Guest guest Posted September 12, 2004 Report Share Posted September 12, 2004 The Dietary Delusions of Dean Ornish. Why Ornish's writings are far closer to science fiction than science. http://www.theomnivore.com/Ornish.html Anthony Colpo, August 9, 2004. *************** Anthony, I can tell you're not shy about getting stuck into critics of low-carbohydrate eating, but I noticed you haven't written much about Dean Ornish, who has to be one of the most outspoken low-carb detractors out there. I've included links to a WebMD article that he wrote a few years back and an interview that PBS's Frontline did with him earlier this year. You'll see Ornish claims that diets like Atkins are dangerous, and that they cause everything from bad breath to sudden death! I'd appreciate your thoughts... *************** I guess the reason I haven't yet bothered to address the rantings of Dean Ornish is that they are usually so far out in left field I have trouble believing any of my readers would even begin to take them seriously. I have previously read the WebMD article you refer to; I came upon it a few years back whilst researching low-carbohydrate diets. I didn't know much about Ornish at the time, and after reading his fulminations I quickly came to the conclusion that he must have been a few cents short of a full dollar. The article came across like the fanatical ravings of yet another rabid vegetarian activist who would say and do anything to discredit high-protein diets. The following passage is representative of the unscientific and illogical nonsense that fills Ornish's WebMD piece: " When you eat a lot of meat, it takes a long time for it to make its way through your digestive tract. As it putrefies and decays, your breath smells bad, your sweat smells bad, and your bowels smell bad. Not very attractive. You may want to lose weight to attract people to you, but when they get too close, it becomes counterproductive. " It's anyone's guess as to how Ornish arrived at these utterly bizarre conclusions. As meat passes through the gastrointestinal tract it does not simply " putrefy " and " decay " like a pile of week-old garbage--it is being actively digested by gastric enzymes, with its constituent vitamins, minerals, trace elements and amino acids being broken down to fuel growth and repair in the body. Maybe all the meat-eaters Ornish has encountered have been members of some bizarre cult that eschews washing or bathing, or maybe Ornish is simply high on his own bodily emissions. After all, diets that are high in whole grains and legumes--the very kind that Ornish espouses--are famous for their anti-social gastrointestinal effects. In fact, I'll bet good money that wherever Dean is right now, he's struggling to hold back a really nasty, crowd-scattering bolus of wind… I'm sure glad Ornish's comments are utter nonsense, because I met my beautiful wife soon after commencing a low-carb diet. As forgiving as she can be, I don't think our relationship would have progressed very far had I smelt as bad as Ornish's mythical meat-eaters! The 'no fruits and vegetables' myth Ornish, like so many other low-carb critics, seems to be under the mistaken impression that high-protein diets are comprised primarily of pork rinds and sausages, and devoid of fruits and vegetables. I have a special message to Ornish and all those other misguided authors, dietitians, health authorities, and politicians who insist on perpetuating the myth that high protein and/or low-carbohydrate diets are lacking in fruits and vegetables: If you are going to comment on high-protein/low-carbohydrate diets, read the damn literature on them first! If you did so, you would learn that virtually all of the authors in this genre that you so enthusiastically decry wholeheartedly recommend the consumption of fruits and vegetables! Consider the following examples; " DO EAT: Meats and fish, fruits, vegetables, nuts and seeds, berries. " Neanderthin, by Ray Audette and Troy Gilchrist, p 71. " Let us sing a song of veggies. Such beautiful, health-enhancing, varied foods. " Dr. Atkins' New Diet Revolution, by Robert C. Atkins, M.D., p. 84. " Choose green leafy vegetables, tomatoes, peppers, avocados…broccoli, eggplant, zucchini, green beans, asparagus, celery, cucumber, mushrooms, and salads. " Protein Power, by Michael R. Eades, M.D., and Mary Dan Eades, M.D., p. 91. " …divide your plate at each meal into three equal-sized sections. Whatever the volume of protein you plan to eat, put it one of these sections. The other two sections you will fill primarily with low glycemic vegetables, and then always have a piece of fruit for dessert. " The Anti-Aging Zone, by Barry Sears, Ph.D., p. 63. " When it comes to foods that are naturally low in carbohydrate and high in fiber, vegetables are king. " The Secret to Low Carb Success!, by Laura Richard, B.S.N., M.H.A., p. 225. When disgruntled low-fat crusaders whine about high-protein and/or low-carbohydrate diets being devoid of antioxidant-rich plant foods, they reveal to us the following; 1) that they are ignorant, reactionary dolts who don't bother to read the very books they criticize, or; 2) if they have read the popular high-protein/low-carbohydrate literature, they are deliberately and dishonestly omitting crucial information contained within it. Either way, they are demonstrating a highly questionable ability to deliver accurate nutrition information, and