Talk:Dean Ornish

Creation of this article

I just drafted this article, and was surprised that no one had yet done so, as Dr. Ornish is well-known both among physicians and in pop culture- and a number of Wikipedia articles already link here. I know it's now a stub, and will expand shortly when time permits...of course I look forward to seeing others do so too.

DHeller

Try to keep the language neutral, please. If the research suggests that diet decreases risk of cardiovascular disease, then say to. Where is that research, could you add a reference? Avoid interpreting the results without providing further sources for the interpretation. Who says that Dr Ornish' approach decreases incidence of revascularisation? Ornish himself? WP:CITE is your friend. JFW | T@lk 12:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I added a citation and explanation for the RCT that established this result. Basically, Ornish et al measured atherosclerotic progression by coronary arterial angiography. Dr. Ornish has done a number of other studies corroborating this result in the years since, which I can add later as time permits.

DHeller

Add "Lifestyle changes" and Prostate Cancer

Dr. Dean Ornish was the principal investigator for the study "Intensive Lifestyle Changes May Affect the Progression of Prostate Cancer" published in "The Journal of Urology" (pp.1065-1070 Sept '05) I would like to write a quick summary of the research, but I'm not sure where to put it? Any suggestions?
--Thomas.vandenbroeck (talk) 07:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's the text I propose to add:

A 2005 secondary prevention study published in the Journal of Urology by Dr. Dean Ornish(footnote), showed that a year long "intensive lifestyle change" consisting of a vegan diet, aerobic exercise, stress management and weekly group therapy resulted in a 4% reduction in PSA levels with no patients having to leave the study for conventional treatment due to disease progression. In contrast, the control group for this study experienced a 6% increase in PSA levels with 6 patients having to leave the study for conventional treatment due to disease progression.

--Thomas.vandenbroeck (talk) 04:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• "Intensive lifestyle changes may affect the progression of prostate cancer" (2005)
• "Changes in prostate gene expression in men undergoing an intensive nutrition and lifestyle intervention" (2008)

75.208.184.67 (talk) 19:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Personal diet

It appears that Ornish is neither vegan nor vegetarian, as he does not advocate total abstention from animal products and promotes consumption of fish oil.[1] Nirvana2013 (talk) 19:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done : This personal information is stated under the "Professional" section. 75.210.192.213 (talk) 01:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Section pertaining to Steve Jobs has unverifiable sources

The sources used in the section mentioning Steve Jobs supposed diet being attributed to Dean Ornish are unverifiable: The tech.fortune.com link mentions nothing about Dean Ornish that I can find and the skepticblog.com link has no verifiable proof listed in it other than a link to another one of its pages where waiters that happen to have served Jobs and Ornish together seem to be speculating, and even then, they didn't even say that they thought Ornish prescribed him a diet of any kind. This section attributing Dean Ornish with prescribing any kind of special diet to cure Jobs cancer should be removed because of lack of verifiable evidence. 99.109.177.185 (talk) 04:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree completely and have removed it. Apparently Jobs official biography directly contradicts this claim as well. It seems bizarre to me that the section in this article was signed by a contributor, as if it were a talk page contribution, and no one noticed it for several days. :( I will sound the alarm as well at WP:BLPN.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I have now confirmed that the official biography of Steve Jobs tells the story of Dean Ornish recommending to Steve Jobs that he should have surgery. Because of the (perhaps understandable) hysteria and hype surrounding Jobs death, there are several blogs which attempt to implicate Dean Ornish in some way. ""You really need surgery" - Dean Ornish to Steve Jobs, quote from official biography--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Another source on this topic.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

No commentary on debates

Shouldn't there be some information relating to debates he had with other diet promoters? These are very popular in multimedia form on the Internet. Something should be added and it should show any criticism of Dr. Ornish if that is applicable.180.180.161.8 (talk) 00:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

 No action : People can find such debates themselves. How would you discuss them in a printed encyclopedia? Commentary would be original research. 75.210.192.213 (talk) 01:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

gene expression research

“ In 1998, he published research ... ”

What is the source? The closest description in the list of sources is from 2008. 75.208.184.67 (talk) 18:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

TEDx photograph

This is a very poor picture of the subject. It does not enhance the article. 75.208.184.67 (talk) 19:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Criticism?

