Monday, May 2, 2016

Ultimatum by US Dietary Guidelines chair Barbara Millen led to author/journalist Nina Teicholz being kicked off National Food Policy Conference panel

source

On March 30 I reported Craven cave-in: How journalist/author Nina Teicholz was "disinvited" from the National Food Policy Conference: My item led with some paragraphs from Teicholz disinvited from food policy panel by Catherine Boudreau, Politico, March 25, 2016):
...Nina Teicholz, an author who has publicly criticized the science behind the government's low-fat dietary advice, was recently bumped from a nutrition science panel after being confirmed by the National Food Policy Conference.
...Thomas Gremillion, director of food policy at the Consumer Federation of America, which is organizing the conference, confirmed he’d hoped to have Teicholz on the panel “but it didn't work out,”
......Margo Wootan, director of nutrition policy at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, will speak on the panel, along with Barbara Millen, the former chairwoman of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, and Angie Tagtow, executive director of the USDA’s Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion.
Records I recently obtained via a FOIA request to USDA (embedded below) reveal that Teicholz was kicked off the panel the morning after Millen, founder/president of a health screening company, sent this "URGENT" e-mail to Tagtow. (I've redacted her cell number. My bold red highlighting throughout.)
From: Millen, Barbara E [mail to:bmillen@bu.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2016 5:33 PM
To: Tagtow, Angela - CNPP
Subject: URGENT: Panelist info for Natl Food Policy Conference

Angie,

I just had a rather long conversation with Thomas [Gremillion] and expressed my great concern that he invited Nina Teicholz to the panel without informing us. I apologize for this email. I would have called but I’m sure it is well past your office hours. I will convey the main points of my conversation with Thomas and ask that you email him or call him directly.

Basically, I said that this development and specifically the inclusion of Ms. Teicholz changed the panel quite negatively and could result in quite antagonistic situation. I suggested he reconsider including her and indicated that I would hate to withdraw but would do so if necessary.

I also expressed that to Thomas that he and other in his organization should have been aware of Ms. Teicholz’ public views on the DGAC report and the DGAs and that I found it very surprising that they included her at all but certainly without discussing the possibility with the other panelists in advance of making the invitation.

I hope you agree. I imagine you do. Thomas would like to hear from you directly and hopes you can call or email him in the morning. He called me back within minutes of getting my email this evening.

If you wish to try to reach me, I am traveling but can be reached at 781-413-XXXX (my cell). I have intermittent service but I will call you back if I don’t answer.

Best, Barbara

Dr. Barbara E. Millen
bmillen@bu.edu

Angela Tagtow (source)
About a half-hour later, Tagtow apparently tried to carry Millen's message to Gremillion by phone rather than in writing.
On Mar 9, 2016, at 6:11 PM, Tagtow, Angela - CNPP <Angela.Tagtow@cnpp.usda.gov> wrote:

Thomas, good evening and thank you for the update. I would like to visit with you tomorrow about USDA's concerns about this change of course for this panel presentation. Is there a good time for a phone call on Thursday? Let me know the best time and number to reach you and I'll give you a call. Best, Angie

On Mar 9, 2016, at 6:14 PM, Thomas Gremillion <tgremillion@consumerfed.org> wrote:

Hi Angie,

Thanks for contacting me. My morning is free tomorrow. Does 9:30 work for you? Best, Thomas

From: Tagtow, Angela - CNPP [mailto:Angela.Tagtow@cnpp.usda.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2016 7:01 PM
To: Thomas Gremillion <tgremillion@consumerfed.org>
Subject: Re: Panelist info for Natl Food Policy Conference

I'll be in transit at that time but could do 10:30am. Does that work on your end? Many thanks

Angie Tagtow | Executive Director | Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion | USDA | 703.305.7600 
By the next morning, apparently Gremillion had gotten his marching orders:
From: Thomas Gremillion [mail to: tgremillion@consumerfed.org]
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 9:39 AM
To: Margo Wootan; bmillen@bu.edu; Tagtow, Angela - CNPP
Cc: spitman@foodminds.com
Subject: RE: Panelist info for Natl Food Policy Conference

Hello again,

In light of the feedback I have received from all of the panelists expressing concern about the change in the tenor of the discussion that would result from adding Ms. Teicholz, we are going to go with a different fourth panelist (or possibly only the three panelists).

