Talk:Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine

False information?

The statement about the ALF appears to be false. I can't find any information that claims Dr. Barnard has been associated with the ALF, even on the CCF and ActivistCash websites. I have removed the sentence. —Nickdc 16:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Nickdc, That statement was not false. Please re-read... http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/23

Its founder, Dr. Neal Barnard, is also the scientific advisor to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), an organization that supports and speaks for the terrorist organization known as the Animal Liberation Front (ALF).

....

In 2001, PCRM president Neal Barnard co-signed a series of over 40 letters (on PCRM letterhead) with Kevin Kjonaas, a former “spokesperson” for the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and the then-U.S.-director of the violent animal rights group SHAC (Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty).

....

Neal Barnard is more circumspect about violence. The Animal Rights Reporter has written of him: “Although he disavows the use of violence, he says that researchers ‘have set themselves up for it’ and ‘have to worry’ about animal rights violence.

Additionally, please read: http://consumerfreedom.com/downloads/reference/docs/010920_PCRM.pdf

Letter co-signed by Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine president Neal Barnard and former ALF "spokesperson" (and current SHAC leader) Kevin Kjonaas. - ConsumerFreedom.com

The associations are there and there are more, go to google and type in "Neal Barnard" +ALF +PCRM

---

I found more incorrect information in the article and removed the sentence: "The 7 board members of the PCRM have authored more than 70 diet books, the most popular of them is the well known 'Eat More, Weigh Less!' by Dr. Ornish." Dean Ornish is not a PCRM board member and PCRM's advisory board actually consists of eleven members, not seven.[1] I also removed the sentence: "There is a significant amount of research on the PCRM website focusing on Seventh Day Adventist communities, as a testament to the vegan diet." Only a handful of pages on www.pcrm.org make any mention of Seventh Day Adventists.[2] —Nickdc 19:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

A bit biased?

I would say this article is biased against PCRM if anything. In particular, if you read about their work in their books, such as The China Study, and Reversing Diabetes, you can see that these doctors are on to something. It's no surprise they would take some heat for stating that the average American diet is unhealthy and too heavily laden with animal-based foods.

But their research is solid, some of the best ever done, and their work is definitely worth reading. .....

Solid? You've got to be kidding. The research is poor at best.

Plenty of physicians also say that the average American diet is unhealthy and too heavily laden with processed/hydrogenated oils, sugars and syrups, and additives. Those physicians rarely receive the same kind of criticism, I think partially because the research indicating the negative effects of those elements is stronger than the evidence against animal-based foods in general, partially because animal-based products have been part of the human diet for centuries, and partially because with the PCRM there is the question of an underlying motive of animal rights, rather than nutritional concerns. The validity of any of these is always under debate, but it should come as no surprise that the positions of the PCRM are heavily challenged. Frankg 23:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This article seems to be cheerleading for PCRM a bit too much. It doesn't reflect that PCRM has been criticized by the American Medical Association for misrepresenting facts about animal research, and that its founder, Dr. Neal Barnard, is a psychiatrist by training - not a nutritionist. The article also leaves out PCRM's documented connections to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

Can someone jump in and make this a bit more NPOV? Otherwise I'll list this as a NPOV dispute. 24.229.25.11 19:13, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree it's POV, but there's no actual dispute yet. Just go fix it instead. —Ashley Y 08:29, 2004 Nov 6 (UTC)

....

