ANY Weston A. Price CRONNIES?

[Guest guest]

Has anyone successfully designed a meal plan around the Weston A. Price

ideas? I'd like to hear about it. ~ C.

[Guest guest]

I HOPE there are no Weston Price Cronies here. He's a quack and has been discussed previously. See our archives and see " Quackwatch.com " : His background is in dentistry, not nutrition. Here's a page from Quackwatch: http://www.quackwatch.org/search/webglimpse.cgi?ID=1 & query=Weston & case= & whole= & lines= & errors= & age= & maxfiles=25 & maxlines=20 & maxchars=3000 & filter= & cache=yes & rankby=DEFAULT

on 12/22/2006 10:35 PM, c000n at c000n@... wrote:

Has anyone successfully designed a meal plan around the Weston A. Price

ideas? I'd like to hear about it. ~ C.

[Guest guest]

In all fairness, the quackwatch guy is himself a quack. He's been

brought to court before, more than once.

I'm not a huge fan of Weston Price, but the quackwatch guy is a nut.

He just recites the party line about the current food pyramid being

the pinnacle of nutritional wisdom.

As for the initial question, given the high fat content of the Weston

Price manner of eating, it would be difficultly compatible with CRON.

It would however be compatible, with a diet having a low impact on

insulin.

[Guest guest]

And your proof of this is.....?????????

on 12/30/2006 1:27 PM, paultheo2000 at paultheo2000@... wrote:

In all fairness, the quackwatch guy is himself a quack. He's been

brought to court before, more than once.

I'm not a huge fan of Weston Price, but the quackwatch guy is a nut.

He just recites the party line about the current food pyramid being

the pinnacle of nutritional wisdom.

[Guest guest]

My guess is (and it's purely my hypothesis) that if the quackwatch guy

has been dragged to court, it's by the very people who show up on his

quack list. And even if he has been sued, it doesn't make him a

quack. I'd like to see your evidence.

Diane

>

> In all fairness, the quackwatch guy is himself a quack. He's been

> brought to court before, more than once.

>

> I'm not a huge fan of Weston Price, but the quackwatch guy is a nut.

> He just recites the party line about the current food pyramid being

> the pinnacle of nutritional wisdom.

>

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

Of course you are so right about Barrett et al. I have known of their

group when Renner started it in KC around 20 years ago. There are

plenty of references to his (Barrett) 'stupidity' and lost court cases

- plus the fact he's been deemed by the Judge to be biased, and not

credible. Definitely not an expert - though he claims to be. Judge

says 'not'. Not licensed since about '93 and was a psychiatrist - no

'medical' background really.

Seems it doesn't take much common sense to see through his agenda. Of

course there are always going to be quacks - there are certainly

'quack' scientists and flawed scientific reports. There are quack

MD's. And there will always be someone selling different versions of

'snake oil' - in many different forms! And of course these merit

being called on the carpet.

And if ANYONE has been sued - it doesn't necessarily make them a

quack, true, - and that goes both ways doesn't it?? Barrett is usually

the one bringing the lawsuits - and he does NOT always win!! (it

appears most end up being dismissed by the courts)

Barrett is FOR food irradiation and AGAINST having GM food labeled.

(on quackwatch) hmmmmmm - where is our common sense here??

See excerpt from Judge's decision in King-Bio case rendered against

Barrett & NCAHF below.

Happy New Year Everyone!

Genesa

[i make no argument one way or the other which of the following is or

is not 'flaky' or effective - just for information purposes -

But below is some of what Barrett and his organization go after (this

general from wikipedia):]

The Quackwatch website is Barrett's main platform for describing that

which he considers to be quackery and health fraud. The website is

part of Quackwatch, Inc., a nonprofit corporation that aims to " combat

health-related frauds, myths, fads, fallacies, and misconduct. " [9]

Barrett's writing is supplemented with contributions from 150+

scientific, technical, and lay volunteers.[10] Barrett defines

quackery as " anything involving overpromotion in the field of

health, " [11] and reserves the word fraud " only for situations in which

deliberate deception is involved. " [12]

Barrett has written about numerous modalities that he (based on his

analysis of the claims made for them) either considers to be quackery,

or to include it in one way or another, for example: Acupuncture;

Algae-based therapies; Alternative medicine; Amalgam removal within

dentistry; Applied kinesiology; Ayurvedic medicine; Candidiasis (yeast

allergies); Chelation therapy; Chinese herbal medicine; Chiropractic;

Colloidal silver and minerals; Craniosacral therapy; Detoxification

therapies; DHEA; Dietary supplements; Ear candling; Ergogenic aids;

Faith healing; Genetic diagnoses; Glucosamine; Growth hormones; Hair

analysis; Herbal medicine; Homeopathy; Hyperbaric oxygen therapy;

Iridology; Juicing; Magnet therapy; Metabolic therapy; Nutritional

therapy for emotional problems; Organic food; Osteopathy; Pneumatic

trabeculoplasty; Reflexology; and Therapeutic touch.

