Talk:Blood type diet

Comments

I searched Wikipedia to find information on blood type diets because I read about them in a magazine, but I could not find anything except this article. I think Wikipedia should definitely have an article on blood type diets, but this article as it is now is not what I have in mind. I need a serious article with lots of information and explaining why blood type diets is pseudoscience. Please do improve the article! Happyjappie (talk) 19:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

This stub does not contain any science at all. All that the quoted nutritionist really has to say is that she doesn't know of any "science" supporting the diet. Given the incredibly poor record of nutritional "science"--remember when margarine was better than butter, and organic food advocates were nut cases?--the word of one quasi-expert is almost worse here than nothing. Alanyoder (talk) 19:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

There used to be a much longer article on the blood type diet (or diets) on Wikipedia, but it was summarily deleted by OrangeMike on the basis of 'blatant advertising'. Since the diet is, unfortunately, very well known and the article was not uncritical I regard that decision as incomprehensible. However, I'm not prepared to spend time and energy trying to reverse this decision as I doubt it will be easy. If writing an article from scratch is deemed preferable for some reason http://www.owenfoundation.com/Health_Science/Blood_Type_Diet_FAQ.html and the more excited http://skepdic.com/bloodtypediet.html may prove useful.Umbl (talk) 23:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the references to critics in the first paragraph do not prove a consensus and should be replaced by some solid print sources. I helped craft this semi-neutral page and it was a tooth and nail fight to balance the views of diet advocates and skeptics. There is a lot of technical discussion from the advocates' perspective to provide background, but not so much specific critical response. If you view references 1-7, the critical mantra is "no scientific evidence" making a detailed scientific discussion difficult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spellmagi (talk • contribs) 02:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this topic is another example of a comparatively "new" theory being shouted down by members of the academic establishment who have a vested interest in preserving the conventional wisdom on which they have based their life's work. Ptolemy, Copernicus and countless others have suffered a similar fate. Worse yet, for this very reason, the early advocates of such theories tend to exaggerate and oversell them, so the sympathetic publications do come off sounding faddish and unscientific. None of which negates the theory in question. There is "no evidence" of any dietary link to blood type because no one in the medical or nutritional academic establishment has EVER studied the question in a scientific fashion, probably because it would be politically incorrect and professionally self-defeating to do so. The key point is that no scientific research has either proven or dis-proven these theories. It would be quite unfortunate if Wiki cannot serve as a neutral reference source on such "emerging" disciplines simply because certain skeptics would summarily delete an entire article because they do not agree with it, or because the advocates of such theories would use Wiki as a platform for naked boosterism. Jrgilb (talk) 02:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

That all sounds nice and warm and fuzzy, but the actual result of operating that way is that people fill up articles with anything they feel like saying, and you just get a bunch of incomprehensible and self-contradictory cruft. Wikipedia's policy is that articles have to be based on reputable sources. This may occasionally lead to missing something important, but the alternative is a lot worse. Looie496 (talk) 17:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

This article only discusses D'Adamo's theories and books. Is there anyone else doing similar research? It's hard to believe that D'Adamo is the only one to publish anything on the topic. Neemund (talk) 00:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are other individuals doing similar research. Laura Power, MS, PhD, LDN has been conducting research on this subject for 20 years. She has two books due sometime in 2010: http://www.laurapower.com/page9.html. Also, you can currently look at her research on her website here: http://www.biotype.net/diets/index.htm. She also discusses, and criticizes, D'Adamo's work in a published article for the Journal of Nutritional & Environmental Medicine, which you can read here: http://www.laurapower.com/Biotype%20Diets%20System-JNEM.pdf. Hope this helps. 12.52.177.186 (talk) 19:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

First, I am a graduate student in Archaeology and Anthropology at the University of Arizona. Second, anyone with a basic knowledge of human evolution, the development of complex societies, and archaeology would immediately know that Dr. D'Adamo's theory is pure pseudoscience. The article states:

D'Adamo groups those thirteen races together by ABO blood group, each type within this group having unique dietary recommendations: * Blood group O is believed by D'Adamo to be the hunter, the earliest human blood group. The diet recommends that this blood group eat a higher protein diet. D'Adamo bases this on the belief that O blood type was the first blood type, originating 30,000 years ago. * Blood group A is called the cultivator by D'Adamo, who believes it to be a more recently evolved blood type, dating back from the dawn of agriculture, 20,000 years ago. The diet recommends that individuals of blood group A eat a diet emphasizing vegetables and free of red meat, a more vegetarian food intake. * Blood group B is, according to D'Adamo, the nomad, associated with a strong immune system and a flexible digestive system. The blood type diet claims that people of blood type B are the only ones who can thrive on dairy products and estimates blood type B arrived 10,000 years ago. * Blood group AB, according to D'Adamo, the enigma, the most recently evolved type, arriving less than 1,000 years ago. In terms of dietary needs, his blood type diet treats this group as an intermediate between blood types A and B.

