Re: on the subject of WAP converts...

[Guest guest]

That quackwatch guy doesn't deserve any attention. His whole schtick

is that anything new is quackery -- if you read his stuff you'll see

that new treatments or new theories are by his definition, quackery.

Does your SIL know that quackwatch is really more about " anything

not in standard of care " watch? In the past he's had people like

Drs. Eades and McDougall on his lists, and he takes them off. I

don't know if it's because he got " cease and desist " letters from

lawyers, or, when an innovative doctor gets a little more accepted

and then voila, no more quackwatch. So, if a person wants science

that is at least 30 years old and therefore widely accepted, then I

guess one could listen to the quackwatch guy.

Connie

>

> or rather- persecutors?

>

> My husband mentioned to his sister some of the WAP principles

we're trying to implement in our diets, both for our sakes and for

our baby and future children.

> Now, she firmly believes that because SAD is recommended by her

Dr., it is the best and most healthy thing for her kids, and informs

us that you know, WAP is all really foolishness and quackery--- if

it weren't, he wouldn't be on quackwatch!

>

> So..... although we probably won't respond- there's no point- I

would like to know anyone else's thoughts on the quackwatch

comments?

>

> http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/holisticdent.html

>

>

>

> " Only a few prefer liberty- the majority seek nothing more than

kind masters. " -- Sallust, " Histories "

>

>

[Guest guest]

The quackwatch guy also seems to make wild and ridiculous statements that he

doesn't back up with any sort of evidence. One of the best things about WAP is

that he collected so much evidence. There is an article in the new Wise

Traditions that contradicts what the quackwatch guy says about WAP. Maybe you

could show this to your sister-in-law?

There is also some speculation that the quackwatch guy is getting paid very well

by various groups to put those things on his website. Maybe someone needs to

make an antiquackwatch website and have the holistic people he bashes pay them.

Helen

[Guest guest]

> -----Original Message-----

> From:

> [mailto: ] On Behalf Of Hamilton

>

> So..... although we probably won't respond- there's no point-

> I would like to know anyone else's thoughts on the

> quackwatch comments?

>

> http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/holisticdent.html

Briefly (quoting Barrett and/or Jarvis):

> While extolling their health, he ignored their short life expectancy and

high rates of infant mortality, endemic diseases, and malnutrition.

High rates of infant mortality and short life expectancy can probably be

attributed to poor sanitation and harsh living conditions. This is probably

a fair criticism of those followers of Price who would like to see us return

to a premodern lifestyle, but I'm not aware that the Price himself ever

advocated such a thing.

I'm not sure to what " endemic diseases " he's referring, and the people whom

Price described were very obviously not malnourished.

> While praising their diets for not producing cavities, he ignored the fact

that malnourished people don't usually get many cavities.

In other words, starving is better for your teeth than eating sugar.

> Their problems were not caused by eating " civilized " food but by abusing

it.

I'm not sure where the disagreement here is. I don't believe that Price (or

the WAPF) ever said that it was not okay to indulge occasionally in sugary

treats. The real question, which Dr. Barrett dodges, is what constitutes

abuse.

> In addition to dietary excesses, the increased disease rates were due to:

> (a) exposure to unfamiliar germs, to which they were not resistant;

> ( the drastic change in their way of life as they gave up strenuous

physical activities such as hunting; and

> © alcohol abuse.

This is what we call " begging the question. " Barrett is not citing evidence;

he's merely restating his hypothesis in another form. And none of these

explain the grotesque deformities of the dental arch which Price documented.

I don't know much about Price's work with root canals or the validity of his

hypothesis on that topic, so I'll leave the rest.

[Guest guest]

> -----Original Message-----

> From:

> [mailto: ] On Behalf Of Lampinen

>

> The quackwatch guy also seems to make wild and ridiculous

> statements that he doesn't back up with any sort of evidence.

>

> ...

>

> There is also some speculation that the quackwatch guy is

> getting paid very well by various groups to put those things

> on his website.

Is there any evidence? If it's just speculation, then we probably shouldn't

repeat it. If it's wrong for Barrett to do it, it's wrong for us to

do it.

By the way, have you read Arnold Kling's essay on the difference between

Type C and Type M arguments?

http://www.techcentralstation.com/100703B.html

It's mildly political in that it's constructed around a critique of

Krugman's rhetorical style, but the core message is apolitical and something

that I think everyone should understand, namely that arguments which address

consequences are more productive than arguments which are based on

speculation about the motives of others.

[Guest guest]

On 11/26/05, Lampinen <lampinen@...> wrote:

> The quackwatch guy also seems to make wild and ridiculous statements that he

doesn't back up with any sort of evidence. One of the best things about WAP is

that he collected so much evidence. There is an article in the new Wise

Traditions that contradicts what the quackwatch guy says about WAP. Maybe you

could show this to your sister-in-law?

>

> There is also some speculation that the quackwatch guy is getting paid very

well by >various groups to put those things on his website. Maybe someone needs

to make an >antiquackwatch website and have the holistic people he bashes pay

them.

Hi Helen,

While I agree with you that the Quackwatch guy is generally out to

lunch, I don't think it serves us well to attribute motives/actions to

someone on the basis of speculation. We would rightly be in a twit if

he did it to us so we ought not to do it for him.

We don't know his heart, and unless you have some hard evidence we

don't know that he is a paid mouthpiece either.

--

Life isn't static. People change. Circumstances

change. What may have been true six months

or a year ago may no longer be true now.

Maybe a loved one got sick and died at a

tender age...Maybe they ran into an old high

school buddy who still looks great...At any rate

what they couldn't hear before rings true to them

now. So don't despair. Stick to the task. You will

eventually find yourself surrounded by people who

do care about good food and see it as a

legitimate avenue to great health.

Winning the War on Good Food

http://www.warongoodfood.com

[Guest guest]

On 11/26/05, Berg <bberg@...> wrote:

> Briefly (quoting Barrett and/or Jarvis):

>

> > While extolling their health, he ignored their short life expectancy and

> high rates of infant mortality, endemic diseases, and malnutrition.

>

> High rates of infant mortality and short life expectancy can probably be

> attributed to poor sanitation and harsh living conditions. This is probably

> a fair criticism of those followers of Price who would like to see us return

> to a premodern lifestyle, but I'm not aware that the Price himself ever

> advocated such a thing.

Well I'm sure you are aware that there are not a few folks involved in

WAP who advocate or better...pine for such a thing. I call it wanting

to go back to the Shire, as they have romanticized the past and are a

blissfully unaware of the " nasty, brutish, and short " life of many

(though by no means all) " premodern " cultures. No thank you.

I don't recall Price ever advocating such a thing. I think he said

quite clearly that we should incorporate his findings into our times,

not wholesale adopt their particular lifestyle. He also doesn't

provide much support for species appropriate diets for humans. His

approach is/was - however you can get the necessary nutrients to

produce outstanding health, get them. So we never see him advocating

that we should adopt one specific diet that he observed either. In

fact he said the opposite.

> I'm not sure where the disagreement here is. I don't believe that Price (or

> the WAPF) ever said that it was not okay to indulge occasionally in sugary

> treats. The real question, which Dr. Barrett dodges, is what constitutes

> abuse.

There are folks that Price worked with here in the states where he

replaced only one meal of three meal a day SAD diet and got excellent

results.

Plus if you read the WAPF (not *the* WAP) books that the foundation

has put out you will notice they are not teetotallers. Some think they

go too far, especially in their latest book, Eat Fat, Lose Fat.

> > In addition to dietary excesses, the increased disease rates were due to:

> > (a) exposure to unfamiliar germs, to which they were not resistant;

> > ( the drastic change in their way of life as they gave up strenuous

> physical activities such as hunting; and

> > © alcohol abuse.

>

> This is what we call " begging the question. " Barrett is not citing evidence;

> he's merely restating his hypothesis in another form. And none of these

> explain the grotesque deformities of the dental arch which Price documented.

Oh come now! Who needs logic? Its a lot like economics you know. Rules

made up by rich people to suppress the non-elite be they financial or

educational.

--

Life isn't static. People change. Circumstances

change. What may have been true six months

or a year ago may no longer be true now.

Maybe a loved one got sick and died at a

tender age...Maybe they ran into an old high

school buddy who still looks great...At any rate

what they couldn't hear before rings true to them

now. So don't despair. Stick to the task. You will

eventually find yourself surrounded by people who

do care about good food and see it as a

legitimate avenue to great health.

Winning the War on Good Food

http://www.warongoodfood.com

[Guest guest]

,

Would you mind expanding on your comments below? Do you mean EFLF

goes " too far " because they advocate eating high amounts of fat, or

because they advise zero alcohol in the diet? Or... [maybe I'm just

slow today, please indulge me ]

Christa

> I'm not sure where the disagreement here is. I don't believe that

Price (or

> the WAPF) ever said that it was not okay to indulge occasionally in

sugary

> treats. The real question, which Dr. Barrett dodges, is what

constitutes

> abuse.

There are folks that Price worked with here in the states where he

replaced only one meal of three meal a day SAD diet and got excellent

results.

Plus if you read the WAPF (not *the* WAP) books that the foundation

has put out you will notice they are not teetotallers. Some think they

go too far, especially in their latest book, Eat Fat, Lose Fat.

[Guest guest]

On 11/26/05, dishchrista <dishchrista@...> wrote:

> ,

>

> Would you mind expanding on your comments below? Do you mean EFLF

> goes " too far " because they advocate eating high amounts of fat, or

> because they advise zero alcohol in the diet? Or... [maybe I'm just

> slow today, please indulge me ]

>

> Christa

Well yeah zero alcohol is toooooo far, LOL, but high fats is great. No

actually I was referring to the fact that some think they are too

liberal in the use of starches and sugars among other things. Here are

some messages from Native Nutrition you can check out:

http://onibasu.com/archives/nn/62304.html

http://onibasu.com/archives/nn/62368.html

http://onibasu.com/archives/nn/62521.html

http://onibasu.com/archives/nn/62495.html

take care,

--

Life isn't static. People change. Circumstances

change. What may have been true six months

or a year ago may no longer be true now.

Maybe a loved one got sick and died at a

tender age...Maybe they ran into an old high

school buddy who still looks great...At any rate

what they couldn't hear before rings true to them

now. So don't despair. Stick to the task. You will

eventually find yourself surrounded by people who

do care about good food and see it as a

legitimate avenue to great health.

Winning the War on Good Food

http://www.warongoodfood.com

[Guest guest]

, thank you.

IIRC EFLF says to drink alcoholic beverages in strict moderation, one

glass or less with a meal per day. And that does make sense given our

cultural abuse of alcoholic beverages. But I found it interesting

because many fermented foods contain small amounts of alcohol. And I

wonder what their stance on naturally fermented alcoholic beverages

would be [ie: water kefir, mead, kefir beer] when produced in the

home, IOW with probiotic advantages. These drinks do not lend

themselves to overindulgence since they are filling in their own

right, and are nturally less alcoholic than those mass produced. I

was personally interested in the EFLF book for the section on " Health

Recovery. " I am nearly recovered from gallstones but have benefitted

so much from probiotic foods I am trying to include them in every

meal.

Yes, high fat is a good thing, if they are the right fats. Funny,

when I read through EFLF I didn't have the same reaction to the

starchy, rapadura-inclusive recipes. I just assumed they were to be

eaten in moderation.

On the days when I really do want to indulge [birthday, holidays],

I'd rather have reasonable alternatives to store bought crap, so I am

grateful they included recipes in this vein. But I was surprised to

see the sample menus in the " everyday gourmet " section include a

dessert nearly every day. I think that a healthy goal would lean

toward dessert once a week or for particular celebrations. I would go

so far as to exclude citrus fruit as a daily item since I have seen

the damage they can do to dental health and the intestines.

My impression of EFLF was overall very positive. I would recommend NT

first to anyone fully committed to changing their diet for their

health. But for SAD eaters and those looking for new NN recipes it is

a fine resource [reading with NN goggles, that is.]

Thank you for sharing the links. There were a few questions I had

while reading the book, but I'm not a " micro reader " so I don't worry

so much about details here or there. Much of the criticism seemed

centered around the EFLF criticism of Atkins. A friend of mine

reacted horribly to the standard Atkins diet so I am naturally

cautious about adapting NN to Atkins. Just my personal opinion, which

I reserve the right to change with experience.

Christa

>

> > ,

> >

> > Would you mind expanding on your comments below? Do you mean EFLF

> > goes " too far " because they advocate eating high amounts of fat,

or

> > because they advise zero alcohol in the diet? Or... [maybe I'm

just

> > slow today, please indulge me ]

> >

> > Christa

>

> Well yeah zero alcohol is toooooo far, LOL, but high fats is great.

No

> actually I was referring to the fact that some think they are too

> liberal in the use of starches and sugars among other things. Here

are

> some messages from Native Nutrition you can check out:

>

> http://onibasu.com/archives/nn/62304.html

> http://onibasu.com/archives/nn/62368.html

> http://onibasu.com/archives/nn/62521.html

> http://onibasu.com/archives/nn/62495.html

>

> take care,

>

>

> --

> Life isn't static. People change. Circumstances

> change. What may have been true six months

> or a year ago may no longer be true now.

> Maybe a loved one got sick and died at a

> tender age...Maybe they ran into an old high

> school buddy who still looks great...At any rate

> what they couldn't hear before rings true to them

> now. So don't despair. Stick to the task. You will

> eventually find yourself surrounded by people who

> do care about good food and see it as a

> legitimate avenue to great health.

>

> Winning the War on Good Food

> http://www.warongoodfood.com

>