Talk:Dean Ornish/Archive 1

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. I did understand and answer your question; note: WP:V in a nutshell: "all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources". --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, ornish.com. 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)

You are the one making claims. You are the one who has to give sources. It is not the other users' job to do your work for you. If you do not give sources for your suggestions, they will not be implemented. I guess Ronz and Alexbrn can live with that. If that is a good solution for you, you don't have to give any sources and everybody is happy. Bye.

But if you want your suggestions to end up in the article, giving sources is a good way to do it. Since you are the one with the knowledge, it is to be expected that you are also the one who knows the source where you got it. For everybody else it is more work than for you. That is not harassment, it is normal procedure and also eminently sensible. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

No I don't have to give sources, Hob Gadling; you are misrepresenting policy: All I've done, as I said : I've written a comment on the talk page. Which I don't need to quote sources to do. Since you claim I'm wrong, I'll quote from policy. WP:V says: All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable.. In this, case, it's pretty black and white: You're wrong. I'm right. I'm not pushing for anything in this subsection to be included in the article. I haven't added it to the article. I haven't even edited the article at all, other than to make gnomish edits. Good luck showing a claim above which I've added to the article, let alone one which is unsourced. Either do that or retract what you said. You seem to be assuming, based on no evidence whatsoever, that I intend to add unverifiable info to the article. You should, rather, AGF, or if you looked at my edit history, you'd see that I have a history of doing the opposite. How exactly did this discussion come to your attention? --Elvey^(t•c) 23:47, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

This is all bullshit. You are refuting a lot of stuff nobody mentioned. As I said, "If that is a good solution for you, you don't have to give any sources and everybody is happy." So, as I said, bye.

"How exactly did this discussion come to your attention?" – There is no rule that says I have to answer that question, so I won't. Now you get a small whiff how a discussion with you feels. EOD. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:08, 23 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:

• A largely plant-based diet that emphasizes very low fat consumption, lots of vegetables, fruit, and complex carbohydrates
• regular exercise
• daily yoga, meditation or a similar Eastern stress management method
• regular social contact

Like many 90's diets, it's very low in fat and high in fiber and complex carbs Unsourced: The program combines aspects of Alternative Medicine that Western Medicine has found to be effective, both in isolation and in combination.

2009 Nobel Prize-winning research showed that Ornish's method lengthens telomeres.

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

References

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)

Expanded draft.--Elvey^(t•c) 22:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dean Ornish. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120427162206/http://www.hsc.wvu.edu:80/Wellness/Dr-Dean-Ornish-Program/ to http://www.hsc.wvu.edu/Wellness/Dr-Dean-Ornish-Program/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120606153002/http://www.manhattan-institute.org/consumerdrivenhealthcare/html/toc.html to http://www.manhattan-institute.org/consumerdrivenhealthcare/html/toc.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Controversy section

I think the controversy section is overly prominent in this article. Dean Ornish has had a lengthy career, a gazillion acknowledgements/honors, his work has been peer-reviewed extensively and adopted by even traditionally cautious (or conservative) organizations. Yet we have a lengthy section devoted to an article which appeared in Scientific American by a science writer (who clearly has bona findes but no medical training)? In response to an article that Ornish wrote for the New York Times? It's hardly a controversy given the limited news coverage of the SciAm article – this seems like if it's controversial it's because of the Wikipedia echo chamber. New York Times circulation is 1.5 million (ish) weekly, SciAm's last numbers were in 2013 and were reported at 462,000ish monthly – its probably dropped considerably since then. Further, that it ends with Moyer's reply leaves the perception that she is correct. This should be a sentence at most, def not a section. JSFarman (talk) 19:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I think by WP:PSCI and WP:FRINGE the dodgy aspects of Ornish's work is actually underrepresented here. See maybe this. Alexbrn (talk) 19:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not terribly invested (or not enough to get into it too much) -- just read the article and thought it was unbalanced. JSFarman (talk) 19:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I went vegan a while back and feel amazing. My doctor said my blood results are the best his every seen. So I am not sure why this controversy section remains. It is biased against Dean Ornish, and anti-vegan; a vegan diet is the healthiest wonderful diet on the planet. I agree it is unblanced and should be removed asap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8004:1BD0:F020:7993:747E:C79C:949E (talk) 15:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I have for been removing the controversy section given for it being not in the appropriateness of wikipedia truth! truth must be for all! veganism is for goodness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.199.30.69 (talk) 13:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing this issue. Wikipedia relies on verifiability, that is, references to reliable sources, covered by WP:RS and WP:MEDRS for health claims. You are free to add new sources that meet the threshold of reliability, but please don't remove sources without providing a specific reason. Also, see the essay Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. Dialectric (talk) 23:40, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Insurance recognition and coverage