their admonitions should therefore be treated with only the greatest skepticism. More outlandish claims Ornish goes on to claim that high-protein diets cause impotence--a ludicrous claim with absolutely no foundation in scientific reality--and that those who recommend these diets are being " irresponsible and dangerous " . According to the fanatical physician; " There is a large body of scientific evidence from epidemiological studies, animal research, and randomized, controlled trials in humans showing that high-protein foods, particularly excessive animal protein, dramatically increase the risk of breast cancer, prostate cancer, heart disease, and many other illnesses. In the short run, they may also cause kidney problems, loss of calcium in the bones, and an unhealthy metabolic state called ketosis in many people. " For starters, there does not exist a single randomized, tightly-controlled trial to show that high-protein foods cause breast cancer, prostate cancer, heart disease, nor " many other illnesses " . Even the epidemiological evidence fails to support such outlandish claims. Let's start with breast cancer. Recently, a team of investigators led by Harvard researchers analyzed the data from eight long-term studies which included a collective total of over 351,000 women. Almost 7,400 of these were diagnosed with breast cancer during follow-up periods extending to 15 years. Among this massive sample of women, the researchers found no association between red, white, or total meat consumption (nor diary products) and the occurrence of breast cancer.(1) Prospective epidemiological studies claiming a positive association between meat consumption, saturated fat intake, and prostate cancer are eagerly cited by folks like Ornish.(2-5) For some strange reason, they don't mention the similar number of prospective studies showing no association,(6-11) nor the studies that have actually found a protective association between meat, saturated fat, and prostate cancer.(12,13) Ornish and his ilk are also strangely silent on the numerous studies showing increased animal food consumption actually appears to protect against heart disease and stroke. Take the Nurses Health Study, in which fourteen years' follow-up of over 80,000 initially healthy women revealed that high protein intakes were associated with a lower risk of CHD. Both animal and vegetable proteins contributed to the reduced risk. The researchers concluded: " Our data do not support the hypothesis that a high protein intake increases the risk of ischemic heart disease. In contrast, our findings suggest that replacing carbohydrates with protein may be associated with a lower risk of ischemic heart disease. " (14) The potential public health benefits of such a finding are immense, but you won't find the Nurses' Health Study mentioned in any of Ornish's articles, nor in the scribblings of any of his vegan buddies at the so-called Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM). These outspoken proponents of vegetarianism, who are fond of citing Asian populations in support of their erroneous theories, also appear to suffer writer's block when it comes to reporting the fact that increasing animal food consumption in Japan has been accompanied by a marked decline in both the overall incidence of and the mortality from one of that nation's biggest killers--stroke. This increase in animal protein and animal fat consumption has also occurred alongside Japan's rise to the top of the longevity ladder.(15,16) If you're tempted to write this off as merely a consequence of improved living standards and medical technology, keep in mind that long-term follow-up studies with both native and migrant Japanese populations show that those who eat the most animal protein and animal fat enjoy greater longevity and a lower incidence of stroke than those who eat lesser amounts.(17-20) As for the tired old claim that high-protein diets cause kidney disease, again there exists no evidence to support such a claim. In a study with highly trained athletes, some of the subjects were found to consume up to 2.8g/kg of protein daily (210g protein daily for a 75kg individual). Such intakes would no doubt have folks like Ornish gagging on their soy nuts, but all measures of kidney function fell within normal ranges.(21) A comparison of healthy omnivores eating 100 grams or more of protein per day with long-term vegetarians eating 30g or less of protein per day concluded that both groups had similar kidney function. The subjects were aged 30-80 and both groups displayed similar progressive deterioration of kidney function with age.(22) In 2003, Californian researchers published the results of a study examining the effect of a low-iron, phenol-rich, carbohydrate-restricted but ad libitum protein diet in patients with kidney failure. During a follow-up period of almost four years, those who followed the unrestricted protein diet were only half as likely to progress to the point where they either died or required dialysis, when compared to patients following the low-protein, high-carbohydrate diet recommended by most health 'experts'.