I will let you know when/if we confirm someone.

Thank you all for reaching out to me with your feedback. Best, 
Thomas
On Mar 10, 2016, at 9:40 AM, Thomas Gremillion <tgremillion@consumerfed.org> wrote to Angela.Tagtow@cnpp.usda.gov:

Just talked with Nina and gave her the news. Let me know if you would still like to talk at 10:30. Thanks, Thomas
But those marching orders apparently didn't come from Tagtow:
From: Tagtow, Angela - CNPP
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 9:53 AM
To: Thomas Gremillion
Subject: Re: Panelist info for Natl Food Policy Conference

Hi Thomas, thank you for addressing the concerns. No, we do not need to visit today. If you are looking for an industry panelist, Philippe Caradec from Danon [sic] has a compelling story on product reformulation. Best, Angie

Angie Tagtow, MS, RD, LD
Executive Director | Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion
United States Department of Agriculture
3101 Park Center Drive, Suite 1034 | Alexandria, VA 22302
703.305.7600 | angela.tagtow@cnpp.usda.gov
A couple of weeks later, it got even more interesting
From: Nina Teicholz [mailto:teicholz@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2016 8:16 PM
To: Tagtow, Angela - CNPP
Subject: CFA Food Policy panel

Dear Angie,

I hope this finds you well.

I guess you know by now that a fan of mine started a petition to reinstate me to the food policy panel from which I was disinvited, and there are now nearly 3,000 signers.

Although you and I may have differing views about how nutrition science has been translated into policy, I'm sure we agree that good science (and thus, good policy) requires open debate. Given the continued rising tide of obesity and diabetes, shouldn't there a frank discussion about different ideas about possible causes and solutions?

And if you believe I've made mistakes in my analysis, then isn't this something to raise in a panel discussion? Thomas Gremillion told me that you, along with the two other panel members, refused to participate if I were included. If that is not true, please let me know.

The question is now how to repair a situation where it appears the government is shutting down discussion. I don't know if you would support inviting me back on the panel, but it seems that this would be the right thing to do. I look forward to hearing back from you.

All best regards,

Nina Teicholz

From: Tagtow, Angela - CNPP [mailto:Angela.Tagtow@cnpp.usda.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 12:33 PM
To: Nina Teicholz <teicholz@gmail.com>
Cc: Thomas Gremillion <tgremillion@consumerfed.org>
Subject: RE: CFA Food Policy panel

Good Afternoon Nina,

Thank you for your email and for reaching out. As I hope you’ve experienced with us to date, CNPP is open to hearing all points of view and believes it’s an important part of our process, especially as it relates to nutrition science.

I want to be clear, no one here at CNPP, or within USDA, contacted Thomas to decline participation in the panel after he sent an update saying CFA had identified a fourth speaker – you, at the time. Please feel free to confirm that with Thomas, cc’d here.

That said, let me take this opportunity to correct misinformation you may have received. First, it was my understanding from Thomas’ initial invitation and updates along the way was that – in keeping with the discussion being about going from science to policy to implementation – my role was to address how USDA implements the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Second, it was my understanding that the fourth speaker was to be a member of the food industry with a perspective on product reformulations related to the Dietary Guidelines (see below for reference). To that point, I had not received any indication from Thomas that the focus of the session, or my role, had changed to include a debate about nutrition science.

Nina, I am simply an invited panelist. I would not make it my or CNPP’s place to supersede the decisions of CFA on session objectives or who the organization chooses for its panel speakers.

I hope this helps clarify any misunderstanding you may have on this panel session. Again, thank you for reaching out.

Best regards, Angie

On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 1:26 PM, Thomas Gremillion <tgremillion@consumerfed.org> wrote:
Good afternoon Nina and Angie,

Angie thank you for including me in this discussion. Everything you have said below is accurate. Nina, I apologize again for my error in extending you an invitation to appear on this panel. As you can see on our website, we now have a full roster of speakers for this panel and we do not intend to change the panel makeup.

Best wishes, Thomas

From: Nina Teicholz [mailto:teicholz@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 12:13 AM
To: Thomas Gremillion
Cc: Tagtow, Angela - CNPP
Subject: Re: CFA Food Policy panel

Dear Thomas and Angie,

Thanks for your emails. I'm truly sorry to cause you any distress, but there is a strong sense, now shared by some 3500 people, including many scientists and MDs, who signed a petition on my behalf, that I should not have been disinvited from the panel. What prevents from adding another chair to the discussion?

