'Our novel finding indicates that the ABO blood group is one of the genetically determined host factors modulating the composition of the human intestinal microbiota, thus enabling new applications in the field of personalized nutrition and medicine.'

Their novel idea?  

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22672382

Maybe they read it in a novel?

  Can they really be so blind that they didn't find similar conclusions already in the published material?

Maybe someone needs to show them the "search" button. No wonder conventional "knowledge" is in such a mess if this is an example of how "smart" they are!

Quoted from Spring

Maybe someone needs to show them the "search" button. No wonder conventional "knowledge" is in such a mess if this is an example of how "smart" they are!

I think modern education is somewhat akin to putting blinders on a Horse. Hopefully younger people today, having grown up with the 'search' button, will do a better job of exploring the terrain of knowledge and ideas available than their elders have. This 'discovery' does not really make my day.  

so late in coming.. so bad.. yet at least now they will wake up and smell the coffee?????

Ok lets look at the bright side-- they read Dr. D's books and think maybe he is on to something.


And Dr. D can use this in one of his bibliographies.  

a tiny recognition would have been very civilized

but that would be asking too much

http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2180-12-94.pdf

The researchers all have contact information on the first page.

Quoted Text

In this study, we hypothesized that the ABO blood group antigens, which are expressed on
the intestinal mucosa of secretor individuals [16,17] determine the gastrointestinal microbiota
composition in healthy individuals.

Were it me, I would be happy that someone went to the trouble of paying for a clinical trial and putting the results in a peer reviewed journal, another step towards proving my thesis.

Framed in the context of what is accepted as scientific evidence this is a novel finding.

More importantly, it is an important proof of theory.

"The Blood Type Diet is not scientifically proven"

"Well how about this study then? Here's some proof of theory! Peer reviewed!"

So, write the people on the first page and maybe they add an acknowledgment of the theory in practice prior to the study. Oh, and don't forget to thank them for running the study.

not so much blind as blatant copying look at some other research the first name has done

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu.....cauthor_uid=22672382

His CV http://fi.linkedin.com/pub/harri-m%C3%A4kivuokko/3/9a2/69b

Quoted from policychecker

not so much blind as blatant copying look at some other research the first name has done

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu.....cauthor_uid=22672382

His CV http://fi.linkedin.com/pub/harri-m%C3%A4kivuokko/3/9a2/69b

Are you saying that ideas should not be researched in a scientific manner that can be duplicated, and the details published with peer review? There is a limit to how far you can go with anectdotal evidence. Dr. D has done some lab work, notably with lectins, but you need to a lot more to gain acceptance.

The clinical trial that is the subject of the thread is an important step forward to validating BTD to the scientific community.

Quoted from Lloyd

Are you saying that ideas should not be researched in a scientific manner that can be duplicated, and the details published with peer review? There is a limit to how far you can go with anectdotal evidence. Dr. D has done some lab work, notably with lectins, but you need to a lot more to gain acceptance.

The clinical trial that is the subject of the thread is an important step forward to validating BTD to the scientific community.

Quoted Text

Their novel idea?  

Exactly what sort of response would someone expect to get after a comment like this? Your post seems to be playing down what Dr. D. has done..... Are all the supplements we buy just sort of a shot in the dark - based on what? I don't think so.

Quoted from Spring

Exactly what sort of response would someone expect to get after a comment like this? Your post seems to be playing down what Dr. D. has done..... Are all the supplements we buy just sort of a shot in the dark - based on what? I don't think so.

If I were to take your comment seriously I would have to believe that you are opposed to scientific research.

Dr. D  spent innumerable hours researching his ideas before writing his books. If you read the reference lists in ER4YT you will find that that research took advantage of a large number of publications like the one that is the subject of the thread. It doesn't lessen the theory or the work done on it, much less putting it into practice.

Dr. D's complaint is that his work was not recognized in print by the people who ran the study. Not that they ran the study. The study is a validation.

I agree with lloyd.  It is an evolving process.  There is already good biology that has seen O and B have 5 times higher alkaline phosphate (or whatever) than A in the upper GI tract, though all have same digestive power in lower GI tract.

Thats why A's got to spice up their food!

Dr D has always been ahead of the times – lucky for us he is.

Secretor genotype plays an important role in what types of microbiota are expressed in the intestinal mucosa.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21625510

I think we are all in agreement and that actually the "Their novel idea" is the cheeky thing.

since we all actually agree that Dr D is the Master, perhaps we should stop arguing or getting wound up with misrepresentation's of each other.

Really, the novel idea was my fathers...

Quoted from Dr. D

Really, the novel idea was my fathers...

Quoted Text

If I were to take your comment seriously I would have to believe that you are opposed to scientific research.

And just which comment would that be, Lloyd?

Quoted from Spring

And just which comment would that be, Lloyd?

The validation by independent researchers is an important part of the scientific process. Suitable trial designs with statistically significant results that can be duplicated by other independent researchers is the epitome of the validation process.

The accrued benefits of validation lead to things like the BTD, which relies on a combination of validated and unvalidated parts as part of a broad hypothetical approach. The validation of any part of the hypothesis strengthens the whole. It may also uncover some other facet that requires adjustment of the hypothesis or the application, which as you know has happened with Dr. D's work as well.

A person may decide for themself that something is valid without independent confirmation based on any of a number of things including partial scientific research, personal experience or the report of someone else's personal experience. All popular diets fads have this dimension, by way of example.

The validation process by way of independent scientific research, whether the findings are novel or confirmatory, is huge.

Many things have been "validated" by many "scientists." We read stuff all the time that someone has "validated" something only to find that some other person/s "proved" them wrong. At this point in my life, I take all of it with a big grain of salt until I have seen some sort of validation with my own eyes - especially when my life may depend on it. I guess you could say that I am sort of jaded by so-called "validation" by so-called scientists! Actually, maybe not just "sort of" jaded, but completely jaded!!

Dr. D's work made perfect sense to me about two minutes after I first started reading one of his books because of my own beliefs that had been formed over a period of over forty years.

So to say that I don't seem to believe in scientific research reminds me of Benjamin Franklin. I can just see the scientists of today accepting him! "No string of degrees after his name - who does he think he is anyway?! He is no scientist, what does he know?!" People on this forum are proving things for themselves all the time. Day in and day out.

Of course, we would like to see Dr. D. recognized for his work! But, for the most part, all these Johnny-come-lately folks are only interested in seeing their own work recognized, or so it would seem.

Quoted from Spring

Many things have been "validated" by many "scientists." We read stuff all the time that someone has "validated" something only to find that some other person/s "proved" them wrong. At this point in my life, I take all of it with a big grain of salt until I have seen some sort of validation with my own eyes - especially when my life may depend on it. I guess you could say that I am sort of jaded by so-called "validation" by so-called scientists! Actually, maybe not just "sort of" jaded, but completely jaded!!

So I can put you down as agreeing to the validation of (the thesis of) bacterial affinity by blood type via the study that Dr. D mentioned in the original post, or are you saying that you don't agree that the study was valid or that it didn't validate the concept? Or are you saying the researchers were not properly credentialed? That validation is not needed? Remember that Dr. D relied to a large degree on validated work to come up with the BTD.

For my part, I don't have any need whatsoever of having Dr. D.'s work "validated." It has withstood the test of time in all ways that are important to me and many, many others.

He didn't seem to receive any recognition of his work in the article, but one thing you cannot deny is that when those who have tried every way under the sun to INVALIDATE or bury his work, his name was mentioned loudly and long. So was that an invalidation of all those that Dr. D. has used as references? Not to us, of course.

If Dr. D. wants to use their reference in the future, that is his choice to make.