Agriculture did not develop 20,000 years ago. The earliest evidence for farming comes from Mesopotamia/Anatolia region at around 12,000 BP. Not 20,0000 BP as the "Dr." claims. Second, nomadism as a lifestyle is actually a lot older than the agriculturally lifestyle. One can say that when Homo erectus left Africa they were practicing a nomadic subsistence strategy. Furthermore, there is no proof that nomads "thrive" on dairy products. People who practice pastoralism first developed lactose tolerance. Moreover, populations are mixed blood-types, so in societies where people regularly consume dairy products one can reasonably expect that they are not all "B" blood types.

I am quite underwhelmed by the lack of scientific evidence to support blood type diets. There is a vague recommendation that people with B+ blood type should eat a balance diet, yet avoid chicken. It is unheard of. However, there are randomized, scientific studies to support balanced, low-carbohydrate diets, with a recent article published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

Dr. D'Adamo, perhaps you can give up some links to your prior published works that you refer to in your book. I was unable to locate a website for "J Naturopath Med," published by the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians. Is it still in publication? In your website section of "Scientific Writings," sub-section "Diet, Disease and the ABO Blood Groups," you write:

Although I wrote this paper over 25 years ago, I think it should still be read by any clinician who doubts the widespread activity of ABO antigens outside the blood stream and their consistent association with disorders of the digestive tract.-Peter D'Adamo

Can you provide any scientific studies that further evaluated the "associations" since your 1981 "Rounds/ Journal Club course requirement" paper? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.201.166 (talk) 06:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

POV

There really is no way to scientifically to prove or disprove Blood Type Diet theory but I will point out some problems I have with it. First of all, it stereotypes people based on their BLOOD TYPE (something they can do NOTHING to change). Type O's are "hunters" and are "aggressive predators" (sexual references) where as type A's are delicate and are advised not to stay up past 11:00 at night (poor things). As for the diet and exercise advise, type A's are told to avoid corn, wheat and meat (don't be a meat eater!). Again, sexual stereotyping, perhaps subtle but definitely there. Furthermore, the man advertises himself as a Doctor (he is NOT an MD) and tells you how you can become a patient in one of his clinics. And of course you simply must buy his book. Folks, it's all about money. You can believe in it if you want, but if you choose to believe in it, do your friends and family a favor and don't try and covert everyone around you. Lots of people read the personality descriptions and dietary recommendations and simply decide it is not for them (and it probably isn't). Don't try and tell them they have to believe in it. They aren't like you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviatorpilotman (talk • contribs) 00:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

This article is full of red herrings and non-falsifiable claims by a variety of critics with their own agendas to further. Until a serious and unbiased attempt is made to examine all the facts, not just posting references to unsupported criticisms that have their own agendas (be they vegetarian diets or a generalized dislike of alternative medicine) I will stress the need to call the entire neutral stance of the article into question. Most of the criticisms listed are cherry picked from a variety of sources which have been disputed or dispensed with numerous times. The interpretation of D'Adamo's stance of anthropology and blood groups (really AE Mourant's work with blood groups) is so far from reality as to call into question the ultimate purpose of this article. Disputing the science behind this theory by citing shortcomings in a book obviously written for the mass market, while ignoring or excluding a much more intellectually intense primary body of work just illustrates the superficiality of the whole Wikipedia enterprise, and prompts me to dispute the neutrality of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.151.105.234 (talk • contribs) 04:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Back again, Peter? I agree some of the criticisms may be irrelevant, but the key criticisms (no evidence of efficacy beyond testimonials, and implausibility of the theoretical underpinnings) continue to be fatally valid, and have never been refuted by your "responses". This article is ridiculously biased by the claims that your theory has been supported by European research. Those are not references to research reports-- those are links to selected quotes on your self-aggrandizing website! But no more than the usual intellectual dishonesty associated with your enterprises. Is this article worth cleaning up? Be happy you dont seem worth the trouble right now. alteripse (talk) 22:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

From Peter D'Adamo

Alteripse, I'd like to be worthy of your trouble. Since you've accused me of "intellectual dishonesty" (whatever that is), why not take your words on to the floor and show us what you have. If you had instead relaxed your bite-guard, you might have actually read the original paragraph correctly; in fact the line to 'selected quotes' was a counter to a claim from the 'Owen Foundation' (joke) person that my conclusions were not 'by and large accepted' by experts in the field of lectins and glycobiology (really meaning Arpad Puztai). If someone was going to paste up a pure opinion by Putzai, why not get another lectinologist (Gerhard Uhlenbruck) to provide another?

More signs that this article contains toxic material, although this instance is so stupid that I think it actually complements the overall tone of the article and serves as a bit of a warning:

"Also, by limiting the very complex human beings to just four limiting stereotypes, the blood type diet has been likened to a "blood type astrology".[10]"

A recent study was able to predict dietary predilections using three genes (FABP2, PPARG and ADRB2). Another oversimplification I suppose. Perhaps, as Klaper would maintain, making everyone a vegan and limiting everyone to one stereotype would be even better.

This next one is just dead wrong. Although it has the ring of the scientist, the facts are incorrect. In reality, about 20-25% of all dietary lectins are blood group specific (Nachbar) and even Putzai lists blood group as one of his main modifiers of aberrant glycosylation (Trends Glycosci.Glycotechnol.8:149-165). Pubmed is full of references to lectin characterizations that include blood group specificity (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6202604).

