New to CWE but not to seizures

[epileric]

More about the NYMagazine June article panning Perlmutter

I just googled the author of the article in the New York Magazine about Perlmutter on June 24. His name is Alan Levinovitz and he is an assistant professor of Chinese philosophy at James Madison University. He has just published a book named The Gluten Lie, which is called an "incendiary work" on one of the google listings.

That's right. It's an excellent book & I suggest you read it. He talks not only about the fallacies themselves but how we as people have always been taken in one way or another by snake-oil salesmen and even shows us the parallels between how we are no better at evaluating them than the people of ancient China. [ame="http://www.amazon.ca/Gluten-Lie-Other-Myths-About/dp/1941393063/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1439776586&sr=8-1&keywords=the+gluten+lie"]The Gluten Lie: And Other Myths About What You Eat: Alan Levinovitz: 9781941393062: Books - Amazon.ca@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51xMZL3z29L.@@AMEPARAM@@51xMZL3z29L[/ame]

 

[epileric]

Epileric,

And try reading Pelrmutter's book before condemning it based on a review written by someone who only read the dust jacket. That's not "evidence based", is it?

Actually, there are numerous reviewers who have taken it apart & shown how Perlmutters book contradicts science and cite the science. I suggest you read this review https://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2014nl/jan/smoke.htm It is one of many reviews that do that.

If you took the time to read the whole book instead of just doing the knee jerk negativity dance, you might find that :

You accuse those who contradict you of reading no more than reading the dust jacket then assume that I haven’t read it?
Exactly, Perlmutter is a neurologist & nutritionist. He talks about helping cancer (Pgs 82, in Brain Grain) which is outside his training as is most his claims. He even makes claims about detoxification (Pg 87 G.B.) which is a famous scam. Any normal doctor will tell you that no supplement will “detoxify” your body. https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/detox-what-they-dont-want-you-to-know/#more-35142

Doesn't endorse "crackpot" quackery such as saying the government is giving our children autism in vaccines deliberately.

2 things wrong with that argument. First, not endorsing quackery does not mean that his claims aren’t quackery. I know someone who loves to star gaze with his telescope. He doesn’t believe in aliens or UFOs but that doesn’t give his opinions of outer space those of an astronaut.
Secondly, He DOES make quack claims about vaccines as was said previously in this thread. You see it as a “compromise” but that doesn’t mean it’s true. To be a compromise all you have to do is say that something makes less sense than his claims so that means his claims are a compromise. The problem is that whole argument is a fallacy. False Compromise

4)Backs up everything he says in his books with valid scientific evidence. Lots and lots and lots of it.
5) "Despite Perlmutter’s popularity, most mainstream medical authorities do not endorse the advice he dispenses." So????????
Most "mainstream medical authorities" graduated from college 40 years ago and haven't kept up with the latest research.

He uses old & disproven studies or he just misrepresents them. To contradict common knowledge & then claim that he’s being persecuted because he’s not mainstream is something I see quacks use a lot.
You know for a fact that not all mainstream medical authorities graduated 40 years ago. As for keeping up with research doctors have to rewrite a new exam every year in the US. If graduating so long ago is an issue then you should know that Perlmutter graduated in 1981. By your standards his claims would be useless in 6 more years.

This is not about faith. This is about scientifically valid truth. It's just a more modern truth than your venerated "authorities" have embraced yet. It took Galileo a while too.[/QUOTE]
Modern truth? If you like this guy because he’s modern then you’ll be on the next fad that comes along. The most recent fad is always the most modern. The whole concept of being modern is irrelevant to science. What matters is if something can be properly shown to be true, which perlmutter has not done though he is very good at misleading those who have a minimal understanding of science.

It might have taken a while for people to embrace Galileo but that doesn’t mean that everything that science rejects must be accepted.

The Galileo gambit (also Galileo fallacy; users of the fallacy are Galileo wannabees), is the notion that if your ideas provoke the establishment to vilify or threaten you, you must be right.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Galileo_gambit

 

[epileric]

I find this list Epileric posted to be a good one. The thing is, if you actually read Dr Perlmutter's books you would see that none of these apply and this makes Dr. Perlmutter a very reliable source.