I just added your text fixed up a bit. —Ashley Y 08:32, 2004 Nov 6 (UTC)

.... Is it true that this organization has only 5% Physician membership[3]? That would be relevant in this article to show that it might just be a front group for animal rights activists. DHN 22:14, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Additionally, please read: http://consumerfreedom.com/downloads/reference/docs/010920_PCRM.pdf

Letter co-signed by Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine president Neal Barnard and former ALF "spokesperson" (and current SHAC leader) Kevin Kjonaas. - ConsumerFreedom.com

---

what we have to also realize is that the Center for Consumer Freedom is an fast food, tobacco and alcohol industry front-group with their own obvious agenda. it would be good to have some links to non-CCF funded "reports" and articles for a change. Thebt 05:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

PETA/FSAP/PCRM

I've added the relevant information neccessary for somebody to confirm for themselves the relationship between PETA and PCRM. This includes the front organization FSAP which is housed out of the PETA offices and consists of the presidents of both organizations. Additionally I've made reference to the proper location to find the federally required tax forms showing that PETA/FSAP funded PCRM for up to half a million dollars, until 2001 when FSAP stopped providing that information in its itemizations.

NPOV flag

In referring to controversies about the organization, articles often fails to name or cite critisims but presents detailed rebuttals. The writing tone is not sufficiently neutral for an encyclopedia. Durova 17:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Membership

I can't find anywhere a source to verify that PCRM has 6,000 physician members. The PCRM web site indicates that you just pay to become a member, doesn't specify you have to be a physician, scientist, whatever. It doesn't even say how many members it has in total. So will edit accordingly unless someone can provide verification. Ermintrude 17:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

minor/major rewrite

Not sure, I didn't really add or remove much content, just rephrased and reorganize and stuff... I added citations when I could find them, it still needs some. Clarified a couple of thing. There's still a section about links between PETA and PCRM that I couldn't really make much sense off. I guess I just don't speak the "conspiracy theorists" language. So I didn't really touch that. Yay and I had problem with the references, I'm gonna do an help call now and see if I can fix that. Finally the last link, about the AMA rescinding their anti-PCRM policy, I couldn't link to that doc directly, it's only a temporary fix and I'll see if I can fix that too. Jean-Philippe 02:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC) Fixed the reference section, but I couldn't find a way to link directly to www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/471/506a06.doc. I've done an helpme about that, I'll see if someone gave me an answer later. Jean-Philippe 03:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

Who gutted the criticism section? A lot of people, myself included, consider the PCRM nothing more than an animal rights front group which is used to cynically flog a vegan agenda in the press. The criticism section should reflect that. I wrote a little bit, if someone wants to clean it up, they are welcome but my point should remain.--Rotten 17:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, but our opinion is not notable. If you wish to include that sort of citicism, you need a reliable, attributable source and the criticism needs to be framed in neutral language. Rockpocket 20:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Editors don't get the priviledge of judging who's an extremist and who's not. It's a loaded term. So we make it clear it's a claim by who's being referenced. That's why the quotes are there and will stay. Jean-Philippe 21:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

If you want to be critical of them at least read their books, before you start throwing accusations around. They have demonstrated using some of the best research methodology, that in fact meat and dairy are bad for your health. It's not an agenda at all. It is the result that they keep getting, and they have reversed heart disease, diabetes, and written extensively about the many disease that can be prevented, including Alzheimers, by going vegan and/or mostly vegan.

On the topic, "PCRM has also been criticized for not being candid about its anti-meat and anti-dairy agenda [13] and misrepresenting medical studies to promote a vegetarian diet [14].", I took the liberty of removing the first part, as the ACHS reference seemed to focus almost entirely on the Reuter article, while not specificly claiming PCRM as responsible for that omission. It's blurry at best. Did I read the article wrong? Jean-Philippe 21:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

No, you didn't read it wrong, but it is valid criticism, so it should remain. --SpinyNorman 06:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

If I did read this correctly, then the blame is leveraged at Reuter, not PCRM. Anyway, weither it is valid or not, the reference isn't a proper source as it doesn't backup said criticism. Also, I didn't removed the mention of research misrepresention, just moved it to policy and expanded on it. I don't see the purpose of duplicating it down in the criticism section. Jean-Philippe 06:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