"D'Adamo claims there are many ABO specific lectins in foods.[11] This claim is unsubstantiated by established biochemical research, which has not found differences in how the lectins react with a given human ABO type. In fact, research shows that lectins which are specific for a particular ABO type are not found in foods (except for one or two rare exceptions, e.g. lima bean), and that lectins with ABO specificity are more frequently found in non-food plants or animals.[12][13]"

Finally, I'd like to understand why every time anyone includes a reference to a well-known association between some physiological process and ABO blood groups --such as IAP or vWF-- that will almost automatically have significance with regard to diet, it gets hacked out? My suspicion is that those are easier to cut out than they are to refute.

In reality, there should be an Wikipedia entry on the 'Non-transfusion significance of human blood groups' since there is a lot of information on the subject that is not reflected anywhere else in the encyclopedia and a title similar to this will not act as a lightening rod for diatribes like 'Blood Type Diet' does.

I see Laura Power 'PhD' (http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/donsbachuniv.html) has stopped by to plug her book and website.

I'd vote for an NPOV flag rather then bother editing this garbage.

Above was contributed under the heading From Peter D'Adamo. Whether this was posted by the author of the Blood Type Diet, we cannot be certain. The following response to the direct questions assumes that it was.

Good grief Peter. You really want a response? I will give it, but you may not like it. First, the NPOV response. Second, my particular POV.

NPOV: As I understand it, the core claim you have been making for over a decade, expressed as succinctly and objectively and neutrally as possible, is this: A significant proportion of people could significantly improve their health by objective measures by checking their own ABO blood type and refraining from eating certain specified types of food that cause direct physical harm for people of that blood type.

That is a meaningful, testable thesis grounded in the real world. If true it would be potentially a valuable contribution to public health, and should be included as a fundamental part of much medical care. The scientific evidence that would support it directly and convincingly would be a scientifically designed trial making use of measures to exclude subjectivity and erroneous interpretation of results, such as specifying ahead of time which objective measures of health would be made at the beginning and end of the trial, the magnitude of benefit or harm that would be considered "significant" enough to make following the diet worth the trouble for people, the number of subjects needed to detect the significant difference and be fairly sure it wasnt a chance result, etc. These are the basic things that scientists do to try to distinguish real relationships in the material world from chance associations or subjective impressions.

To date, no such evidence of the value and efficacy of the Blood Type Diet has been published. Nearly all of the thousands of citations of supportive evidence offered by Mr. D'Adamo can be classed as either (1) Studies that show a statistical association between blood group and various diseases and conditions, or (2) studies that show in vitro differences in the interactions of food molecules such as lectins with various human cells or oomponents of the immune system, or (3) unsubstantiated testimonials and anecdotes that some people tried it and felt better in some way, or (4) quotations or citations from a few medical scientists that might be construed as suggesting that a relationship between diet and blood type might be plausible. The vast majority of dieticians, doctors, and nutritional scientists have considered it implausible and/or not worth paying attention to.

As part of his rationale, Mr. D'Adamo provides a story of human evolution that asserts that blood groups represent clues to food compatibility because human societies once lived in groups in which blood types were more distinctly different, and that these groups developed different types of diets that were compatible with their blood types.

The above facts might constitute the basis of an NPOV encyclopedia article. If Mr D'Adamo and his supporters were satisfied with such an article, so would most critics.

My POV on this. Why do I consider you so dishonest? First, perhaps I am wrong, but my suspicion is that such a definitive study of efficacy could actually have been done many times over since you originally marketed the book, for a small fraction of what you have earned from it, if you sincerely wished to test its efficacy. Therefore I consider your past promises of research to be insincere if not downright dishonest.

Second, because you pretend that scientific evidence directly supporting the diet has been published. However, you borrow the work of a thousand real scientists who have actually tried to measure things that would support or refute their hypotheses and you use the citations in a way that implies to naive readers that the work supports your assertion. Let's get real specific. It does not prove your thesis if real research has shown a statisical association between certain diseases and specific blood types, nor if in a test tube there are interactions between certain food components and certain parts of the immune system. It is simply dishonest to pretend that these studies do so.

Third, you have, as far as i know, never acknowledged the absence of directly supportive evidence or the difference between evidence that would actually support your thesis and evidence that weakly supports the plausibility of a single aspect of it.

Fourth, the silly evolutionary just-so story is ridiculous, and not supported by historical or anthropological or genetic evidence.

An aspect of your dishonesty that is especially annoying is that it has the superficial trappings of science: you use the language and provide citations in a way that real scientists use to reference relevant support, when in actuality, not a single one of your thousands of references actually provides material support for your assertion. Haven't you made claims that you were conducting real research that would provide support when in fact you have been doing nothing that would actually have had a chance of definitively proving or disproving your thesis? Your use of these citations has always reminded me of the Aesop's fable about the crow using the borrowed plumage to pretend he is something he isn't. If you didn't pretend that this is science, then real scientists, dieticians and doctors would not hold you in such contempt. I certainly would not have paid attention to this page.

