The debate over saturated fats continues as BMJ issues a press release in relation to the article they previously published, “The scientific report guiding the US dietary guidelines: is it scientific?”, by Nina Teicholz:
Independent experts find no grounds for retraction of The BMJ article on dietary guidelines
- Formal reviews reject calls for retraction led by Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI)
- Reviewers say criticisms of methods used by the guidelines committee “are within the realm of scientific debate,” and merit “further investigation of the composition of the committee”
- The BMJ is publishing a notice of correction and clarification
- Journal stands by the article and will continue to provide a forum for debate on the science and politics of nutrition
Two independent experts who conducted formal post-publication reviews of an article in The BMJ questioning the science behind US dietary guidelines have found no grounds for retraction. The BMJ is, however, publishing a notice of correction and clarification to the article on the basis of the reviews and internal assessment of the issues raised.
Ms Teicholz comments on the retraction here. There’s a lot, but here’s the part that caught my eye:
A fundamental question is why 170+ researchers (including all the 2015 DGA committee members, or “DGAC”), organized by the advocacy group, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), would sign a letter asking for retraction. After all, in the weeks following publication, any person had the opportunity to submit a “Rapid Response” to the article, and both CSPI and the DGAC did so, alleging many errors. I responded to them all in my Rapid Response. This is the normal post-publication process.
Yet after all this, CSPI returned for a second round of criticisms, recycling two of the issues (CSPI points #3 and #10) that I had already addressed in my Rapid Response (and which had required no correction), adding another 9 (one of which, #4, contained no challenge of fact), and demanding that based on these alleged errors, the article be retracted. CSPI then circulated this letter widely to colleagues and asked them to sign on.
Last spring, a journalist for The Guardian, Ian Leslie, was able to quickly unmask the nature of CSPI’s campaign. Leslie interviewed many of the researchers who had signed CSPI’s petition:
“They were happy to condemn the article in general terms, but when I asked them to name just one of the supposed errors in it, not one of them was able to. One admitted he had not read it. Another told me she had signed the letter because the BMJ should not have published an article that was not peer reviewed (it was peer reviewed). Meir Stampfer, a Harvard epidemiologist, asserted that Teicholz’s work is ‘riddled with errors,’ while declining to discuss them with me.”
Indeed, quite a few sets of emails obtained by a blogger including those by Harvard professor Frank Hu, all obtained via public records requests, reveal researchers passing along the retraction request as if it were a chain letter, agreeing to sign on without asking a single question about the substance of the alleged errors.
Big Sugar conspiracy? Seems unlikely to me. More likely, researchers protecting their turf without being willing to question the very foundations of their field – always a hard thing to do, particularly if they are not truly independent of their funding. But I don’t know, I’m not an expert in the field. BMJ’s decision not to retract after a proper, independent review does suggest there’s something going on, though.
And I know I put on weight when I indulge in carbs, but not when I eat steak. And my last two heart scans actually show my heart is improving, from a “2” to a “1” – my GP started tearing at his hair when he saw that. “It’s not supposed to get better!” he lamented. I kid you not. I’ve been trying to move away from carbs and sugars over the years, but I do give some credit to the dark chocolate I regularly consume.
Yeah, yeah, just anecdotal. Unless it applies to me.