I am wondering if we can put a section on criticism in the article. I have found that quackwatch - which many wikipedia articles have referred to - has this article mentioning Dr. Ornish endorsing unscientific works

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Hearing/gorski2.html has mentioned various people that criticized him:

Dr. Richard Pasternak director of preventive cardiology at the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, Dr. Robert Eckel, Professor of Medicine at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center Dr. Frank Sacks nutrition professor at Harvard Medical School and the Harvard School of Public Health

Btw, I don't like mentioning quackwatch as a reliable source but many wikipedians have done it in the past. I also do not want to defame Dr. Ornish in anyway I just want to present various views on him. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by U1012738 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm for putting any studies or scientific critiques into the article. I have however removed the one sentence controversy section because it contained no information about the controversy and only cited one mediocre article why-almost-everything-dean-ornish-says-about-nutrition-is-wrong/ that is all strawman and clearly misrepresents Dean Ornish's diet to defend high fat/protein diets.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 06:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I restorted the text, with in-text attribution to one article (rather than a general "disputed" in Wikipedia's voice). I think it probably shouldn't be removed from the article entirely, though not sure it needs to be in the lead, though, and would not object to removal from the lead. Yobol (talk) 15:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I think until we have a well written statement on the controversy, it should not be mentioned. You could put the identical unaltered statement on any nutritionist or dietician's page. It doesn't actually list any facts, it just says it's debated. All diets are debated. Without encyclopedic information, it doesn't belong in the encyclopedia. And that reference is crap: it's an opinion piece with a better rebuttal attached to it. I think it should be removed or rewritten.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 20:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

On review, I think the level of sourcing is probably inadequate to dispute his assertions; they probably need to close to WP:MEDRS level sourcing for that critique, which this source does not qualify. As such, I self-reverted and removed. As a side note, I think much of this article seems unsourced. We should proably source or remove some particularly emotive language, ("landmark", etc) unless it can be well sourced. Yobol (talk) 21:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea. Diet seems to bring up a lot of emotion among editors and journalists alike.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 21:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The source is fine and deserves mention. However, I don't think this type of material as currently sourced should be inserted in the lede.

I agree that a rewrite is in order. --Ronz (talk) 23:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I still feel that making an entire section for one sentence about one article is giving undue weight. There is a False balance which is against WP:Falsebalance which is part of the WP:NPOV policy. When people click on a wiki biography, one of the first things they notice is if there is a 'controversy' section. This section doesn't even explain the disagreement, it merely says that one person disagrees. If you want to reference the article maybe it should say "Dean Ornish debates SciAm author". It's a more accurate description of what happened and keeps a link to the criticism in the article without giving the impression that Dean Ornish is viewed as any more "controversial" than any other health guru.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 19:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Should we note Ornish's rebuttal to the SciAm ref?

(Copied from my talk [2] --Ronz (talk) 16:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)):

I'm not sure that I understand why my edit was reverted. What do you mean "the references notes it at the top for all to easily see"? What reference says what thing at the top of where? The article cited is a critique followed by a rebuttal and a final counterpoint (have you read it?). I don't think it's fair to state that the article is critical but remove any other relevant details about what the article states. In fact, one sentence with one flimsy reference shouldn't even be its own section and needs to be expanded or merged into another section. The mention in the lead seems more than adequate for how little information exists on the subject. And if the article as it stands is written by two authors, one for and one against, it makes it a flimsy citation in the first place (it's really an op-ed piece in a 'scientific' magazine). That and the article is really poorly done. It's one long straw man argument that goes to great lengths to present Dean Ornish's arguments inaccurately (hence why Dean rebutted and scientific american published his response). If the magazine thinks Dean's rebuttal is important enough to include, then why don't we?Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 04:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry my edit summary wasn't clear. At the very top of the SciAm reference is a notice that it was updated with a response from Ornish, "Editor's Note: Our April 22 article elicited a lengthy response from Dean Ornish, which we publish here, along with a rebuttal from Melinda Wenner Moyer." They even updated the byline, "By Melinda Wenner Moyer and Dean Ornish | Updated June 1, 2015 ". And the title is "Why Almost Everything Dean Ornish Says about Nutrition Is Wrong. UPDATED: With Dean Ornish's Response"

I've updated the reference accordingly. Anyone know if we include original and updated publication dates in refs like this? --Ronz (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

tag etc

(1) One article in the lay press cannot be used to discredit clinically proven results. If there is any criticism of Ornish in peer reviewed journals then it may be published here. (2)Why the promotional tag please explain (3)Why the "He is known for his promotion of what he believes to be healthy diets, particularly vegetarianism" in the lead? Hasn't it been clinically proven? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:31, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

1) Why?

3) If you're not sure, then why are we removing the criticism? --Ronz (talk) 16:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

You ask why we need peer reviewed journals to discredit a clinical proven programme? What am I not sure about? Why the Why the "He is known for his promotion of what he believes to be healthy diets, particularly vegetarianism" in the lead? Hasn't it been clinically proven? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Let me be clearer: I see no references to justify the assumption that there are indeed "clinically proven results". --Ronz (talk) 16:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

That is a 17 year old article. Let us try to find one more up to date. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Potential sources

• http://www.nytimes.com/1998/12/29/health/scientist-at-work-dean-ornish-a-promoter-of-programs-to-foster-heart-health.html?pagewanted=all --Ronz (talk) 22:50, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
  • A study of 3780 patients is quoted, "research evidence is solid, otherwise Medicare wouldn't fund it" "Private insurers such as WellPoint and Highmark are also covering it." Improvements seen are weight loss, "significant reductions in systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, triglycerides, and LDL cholesterol after 12 weeks were still significant after one year."