Does that answer your questions clearly enough? I have no intentions of trying to insert these opinions into the article because I do understand the difference beteween fact and opinion. Can you dispute my basic description of the diet and the types of evidence that are available and unavailable, and your claims with respect to evidence? If you can live with the NPOV part of this description, I think most editors would. alteripse (talk) 14:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Pure quackery. Let's get a real clinical trial. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 17:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

We should get a clinical trial. Then again, I always thought that in science, it was the responsibility of those who dispute or challenge a scientist's hypothesis and initial findings who are obligated to perform and publish evidence to refute that scientist's hypothesis and initial findings. Since when did it become the responsibility of the theorist to conduct dozens of clinical trials to "prove to the world" the veracity of his theory? Too much of what I'm reading here conflates "Diet Wars" ideological claptrap with serious science. D'Adamo has put forth his theory and presented his evidence supporting its basis. Now, let's get some scientists in here who can point to real evidence from published clinical trials done sometime in the 30 years since D'Adamo Sr. first published "One Man's Food... is Someone Else's Poison" that people eating certain foods and avoiding others based on blood groups experience no statistically significant effects on objective measures of their health. 173.2.46.41 (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• You're wrong, that's not how it works. It is up to the person proposing a new therapy to show that it works. In addition, this is far from a serious "hypothesis" (let alone a theory - yes, there is a difference). What is needed for that is an explanation that makes scientific sense. What I see in this article and what you are saying amounts to me "hypothesizing" that the moon is made of green cheese and now it's up to you to prove that this is not true... The criticisms of this "hypothesis" here are well-sourced. D'Adamo's ideas are given with mention of his books. I don't see how this is not neutral. --Crusio (talk) 15:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

D'Adamo has cited evidence from thousands of published studies that collectively represent the entire body of non-transfusion significance of human blood groups. In over a dozen well-sourced publications, including an academic Textbook, D'Adamo and his colleagues have presented his theory that explains how blood types influence which foods a human should eat and provided the explanations of why they should eat and avoid certain foods. Where then, is your evidence in support of your claim that "this is far from a serious 'hypothesis'"? To mean, your claims that there is "no evidence" for a relationship between human blood groups and factors that clearly dictate a reason for dietary differences based on blood group is as intellectually dishonest as saying that there is "no evidence" for the theory of evolution because you have a fossilized footprint in your back yard of a human foot alongside a dinosaur's or that there is "no evidence" for the human impact on global climate change because there is some evidence that climate change in general is part of a naturally-occurring cycle. If I was to believe in every crank who claimed that there is "no evidence" for the explanation of available evidence that was the simplest and most elegant; and instead, I put faith in crazy ideas that fly in the face of common sense, I would be a credulous fool indeed. The ancient Roman poet and philosopher, Titus Lucretius Carus (ca. 99 BC – ca. 55 BC), was quoted as saying: “One man’s food may be another man's poison.” Put another way, "Perhaps you have heard Russian epic of Cinderella? If shoe fits, wear it!" 173.2.46.41 (talk) 19:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the above user is Mr D'Adamo. If you are could you please admit that or state that you work with him before editing the page. I used ip2location [1] to trace the ip to Norwalk, and a search for "D'Adamo Norwalk" brings up his clinic. [2] Let's get some peer-reviewed papers in Nature or the Lancet. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 21:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I can assure you that I am not D'Adamo. What I can also assure you is that it's impossible to have general agreement, a.k.a. "consensus among dieticians, physicians, and scientists" on a subject and a body of research about which 98+% of the scientific community is wholly and completely ignorant. If they weren't, then I'm sure one of them would've published the same theory by now, and in fact, some have. You will notice that a search of Amazon.com of "Blood Type Diet" returns books written by others than D'Adamo.

If we're going to disqualify people from editing the article based on their location, I suggest we prohibit anyone whose native language is not English from editing the article. I noticed that my friend Crusio, the instigator of this little "edit war," is français. Perhaps then, the true meaning of the word "consensus" is merely lost in translation. In English, "consensus" means "An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole" or "General agreement or accord." Clearly, your use of the word in the first context is inappropriate here.

As for the second, how can "dieticians, physicians, and scientists" have "general agreement or accord" on a subject about which they have no expertise. That would be like saying (to use your analogy) that "there is general consensus amongst 98+% of all food scientists that the moon is made of cheese." Completely irrelevant. Food scientists are not qualified to assess the nature of the moon, and even if they were, I doubt that there could be such a consensus.

In the same way, only a scientist or physician who has made a study of anthropology, lectinology, immunology, genetics, and epigenetics to at least a level similar to D'Adamo (i.e., has written an academic textbook that draws from all of these disciplines, including many of their more arcane and challenging concepts, and created a new paradigm for understanding personalized nutrition) has the intellectual authority to even consider being a part of such a "consensus." The rest are just here for envious, eristic exchange.