Angie, I'm glad to hear that you had no objection to my participating. My inclusion would serve the purpose of addressing one of the intended topics of the panel, which was (from the text you sent below), "claims that food policy is not keeping up with the latest nutrition science." This point of view unfortunately does not appear to be represented on the now-revised panel. My inclusion would also arguably fill the consumer advocacy position, since CSPI is so close to the government on these particular issues.

The appearance of silencing debate on important issues cannot be in anyone's favor. A better solution would be to appear open to different points of view in the spirit of improving policy so that people might suffer less from nutrition-related diseases. And if "alternative" views on nutrition are wrong and misguided, what better opportunity than a discussion to quell any doubts? I am hopeful, still, that you might reconsider.

My thanks. All best, Nina
Via Tagtow's March 9 e-mail to Gremillion:
I would like to visit with you tomorrow about USDA's concerns about this change of course for this panel presentation.
Among other questions, on behalf of the USDA, did Tagtow help get Teicholz kicked off the panel?

Presumably the best person to answer that question would be USDA Inspector General Phyllis K. Fong.

Another question. Does Barbara Millen have any 'splainin' to do for her conduct?

If any readers get involved, I'd welcome being looped in. Click here for my contact info.

Here's the nine-page pdf of all the e-mails USDA provided in response to my FOIA request, formatted to start with page four when Teicholz was invited. For clarity, I did some very minor re-formatting and arranged them chronologically. (USDA provided some e-mails without complete headers -- I have a follow-up request in for those. If/when I receive, I'll update this item and the pdf.)




This has been slightly revised. Near the top of the item I added that I obtained the e-mails via a FOIA request to USDA.

Why is a UK hospital offering dubious "energy therapies"? Belfast blogger and I have asked UK oversight agency


Last Monday, my Belfast, Northern Ireland, blogging buddy Dean Sterling Jones and I co-signed and co-blogged a request for a review of dubious medical treatments being offered by a Liverpool hospital. We filed our request with the Care Quality Commission (CQC), "the independent regulator of health and social care in England."

Via  People’s Experiences of the Health Psychology Service at Walton Hospital, Derbyshire County Community Health Services

Today we filed a similar request with the CQC re: Derbyshire Community Health Services which is apparently offering “Neuro-Linguistic Programming,” “energy therapies,” and “Emotional Freedom Technique,” treatments discussed in the post Mental Help: Procedures to Avoid by retired psychiatrist Stephen Barrett MD, founder and proprietor of Quackwatch.com.



Monday, April 25, 2016

Why is a Liverpool hospital offering dubious "holistic treatments"? Belfast blogger and I have asked UK oversight agency

A couple days ago, Dean Sterling Jones, my Belfast, Northern Ireland blogging buddy, reported an item about how Aintree University Hospitals in Liverpool offers, apparently via the publicly-funded National Health Service, these "holistic treatments" (all links to Quackwatch.com): 
Today Dean and I co-signed (and are co-blogging) this request for a review to the Care Quality Commission, "the independent regulator of health and social care in England."

Monday, April 18, 2016

ABC7 Sarasota: Police department spent $6,500 for controversial anti-choking plunger

This investigative report by reporter Kate Flexter aired on the ABC-TV affiliate in Sarasota, FL, on the 7pm News on April 7, 2016. Below the screen, I've included a partial transcript.



The LifeVac is designed to remove a blockage in someone's throat during a choking incident when all other lifesaving attempts have failed.

...The issue is the device has not technically been approved by the Food and Drug Administration because it doesn't have to be. The FDA tells ABC7 that LifeVac is registered as a moderate-risk device which makes it "exempt from the clearance and approval process."

But some doctors we talked to say it should be tested more thoroughly and is potentially dangerous. We showed the training video for the device to the head of pediatrics at the Florida Hospital in Tampa, Dr. James Orlowski.

Orlowski: “It seems that the pressure that they use before sucking back could potentially drive the object further down into the airway.”

Dr. Orlowski says the pressure created by the device could potentially cause damage to other parts of the body in the process.

Orlowski: “If it can hold up a bowling ball, it can probably do a lot of damage to the airway and to other organs.”

Up until last week, no study on the device had been published in a peer-reviewed medical journal. And for the study published in the American Journal of Emergency Medicine last week, the device was only tested on cadavers.