Barrett, on his main website, also maintains public lists of sources,

individuals, and groups which he considers questionable and

non-recommendable.[13][14] The list includes two-time Nobel Prize

winner Linus ing (for his claims about mega-doses of Vitamin

C[15]), the National Institute of Health (NIH) Center for Alternative

and Complementary Medicine, as well as integrative medicine proponent

Weil, MD.[16]

http://fsnews.findlaw.com/cases/ca/caapp4th/slip/2003/b156585.html#A0014

..... " The trial court concluded NCAHF failed to prove a false or

misleading statement. King Bio's expert testified the products were

safe and effective. The products were included in the Homeopathic

Pharmacopoeia and complied with FDA guidelines. NCAHF presented no

evidence that King Bio's products were not safe and effective, relying

instead on a general attack on homeopathy, made by witnesses who had

no knowledge of, or experience with, King Bio's products, and who were

found to be biased and unworthy of credibility. "

<>Below is an excerpt from Judges decision rendered against NCAHF

12/17/01 by Judge Framholz in California Superior Court.(Barrett

has lost in court plenty of other times) You can read the complete

transcript, " A Judges View of the Quackbusters "

“Dr. Barrett was offered on several issues by the Plaintiff, but

the Court found that there was substantial overlap on the issues that

he and Dr. Sampson were asked to address. “Thus, in order to avoid

duplicative or cumulative evidence (see Cal. Evidence Code §§ 352,

411, 723), Dr. Barrett's testimony was limited by the Court to the

sole issue of FDA treatment of homeopathic drugs. The relevancy of

this issue was questionable at best, since the Plaintiff had

previously asserted that its case did not depend on or seek to

establish any violation of federal food and drug laws or regulations.

Nevertheless, Plaintiff elicited testimony from Dr. Barrett on his

experience with the FDA as it relates to regulation of homeopathic

drugs.

“Dr. Barrett was a psychiatrist who retired in or about 1993, at

which

point he contends he allowed his medical license to lapse. Like Dr.

Sampson, he has no formal training in homeopathic medicine or drugs,

although he claims to have read and written extensively on homeopathy

and other forms of alternative medicine. Dr. Barrett's claim to

expertise on FDA issues arises from his conversations with FDA agents,

his review of professional literature on the subject and certain

continuing education activities.

“As for his credential as an expert on FDA regulation of homeopathic

drugs, the Court finds that Dr. Barrett lacks sufficient

qualifications in this area. Expertise in FDA regulation suggests a

knowledge of how the agency enforces federal statutes and the

agency's own regulations. Dr. Barrett's purported legal and regulatory

knowledge is not apparent. He is not a lawyer, although he claims he

attended several semesters of correspondence law school. While Dr.

Barrett appears to have had several past conversations with FDA

representatives, these appear to have been sporadic, mainly at his own

instigation, and principally for the purpose of gathering information

for his various articles and Internet web-sites. He has never

testified before any governmental panel or agency on issues relating

to FDA regulation of drugs. Presumably his professional continuing

education experiences are outdated given that he has not had a current

medical license in over seven years. For these reasons, there is no

sound basis on which to consider Dr. Barrett qualified as an expert on

the issues he was offered to address. Moreover, there was no real

focus to his testimony with respect to any of the issues in this case

associated with Defendants' products.

“Furthermore, the Court finds that both Dr. Sampson and Dr. Barrett

are biased heavily in favor of the Plaintiff and thus the weight to be

accorded their testimony is slight in any event. Both are long-time

board members of the Plaintiff; Dr. Barrett has served as its

Chairman. Both participated in an application to the U.S. FDA during

the early 1990s designed to restrict the sale of most homeopathic

drugs. Dr. Sampson's university course presents what is effectively a

one-sided, critical view of alternative medicine. Dr. Barrett's heavy

activities in lecturing and writing about alternative medicine

similarly are focused on the eradication of the practices about which

he opines. Both witnesses' fees, as Dr. Barrett testified, are paid

from a fund established by Plaintiff NCAHF from the proceeds of suits

such as the case at bar. Based on this fact alone, the Court may infer

that Dr. Barrett and Sampson are more likely to receive fees for

testifying on behalf of NCAHF in future cases if the Plaintiff

prevails in the instant action and thereby wins funds to enrich the

litigation fund described by Dr. Barrett. It is apparent, therefore,

that both men have a direct, personal financial interest in the

outcome of this litigation. Based on all of these factors, Dr. Sampson

and Dr. Barrett can be described as zealous advocates of the

Plaintiff's position, and therefore not neutral or dispassionate

witnesses or experts. In light of these affiliations and their

orientation, it can fairly be said that Drs. Barrett and Sampson are

themselves the client, and therefore their testimony should be

accorded little, if any, credibility on that basis as well.†& #65533;

http://www.canlyme.com/quackwatch.html

Dr. Barrett of Quackwatch Exposed in Court Cases

Article by Whole Foods Magazine

http://www.thenhf.com/articles_01.htm

[excerpt] " .... NCAHF had to agree, but still claimed that the

defendants' advertising was false and misleading. To support its

position, it presented as expert witnesses Wallace J. Sampson, M.D.