I don’t think he fits all of these, just most of them.
I just posted the whole list because this is a good list to use when evaluating if someone is valid.

1) Recommendations that promise a quick fix. He never says this.

Maybe it’s not a quick fix in that it’s particularly easy but it’s very quick in how it reduces a complex issue to nothing more than gluten/carbs.

2) Dire warnings of danger from a single product or regimen. He is talking about several health factors including overuse of antibiotics, natural vs cesarian childbirth, breast feeding, gluten, high sugar and carb consumption, lack of sunshine, lack of exercise, gut micro biome imbalances....Shall I go on?

He does claim that, too bad he doesn’t have any valid proof to back up his claims.

3) Claims that sound too good to be true. Does fixing your digestion by eating a healthy diet sound too good to be true to you? Does a healthy digestive system having effects on the body as a whole sound fanciful?
Curing it all by avoiding gluten is too good to be true.

4) Simplistic conclusions drawn from a complex study. His conclusions and recommendations are anything but simplistic. Of course you would have to read more than the dust jacket to know this.

This he has done in all his conclusions. He simplifies studies down to mean what he wants it to mean.

5) Recommendations based on a single study. Read the bibliography.

Lots of citations but lots of claims. A single study per claim is not very much

6) Dramatic statements that are refuted by reputable scientific organizations. Perhaps, as you pointed out, not yet *endorsed* by "the authorities" but I don't see any refutation either.

So by saying that they’re not endorsed yet but will be then he’s not making refuted statements? You’re quite an optimist.

7) Lists of "good" and "bad" foods. Let's see.... Processed foods high in sugar and fake ingredients are bad for you and while fresh produce and protein are good. Is that really so unreasonable?

As was said in the review I posted he exaggerates negative effects of things. To be healthy no type of food needs to be demonized but it’s what sells.

"Spinning" information from another product to match the producer’s claims. What products?

Like I said, not all apply to him but with his constant releases of books & his work on the Dr. Oz show I’m sure he doesn’t need that money.

8 ) Stating that research is “currently underway,” indicating that there is no current research. Being honest about the current state of the scientific inquiry is a problem? I admire that Dr. Perlmutter always states the exact level of the source he is quoting, e.g. is this a study of rodents or people and what is the N=#. He is a doctor and a scientist, not “just some blogger”.

Actually, attacking the state of scientific inquiry is how he manages to sell things with very such weak “proof”.

9) Non-science based testimonials supporting the product, often from celebrities or highly satisfied customers. Dr. Perlmutter does have testimonials from people who have tried his approach successfully. This may not be "scientific" but that doesn't make it not real. It is clearly labeled as "testimonials" with all the YMMV caveats attached. I don't see anything wrong with this additional information in the same way that I don't see anything wrong with someone here on CWE telling their personal experiences with a particular medication. Doesn't mean that generalizes to everyone but it is interesting information nonetheless.

There are good reasons that science rejects anecdotal medicine. Having anecdotes doesn’t make research false but the fact that he would even include them in his book shows that he is more concerned with selling the product than properly proving it.

 

[epileric]

Epileric,
I am with you up to the last couple of paragraphs, by which I mean that I understand why you would arrive at your conclusions and I would have to think further about how to state my case so that you could understand me ... because I do have a case. And I WAS shooting from the hip -- that part is clear!

However, I protest the last couple of paragraph.This is not me. I understand and honor the scientific method. If that were not true, I would not be so bitter. But news arrives with increasing frequency about the institutionalized dishonesty of scientific organizations that turn the scientific method into a travesty, so that the validity of studies just does not stand up under scrutiny...and we are not talking about sophisticated scrutiny. Recently I have been impressed to read that studies not confirming "the right answer" that drug companies require, simply are not published. Easy. The information is just deleted. The public, which includes the working medical community, is none the wiser. But there is more, much more. [And I am frustrated because, as I say, my brain is mush at the moment.] Then again, in the United States we have the spectacle of the entanglement of professional organizations that claim to be scientific with the government in ways that compromise the ethics of the organizations themselves, most recently and most revoltingly, the American Psychological Association in relation to the CIA and torture.

