Dr. Fuhrman: Not a credible martyr

For those questions and discussions on the McDougall program that don’t seem to fit in any other forum.

Moderators: JeffN, f1jim, Heather McDougall, John McDougall, carolve

Re: Dr. Fuhrman: Not a credible martyr

Postby Debbie » Tue Aug 28, 2012 12:16 pm

Melinda wrote:Everything that Dr. McDougall and Dr. Esselstyn says rings true for me and I have the greatest respect for them. I don't know all that much about Dr. Fuhrman except his 'toxic hunger' concept has always seemed false, at least for me. I think it is quite a stretch. Personally for me, I only feel 'cravings' in my mouth or throat, while I feel true hunger as my stomach growling, feeling empy and very mild contractions - not to say that others may not experience it differently.
I am grateful for Mark Simon's post.


Me too!! I feel better now that I've stopped worrying about toxic hunger vs true hunger vs cravings and so on. All that did was complicate it all. I did that on my own, I didn't need help. Haha

I too am grateful for all of Marks Posts.


As a side note, anyone notice the guy sitting next to Dr M??? His facial expressions were awesome!!! Especially his eyes. Hahahaha
"It's the food" It's always been the food.


Image
[/url]
User avatar
Debbie
 
Posts: 2228
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 6:09 pm

Re: Dr. Fuhrman: Not a credible martyr

Postby scooterpie » Tue Aug 28, 2012 12:56 pm

I like the word Dr McDougall invents toward the end of the clip.

scorage :: A combination of score: to succeed in acquiring and forage: to wander in search of food

It's at minute 12:35: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdxVfi632Xw
Image
scooterpie
 
Posts: 1367
Joined: Sun May 15, 2011 10:08 am

Re: Dr. Fuhrman: Not a credible martyr

Postby esselstyn » Tue Aug 28, 2012 2:24 pm

The present Fuhrman flap is an embarrassing and distasteful chapter in the journey to healthy plant based nutrition brought on entirely by Dr. Fuhrman himself who has a compulsion to denigrate his colleagues and or their science. The repetitious nature of his attacks indicates he is insensitive to his own behavior and unaware of what he is doing to hurt himself in the eyes of his colleagues or the public.

By way of contrast, when the chairman of a leading corporation was questioned on how he had become so successful and the recipient of so many awards, he replied, "There are no limits to how far and how high you can go, if you are willing to give credits to others."

Caldwell B. Essesltyn, Jr., M.D.
esselstyn
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 1:32 pm

Re: Dr. Fuhrman: Not a credible martyr

Postby rijman » Tue Aug 28, 2012 2:41 pm

Wow! Now Dr. Esselstyn is chiming in, it's great to hear his take on the Fuhrman matter, which appears to completely support what Mark Simon is telling us.

My only question is, who is Mark Simon?
I may be naive.
But I still believe the truth will be revealed if enough light is shined on the subject.
Right now we are dealing with massive ignorance.

John McDougall, MD
(McDougall Discussion Board, posted 7/2/13)
rijman
 
Posts: 1416
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 10:36 pm
Location: San Diego

Re: Dr. Fuhrman: Not a credible martyr

Postby ParsleyPatch » Tue Aug 28, 2012 2:43 pm

Dr. Esselstyn wrote:
The present Fuhrman flap is an embarrassing and distasteful chapter in the journey to healthy plant based nutrition brought on entirely by Dr. Fuhrman himself who has a compulsion to denigrate his colleagues and or their science. The repetitious nature of his attacks indicates he is insensitive to his own behavior and unaware of what the is doing to hurt himself in the eyes of his colleagues or the public.

By way of contrast, when the chairman of a leading corporation was questioned on how he had become so successful and the recipient of so many awards, he replied, "There are no limits to how far and how high you can go, if you are willing to give credits to others."

Caldwell B. Essesltyn, Jr., M.D.

Yet another high honor to be on the same forum as Dr. Esselstyn, as we are with Dr. Campbell and Dr. McDougall. Thank you all for taking the time to let us know you are there and that you care. It should be apparent how many of us do, too.
One who is forever grateful to Dr. McDougall for showing me the way to optimal health!
User avatar
ParsleyPatch
 
Posts: 535
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 9:45 pm

Re: Dr. Fuhrman: Not a credible martyr

Postby TerriT » Tue Aug 28, 2012 3:30 pm

didi wrote:One thing that I didn't like about the Starch Solution was Dr. M's statement that you add some green and yellow vegetables for a little color, flavor and some other very non nutrient reasons. I eat them because I think they are packed with nutrients and that although millions have lived and reproduced on starches, the other vegetables and fruits enhance health and immunity. And I eat starches not just because they are satiating but because they too possess nutrients conducive to good health.

Didi


Didi, I think you've misunderstood what Dr McDougall says about vegetables in The Starch Solution.

Green, yellow, and orange nonstarchy perishable vegetables contain only small quantities of starch. Their most important role is to contribute flavor, texture, color, and aroma to your starch-based meals. They offer a bonus in the additional nutrients (such as vitamin A and C) that come along for the ride. (page 4)


(Emphasis mine)

On page 5 there is a chart indicating the makeup of the Starch Solution diet: 70% starch, 10% fruits and 20% vegetables.

On page 7 is a table entitled "McDougall's Classification of Common Foods". Under starches is the sub-category "starchy vegetables" which includes carrots, Jerusalem artichokes, parsnips, potatoes, salsify, sweet potatoes, winter squashes and yams.

Under "Green, Yellow and Orange (Nonstarchy) Vegetables are listed bok choy, broccoli, brussels sprouts, cabbage, cauliflower...(and many others).

I think Dr McDougall makes it clear that the non-starchy vegetables contain valuable nutrients (see quote above). But the starchy vegetables contain valuable nutrients too; carrots and sweet potatoes are both high in vitamin A, for example, and potatoes contain all the nutrients we need apart from B12.

If someone were to eat a diet of 90% vegetables and 10% fruit, it would still be possible to adhere to the ratios suggested for the Starch Solution diet - 70% starchy vegetables, 20% non-starchy vegetables, and 10% fruit.

So I don't think Dr McDougall overlooks or minimizes the importance of vegetables.
TerriT
 
Posts: 1475
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2008 7:30 am
Location: London, England

Re: Dr. Fuhrman: Not a credible martyr

Postby LoriLynn » Tue Aug 28, 2012 5:19 pm

TerriT wrote:On page 5 there is a chart indicating the makeup of the Starch Solution diet: 70% starch, 10% fruits and 20% vegetables.



I would also like chime in and comment that these percentages are by calorie and not by volume. Please correct me if I am wrong.

The reason I think that is important is that this means there are still a lot of veggies on your plate. It's just that their calorie density is lower.
Image
User avatar
LoriLynn
 
Posts: 340
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2011 8:52 am
Location: California

Re: Dr. Fuhrman: Not a credible martyr

Postby miranda2060 » Tue Aug 28, 2012 5:29 pm

Fascinating and informative thread.
:-)
miranda2060
 
Posts: 307
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 4:15 pm

Re: Dr. Fuhrman: Not a credible martyr

Postby ParsleyPatch » Tue Aug 28, 2012 5:38 pm

TerriT wrote:
On page 5 there is a chart indicating the makeup of the Starch Solution diet: 70% starch, 10% fruits and 20% vegetables.

I would also like chime in and comment that these percentages are by calorie and not by volume. Please correct me if I am wrong.

The reason I think that is important is that this means there are still a lot of veggies on your plate. It's just that their calorie density is lower.

Dr. McDougall makes it super simple by suggesting the visual aid of a dinner plate that's 1/2 starch, 1/4 green & yellow vegetables, 1/4 fruit, and a nice side of green salad ~ pretty much the ideal meal, give or take. (Maybe a little less fruit and a little more veggie for some people). I don't know what could possibly be easier than this. 8)
One who is forever grateful to Dr. McDougall for showing me the way to optimal health!
User avatar
ParsleyPatch
 
Posts: 535
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 9:45 pm

Re: Dr. Fuhrman: Not a credible martyr

Postby Wild4Stars » Tue Aug 28, 2012 7:45 pm

esselstyn wrote:The present Fuhrman flap is an embarrassing and distasteful chapter in the journey to healthy plant based nutrition brought on entirely by Dr. Fuhrman himself who has a compulsion to denigrate his colleagues and or their science. The repetitious nature of his attacks indicates he is insensitive to his own behavior and unaware of what the is doing to hurt himself in the eyes of his colleagues or the public.

By way of contrast, when the chairman of a leading corporation was questioned on how he had become so successful and the recipient of so many awards, he replied, "There are no limits to how far and how high you can go, if you are willing to give credits to others."


Caldwell B. Essesltyn, Jr., M.D.



We need a "like" button for posts like this. Thank you.
"If your lifestyle doesn't control your body, your body will eventually control your lifestyle." Ern Baxter
User avatar
Wild4Stars
 
Posts: 1212
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 3:05 pm
Location: Central Florida

Re: Dr. Fuhrman: Not a credible martyr

Postby tcolin » Wed Aug 29, 2012 8:46 am

Mark Simon’s commentary on Dr. Fuhrman’s misdeeds is excellent. There’s not much else to say, except perhaps to remind ourselves that the proposition of using a whole food, plant-based diet, with little or no added oil, sugar and salt, is an amazingly productive story that has so much to offer.

I must add, however, one additional comment to my own post on Dr. Fuhrman. This concerns my ‘take’ on the matter of trust in science, especially as it applies to the publication of research results in professional peer-reviewed journals. It is a process that is poorly understood by most people.

When manuscripts are submitted for publication, reviewers of the manuscripts rarely if ever see the raw data. They only see the summaries of these raw data. Thus they are compelled to trust the authors who compile the data into tables and graphs. If any of these raw data are not included, this must be explained. This process is a matter of trust that is so fundamental to science. If and when this trust is broken, penalties can be severe. At least this is the way that science is supposed to work and I am confident that it does for the vast majority of researchers who publish papers. Our reputations in science rest on this trust and without it, our reputations--and our careers--can be quickly destroyed.

I accepted Dr. Fuhrman’s request to help him publish a peer-reviewed paper by lending my name as a secondary author. I did so because I believed his claim that he had something important to say. In effect, he wanted to use my reputation because of my half-century of publishing about 350 papers, my serving on the editorial review boards of five journals and my serving on several grant review panels of NIH, the American Society and other organizations.

Fuhrman’s manuscript really was not a study. It was a summary of case histories from his practice. As project director his name was listed last, as is customary. Dr. Sarter was the person who tabulated the data. Her name was listed first, as is customary. They are the authors who assembled the data, wrote the manuscript and submitted the paper. My name was in the middle, as is customary for people who have a secondary part in the project.

The paper was submitted to two respectable journals. Both rejected the manuscript. About two years later, I inquired of Dr. Fuhrman what had become of the manuscript and he informed me that it was being published in a journal with a much lesser reputation (May 2008).

Three years later (2011) I learned that the findings of this paper were being questioned. I was urged to get a copy of the raw data to see for myself. Initially, Dr. Sarter who I have never met, denied giving me a copy. My second request succeeded, thus giving me my first opportunity to see her compilation of the data, in the form of an Excel sheet. I did my own compilation and it was flawed, as initially suspected by the person who brought this to my attention. But, importantly, this is only Dr. Sarter’s and Dr. Fuhrman’s compilation of the data. To this day, I have never seen the real raw data as presented in the case histories.

I also learned (in 2011) that my name, three years earlier (2008), had been changed to my being listed first in the journal’s archives. This is a serious misrepresentation, although I do not know who did this and why it was done. In any event, it incorrectly gave the impression to others that I was main author of this so-called study.

Like I have done hundreds of times for reviews of other manuscripts, I had trusted Drs. Fuhrman and Sarter to honestly summarize the data--a huge mistake on my part, as it turned out.

But, unbelievably, this flawed summary of data was only the beginning of the problem. Dr. Fuhrman then grossly exaggerated these flawed findings even further, in very public places.

I therefore had to withdraw my name by submitting to the journal a proposed retraction letter. I shared a copy of my letter with Dr. Fuhrman, assuming that he would want to do the same, as is customary in matters of this sort. He failed to take advantage of this opportunity and continued to go forward with the same exaggerations. Indeed, he began using this study, with my name intact, to raise public funding for his version of research.

He made it clear to me that he had no intention of acknowledging his culpability or of changing course in making false public claims. Instead, he and one of this colleagues began accusing me of “personal attack”, among other charges. Finally, about six months later my retraction letter was published but only after the editor eliminated the substance of my reason for submitting the letter.

Aside from Fuhrman’s serious misrepresentations, this affair reveals how important is this matter of trust in science. It is literally impossible for reviewers and secondary authors of studies to examine the details of raw data. They must trust those who assemble these data in a form that can be properly reviewed, analyzed and interpreted. When that trust is broken, science fails, and severe penalties can be the consequence. In this case, based on what I have experienced, I can no longer trust anything that Dr. Fuhrman does or says, as I said in my previous post. Were he to have been a member of a professional society, I am confident that he would by now have been put out to pasture.

And finally, returning to my initial point, although we must clean up messes when they occur, we also must not lose sight of the extraordinary possibilities that this dietary lifestyle offers for solving so many of our problems. We also must acknowledge the exceptional work and courage shown by the majority--and growing number--of professionals working in this area for these past 2-3 decades.
tcolin
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 1:32 pm

Previous

Return to The Lounge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests



Welcome!

Sign up to receive our regular articles, recipes, and news about upcoming events.