"Let's get some peer-reviewed papers in Nature or the Lancet." I agree. Perhaps Mr. Kegg would like to apply for the for NIH grant and conduct the study to show the lack of any health effects of serotype-specific food choices. I await his outcomes with great anticipation. In the meantime, I trust he's read the recent report in the Lancet[3] confirming the association between cardiovascular disease risk and ABO blood groups first popularly reported by D'Adamo 15 years ago in Eat Right for Your Type. 173.2.46.41 (talk) 11:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• This will be my last response to this discussion. 1/ Apparently you have taken the opportunity to look me up (here you have the advantage on me: I edit under my real name, you're an anonymous IP) and figured out that I live in France. If you had been a bit more careful, you'd also have seen that I am not "français". I think it is you who does not know what the word "consensus" means. It's something very different from "unanimous". 2/ How nice of you to take my green cheese example so serious. However, you still do not understand how science works. If somebody dreams up a "hypothesis" (not a theory), then in order to be taken seriously by the scientific community, that hypothesis needs to be founded securely in theory and supported by data. Once we're at that point, other scientists may perhaps want try to falsify the hypothesis. The blood type diet is not at all founded in solid theory (at least nothing coming close to being accepted by even a minority of scientists). There are no serious data showing that this might work. Why on Earth would any serious scientist want to waste time by carrying out research to try to test this "hypothesis"? 3/Finally, it's the usual defense of quacks all over the world to say that only someone who has studied the same subjects as them is qualified to evaluate their work. The collection of subjects, of course, is usually so eclectic that there is probably only one person (themselves) like that anyway. Again, this is false. Different parts of D'Adamo's hypotheses are being criticized by specialists in their particular fields; together the result is quite damning. Summarizing: There is no coherent scientific foundation for this hypothesis. D'Adamo has not been able (or willing) to publish his ideas in mainstream peer-reviewed scientific journals. The hypothesis has been severely criticized by experts from several different fields. There are no supporting data. The conclusion is unavoidable: the hypothesis is false. Clinging to it in the absence of any positive evidence is, therefore, pseudoscience. As for the article here: it explains the hypothesis in a neutral way. It lists the criticisms and the responses of D'Adamo to that. Everything is meticulously sourced. Conclusion: the article is neutral and encyclopedic. --Crusio (talk) 12:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• A few points:

1.) With regard to the difference between "consensus" and "unanimity," I would agree that they have different meanings. I would also posit to you that neither would be appropriate in the instant case. See here: http://groupfacilitation.net/Articles%20for%20Facilitators/Consensus%20&%20Unanimity.html for a more complete coverage of the words and their meanings.

2.) As someone who has studied the blood type diet hypothesis extensively, I take immediate issue with your claim that "blood type diet is not at all founded in solid theory." D'Adamo has made the case for the theoretical basis of the blood type diet in over a dozen different publications. Your rejection of their hypothesis does not constitute a "consensus," nor has there been sufficient scientific investigation of the hypothesis to warrant your claim that a "consensus" has been reached "that the theory is unsupported by scientific evidence." In fact, as time goes by, and an increasing number of scientific minds examine the available evidence, the growing "consensus" amongst D'Adamo's colleagues is that the idea of eating according to one’s blood type has significant effects on objective measures of health is not only here to stay, but one whose hour has come.

3.) As to your claim that there is "no serious data showing that this might work," I would refer you to the easily searchable database of case reports that D'Adamo has published directly to his website in a searchable format here: http://www.dadamo.com/resultbase/resultbase.cgi I would point out that he has stated that analyses of over 10,000 case reports shows a positive response rate of roughly 70-75% improvement of objective measures of health by people following vastly different diets based on blood group. If, in fact, there was a one-sized-fits-all diet as many nutritionists claim, you would expect to see the blood group eating that diet to have close to a 100% success rate, while the other 3 would have varying levels of success based on the variance of their diet from the ideal diet.

4.) I would assume that when publications are saying things like "the idea of eating according to one’s blood type is here to stay, whether you buy it or not" (http://www.observer.org.sz/index.php?news=24490), it might be time for some "serious scientists" to "waste" a little time and money testing the hypothesis.

5.) As to your claim that, "It's the usual defense of quacks all over the world to say that only someone who has studied the same subjects as them is qualified to evaluate their work," I couldn't agree more. That said, D'Adamo is far from a "quack," and one cannot deny that to study anthropology, lectinology, immunology, genetics, and epigenetics is not a common occurrence. What I have seen from the "criticisms" of true scientists in any of those fields is that while they concur with D'Adamo's assessment of the evidence, because they are unable to take the "bigger picture" of the hypothesis into account, they state that it is "impossible" to extrapolate the evidence to make viable dietary recommendations. Clearly, that's their opinion, and they are welcome to it, but I could just as equally state that based on only the one recent study on cardiovascular disease risk and blood groups cited supra, it is quite likely more important for group A individuals and less important for group O individuals to adhere to the principles of a cardioprotective diet (plant-based proteins), which is reflected in D'Adamo's recommendations. So, here we see that even with only 1 study, we can start to make the inferences about blood type based nutrition that D'Adamo has made after reading thousands and performing his own independent tests. A lot of the issue of how much evidence is needed before one can start making recommendations related to and based upon that evidence is encapsulated in opinion and the degree to which a scientist is willing to "stick out his neck," so to speak. Most of the so-called "criticisms" cited in this article are not only written by physicians with their own dietary axes to grind, often due to the fact that they have their own published nutrition books to sell and/or their ideology leads them to reject any diet that advocates flesh consumption for some humans. D'Adamo has successfully rebutted those criticisms on his own site here: http://www.dadamo.com/science_critic.htm As for the benefit of increased evidence, D'Adamo is the first to agree that additional research to confirm, refine, or disprove the hypothesis is needed as funding permits.