(23) Given the poor prognosis typical of advanced kidney disease, one would think that any truly concerned health commentator would be alerting as many people as possible to the findings of the Californian researchers. The response of Ornish and his vegetarian colleagues to this study and others showing that white-meat-rich diets may be of benefit to kidney patients has simply been to ignore them. The well-worn claim that high-protein diets can cause osteoporosis is also a bad joke, considering that it is a well-established fact that protein is an essential component of bones and that epidemiological studies repeatedly show that it is low-protein intakes, not high protein intakes, that are associated with reduced bone density.(24) It is typically claimed that high protein intakes will cause an increase in calcium excretion. Researchers recently examined this premise by performing a series of experiments in which intestinal calcium absorption was measured in pre- and postmenopausal women who were fed diets of varying protein content. Unlike a number of similar previous experiments, the diets of the women were tightly controlled, and the wide variations between individuals in calcium absorption were countered by using each women as her own control. Under these well-controlled conditions, the researchers found that calcium absorption was significantly lower during periods of low protein consumption (0.8g/kg and below) than during periods of high protein consumption.(24) If you listen to those who encourage the consumption of low-protein diets, chances are you will end up with weaker, not stronger, bones! Ornish's assertion that high-protein diets may cause " an unhealthy metabolic state called ketosis in many people " is also rather fanciful. First of all, merely eating more protein will not kick your body into ketosis. Even lowering your carbohydrate intake may not necessarily induce ketosis; most people generally will not become ketotic until their daily carbohydrate intake falls below 50g. But what if you do drop your carb intake to below 50g per day and slip into ketosis--can you expect to fall prey to all sorts of horrible health maladies? To answer that question, we need to look a tad more closely at the phenomenon of ketosis. Ketones are an intermediate product of fat breakdown, and can serve as an alternate source of energy to glucose. Ketosis is characterized by a measurable increase of ketones in the bloodstream, and occurs during fasting and when carbohydrate intake is very low. There is nothing mystical, nor dangerous, about ketosis--it merely indicates a heightened state of fat-burning, something most people would assume to be a positive development. Critics of low carbohydrate diets, however, attempt to instill fear among those not familiar with basic biochemistry by likening dietary-induced ketosis with ketoacidosis. The latter occurs when diabetics produce high levels of ketones in the presence of elevated blood sugar levels. Insufficient insulin means this elevated blood sugar cannot be delivered to the cells for energy. Consequently, ketones must be formed as an alternate energy source. Ketone bodies are slightly acidic, and excessive levels can decrease the blood's pH. Under normal circumstances the body can efficiently buffer against any decrease in pH, but in diabetics the body is often unable to efficiently cope with the increased acid load and ketoacidosis occurs, increasing the acidity of the blood. Needless to say, this complication of diabetes--a condition most often induced by high consumption of refined carbohydrates--has nothing to do with the benign ketosis induced by very low-carbohydrate diets. Having said that, I must state, as I have done many times before, that I am not a big fan of ketogenic diets. The undeniable reality is that their extremely low carbohydrate content leaves many people feeling tired, irritable, and mentally foggy. They can also cause a phenomenon known as 'ketosis breath'; in some people this manifests itself as a rather neutral metallic odor and in others as plain old bad breath. These effects are not seen with non-ketogenic low-carbohydrate diets, so anyone who experiences them after trying a ketogenic regimen should gradually bump up their carb intake until they disappear. Folks like Ornish do not appear to comprehend the difference between high-protein, ketogenic and non-ketogenic low-carb diets--or maybe they do, but neglect to relay the distinction to their readers. While it might be easier to sell their cherished brand of vegetarianism by issuing scare-mongering generalizations about meat-rich eating plans, they are not doing any favors to those who are seeking factual nutrition information free of partisan histrionics. Spewing BS on PBS In the PBS interview, Ornish claimed that research has shown diets like Atkins to worsen blood flow to the heart. His source for this frightening allegation? None other than Nebraska's Dr. Richard Fleming, the same Dr. Richard Fleming who came under attack earlier this year after he obtained the late Dr. Atkins' confidential death report under dubious circumstances and then passed it onto to his publicity-hungry associates at the PCRM. Like Ornish, Fleming is an outspoken critic of high-protein diets. Fleming also appears to have a special knack for obtaining negative findings about these regimens that no other researcher has ever been able to duplicate. In 2002, for instance, he presented the only published study to have ever found greater weight loss in individuals randomized to follow a high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet than those following a low carbohydrate diet. I have written at length