recommended diets are based on only a “minuscule amount of rigorous data that these diets can prevent diseases such as obesity, diabetes, and heart disease.”
  • In particular, the newly introduced “vegetarian diet,” is based on evidence that the expert report itself judges to be “inconclusive,” which is the lowest grade assigned to available evidence.

Other findings from the article are listed in my comment published in The BMJ. Thus, despite enormous scrutiny, the article stands, and it provides vital information for how we might better fight the diseases that cripple our nation.

All links are below — including to my comments and those by Fiona Godlee.

Obviously it feels great not to have this hanging over my head any longer. I plan to continue to write about nutrition science and politics – and will send out periodic emails on these topics (once every 3-4 weeks, I’d guess). If you would like to receive these regularly, please subscribe here.

All the best,
Nina

P.S.

Here is a good round-up of the story:

And here is a commentary on CSPI’s approach to the science:

Earlier

BMJ Stands Behind Nina Teicholz’ Critique of the US Dietary Guidelines

The BMJ Criticism of the Dietary Guidelines Will NOT Be Retracted

The US Dietary Guidelines Expert Committee Said to be “Completely Dissociated” From the Top Level Scientific Community

The British Medical Journal Slams Unscientific and Biased Low-Fat Dietary Guidelines!

Top Nina Teicholz videos

  • What about red meat and health?
  • The unknown story of vegetable oils
  • Did the Introduction of the Dietary Guidelines Start the Obesity Epidemic?
  • The Big Fat Surprise
  • Is the Mediterranean Diet Healthy?
  • The Myth of Vegetable Oils
  • Can Red Meat Kill You?
  • Why Our Dietary Guidelines Are Wrong
  • Vegetable Oils – The Unknown Story

4 Comments

  1. RT
    Congratulations, Ms. Teicholz. You have attained a victory both for free speech and for advocacy of a truly scientific approach to nutrition issues. The snake oil peddlers of pseudoscientific sophism (cloaked as they always are in the argument from authority) have lost this round. I can almost see thier heads exploding with rage. I wish you the best of success in your future endeavours.
  2. Archie
    Quote: "The retraction request was written by the DC-based advocacy group, Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) ...."

    If the CSPI raises opposition to you, then you are probably in good company. CSPI is a shadow group within the Soros-funded umbrella of anti-freedom/anti-choice globalists who are unsatisfied with providing nutritional information to facilitate personal choice; instead, they insist on using the power of government to make choices for you and where that fails, move to file lawsuits against companies who might fulfill your desire for an arguably disgusting fast food hamburger. CSPI are a bunch of statists who masquerade as consumer advocates. Your deviation from the orthodoxy is what caused them to target you, and you should expect more of the same in the future.

    Reply: #3
  3. Apicius
    Archie: Just like what Tom Naughton repeats over and over..."follow the money".
    Certainly, manipulating the buying trends of millions of Americans is a good scenario for billionaire investors.
    It never made sense to me how "processed food" could be cheaper than unprocessed food. Processed food takes man power, energy consumption, spare parts & equipment maintenance in processing plants, fuel and more man power for transport, intricate supply chains for all ingredients, footprints for manufacturing and warehousing, tons of marketing, all sorts of packaging, tons of food industry regulations and third party audits/testing. But, of course...if you add the government subsidies and food stamps...all of this Frankenstein food manufacturing becomes more feasible. So, in a nut shell, the tax payers get screwed twice. Tax money is funnelled to farmers and food stamps for "food security" reasons and then the average Joe or Jane can't afford to buy natural unadulterated whole food with the money they have left in their bank account after taxes. Meanwhile, billionaires safely invest their money where they steer food trends.
    Reply: #4
  4. Tim
    It all begins with people following along like sheep, willingly being fleeced...the weird thing is, they look to those doing the fleecing for the solution.

    Of course, there's a reason for it all...Deut 28...people do it to themselves. Can't very well sell frankenstein foods and filthy ideologies if people didn't buy them. Tough love...

Leave a reply

Reply to comment #0 by

Older posts