Comments. I searched Wikipedia to find information on blood type diets because I read about which you can read here: % 20Diets% Blood group B is, according to D’Adamo, the nomad, associated with a strong immune system and a flexible digestive system. technology have helped rebuild and normalize the bodily systems so they can function (internet search: “Biotype Diets ”). Generally. Characterizing Neurotrophic Systems in the Primate Amygdala That are Relevant to Reward Learning Capacity in Binge Eating Disorder.

Author: Kazrarisar Zolojinn
Country: Thailand
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Music
Published (Last): 2 November 2014
Pages: 366
PDF File Size: 17.22 Mb
ePub File Size: 17.86 Mb
ISBN: 816-6-78230-757-6
Downloads: 9931
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Arashicage

It’s a matter of using the best available classes of sources for the article and then eliminating the lesser-class sources. Actually, in this case there have been a few studies.

Is there a valid reason for stating that the guy isn’t a medical doctor at the beginning? 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.

I need a serious article with lots of information and explaining why blood type diets biothpe pseudoscience. I’m sure there is plenty of controversy and media coverage for such an article to meeting WP: Please do improve the article! Leaky gut can be identified with blood tests after ingesting chemicals that should not be absorbed. 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 medicinewhich is not appropriate in this article.

Talk:Blood type diet/Archive 1

Fiets, the author has stated in the past that it is an oversimplification to characterize his description of the evolution of the blood groups as a matter of mutational selection, and that this often represents attempts to discredit the theory by cherry-picking obfuscations that inevitably result when one is forced to depict scientifically complex material in context of a mass-market diet book.

Be happy you dont seem worth the trouble right now.

Above was contributed under the heading From Peter D’Adamo. With regard to the difference between “consensus” and “unanimity,” I would agree that they have different meanings. There are better ways to phrase it.


There is a lot of technical discussion from the advocates’ perspective to provide background, but not so much specific critical response. None of which negates the theory in question. She has two books due sometime in As to your claim that there is “no serious data showing that this might work,” I would refer you to the biotypw searchable database of case reports that D’Adamo has published directly to his website in a searchable format here: I believe that the above user is Mr D’Adamo. N o f o rmation Talk This significantly biases the article in favor of D’Adamo despite significant valid criticisms of the diet.

By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. 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. It can not be proven that there is a ‘consensus’, it can only be proven that many scientists and dies are critical of this theory. They go through just as much education as GP’s and are definitely not snake oil-advocating shamans.

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.

The article is very poorly written, citations are abused and misapplied. Leaky gut syndrome allows undigested proteins, like lectins, to enter the blood stream. I see Laura Power ‘PhD’ http: I also believe that My D’Adamo is understandably inaccurate in his historic dates for which he can be forgiven as the gist of the theory is correct.

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. Does the blood type diet really work.


Views Read Edit View history.

Talk:Blood type diet/Archive 1 – Wikipedia

Ststem, there are other individuals doing similar research. It seems that these Further Readings should be in nnem Reference section if referenced in the article and omitted entirely if not.

Another oversimplification I suppose. Oz, is an American-Turkish cardiothoracic surgeon who has a ‘little light reading for all. If someone was going to paste up a pure opinion by Putzai, why not get another lectinologist Gerhard Uhlenbruck to provide another? The diet recommends that this blood group eat a higher protein diet. The NPOV dispute continues without positive resolution one way or another.

The opening paragraph claims that “the consensus” among scientists and dieticians is This article is ridiculously biased by the claims that your theory has been supported by European research. But no more than the usual intellectual dishonesty associated with your enterprises. This article has glaring NPOV issues and should never have languished so long. These sources are valid for the article, but they are not being properly employed by scholarly writing standards.

They aren’t like you. Most do not represent comprehensive scientific studies of the subject. Perhaps, as Klaper would maintain, making everyone a vegan and limiting everyone to one stereotype would be even better. One can say that when Homo erectus left Africa they were practicing a nomadic subsistence strategy. 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.

The conclusion is unavoidable: 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”.