...(Last year the Sarasota Police Department) purchased 100 LifeVacs for $4,000 and spent about $2,500 on training officers. The department now has a LifeVac in each patrol car...

Sarasota is one of only two police departments in the nation that uses LifeVac. In a 2015 interview, (LifeVac inventor Arthur) Lih was quoted in the Florida publication Business Observer saying, “Sarasota has been the most receptive part of the country. This is our petri dish.”

Dr. Orlowski says using a community as a petri dish is disconcerting.

Orlowski: “I would have concerns with public services jumping onto something like this without looking into it more carefully and making sure that it can do what it’s supposed to do without doing any harm.”

The video's embedded on ABC7's Facebook page.

Here's the first comment from a viewer.


If Mr. Banagan sounds well-informed about the LifeVac, he ought to be:

source

source

After Ms. Flexter's report, ABC7 anchor/managing editor Alan Cohn hosted this round table discussion with Dr. Orlowski and LifeVac advocate osteopath William A. Holt of Port Charlotte, FL.



If Dr. Holt sounds well-informed about the LifeVac, he ought to be.

Via LifeVac's website:

Thursday, April 14, 2016

Founder/president of "fanatical animal rights group" inducted as a fellow at the American College of Cardiology

(The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine) identifies itself as a “Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting preventive medicine, especially better nutrition, and higher standards in research.” I disagree with that description. I consider PCRM to be a fanatical animal rights group with a clear cut agenda of promoting a vegan lifestyle and eliminating all animal experimentation -- Joe Schwarcz PhD, Director, McGill University's Office for Science and Society (source)

PCRM founder/president Neal Barnard MD (source)





Via Plant-based diet is solution to ending America’s health care crisis by Dr. Staton Awtrey, Midland (TX) Reporter-Telegram, October 14, 2015
As a result of the emerging awareness that what you eat largely determines your health, the concept of food as medicine is gaining momentum. Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn of the Cleveland Clinic published a study last year in The Journal of Family Practice demonstrating that patients with coronary artery disease eating a whole food plant-based diet had approximately a 30-fold decrease in cardiovascular events (heart attacks, strokes, placement of coronary stents, and heart surgery) when compared to patients treated with conventional strategies.

...A paradigm shift in true health care is on the horizon. Perhaps the single most encouraging recent development, at least in my mind, is that the current president of the American College of Cardiology [now Immediate-Past President], Dr. Kim Williams, embraces fully Esselstyn’s findings and has adopted a whole food plant-based diet himself. In fact, he delivered the keynote address to hundreds of like-minded physicians and researchers from 15 countries attending the International Plant-Based Nutrition Conference in Anaheim, California, earlier this month.
Via Vegan Diet, Healthy Heart? by Kim Williams MD, MedPageToday, July 21, 2014:
Wouldn't it be a laudable goal of the American College of Cardiology to put ourselves out of business within a generation or two?
source

So who arranged Dr. Barnard's American College of Cardiology fellowship presented last week?

Presumably the current president of the organization can explain.

source
Unrelated to nutrition science, click here for Dr. Barnard's and his organization's problematic relationship with my father.

Monday, April 11, 2016

Feral Katz: For years, a prominent Yale MD has been clawing at author/journalist Nina Teicholz -- two MDs just called him out on it

Source -- link at arrow leads to Amazon page for Dr. Katz's 2013, Disease Proof: The Remarkable Truth About What Makes Us Well

According to Avoiding Indictment by Innuendo by David L. Katz MD MPH, Huffington Post, March 2, 2015:
When you go public with your opinions, you are apt at times to ruffle some feathers, intentionally or otherwise...They are likely to assault you...with a fairly standard two-step method. Step 1 is the deft and veiled conversion of what should be a content-based exchange into an ad hominem attack. Step 2, in the service of step 1, is indictment by innuendo.
As it happens, for at least two years, Dr. Katz, a celebrity doctor and the founding director of the Yale Prevention Research Center, has been on the warpath against author/journalist Nina Teicholz using language some might consider to be "ad hominem attacks" and "indictments by innuendo."

Last week two physicians, one with an international reputation, spoke out in Ms. Teicholz's defense in response to Dr. Katz's statements in this April 7, 2016 Guardian article, The Sugar Conspiracy by Ian Leslie:
Since her book (The Big Fat Surprise) was published, in 2014, Teicholz has become an advocate for better dietary guidelines.