This diff explain my claim for duplication. [4] I'll give you some time to comment before doing any more reverting. Isn't my little piece of text more accurate and better situated in the flow of that article? Jean-Philippe 07:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry... my bad. I got the article numbers confused. You're right, there's no reason to duplicate the same link in two sections. However, I would like to keep the reference to them not being candid about their POV. In one sense, you're right that Reuters had an independent responsibility to report the bias but that doesn't relieve the PCRM of their own responsibility to be clear about their agenda. --SpinyNorman 07:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm putting back in: " PCRM has also been criticized for misrepresenting medical studies to promote a vegetarian diet." Because that aspect should to be mentioned on the site. It's in the ActivistCash section as it's included in that criticism.--Rotten 15:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Already discussed, read above and look at the diffs. As for your mentioning CCF having a bone to pick with the PCRM it's also already covered. Please revert yourself unless you have something else to add. Jean-Philippe 16:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this specific charge should be in there, for example the PCRM attacks low carb diets in a way that many find less than truthful. I feel that the fact that there has been criticism that they misrepresent medical studies is an important one.--Rotten 16:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I've repeated myself too much on this talk page, so, hum, look up and read. It's already there is what I'm saying, you know.

I hope you realize that by using the wikipedia article as a reference (as you've done [5]), you're being quite silly :) Jean-Philippe 17:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Uh, I meant in that citation. And I don't see where you've mentioned anything about misrepresenting medical studies.--Rotten 17:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Look, I honestly don't see where you're getting at. "The American Council on Science and Health is critical of PCRM's nutritional policies, saying that the group emphasize and exaggerate the reliability of certain research, to further an animal rights agenda.". If it isn't obvious enough by the above discussion this is what I rewrote the sentence to. I used the original source. Jean-Philippe 18:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, they are different groups alleging simliar things, if you want to eliminate one, I suppose you can.--Rotten 18:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Under the "Criticism" heading, the final sentence read "They have been critized [sic] for being an animal rights group undercovered [sic] as physicians." I have removed this for being unsourced, not to mention it being grammatical nonsense. Bricology (talk) 01:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Kevin Jonas was jailed some years after he departed from PCRM. Therefore I don't see how this is a valid criticism. Wikispan (talk) 08:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Atkins Autopsy Report

PCRM also plaid a role in publishing the Atkins autopsy report (actually, that wasn't technically what it was), which was unauthorized. I'm going to do some research to find some information about that and add it to the article.

Removed External Link to a Center for Consumer Freedom front-group website

It was one of their pretending-to-give-legitimate-information sites. Considering that the Center for Consumer Freedom is nothing but an organization of fast-food mega-corporations and other corporate interests, I don't think their information is a reasonable link here.

That's fine. However, since PCRM is an animal rights organization, and nothing else, this logic would of course mean that no article could cite the PCRM as a source for medical information, since its motives are completely focused around animal rights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.56.71 (talk) 01:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

AMA

I'm wondering whether a proposed resolution to the AMA that failed should even be mentioned? [6] Otherwise, anyone could propose anything condemning an organiziation, and have it added to articles even if it never goes anywhere — so unless there are secondary sources showing it was a notable issue, I'm thinking it should be removed. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not bothered either way, someone contacted me by email and pointed out that it never actually passed, so I amended it accordingly. I guess the point is that the AMA do hold the opposite position to the PCRM, which is notable and relevant. Mentioning that they chose to reaffirm that principle in place of a motion criticizing PCRM is less important perhaps. Rockpocket 23:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not too bothered either. I'm happy for you to decide. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The PCRM press officer emailed me with concerns about the accuracy of the article (the AMA resolution being the most pressing). I think he has a point, as its in pretty poor shape really. I told him he could make non-controversial changes himself as long as he self identified for COI concerns and anything else he should discuss here first. If I get some time I'll try and put some effort in over the holiday period and re-write that section in entirety. Rockpocket 02:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

In RE new section "Controversy and ties to animals rights groups"