Summarizing: There is a clear, coherent scientific foundation for the blood type diet hypothesis. D'Adamo has published the theoretical basis of his hypothesis in ideas in over a dozen well-sourced publications, including an academic Textbook. While the hypothesis has been criticized and supported by experts from several different related fields, most of the criticisms are from competing diet book authors or those with axes to grind and have been refuted successfully by D'Adamo. There is considerable supporting data. The conclusion is unavoidable: the hypothesis may be true. Denying it in the absence of any negative evidence is, therefore, pseudoskepticism. As for the article here, regardless of one's feelings or beliefs about the validity of the blood type diet hypothesis, the NPOV banner must remain in place unless and until the hypothesis can be presented in a way that reflects a neutral point of view, i.e., that is neutral and encyclopedic. Conclusion: The NPOV dispute continues without positive resolution one way or another. Any deletion of the NPOV banner until it is resolved is a violation of the Wiki NPOV policy. 173.2.46.41 (talk) 06:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you work with Mr D'Adamo, or for his organisation? There are a number of alternative health practitioners at 83 East Avenue. Do you really think evidence for a theory could be garnered from self reported claims with no apparent control and reported by the promoter of the theory?. The biggest publication you could find to support the theory is the Swazi Observer? There are bigger (and more critical reviews) in the Guardian [4] among others. Years and months later, there just haven't been any large studies that prove that the diet works. The fact that other dietitians seem to be the main critics suggests that they are all as insecure as each other. No serious scientist has deigned to refute this nonsensical theory. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 21:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• (to the anonymous IP): Instead of flooding this talk page with your and D'Adamo's opinions, how about producing some reliable references showing that there is a significant number of dietists/scientists out there that belief this hypothesis? To remove the statement from the article that there is a consensus that this is not a serious hypothesis, you really need independent sources. In the absence of this, please stop edit warring about the POV tag. --Crusio (talk) 13:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

My friend Crusio, I would argue that the inclusion of D'Adamo's work in both the academic textbooks[5][6] and university curricula [7] as well as in the clinical practise [8] of naturopathic medical programs speaks for itself with regard to the acceptance of D'Adamo's work by his peers. You've made the claim previously that peer review is the dispositive factor for you in terms of the "scientific consensus" on a particular subject. That said, surely you would not claim that a physician specializing in nutrigenomics would have the educational background or clinical expertise to review a textbook of emergency medicine. It is likewise ludicrous to cite the opinion of a vegan urgent care physician in the evaluation of diet book, written by a specialist in nutrigenomics, that advocates the eating of flesh for some people. Yet, that is precisely what this Wiki article currently does. I anticipate your next salvo with great relish. 173.2.46.41 (talk) 22:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no Rant like an Igno-Rant

The term Lectin was defined in 1954 to describe plant proteins that clump blood. Lectins were discovered in 1888.

Leaky gut syndrome allows undigested proteins, like lectins, to enter the blood stream. Leaky gut can be identified with blood tests after ingesting chemicals that should not be absorbed. The degree of inappropriate permeability varies.

Q.E.D.: someone with leaky gut syndrome that consumes the food with the wrong lectin gets sick. That has not been researched.

Everyone is welcome to continue this discussion at Crackhead Awards.

Nanoatzin (talk) 05:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

NPOV: Article is Being Obsessively Treated Like Personal Territory Rather Than a Wikipedia Collaborative Effort

30 seconds between my first edit and it's reversion is indicative of treating the article like territory rather than a collaborative effort.

Also claiming that there is "consensus" among literally thousands of various health professionals that the blood type diet 'has no scientific basis' is a near impossibility; its a very poor, black-and white (absolutist), statement (logically and statistically nearly impossible) and makes the article (opening) lose credibility and look like an opinion piece.

There are numerous valid criticisms of the Blood type diet theory, but making absolute, "black-or-white" statements implying that 'everyone' in the health care fields disagree with the theory is poor scholarship and poor encyclopedic writing.

There are better ways to convey the lack of widespread support for the theory in those fields.

24.9.117.18 (talk) 00:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

To summarize: Assuming "absolute consensus" is not good encyclopedic writing. There are better ways to phrase it.

24.9.117.18 (talk) 00:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

P.S. The current sources cited in the article can not accurately support "absolute consensus". These sources are valid for the article, but they are not being properly employed by scholarly writing standards.

24.9.117.18 (talk) 00:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

There Are Israeli Scientific Studies about Elderberry

The article makes an inaccurate statement there, there are Israeli scientific studies that do support Elderberry as having anti-flu properties.

24.9.117.18 (talk) 00:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Peter. When is your clinical trial being published? Gareth E Kegg (talk) 00:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

POV concern

The opening paragraph claims that "the consensus" among scientists and dieticians is..." that Damato's diet is scientifically unsupported.

This is an impossibility. It can not be proven that there is a 'consensus', it can only be proven that many scientists and dieticians are critical of this theory. 'Consensus' implies agreement among all involved parties and using such a word reveals bias and serious NPOV issues with the article.