...(On September 23) last year she wrote an article for the BMJ (formerly the British Medical Journal), which makes the case for the inadequacy of the scientific advice that underpins the Dietary Guidelines. The response of the nutrition establishment was ferocious: 173 scientists...signed a letter to the BMJ, demanding it retract the piece.

...Reticent as they were to discuss the substance of the piece, the scientists were noticeably keener to comment on its author. I was frequently and insistently reminded that Teicholz is a journalist, and not a scientist, and that she had a book to sell, as if this settled the argument. (David Katz, of Yale) told me that Teicholz’s work “reeks of conflict of interest” without specifying what those conflicts were. (Dr Katz is the author of four diet books.)
...(Dr Katz) returned again and again to the subject of Teicholz’s character. “Nina is shockingly unprofessional…I have been in rooms filled with the who’s who of nutrition and I have never seen such unanimous revulsion as when Miss Teicholz’s name comes up. She is an animal unlike anything I’ve ever seen before.” Despite requests, he cited no examples of her unprofessional behaviour.
On April 8, prominent cardiologist Aseem Malhotra tweeted this to Dr. Katz:

source

The next day, Dr. Angharad Powell wrote to Robert Alpern MD, Dean of the Yale Medical School, about Dr. Katz's quotes in the Guardian:
I am writing to you to express my shock and disappointment on the recently published comments of one of your most prominent faculty members, Dr David Katz MD.

...This highly personal, sexist, and vitriolic attack on the character of Miss Teicholz, without any discussion or consideration of the scientific rigour underpinning her ideas, reflects very poorly on the professionalism of Dr Katz.

Scientific progress relies on debate and seeking the truth, even when it may not fit With current dogma. Miss Teicholz's work may have caused consternation within the highly polarised nutrition field, however this challenge to the orthodoxy should be welcomed in the spirit of scientific enquiry.

Bullying in any circumstances should be abhorred, and in line with your 'Standards of Faculty conduct', and I hope you will be taking this matter further.

source

Dr. Katz's remarks in the Guardian are just the latest round in a fight he picked with Ms. Teicholz even before her book was published.  

Via Dr. Katz's May 5, 2014 Huffington Post column:
A column entitled "The Questionable Link Between Saturated Fat and Heart Disease" appeared in the Wall Street Journal on Saturday, May 3. The article starts off very dubiously when the author, Nina Teicholz, tells us that a now somewhat infamous study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in March concluded, quote, that “saturated fat does not cause heart disease.”

...The plot then quickly thickens, and goes on to curdle, for we learn at the end of the Wall Street Journal piece that Ms. Teicholz has a book due out next week, entitled The Big Fat Surprise: Why Butter, Meat and Cheese Belong in a Healthy Diet. So whatever else the recent Annals paper is or isn’t, it was clearly a nice marketing opportunity for Ms. Teicholz and her publisher.
...Ms. Teicholz seems inclined to play the iconoclast card. It’s getting old, frankly, but it generally does work to sell books. So she may well wind up rolling her eyes at this column on the way to cash her royalty checks.
Via Dr. Katz's September 25, 2015 Huffington Post column, An Open Letter to the BMJ Regarding US Dietary Guidance:
Dear Editors:

I am rather stunned that the BMJ published a journalist’s commentary about the work of the 2015 United States Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee as if it were an authoritative rebuttal. It’s as if someone selling horse paperweights is invited to critique the Olympic equestrian team. It is, in a word, absurd - and testimony to the breakdown in integrity where science and media come together.

With all due respect to Ms. Teicholz, she is not a nutrition expert, and not a scientist. She is a journalist herself, and one with a book to sell. She refers to bias, but fails to highlight her own. If the DGAC report is valid, it calls into question her own conclusions - as well it should. She may therefore have suspect motives in seeking discredit this work.

...The notion that the opinion of one journalist with a book to sell is in any way a suitable counterweight to the conclusions of a diverse, multidisciplinary, independent group of scientists who reviewed evidence for the better part of two years and relied upon knowledge and judgment cultivated over decades of relevant work - is nearly surreal. It is a disservice to the readership in both cases.
...(The Dietary Guidelines Committee) very appropriately address a critical issue of our time: sustainability...(Perhaps Ms. Teicholz) does not care whether there is anything for the next generation to eat or drink...
It's unclear on what basis Dr. Katz believes that Ms. Teicholz is more motivated to sell her book and "to cash her royalty checks" than any other author.