and Barrett, M.D. Dr. Sampson's testimony was very general in

nature and upon cross-examination, he had to admit that he had no

experience or training in homeopathic medicine or drugs. The best

expertise that he could muster on the topic was to claim that he

taught a university course on " alternative medicine. " That did not

impress the trial judge at all, particularly when Sampson admitted

that he had done absolutely no investigation into defendant's specific

products. The court ruled that Dr. Sampson's testimony did not support

NCAHF's claims.

Dr. Barrett's testimony was evidently more amusing. Climbing into the

stand, Barrett lugged with him a notebook to which he constantly

referred during his testimony. Even when asked about his educational

credentials, he had to peer into his notebook for the answer. When the

judge challenged him on this by telling him to answer the question and

not to look at his notebook, Barrett retorted with " Oh, yes, I do. "

The notebook, it turned out, contained all of Barrett's testimony that

he had scripted with his attorney before the trial. Needless to say,

as with any witness on the stand, he was forced to turn those notes

over to opposing counsel for counsel's review. (The moral of this

portion of the story is to never take to the stand anything you do not

want opposing counsel to see.)..... "

> >

> > In all fairness, the quackwatch guy is himself a quack. He's been

> > brought to court before, more than once.

> >

> > I'm not a huge fan of Weston Price, but the quackwatch guy is a nut.

> > He just recites the party line about the current food pyramid being

> > the pinnacle of nutritional wisdom.

[Guest guest]

Knocking the messenger has little utility to the

pursuit of CRON.

While you may not like him or his method... the real

issue with Quackwatch and Barret is that if there is

stuff on his website that you beleive is relevant, and

meaningful to those following CR-ON, then lets post

the data and the studies on both sides and debate

them.

While you may disagree with Barret, and I dont agree

with all his stuff, many of his arguments and

discussions are right on, and he has the evidence to

support his stand. If you disagree with his stand on a

relevent CRON Issue, than lets debate that, and not

him.

Common sense?

Perhaps most people may say that " organic " food is

" common sense " but as we have debated and shown here,

there is little if any evidence supporting most of the

claims made by the " beleivers " of it. I have yet to

see relevant data also for GM foods showing that it is

harmful. Besides much of the food we eat today, even

varieties that grow in the ground naturally, didnt

exist years ago and is the result of GM that occurred

naturally.

I joined this list because of the criteria that had

been set for the list, which is basically to discuss

and debate recent relevant peer reviewed published

research from mainstream scientific journals that

relate to CRON.

If we disagree with the lists criteria and want to

just debate every passing trend or fad that goes by,

regarldess of whether or not it has any supporting

data, or relevance to CRON, than we should start a new

list or find one that meets those criteria, of which

there are many.

Personally, having been on many many of those

nutrition/health related lists over the years, I find

this one and the discussion on it to be one of the

highest quality ones around.

And I attribute that to the criteria that has been set

and the enforcement of it by the moderators and those

frequent posters who abide by those criteria

Regards and Happy New Years To All

Jeff

[Guest guest]

Like I said Jeff - no arguments - no debates. I agree w/some of

Barrett's stuff too - not because it's 'his' necessarily, just because

it's true. I know all about the Organic/GMO etc. etc. debates - I find

other evidence that I choose to go with - and that's my own personal

choice.

I know a lot of crops have been GM that we haven't had a clue about

for many years etc. etc.

Someone doubted he'd lost in court, basically - so there was some

proof. That's it.

Most of the time I don't have time for debates etc. etc. I was only

responding to others remarks. Have been in the alt. health field

myself for about 30 years - so yes I've seen a lot of modalities come

and go. I have been on some of those boards you speak of - so I

understand what you're saying.

I don't frequent Barrett's website and have no desire to dig for

whatever does or doesn't fit CRON - again as I said - I was only

responding to someone else. I do remember that back a long time ago

Renner was after Pritikin also. That has since been removed - and not

even sure if it ever was an issue on the website.

I'm not sure who is 'disagreeing with the list's criteria' sure not

moi - and I'm not sure about the 'passing trend or fad' remark either

- so sorry to ruffle any feathers!!

Cheers!