Another editor added [7] the section "Controversy and ties to animals rights groups" with an uneven assortment of criticisms and observations. Some of it seems like the 'guilty by association' type of disparagement. At the least the section needs more context, like presenting the orgnizations listed in the first sentence as lobbyists for meat and dairy industries and animal research. And I believe it's still preferable to incorporate this criticism within body text and not as a separate section, especially with such a short article. -PrBeacon (talk) 07:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I concur. This new section is a hodgepodge of 'guilt by association' type criticisms, linking two individuals who are no longer members of PCRM, and employing non neutral language like "accused", which is undesirable and unnecessary. Other sentences lack clear attribution; plus one is carbon copy from the section immediately below. If there is some membership overlap between different organisations then we must describe that using neutral language, as dispassionate as possible, avoiding the most salacious soundbytes from hired lobby groups funded to oppose the activities of PCRM. Or, if we are to be consistent, these groups and their sources of funding should themselves be identified. I'm removing the section until editors can agree on notability, quality and individual wording of each sentence. Wikispan (talk) 10:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the section was a mess, however there was some well sourced and cogent info in there about the funding of PCRM, and their links with PETA. I've added those back. Rockpocket 22:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

There is another problem with the text. The references do not all support the statement that "PCRM are a front organization for the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals". That assertion belongs to The Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF), an industry lobby group, which frequently criticizes PCRM. The American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) simply note that CCF have made this accusation without independently affirming the truth of the statement. Their critique is dedicated to nutrition advice. Given the obvious sourcing problems, I wish to see direct quotes in support of the third source (Foundation for Biomedical Research). It's important to get this right. Can anyone assist with that? Wikispan (talk) 22:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, the book states that industry groups such as CCF and FBR call PCRM a front for PETA, PETA et al call CCF a front for industry. I don't think one is going to affirm the truth of those statements. Its clearly a matter of opinion what constitutes a "front group." The question is whether the opinion of their opponents merit space on their respective articles. I'm not particularly bothered one way or the other, but it probably makes sense to be consistent. Rockpocket 23:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually I found the quote, it is: "... The CCF rejects PCRM's claims to scientific legitimacy and denounces them as a 'terrorist front group' for PETA and SHAC." Given the book is clearly sympathetic of the AR perspective, I think that is pretty strong support for CCF's statement (but nothing about FBR). Doesn't tell its true, though. Rockpocket 23:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Looking through a few more sources, I think it is the Nature Medicine profile of Barnard that cites the FBR's take on PCRM. I don't have access to the full text right now, but I'll try and get hold of it tomorrow. Rockpocket 23:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe CCF's antics are particularly relevant. It's a tiny borderline fringe attack organization that's in the business of slinging mud at individuals and organization that it perceives to stand in the way of its corporate sponsors. The comments are not terribly cogent. They aren't a legitimate criticism of PCRM or any other group, so they're only relevant and of due weight if the attacks themselves have a noteworthy effect on their target. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

With respect, that is your opinion. What is important, I think, is using objective assessments of how notable their criticism is. Here we have reliable third-party sources describing the CCF criticism of PCRM, which rather argues they are relevant to those sources. In contrast, we have all sorts of criticism on the CCF page from groups like PCRM, cited to their websites and even blogs. As I said, let's show some consistency. I would argue if criticism is described by reliable sources it's in. If not, it's out. Rockpocket 08:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

From the Nature Medicine article: "...[PCRM's] connection to the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is evidence of its radical animal rights agenda, says Frankie Trull, president of the Foundation for Biomedical Research in Washington...". So again, a reliable source considers the comments to be cogent. Rockpocket 14:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The word 'organisation' was changed into 'industry lobbyists' by User PrBeacon. I think this is POV, I have changed back to 'organisations' stating what type of organisations they are - i.e non-profit. Cheers Kelly2357 (talk) 04:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note on the NYT source: Joe Sharkey, "Perennial Foes Meet Again in a Battle of the Snack Bar," New York Times, November 23, 2004 http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/23/business/23road.html .. I had to copy/paste the link in my (older) browser -- clicking on it only brings up (for me, at least) the NYT subscription page. -PrBeacon (talk) 19:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)