My thoughts on this potential source is that it presents viewpoints made when he was much more popular and the science hadn't progressed so much beyond his 1990 research. --Ronz (talk) 17:38, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Book published in 2015, the author doesn't think Ornish is outdated, which is what we take cognisance of don't we? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• • There is this book that asks, "Can Lifestyle Changes Reverse Coronary Heart Disease", the answer is hidden from free view. Ornish's name too appears. Can anyone get a quote from print version? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

    Too old to be a MEDRS source. --Ronz (talk) 17:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Dr. Ornish and his colleagues have reported that as a result of their program, blockages in arteries have decreased in size and blood flow has improved is as many as... (rest not visible)

  That's just summarizing his 1990 research. --Ronz (talk) 17:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• [3] While the Gale Encyclopedia of Alternative Medicine is not a MEDRS source, this could be used for historical information, if it contains any not already covered. --Ronz (talk) 18:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

New section - The Spectrum ?

I propose new section that describes his program - the Spectrum, AKA the Ornish Diet, which he presents in his book and talks (which have been before some rather large (~5000-head) audiences.)

The controversy section claims he "defended his position by citing a number of research studies" which is hardly an accurate summary of his defense. Still pretty awful.Elvey^(t•c) 07:48, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Any secondary sourcing for this "spectrum" ? Alexbrn (talk) 09:09, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Tons. It's eminently verifiable. Google is your friend^TM. ‡Did you make any effort to check before asking? You fail to WP:AGF. Go away. --Elvey^(t•c) 10:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I didn't ask if it was verifiable. To avoid NPOV/FRINGE problems we'd need to have good secondary sources for this. I don't know if these exist. Alexbrn (talk) 11:14, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

You ignored my question. That is not being wp:civil. I addressed your concern. Section being created. I challenge you to suggest an edit or do something that shows you know something regarding the program. --Elvey^(t•c) 00:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

From what I now know, we should not mention it. Alexbrn (talk) 06:43, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

You ignored my question‡, again. That is not being wp:civil. Well, at least we see in your comments consistent... willful ignorance, chronic incivility, and trolling. Obviously you're not here to build an encylopedia. I will thus ignore you. Go away, please. --Elvey^(t•c) 08:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

What to call it

Hmm. Seems the name "the Spectrum" has been deprecated. Doesn't look like the program has changed, but now it's called "Dr. Ornish's Program for Reversing Heart Disease®", and the "Ornish Reversal Program" on ornish's site. It's called "the Ornish Spectrum" in 2015. MOS:IDENTITY says "When there is a discrepancy between the term most commonly used by reliable sources and the term that [an entity] uses for themselves, use the term that is most commonly used by reliable sources; if it isn't clear which is most used, use the term that [it] uses." (Even though it nominally covers people and groups, I think it's appropriate to follow its guidance.) He published "Dr. Dean Ornish's Program for Reversing Heart Disease: The Only System Scientifically Proven to Reverse Heart Disease Without Drugs" in 1995 and "The Spectrum: A Scientifically Proven Program to Feel Better, Live Longer, Lose Weight, and Gain Health" in 2008.--Elvey^(t•c) 01:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Sources please. --Ronz (talk) 17:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Find someone else to harass, please. I've written a comment on the talk page. Which I don't need to quote sources to do. And you have no business demanding. Please go away.

(Ditto? Willful blindness†) --Elvey^(t•c) 08:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Please try to cooperate with others and follow basic policies like WP:V. --Ronz (talk) 16:25, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

You too!--Elvey^(t•c) 08:17, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Section Draft - the Spectrum, including the Ornish Diet

A health plan called the Spectrum is the focus of most of Dean Ornish's work. The program has four components,

†http://www.berkeleywellness.com/healthy-eating/diet-weight-loss/article/ornish-still-ultimate-diet

Source quality

From http://www.berkeleywellness.com/about-us:

Berkeley Wellness, in collaboration with the University of California, Berkeley, School of Public Health, is the leading online resource for evidence-based wellness information.

We rely on the expertise of top researchers at the University of California, as well as other physicians and scientists from around the world, to translate leading-edge research into practical advice for daily living.

The editors and editorial board of both the Wellness Letter and Berkeley Wellness review the latest research to clarify the often conflicting and superficial health information presented by the popular media. We don't promote faddish diets or other anecdote-based regimens. Nor do we repeat conventional medical advice from mainstream health organizations or pharmaceutical companies.

And they're mostly MD's with a few PhD and MPH's thrown in. Seems MEDRS to me! --Elvey^(t•c) 08:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I was going to bring up the same issue. The marketing side of Berkeley Wellness is cringe-worthy, especially the click-bait titles, but it would be difficult to argue with the expertise behind it. It is very rarely used across Wikipedia, and I'm not seeing any discussions about it's quality. The type of publication falls under WP:MEDPOP, though it is high-quality. I think the source is good enough to make mention of some details of the diet due per NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 16:39, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Great.--Elvey^(t•c) 08:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC)