by Dr. Fuhrman » Sat Aug 25, 2012 8:19 pm
It is good to see people interested in the fascinating nuances of nutritional science and while I do not post to these boards I do feel the need to set the record straight here. I am fine with disagreements based on science, but there is no need for personal insults and distortions with the purpose to demean. We are a community with shared interests facing many challenges in getting the word out. These attacks serve no one.
I never stated that one of Dr. Esselstyn’s patients died because he did not eat nuts. That claim is not true and I was never aware of that page on Dr. Esselstyn’s site before now. The potential contributory causes of death in such cases are not just difficult, but likely impossible to ascertain. I did say that there is evidence in the scientific literature that addition of seeds/nuts to a diet was shown to reduce the incidence of cardiac arrthymias and the risk of sudden cardiac death. Therefore, I mentioned the lack of nuts and seeds in the diet may increase such a risk in the fragile cardiac patient. I did represent, on that occasion in a lecture to my Getaway audience, (over 6 years ago), that my vast experience with thousands of vegan patients have included a few who came to me after developing arrhythmias on an extremely low fat vegan diet (without nuts and seeds). I have also reported a case where a man who developed a cardiac arrthymias resolved it when I adjusted his diet accordingly. I am concerned that if thousands of cardiac patients with advanced disease adopt an extremely low-fat protocol (without any seeds/ nuts) we might see some deaths from cardiac arrhythmias and we have no certainly that such a death has not already occurred. Dr. Ornish, Dr. Gregor, and other nutritional scientists and researchers I communicate with have had similar concerns about the issue of fatty acid deficiency in some vegans, that could be more susceptible to this, potentially promoting arrthymias, but this is a complicated subject, not appropriate to be argued here now. Certainly I do not think patients should fear eating a few walnuts if they have heart disease, and I have the right and obligation to explain my dietary recommendations and the reasons for them. For many years, I have extremely successful results reversing heart disease with cardiac patients adopting vegan diets. This is a scientific discussion of interest and a disagreement of interpretation of science, not a personal attack on anyone. It should not be twisted into a personal attack against me either. There is a huge difference between questioning the potential risk of a dietary recommendation and stating emphatically someone died because of it.
My nutritional advice may differ from others posting here, and differ from other professionals in this community, but this is not the appropriate place for me post my view, defend or elaborate on my case histories and years of clinical experience, however, I think that before these attacks continue an effort should be made to clarify the facts, rather than perpetuate personal attacks, especially when they are not accurate.
My paper on vegan athletes was written and published years before I added taurine to my supplement. The insinuation that my recommendations for competitive athletes are based on anything other than the performance value for the athlete is ridiculous.
These attacks on my character are not uncommon in these forums, but I have chosen not to respond to them, but this thread goes way too far. Notably, Dr. Campbell’s battle of words with me is very unfair. I have offered to discuss his concerns and correct his erroneous misinterpretation of events many times. Many others in our community have offered to the same, and open a healing dialog. Unfortunately Dr. Campbell has refused all of us and has persisted in personally attacking me. The study in question was a collection of patient’s charts from my office many years ago. The initial number of consecutive charts I transferred to the researchers was 100, then they narrowed them down first to 62 and then to 56 using various inclusion criteria, so the numbers change, and then even fewer that continued for the full two years. Not only did I have nothing to do with the data collection and statistical tabulation of those results, but Dr. Campbell had the access to and maybe even an obligation to confirm those numbers and calculations, not me. That was certainly not my role in the study. When an error in the criteria for inclusion came up, many years later, it changed from the n of 19 to 18 at two year follow up, it still showed all but one person had significant weight loss with a mean weight loss of 37.6. The lead researcher from the University of San Diego took responsibility for the error and wrote a correction to the journal and also stated, “Therefore the conclusions of the article remain as originally stated, being that the high nutrient density diet has the potential for leading to significant and sustained weight loss and reduction in cardiac risk.” Dr. Campbell then removed his name from the study. My report of an average 53 pounds of weight loss was consistent with the results of the study, until the error was found, and since that calculation error was reported I have never made such a claim again and removed all reference to it, in my control. Dr Campbell’s inflammatory statements insinuating academic fraud are 100 percent unjustified and wrong. I was not involved in the calculations and numerical data and had nothing to do with them (I only supplied my patient charts to the researchers). I also had nothing to do with Dr. Campbell’s name being used in the movie mentioned and did not even know that his name was visible there until reading it here now. I was not consulted on what they used or did not use in that movie, I just did my part. He is incorrect on numerous other points above as well. Certainly, I did not intend to offend him or anyone else.
Character assassination has no place on these boards. I hope Dr. McDougall does not support this here. It is fine to disagree, on interpretation of science, but we should stick to logic and science and refrain from the personal vendettas and judgmental distortions. Certainly, I have no interest in continuing to post here and think the personal attacks against me should stop. Certainly there is nothing wrong with continuing to question the logic behind my interpretation of nutritional science and my experience and disagree. Remember though, we are all fighting a similar battle and trying to help and motivate others to eat healthier and get healthier.
Joel Fuhrman, M.D.