Genesa

>

> Knocking the messenger has little utility to the

> pursuit of CRON.

>

> While you may not like him or his method... the real

> issue with Quackwatch and Barret is that if there is

> stuff on his website that you beleive is relevant, and

> meaningful to those following CR-ON, then lets post

> the data and the studies on both sides and debate

> them.

>

> While you may disagree with Barret, and I dont agree

> with all his stuff, many of his arguments and

> discussions are right on, and he has the evidence to

> support his stand. If you disagree with his stand on a

> relevent CRON Issue, than lets debate that, and not

> him.

>

> Common sense?

>

> Perhaps most people may say that " organic " food is

> " common sense " but as we have debated and shown here,

> there is little if any evidence supporting most of the

> claims made by the " beleivers " of it. I have yet to

> see relevant data also for GM foods showing that it is

> harmful. Besides much of the food we eat today, even

> varieties that grow in the ground naturally, didnt

> exist years ago and is the result of GM that occurred

> naturally.

>

> I joined this list because of the criteria that had

> been set for the list, which is basically to discuss

> and debate recent relevant peer reviewed published

> research from mainstream scientific journals that

> relate to CRON.

>

> If we disagree with the lists criteria and want to

> just debate every passing trend or fad that goes by,

> regarldess of whether or not it has any supporting

> data, or relevance to CRON, than we should start a new

> list or find one that meets those criteria, of which

> there are many.

>

> Personally, having been on many many of those

> nutrition/health related lists over the years, I find

> this one and the discussion on it to be one of the

> highest quality ones around.

>

> And I attribute that to the criteria that has been set

> and the enforcement of it by the moderators and those

> frequent posters who abide by those criteria

>

> Regards and Happy New Years To All

> Jeff

>

[Guest guest]

--- In , Jeff Novick <chefjeff40@...>

wrote:

>

> Knocking the messenger has little utility to the

> pursuit of CRON.

>

> While you may not like him or his method... the real

> issue with Quackwatch and Barret is that if there is

> stuff on his website that you beleive is relevant, and

> meaningful to those following CR-ON, then lets post

> the data and the studies on both sides and debate

> them.

Jeff, to be fair, this whole debate was kicked off

by just such a blanket attack on the messenger, WAP,

by Francesca. Not that I disagree that Weston A.

Price and the website of that organization contains

much quackery, but let not the blame of this logical

debate faux-pas fall solely on Genesa's shoulders.

[...snip...]

> Perhaps most people may say that " organic " food is

> " common sense " but as we have debated and shown here,

> there is little if any evidence supporting most of the

> claims made by the " beleivers " of it. I have yet to

> see relevant data also for GM foods showing that it is

> harmful. Besides much of the food we eat today, even

> varieties that grow in the ground naturally, didnt

> exist years ago and is the result of GM that occurred

> naturally.

Not to restart those discussions, but it seems to me

some studies had been offered up showing higher phyto-

chemical and vitamin content in organic foods. This

makes sense, as the former comprise their defenses.

As for GM foods, should people wish to consume them,

that is their prerogative, but the choice should be

ours. To this end, labeling and strict adherence to

controls in the food production system are needed.

If nothing else, this is important for avoiding bad

allergic reactions, as has been reported when genes

from peanuts have been crossed, etc..

> I joined this list because of the criteria that had

> been set for the list, which is basically to discuss

> and debate recent relevant peer reviewed published

> research from mainstream scientific journals that

> relate to CRON.

>

> If we disagree with the lists criteria and want to

> just debate every passing trend or fad that goes by,

> regarldess of whether or not it has any supporting

> data, or relevance to CRON, than we should start a new

> list or find one that meets those criteria, of which

> there are many.

>

> Personally, having been on many many of those

> nutrition/health related lists over the years, I find

> this one and the discussion on it to be one of the

> highest quality ones around.

>

> And I attribute that to the criteria that has been set

> and the enforcement of it by the moderators and those

> frequent posters who abide by those criteria

I second this. Many of the alternative health groups

on the web are full of hyperbole and unsupported

pseudo-science. Yuck!

> Regards and Happy New Years To All

> Jeff

Right back at ya!

-

[Guest guest]

> Jeff, to be fair, this whole debate was kicked off

> by just such a blanket attack on the messenger, WAP,

> by Francesca.

I see your point.

However, the difference is, we have debated the info

on the WAP site many times and there is little if

anything on the site of value. And some real

distortions of info. (they even misquote and

misrepresent me there) So, in this case, while it was

a generalization, it was a sweeping remark that had

prior " content " to it.

As others have commented... quackwatch has some great

articles and info on it.

I also agree with you on the GM... we can now cross

species, which never occured in nature, and that may

be a concern for some, like those with allergies, as

you mentioned.

Regards

Jeff