I hope you understand that I was talking about you specifically but how we as people are geared to think that way (even me )
I do agree with you that certain groups such as pharmaceutical companies don’t support using protocols that will always give honest answers and that needs to be addressed. Something else they do is they will find that a drug has side-effects (let’s say sleepiness) but no curative value so they sell it as if the side-effect is the intended effect without researching if there might be complications. Part of that is because the government (both US & Canadas) only ask for a single study without proof that results have been duplicated. I would suggest taking a look at the All Trials Campaign They’ve had some good results in changing that in Europe so far and are working on the US right now. Canada has a similar problem in that the present government decided to muzzle government employed scientists and are only allowed to report to the government so that they can decide what information gets out & what doesn’t.
I find these things despicable but it does not mean that science shouldn’t be listened to or that it is invalid. It also doesn’t mean that scientifically unproven work is valid. What you say about the APA in realtion to torture is awful but in the APAs own guide they tell members to report such behaviour (search for “Psychiatric Participation in Interrogation* of Detainees” it’s a PDF so I can’t link to it) but even if it is true, it doesn’t disprove studies that have shown Perlmutter to be wrong.

 

[epileric]

If you still doubt how Perlmutter deceives people you might want to read this take-down of an interview he did. I like how he shows the studies Perlmutter uses then shows how that's not what the study claims.
He says

It takes enormous resources to thoroughly fact check such claims, so it is rarely done. In the end, it usually doesn’t inflict any consequence to the person making the claims anyway. But blogs are a nice medium to do so, and I think going forward we need to be more proactive in countering nutritional misinformation. I plan to do more of this here.

Fact Checking a Perlmutter Interview

 

[MichaelJO7]

When I think of knowledge, I have a mental image in my mind of a faucet out of which water is flowing. Think of countless hands trying to cup the water to get a drink. Only the first hand or hands has the truly clean water. The water received by the hands below it are getting progressively and potentially more defiled water. I would rather be the one trying to get the water untouched by the hands of others.

I would like to encourage people to be the ones who get the water as it first comes out of the faucet. Sometimes there is safety in a multitude of counselors; we are living in times when that is simply not the case.

I tend to respect people more who learn for themselves. There is excessive criticism on this forum by people who do not understand what they are talking about. It takes time and effort to determine the truth.

Skipp8, I lost my mother due to cancer which had metastasized. She elected to no longer fight, and I am fine with that. The doctors told her at the time of her six year "post" cancer exam she was fine, but she said she was not. She asked them to x-ray from a different uncustomary angle. They found two growths in her lungs which were missed. (She was not a smoker.) I empathize with you.

"A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." Unknown.

 

[AlohaBird]

Yes, because one should always turn to assistant professors of Chinese philosophy for authoritative information on nutrition.

On the blurb for his book it says, "An incendiary work of science journalism"

Science journalism?

His book basically advocates tossing out all regard to what we eat. Gluten, fat, salt, sugar, anything you have ever been told was unhealthy is now healthy again because a "science journalist" said so. He has a PhD in religion and literature.

That would be a pretty easy book to write. "Whoopie, eat anything you want".

I suppose writing a book like that pays better than being an assistant professor.

 

[epileric]

That would be a pretty easy book to write. "Whoopie, eat anything you want".

I suppose writing a book like that pays better than being an assistant professor.

Am I the only one who has to read a book before criticizing it? Maybe you should read the full book first. It does make good sense though it does criticize your favourite doctor.

 

[AlohaBird]

How do I know you haven't read Perlmutter's books? Because you insist on reducing all the knowledge in them to one idea, the evil of carbs. That is so off base it's laughable.

 

[AlohaBird]

Am I the only one who has to read a book before criticizing it? Maybe you should read the full book first. It does make good sense though it does criticize your favourite doctor.

Doctor being the operative word. The medical kind not the Phd in religion and literature kind.

I don't have time to read every book out there. So I pick my sources carefully.
A book by real practicing neurologist strikes me as a better use of my time.