For example, what about this author?

source

Of course, some authors do engage in questionable tactics. 

For example, last Autumn I tagged Dr. Katz for using two of his Huffington Post columns to hype reVision, a fantasy novel he wrote using a pseudonym.

The problem? Dr. Katz didn't inform readers he was the author. He also posted five-star reviews for the book on Amazon and GoodReads under his own name without informing readers he wrote it. After my outreach to the Huffington Post, Amazon, and Goodreads, the columns and reviews were scrubbed.

Dr. Katz's response was this elliptical November 23, 2015 column, Scandalous Huffington Post Columns Retracted, So Eat More Cheese!
Defending public health IS my day job, and I do that with all the gusto I can muster. I trust, and hope, that devotion is evident in the hundreds, and indeed thousands, of blogs and columns I have written across many platforms - almost all, as a free public service.

In the course of that duty, I had cause to call out the misrepresentations of an author [Nina Teicholz -- click the link] opposing the evidence-based and consensus-based recommendations of actual nutrition experts, and promoting her book into the bargain. I did not know this person - and still do not - and had no interest in confrontations about personhood or character.
...What I have learned since is something well known to those who care about diet, health, and related nutrition policy. The writer in question [Teicholz] is apparently backed by billionaires with ties to such enterprises as Enron, and the beef industry. 
...This group is clearly very good at what it does. They have seemingly had a hand in persuading Congress to expunge sustainability from the Dietary Guidelines already.
...And that’s where the dots finally all connect.
...In the current case [his Huffington Post columns hyping reVision], it is now clear that the aspersions directed at me were of the “keep throwing dirt until something sticks” variety.
...Of course, glaciers are still melting; California is still running out of water. Storms are getting larger, temperatures rising, and biodiversity falling. There are ever more Homo sapiens, ever less of everything else that matters. And rabid ideologues, who have somehow perverted purposeless hatred into a religion, are wreaking the havoc of terrorism around the globe, and pose a threat to us all. And while on such happy topics, yes, national nutrition policy is imperiled by those who derive profits elsewhere, and yes - Congress has decided we may just go ahead and eat our children’s food.
But we can all sleep better at night knowing that my two 2-year-old mostly unread (Huffington Post) columns about my mostly unread epic fantasy novel have been retracted.
Or, maybe we can’t sleep better. But we can always just eat more cheese. 
Dr. Katz's column did not acknowledge the five-star shill reviews for reVision which he posted on Amazon and GoodReads.  Last year, along with other related questions, I asked him about that. He answered other questions, but ignored my questions about the book reviews.

source

Back to Dr. Katz's pillorying of Ms. Teicholz, via his January 12, 2016 Huffington Post column, Sugar and Saturated Fat: Feeding the Parasites of Science:
(Science) is about the incremental additions of each new study to what we knew before...But between us and that opportunity are the parasites of science who have no apparent interest in the weight of evidence, and instead feed selectively on studies depending on whether they endorse the opinion they’ve already decided is true.
The "parasites of science" link leads to a critique of Ms. Teicholz's BMJ article. The "no apparent interest in the weight of evidence" link leads to Dr. Katz's "horse paperweights" critique of her BMJ article.

To summarize, based on his own words, Dr. Katz appears to have arrived at these conclusions:
 
The field of nutrition science must be protected from Ms. Teicholz whom he considers to be "an animal" and a "parasite" with "suspect motives" who doesn't care about the well-being of future generations. Motivated by book sales, her "shockingly unprofessional" work "reeks" with corrupt conflicts of interest and on multiple occasions he claims to have been present when the mere mention of her name caused "unanimous revulsion" among the "who's who" of nutrition science.

It's unclear why Dr. Katz has resorted to such dehumanizing language, but it reminds me of this 2011 NPR report, 'Less Than Human': The Psychology Of Cruelty.

For a follow-up item, I'd welcome any expert opinion. Click here for my contact information.

Friday, April 1, 2016

Who needs other choking rescue gadgets when you've got a Hoover?

Via Tampopo (1985):


Note: I found this clip two days after April Fool's Day, but I took the editorial liberty of changing the posting date to April 1, 2016.