elsewhere why this study is unlikely to be worth the paper it is written on. The validity of Fleming's research that allegedly shows high-protein diets to impede blood flow to the heart is also extremely doubtful. In August 2000, the journal Angiology published the results of an eight-month study by Fleming in which nineteen people " without prior history of documented heart disease " were assigned to a multi-faceted drug and dietary intervention, the aim of which was to halt the progression of atherosclerosis. Fleming wrote that, " …despite our best efforts, patients within the study subgrouped themselves unintentionally with three individuals deciding to go on a high-protein diet for varying periods of time during these 8 months. " (25) According to Fleming, those following his 15% protein, 70% carbohydrate, and 15% fat diet experienced reductions in homocysteine, triglycerides, and C-reactive protein (CRP), while the disobedient on-again, off-again high-protein dieters allegedly experienced an increase in all these variables. Furthermore, while the low-fat dieters reportedly experienced a regression of coronary artery disease (determined by echocardiography and myocardial perfusion imaging), the intermittent high-protein dieters allegedly experienced continued progression of atherosclerosis. In October 2000, Fleming presented another paper reporting the twelve-month results of the same study. In this new paper, the study group had suddenly expanded to twenty-six individuals, with seven additional patients surfacing in the high-protein group. Why these additional high-protein dieters were never mentioned in the earlier paper was not explained, despite the claim that all twenty-six were followed for one year. Again, the hapless high-protein dieters were reported to fare much worse than the low-fat group; the low-fat dieters were claimed to have reduced the extent and severity of their atherosclerosis, while the high-protein group allegedly experienced a worsening of these variables.(26) According to Fleming, increased CRP levels in the high-protein group were indicative of increased inflammatory activity, while the increase in homocysteine levels " …no doubt reflects an increased dietary loading of protein (methionine) and possibly increased physiologic stress " . Exactly what Fleming means by the term " physiologic stress " , and why a high-protein diet would cause an increase in this vague and all-encompassing syndrome, is anyone's guess. His assertion that increased dietary methionine increases blood homocysteine levels is pure bunk; researchers have shown that dietary methionine has no effect upon homocysteine in humans.(27) What does raise homocysteine levels is deficient levels of vitamins B6, B12, and folic acid. The richest source of B6 and B12 is meat (and organ meats in the case of folic acid). Not surprisingly, researchers have repeatedly found that omnivores display lower homocysteine levels than vegetarians.(28-30) As for his alleged finding of increased CRP levels among the high-protein dieters, other researchers comparing high-protein, low-carbohydrate diets with low-fat diets have found no difference in CRP levels at maintenance calorie intakes, and greater reductions on low-carbohydrate diets at restricted calorie intakes.(31,32) It is interesting to note that Fleming claims the renegade subjects went on and off the high-protein diet during his study, which effectively means they were alternately following multiple dietary patterns. Despite this, Fleming ascribes the blame for the alleged harmful changes solely to high-protein dieting. Until someone who is not a fervent critic of high-protein and low-carbohydrate diets can replicate Fleming's extremely questionable findings, the Omaha cardiologist's research should not be cited as 'proof' that these diets are harmful. It is most revealing that Ornish cites Fleming's doubtful research every chance he gets, but remains silent on the multitude of studies that totally contradict the latter's unusual findings. Why does anyone listen to this guy? According to the Center for Consumer Freedom, Ornish sits on the advisory board of the PCRM, which in reality is little more than a medical front for the extreme animal rights group PETA. PETA has given documented financial aid to individuals and organizations involved in green terrorism, including Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC), a subset of the terrorist Animal Liberation Front. SHAC members have bombed cars and office buildings, threatened the lives of innocent Americans, and beaten at least one medical researcher while his family watched in horror. A February 23, 2004 Newsweek article reported that PCRM president Neal Barnard co-signed a series of intimidating letters in 2001 with SHAC president Kevin Jonas, who has subsequently been indicted for acts of terrorism. Newsweek reported that Barnard also chairs the PETA Foundation, and that PCRM spokesperson Jerry Vlasak recently encouraged activists to murder doctors whose clinical disease research puts them at odds with the animal rights movement Given that so much of Ornish's rantings appear to be more firmly based in fantasy than scientific reality, and his connections to the extremist PCRM, one might wonder how he has come to be so widely quoted in the media, and why he is featured so prominently on a respected web site like WebMD. That question can