173.246.35.185 (talk) 11:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The scientific consensus is that blood type diets are not scientific and the article will reflect as such in order to be consistent with WP:NPOV. I think you might think that WP:NPOV means that all sides get presented and the reader makes up his mind but that's not what it means - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a debate forum. We report facts from WP:RS and we don't present science unless it is peer reviewed and published in a high quality journal. Noformation (talk) 21:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

If you actually read any of the articles to which you have linked, you would realise that a scientific consensus on the blood type diet hypothesis is currently impossible, as there has not yet been widespread "communication at conferences, the publication process, replication (reproducible results by others) and peer review," and therefore the WP:NPOV approach to this article is to present it in as encyclopedic manner as possible, being careful not to "poison the well" by using WP:NPOV language. In fact, the communication at conferences, publications, replication, and peer review by Dr. D'Adamo's peers within the naturopathic medical profession have been largely positive, with many other naturopathic physicians replicating his results, presenting favourable results at conferences, publishing case reports and practise guidelines in their peer reviewed journals that incorporate his work, and the inclusion of his work in both the academic textbooks and university curricula of naturopathic medical programs. To claim that there is scientific consensus in opposition to his work is to make a larger claim about the moderators' personal views about the education and practise of naturopathic medicine, which is not appropriate in this article. Wikipedia is a forum for encyclopedic reporting of reality as we as a human species collectively know it, not as a place to grandstand about particular views and political positions amongst the various schools of medicine. 173.2.46.41 (talk) 22:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any secondary WP:MEDRS sources that you would like to introduce to the article? That would be the most simple way to contest this. N^oformation ^Talk 22:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Please stop engaging in this edit war. If you want to change the article you need to find consensus here. This has been discussed ad nauseum on this very talk page, please stop. N^oformation ^Talk 23:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it has been "discussed" ad nauseum on this very talk page, without apparent resolution. In such a situation, according to the WP:NPOV, the NPOV banner and encyclopedic language initially reverted by Crusio and then continually reverted by his cronies must remain in place until the issue has been resolved here. Your continued vandalism of the article as defined here WP:VAN as "any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Examples of typical vandalism are ... inserting patent nonsense into a page." As I have explained ad nauseum, the evaluation of Dr. D'Adamo's work by his peers in the naturopathic medical profession continues to be very positive and applied clinically with great results. A recent review article that incorporated the blood type hypothesis as applied in naturopathic medical clinical practise may be found here [9] in Naturopathic Doctor News & Review (NDNR), one of the most widely-read periodicals in the profession. For those who may be heretofore unaware of the naturopathic school of medicine, you can find NDNR's own description here. As I have stated supra, if your real beef is with naturopathic medicine in general, that's fine. Just take it to the appropriate page. This page describes a hypothesis within the naturopathic medical profession and must therefore be encyclopedically presented within that context. To harken back to the discussion of the moon being made of cheese, supra, it does no good to cite the opinions of cheesemongers on the issue. The proper experts are astrogeologists. The same principle should be applied here, and naturopathic medical doctors have been engaged in peer review and replication of Dr. D'Adamo's work for over 16 years. Thus, the ideological views of vegan urgent care physicians notwithstanding, there can be no scientific consensus on the theoretical basis of the blood type diet hypothesis. I implore you to please stop this edit war that was started by Crusio at 12:20, 18 April 2011 when he reverted the addition of an "NPOV banner due to abuse of article by people pushing an agenda." Please stop supporting that agenda, and let's work together to keep the article encyclopedic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.2.46.41 (talk)

• Apparently this discussion is going nowhere. Multiple editors here maintain that the article is NPOV. You are the only one who thinks otherwise. If you think that the removal of your edits by me and "my cronies" is vandalism, you're welcome to take this to ANI and file a complaint. --Crusio (talk) 15:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Naturopathic Doctor News & Review is not listed in pubmed or medline and would not meet WP:MEDRS in my opinion. I'll say again: Do you have any secondary WP:MEDRS sources that you would like to introduce to the article? That would be the most simple way to contest this. Remember: NPOV does NOT mean that we give all sides equal validity, it simply means that the editor's POV is not included; this is accomplished by only reporting what is published in reliable sources that meet WP guidelines. You can disagree with the policies all you want but that is something to take up on the policy talkpage, not here. N^oformation ^Talk 21:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Other projects?

I have added this page to project Rational Skepticism but I'm curious if this article belongs in any other projects. If anyone thinks so then please add the relevant template. N^oformation ^Talk 09:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

ADMINS PLEASE REVIEW GROSS NEUTRALITY PROBLEMS WITH THIS ARTICLE

This article has glaring NPOV issues and should never have languished so long. The article is very poorly written, citations are abused and misapplied. One of the main writers obviously has an agenda and camps out here on a personal crusade. It's a sad testimony that this has gone on so long.

Wikipedia should require people to watch a video, or read an article, on neutral writing style before allowing them to edit. This is clearly an education problem. The most aggressive editor here obviously doesn't even know what neutral writing style is.