 

[epileric]

How do I know you haven't read Perlmutter's books? Because you insist on reducing all the knowledge in them to one idea, the evil of carbs. That is so off base it's laughable.

Then please tell me what else is in Brain Grain & cite chapters & page numbers. I can always check to see if I missed anything.

Doctor being the operative word. The medical kind not the Phd in religion and literature kind.

As I've said before, he goes outside his area of expertise as a neurologist & dietitian. It's that simple. He was not trained in cancer & the other diseases that he says his advice will help.
Also, the people who contradict him are doctors as well so your doctor argument is moot.

I don't have time to read every book out there. So I pick my sources carefully.
A book by real practicing neurologist strikes me as a better use of my time.

You don't find that a bit hypocritical to expect others to read your book before discussing the author yet you declare the right to "pick your sources"? By your standards you would have no right to criticize my authors until you've read his book.

 

[AlohaBird]

Then please tell me what else is in Brain Grain & cite chapters & page numbers. I can always check to see if I missed anything.


As I've said before, he goes outside his area of expertise as a neurologist & dietitian. It's that simple. He was not trained in cancer & the other diseases that he says his advice will help.
Also, the people who contradict him are doctors as well so your doctor argument is moot.


You don't find that a bit hypocritical to expect others to read your book before discussing the author yet you declare the right to "pick your sources"? By your standards you would have no right to criticize my authors until you've read his book.

First of all, I said "Perlmutters's books" plural. Yes, Grain Brain did focus on gluten and carbs. The book I was recommending to the OP (somewhere back there before all this pointless bickering started) was Brain Maker, Dr. Perlmutter's most recent book. It focuses on the gut-brain connection. There are multiple ways that the gut microbiome can be thrown out of whack and multiple ways to help heal it.

He never claimed to be an oncologist. If he got a degree in every medical specialty, he would still be in school. And he never goes around making wild claims like "Fire your oncologist and eat this diet, it will cure your cancer". Balancing the gut microbiome can and does however make a person's immune system stronger which is very useful in fighting the good fight against cancer.

If you send me a copy of that assistant professor guy's book, I might read it for a laugh and get back to you. I'm sure not spending $24.95 for "science journalism" though.

Yes, I do pick my sources more carefully than that.

 

[epileric]

He never claimed to be an oncologist. If he got a degree in every medical specialty, he would still be in school. And he never goes around making wild claims like "Fire your oncologist and eat this diet, it will cure your cancer". Balancing the gut microbiome can and does however make a person's immune system stronger which is very useful in fighting the good fight against cancer.

So he doesn't have to be trained in the diseases he claims to heal?

If you send me a copy of that assistant professor guy's book, I might read it for a laugh and get back to you. I'm sure not spending $24.95 for "science journalism" though.

Yes, I do pick my sources more carefully than that.

I'm not sure you're that careful. You mock science and its journalism that explains how things are proven yet you claim that you've got some unheard of "modern science"? LOL

 

[AlohaBird]

So he doesn't have to be trained in the diseases he claims to heal?


I'm not sure you're that careful. You mock science and its journalism that explains how things are proven yet you claim that you've got some unheard of "modern science"? LOL

As I just said, he never said, "Eat this diet and fire your oncologist. I will cure your cancer." He does claim to be able to strengthen the immune system which is mostly in our gut. That is established medical fact, not hypothesis, BTW.
Why is it such a stretch of the imagination for you that a healthier immune system would help with all kinds of human ailments?

I never mocked science. I mocked the term "science journalism" and the idea that it somehow involved real science.

 

[Nakamova]

Hey guys, I'm just seeing this thread today. It's incredibly interesting, but has wandered far afield from the original thread. Skipp8, welcome to CWE! Sorry for the threadjack. Feel free to start a new thread. (Maybe you have already). To everyone else who has weighed in passionately, I think the issues are extremely relevant and worth discussing -- but if the discussion is to be had here at CWE, ALL sides should remember to respond to one another with congeniality and respect. If the debate becomes ugly, the topic may be relegated to the status of "politics" or "religion" -- and become taboo here at CWE's dinner party. I'd hate to see that happen.

Best,
Nak