be at least partially answered by Ornish's frequent references to his own Lifestyle Heart Trial, the results of which have been published in respected publications like The Lancet and the Journal of the American Medical Association. The fact that Ornish has conducted what, on the surface, appears to be a successful intervention trial, and had the results of that trial reported in the aforementioned journals, helps him attain an air of credibility among many of his conservative medical colleagues that would otherwise prove to be very elusive for such a fanatical proponent of vegetarianism. As a result, he has been able to win the ear of medical professionals, media outlets, and even a sizable segment of the general population. It's a pity that the members of these groups have not more closely scrutinized Ornish's published papers; if they had, they would quickly realize that Ornish's research fails to support most of his very public claims. The Lifestyle Heart Trial In a 1990 issue of The Lancet, Ornish and several of his colleagues published the one-year results of the Lifestyle Heart Trial, which initially involved forty-eight patients with coronary artery disease (as determined by quantitative coronary arteriography).(33) Twenty-eight of these had been randomized to follow a multi-faceted intervention program that included the following: -a minimum of three hours' exercise per week. -stress management tactics for at least one hour every day. These included stretching, breathing techniques, meditation, progressive relaxation, and imagery. -a vegetarian diet that contained around 10% of calories as fat, 15-20% protein, and 70-75% carbohydrates. The diet included fruits, vegetables, grains, legumes, and soybean products without caloric restriction. The only animal products allowed were egg whites and one cup of non-fat milk or yogurt. -twice weekly group support sessions. Those in the control group were not asked to make any diet or lifestyle changes, although they were free to do so if they wished. At the start of the study and after 12 months, each patient was to undergo a coronary arteriogram to determine whether advanced arterial plaques had progressed, regressed or remained unchanged. After one year, the researchers reported that 82% of those in the experimental group had experienced regression of arterial plaque, compared to only 42% of those in the control group. The experimental group subjects also experienced significantly less chest pain. Ornish has repeatedly inferred that these improvements underscore the value of a low-fat, vegetarian diet. Actually, they do no such thing. Control your variables One of the most basic rules of science is to control all possible variables. The experimental group in the Lifestyle Heart Trial underwent multiple interventions; exercise, stress management, and a multitude of dietary modifications. Average bodyweight also decreased in the treatment group during the study, but remained unchanged in the control group. The treatment group therefore differed in several ways to the control group. Ornish is justified in claiming that his collective assortment of treatments reduced chest pain and increased the incidence of arteriographically-determined coronary plaque regression. However, he can in no way claim that fat restriction or the avoidance of meat was a contributing factor--such a claim is precluded by the multi-faceted nature of his intervention program. Exercise, weight loss, and plant-based antioxidants have all been shown to significantly improve arterial function and/or structure--any of these factors, either alone or in combination with each other, could easily account for the changes observed.(34-38) No properly-controlled study has ever shown that drastically reducing fat intake or eliminating meat consumption will bring about such improvements. Before Ornish proclaims to the world that restricting fat and avoiding meat will reduce the incidence of heart disease, he--or preferably some more neutral party--should conduct properly-controlled trials that actually demonstrate this contention. In other words, trials in which; -two groups eat a diet identical in every respect except that one derives its protein content primarily from meat, the other from plant foods; -both groups eat a diet identical in every respect except that one is much lower in fat (especially animal fat) than the other. Until such trials are conducted, Ornish and his like-minded vegetarian colleagues should refrain from slandering meat and animal fat. To do so without any properly-controlled evidence to fall back on is to show a complete disregard for the scientific method. Do Ornish's interventions actually save lives? When all is said and done, the most telling data in any intervention study is the survival rate of the control and treatment groups. It's all well and good to lavish praise on a treatment's ability to lower chest pain, improve angiogram results, and even reduce the incidence of cardiac events, but these are all outcomes whose diagnosis is open to a substantial amount of subjective interpretation. Doctors can argue about the interpretation of test results and the necessity of surgery until the cows come home, but death is final and indisputable. So while I am not real keen on the whole idea of dying, I have to admit that death is a great yardstick by which to judge the efficacy of an intervention--especially one that is highly-touted for its alleged life-saving qualities. In 1998, the Journal of the American Medical Association published the five-year follow-up data for the Lifestyle Heart Trial.