Sunday, February 9, 2014

Why Is Gary Taubes So Confused About Nutrition?

Why Nutrition Is So Confusing -

Gary Taubes has published more of his confusion about science and nutrition in the New York Times.  I don't have time to dissect the entire article so I settled on exposing his most glaring fallacy in my letter to the editors, which I reproduce below.

Dear Ms. Abramson and Mr. Baquet,

If put in your positions, I would refuse to publish anything written by Gary Taubes, including his recent piece “Why Nutrition Is So Confusing.”

Taubes writes: " If we understand these disorders so well, why have we failed so miserably to prevent them?" He displays here his typical use of fallacies and misleading rhetoric. The "we" who do understand these disorders well is not responsible for what people eat on a daily basis. "We" certainly understand how to prevent most cases of lung cancer, but those of us who understand can't prevent people from smoking tobacco every day. "We" certainly also understand how to prevent obesity and T2 diabetes, but those of us who understand it don't have any control over the dietary habits of the majority.  An abundance of converging laboratory, clinical, and epidemiological evidence supports the conclusion that a whole foods plant-based diet can prevent and reverse these disorders.

However, Taubes ignores this evidence and disparages the work of thousands of scientists, implying that they are dishonest, disreputable, and even unscientific, when in fact he has never done a lick of scientific research himself, nor has he ever engaged in clinical practice, but he has frequently misrepresented the research and scientists, and writes his typical drivel to create confusion so as to promote a diet rich in meat and fat, an eating style which the research I mentioned above has shown to promote both obesity and diabetes.

I suggest these items for your reading list:

My book might also help:  Powered By Plants: Natural Selection & Human Nutrition


Don Matesz, M.A.(philosophy), M.S. (Oriental medicine), L.Ac. 


Anonymous said...

"If put in your positions, I would refuse to publish anything written by Gary Taubes,..."

It is typical of totalitarian leaning cultural Marxists to want to repress all dissenting views, since they cannot rationally debate the facts.

Don said...

Jack. LOL, Marxist, that's rich.

I gave the reasons I would refuse to publish, that is "rationally debating the facts."

The Right to Free Speech does not mean that every PRIVATE publisher is obligated to publish every piece of bullshit submitted. In our current DANGEROUS situation, it hopefully means that no POLITICIANS can repress dissenting views (i.e. COMPETING PRESSES) or force any one to express views that they don't Freely accept.

At last check, both the Times and I are private property, not "public property" so both the owners of the Times and I have 100% the Right to refuse to publish whatever we want to refuse to publish in our own publications. No one can coerce me into publishing views I do not want to publish. To say otherwise is to believe that the collective or the 'authorities' can force any One to speak every 'view' even if such 'views' are false.

I would never agree that if Taubes said "2 + 2 = 5" I would be morally obligated to publish this lie. If I did publish this, I would very much be MORALLY obligated to publish the Truth: 2 + 2 = 4. Of interest, the Times did not do that service (publish the dissenting view) when publishing Taubes. For example, they could have published a rebuttal by T. Colin Campbell. They did not. And so I, and others, wrote to them to provide the dissent.

Only a TOTALITARIAN would believe that the Times or any other publisher has an obligation to publish every falsehood submitted to their editorial desk. In fact, it is supposed to be a journalist's job to CHECK FACTS before publishing because no one has a Right to mislead people by crying wolf when there is no wolf.

To make it absolutely clear, I said nothing about suppressing Taube's right to publish his views IN HIS OWN publication, I said would refuse to publish them in MY publication because he has a history of lies and deceit.

That's because UNLIKE collectivists I do not accept the premise that I have to hand my Property and Reputation over to every immoral actor who wants to mislead the people. As a Free Man, I recognize that I have the Right to refuse to allow bad actors to use my Property (e.g my publication) to promote their bullshit, just as surely as I have a Right to refuse to allow criminals to rendevous in my living room. I also recognize a moral duty to speak the truth, and as already explained in the blog, this is exactly why I would not allow Taubes to publish his views in my publication (unless accompanied by a rebuttal).

Finally, only someone who cannot rationally debate the facts about Taubes's conduct and claims would try to refute an article on the same by resorting to the juvenile practice of calling the author unsavory names ("totalitarian leaning cultural Marxists").