69.171.160.220 (talk) 13:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Fraudulent Use of Citations

In the opening of the article, the citations referencing "consensus in the scientific community" do nothing of the sort. None of these citations mentions any such consensus. This is a fraudulent use of citations.

H.Tamahagane 15:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by H.Tamahagane (talk • contribs)

• Please read Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Using words like "fraudulent" can easily be interpreted as a personal attack. --Crusio (talk) 15:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• PS: If you have any problems with the editing at this page, feel free to post a complaint at an appropriate administrator notice board. --Crusio (talk) 15:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The "consensus" can be inferred from the depth of the references. A similar "consensus" could form from a group of citations mentioning that the Earth orbits the Sun. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 20:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The citations lack depth. Most do not represent comprehensive scientific studies of the subject. They are mostly opinions, not based on in-depth research. At most they qualify as professional debating points on the subject, not "proof".

There is nothing in them that even remotely approaches the level of proof we have that the Sun orbits the Earth (as was used in the previous example).

69.171.160.20 (talk) 23:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Dealing with fringe and pseudoscience on Wikipedia can be difficult because most scientists don't waste their time attempting to debunk claims that (i) don't make sense and (ii) contradict what we know about physiology. Because most scientists don't waste said time, there are usually few legitimate sources dealing with the topic. However, the sources that do deal with the topic do so in a negative light. Consensus does not literally mean that every scientist in the world accepts P, but rather that any scientist in the relevant field, having been exposed to information regarding P, would accept P. In the case of the blood type diet, it's a bunch of woowoo and pseudoscience and no one in academia takes it seriously and the sources that we use to make the claim are good enough. I'm restoring the old version, and I would advise that you do not edit war to keep it in. We can, however, continue the discussion and perhaps make some changes to the article after we've achieved WP:CONSENSUS to do so. N^oformation ^Talk 03:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I also reverted your change from "stereotypical" to "categories" because the source does not say categories, it says stereotypical. Before we continue, this conversation, I would like to point out (in case you don't know) that "neutral" on WP means something different than the common usage of the word. WP neutral does not mean that all sides are presented equally, nor even fairly. Rather, it means that the published literature is presented - negative or positive or both - in proportion to its prominence, with the mainstream scientific perspective getting WP:DUE weight. We do not give WP:UNDUE weight to fringe claims. Please read WP:FRINGE before we continue this discussion so that your arguments are made to policy and not to fairness, WP:TRUTH or anything else. N^oformation ^Talk 03:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, in this case there have been (a few) studies. This means such studies should be then noted in the article.

But this also means that the presence of such studies then requires that mere "opinions" of scientists (that have no reference to any studies) then do not get included in the article.

It's a matter of using the best available classes of sources for the article and then eliminating the lesser-class sources.

So since there are some studies, all of the "opinion" citations need to go.205.169.70.175 (talk) 23:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The "Further Reading" section is inappropriate.

Almost unique to this page is a Further Reading section. More remarkable is that this section is exclusively material in favor of the ABO diet and five of the six items listed are by D'Adamo, himself. This significantly biases the article in favor of D'Adamo despite significant valid criticisms of the diet. It seems that these Further Readings should be in the Reference section if referenced in the article and omitted entirely if not. SqueakGeek (talk) 23:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed and removed all but one. N^oformation ^Talk 23:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• Please see WP:MOS: "further reading" sections are not exceptional at all and may often be appropriate. I am not sure that this wholesale removal is warranted. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 23:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I removed all but one because I assume that all the information in the main book is in all the derivatives as is common with these direct sales diet books. Squeekgeek removed the last one and I'm inclined to agree with you that not having even the one is unnecessarily restrictive. N^oformation ^Talk 23:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• I see your point and normally I would agree that those books should be listed in D'Adamo's bio. But Peter D'Adamo redirects here... I'm not defending this quackery pseudoscience, but I'm not sure that it is a good idea to remove those books. SqueakGeek's complaint that the section only contains works in favor of the diet (and hence implying this makes the article unbalanced) does not fly, in my eyes. The article makes it abundantly clear that these ideas are not accepted by mainstream science. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 23:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

You bring up a good point about the bio redirecting here, as normally we would have a list of works in the bio itself. If there's a policy that helps clarify this particular problem I'm not aware of it, is there something in MOS regarding bios being redirected to other topics? I'm guessing it's a bit too obscure of an issue to come up, as people with notable works also tend to be notable. I still support cutting down the list to one or two books because these books are like self help books: if you've read one you've pretty much read them all. It's not like he's doing actual experiments and adding valid info in each new edition, it's just that old editions don't sell as well due to the shiny-ness factor. N^oformation ^Talk 23:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ The logical conclusion from this discussion is to split off the works into a biography article. I'm sure there is plenty of controversy and media coverage for such an article to meeting WP:GNG, WP:BLP, and WP:V. —EncMstr (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• That's a bad idea, there's not enough stuff here. One solution would be to make this article a bio, move it to Peter D'Adamo, and redirect this article to the bio. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, of course there is not enough content here: it's an article about the diet. Presumably a biographical article would attract biographical data, the basics of which is easily found but is not appropriate for this article, like birth date, parents, and education. —EncMstr (talk) 21:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)