(39) While the experimental group experienced a significantly reduced overall incidence of cardiac events (a classification that included angioplasty, bypass surgery, heart attack, and hospitalization for any cardiac cause), the treatment group actually experienced one more death than the control group (two people in the intervention group died compared to one person in the control group). According to Ornish, one of the treatment group deaths was in a participant who had stopped following the intervention. Another intervention subject reportedly got a little too enthusiastic whilst exercising, exceeding his prescribed target heart rate with fatal consequences. Let's give Ornish the benefit of the doubt and ascribe the unfavorable mortality outcome in the small Lifestyle Heart Trial to unfortunate circumstances. Let us instead look to a larger study by Ornish and his colleagues to see if his treatment program has demonstrated any ability to actually save lives. The Multicenter Lifestyle Demonstration Project The Multicenter Lifestyle Demonstration Project sought to apply the intervention in Ornish's original trial to a larger group of patients recruited from clinics across the US.(40) Practitioners from eight medical centers around the country were trained in all aspects of the Lifestyle program, which they proceeded to administer to patients with coronary artery disease. The study was not a randomized, controlled trial; instead, outcomes in the 194 patients who completed the intervention were compared with 139 patients who did not take part in the Lifestyle program. After 3 years, there were no significant differences in cardiac event rates nor mortality between patients in the intervention and control groups. The number of cardiac events per patient year of follow-up when comparing the experimental group with the control group was as follows: 0.012 versus 0.012 for myocardial infarction, 0.014 versus 0.006 for stroke, 0.006 versus 0.012 for non-cardiac deaths, and 0.014 versus 0.012 for cardiac deaths (none of the differences were statistically significant). To be fair, there is always the possibility that the treatment group fell prey to unfavorable confounding factors. The treatment subjects reportedly had a higher incidence of previous myocardial infarction and a longer history of coronary disease, although the angiographic severity of artery disease was similar between the two groups. Patients in the experimental group were required not to have undergone coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) within six weeks or percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) within 6 months of the start of the study, while all the control subjects had recently undergone either of these procedures. While some might argue that the higher incidence of surgery may have favorably affected survival in the control group, the longevity benefits of revascularization procedures are highly questionable; most trials have shown no benefit for CABG or PTCA when compared to standard medical therapy.(41) In their favor, the intervention participants lost weight and improved their exercise tolerance. No corresponding data were given for the control group, but given the absence of the intense counseling afforded to the intervention group, it is unlikely that the former would have experienced such changes--a contention supported by the original Lifestyle trial. Whether confounding factors acted in favor of the treatment group, the controls, or neither, is nigh impossible to ascertain with any certainty. Regardless, the fact remains that there currently does not exist any hard published data to show that Ornish's Lifestyle program--touted as " The Only System Scientifically Proven to Reverse Heart Disease Without Drugs or Surgery " (42)--can actually save even a single life. In contrast, trials involving subjects following omnivorous diets who were instructed to exercise, take fish oil supplements, or consume more fish and/or fruits and vegetables, have produced marked reductions in cardiac and overall mortality. The Lyon Diet Heart Study, for example, found that a Mediterranean-style diet featuring increased omega-3 intake (from both fish and plant sources) and increased fruit and vegetable intake produced a whopping 81% reduction in coronary mortality and a 60% decrease in overall mortality.(43) The participants of the Lyon study were followed for an average of 2.25 years. In the Diet and Reinfarction Trial, which ran for only two years, men who were instructed to eat more fish slashed their risk of CHD and overall mortality by a third.(44) The results of projects such as the Lyon Diet Heart Study and DART trial should be kept firmly in mind when assessing the exuberant but unfounded claims of outspoken vegetarian advocates like Ornish. Show us the data… It is most ironic that when the PBS interviewer asked Ornish about the famous What if it's all been a big fat lie? article by Gary Taubes (New York Times Magazine, July 7, 2002), Ornish claimed it was based on purely circumstantial evidence and challenged Taubes to " show me the data " . If only more people asked the same of Dean Ornish… Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.