|« Sissies.||New Toys, Neutrons. »|
I've made point of never actually reading the Wikipedia entries on myself and The Blood Type Diet. However, I was playing around with the new www.cuil.com search engine and the Wikipedia entry came up for the BTD. I was pleased to see that the entry on me personally has been deleted, as I had requested. However, that was just about all I was happy to read.
I've known all along that a lot of 'Diet War' well-poisoning goes on at Wikipedia, so I was not surprised to see the normal stable of misrepresentations and deliberate factual cherry-picking that characterizes the entry. More surprising was the deliberate attempt to put various statements and values into my mouth which I had never said or written. One of the cited 'criticisms' is just a page from a MLM website.
Well, sadly enough, one just can't ignore Wikipedia, since thousands of people depend on it for information. I changed a few things up front with the entry, leaving what I thought were valid comments, even if they were negative. I tried to footnote everything where possible.
I left the following message on the Talk Page:
Rot and Worse
I extensively added my own input in response to some of the more unctous paragraphs, in an otherwise terrible entry. I've removed one criticism, which actually did nothing but link back to a general page on my own website. I've also countered several efforts to inveigle points by putting words in my mouth, including the notion that I have claimed that lectins are the 'cornerstone' of the theory and that '1000's of references cited by D'Adamo do not specifically support his associations between blood type and foods' with the obvious reducio ad absurdum that if any one of them actually did, I would suspect that they could justifiably be considered the originator of the theory.
Finally, on the subject of research. By all means. Now, what would be the null hypothesis, and how would we dispove it? Obviously to prove the whole theory, we would need to run controlled studies on each blood group versus some sort of placebo. True, the ABO testing part is simple, but don't be silly; that's only the start. What biomarkers shall we monitor? E-selectin might be a good one, or maybe just weight loss. What numbers would we need? Couple of hundred; maybe a thousand. What pre-study baselines should we have? CBC? CRP? Lewis Antigens? Follow-up? Staffing? Anyone want to hazard a guess at the price? I'd say maybe 7-10 million.
Now, without this 'burden of proof' I should not write anything, hypothesize anything or claim anything until we get the money and get the test done, even though I would be more than happy just considering the whole thing still a theory. Nothing distasteful there. Einstein had theories. He didn't have to show burns on the seat of his pants from riding light beams across the universe. Me, I just run little studies to try and poke wholes in the one-size fits all diet/disease concept.
Anyway, OK.. I get the money and get the study done. Oiula! My theory is wonderful! A medical breakthrough!
Not so fast.. 'Of course he got those results, he did that study himself. We need independant corroboration.'
Now, how many scientists do you think are going to stick their neck out on this type of research? The internet is full of 'diet war skullduggery': vegan websites which trash the theory because it tells some people to eat meat; and paleo websites that attack it because it tells some people that carbohydrates and soy may not be so bad for them.
Does Wikipedia have an entry on 'Diet Wars'? It really should.
On the other hand people can at least look at some simple anecdotal evidence (aka 'self-reported outcomes' when you are Dean Ornish).
But where this entry really misses the point, is its complete lack of any attempt to fit the Blood Type Diet into any historical context, a sad oversight for an 'encyclopedia' if you ask me. This theory was advanced almost three decades ago, with the idea that there may well be something such as a 'personalized diet.' Ten years ago it was low-fat versus low-carb. Ornish versus Atkins. Here was a system that said in essence they were both correct... to a degree. And a determinant was a simple gene that anyone could discover for free. Like it or not, from a historical perspective it will always be the first nutrigenomic diet.
So... lack of independant verification? Yes. Large body of anecdotal evidence?... Yes. Conclusions albeit circumstantially supported by the general body of evidence?.. Yes. Blood group characterizations in keeping with parameters as observed in the literature (myocardial infarct, blood rheology, soluable endothelial factors, intestinal enzymes, brush border hydroxylases, pepsinogen, etc).. Yes.
This entry sort of reminds me of the cover of 'Beggars Banquet' by the Rolling Stones. Not the nice one with the engraved invitation... The first one with the toilet bowl and the graffiti..
PeterDAdamo (talk) 12:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I guess I'm going to have to pay more attention to this in the future. My advice is save a copy of the current page while you can. No doubt it will be 'reverted' as soon possible.
'I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!'
-Captain Renault, 'Casablanca' 1942)
Most individuals are woefully uninformed as to how complex (and expensive) a double-blind study would have to be, to adequately "test" the BTD.
Besides, how would you ensure that your test subjects only ate what they were supposed to?
Anyway..."MLM website"...??? "Mostly Lousy Malarkey"?
MLM= 'multi-level marketing' -p
-Also, for the sake of animal welfare I did stop eating meet for about 5 months when i was in my late 20's, I ate a lot of beans, legumes and nuts as reccomended in numerous vegetarian books and yet,-It made me feel totally misserable.
That's true. However, I was the one who told the Wikimedia Foundation that I was not 'sufficiently notable' since it as the only way I could get them to delete the article. They will not 'officially' delete an article simply because it is poorly written. Sorry to disappoint you. Frankly from your fixation with this sort of minutiae and your fake email address, I hazard you might have an even less notable life than mine.--PD
Re: [Ticket#2007121310013944] My page on wikipedia
December 13, 2007 12:07:59 PM EST
"Because if the wikipedia project feels that you are sufficently notable, then they want an entry on you. I have nominated the article for deletion and we shall see what the community feels. Thank you."
Comments are not allowed from anonymous visitors.