Around 1995, I believe, John Hancock Financial (under its previous arrangement) had experimented with providing the Ornish program for Hancock staff members who had suffered heart attacks (and possibly other coronary problems). I know that because (a) I worked for Hancock and (b) I suggested that in the hancock IDEA center (as an employee). Then, it was reported to me taht they had agreed to test out the effectiveness of the program by providing ONLY Hancock staffers and their families access to this program, which at that time they considered experimental.

Then it was reported to me in 1993 that Mutual of Omaha had agreed to pay for the Ornish program (if a cardiologist prescribed it). I found July 1993 newspaper coverage of it. MaynardClark (talk) 00:19, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

As you know by now, we need RS for this. This talk page is not a forum. Jytdog (talk) 00:21, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

If there's no independent coverage, then it's probably not due any mention. --Ronz (talk) 03:01, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, there has been plenty of independent coverage of this (but not in today's hot news 2.5 decades later, sadly). Some newspaper articles considered or seemed to consider newsworthy the fact that the Ornish program was covered by an insurance company. And after several years of testing this Ornish program for reversing heart disease, Mutual of Omaha agreed to continue paying for the Ornish program.

The Highmark Cost Analysis in 2000 concluded:

In conclusion, we have evaluated the Ornish program from a variety of different approaches with very similar conclusion. That is, the evidence to date supports the presumption that comprehensive lifestyle changes for the treatment of CAD save money, as well as improve the clinical status of the patient.

"Cost effectiveness analysis (CEA) is a form of economic analysis that compares the relative costs and outcomes (effects) of different courses of action." (Wikipedia article lede).

The Wikipedia article itself had noted Mutual of Omaha's coverage as early as 1993 (~25 years ago). I had memory of the in-house coverage experiment. If there had been no talk page discussion of the program's worthiness, I would be disinclined to do so (at this time – maybe in a few months, but not now).

Others could weave in this article how cost-effectiveness, healthcare affordability, and evidence-based prevention research related to the Ornish strategies in cardiology. MaynardClark (talk) 06:19, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Medical claims require MEDRS sources.

As for the rest, they all look like routine publicity pieces.

In the decades that followed, if these approaches were found to be effective, don't you think that someone would have clearly demonstrated it by now? --Ronz (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

References

reversions

@Hipal: I am confused why you objected to my addition of a single sentence under the rationale "this article is about the person – unclear why such a detailed description is needed", when the section already devotes two entire paragraphs (including a gratuitous block quote) to the diet, which is one of the main things Ornish is known for. Don't you think it makes sense to succinctly state what the "Ornish diet" actually is before piling on criticism? I'm not going to escalate a edit war, but please discuss your objections here. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:28, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

As is, the sentence that is already there, "The Ornish diet has been described as a high-carbohydrate low-fat fad diet" introduces what the diet is. Placing a more detailed description before it seems questionable. The comments here and in edit summaries suggest that this is an attempt to create WP:FALSEBALANCE. --Hipal (talk) 19:27, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

The current description is vague and inadequate (even without the "has been described" weaseling and "fad-diet" label). The Gale Encyclopedia of Diets cited devotes about 3 pages to the Ornish diet, including eight paragraphs of description, three paragraphs of precautions, and one paragraph of risks. I find it cherry-picking and unbalanced that this article only quotes the risks. The highly critical article by Melinda Wenner Moyer (which seems as much a response to Ornish's op-ed than his diet plan, if not more so) also describes it as a "very low-fat vegetarian diet, which requires consuming fewer than 10 percent of calories from fat." And while she is not a physician, she also concludes with "The point here is not that Ornish's diet—a low-fat, whole food, plant-based approach—is necessarily bad. It's almost certainly healthier than the highly processed, refined-carbohydrate-rich diet most Americans consume today..." Let me disclaim that I have no personal interest in this diet, Dean Ornish, nor any diet writer, and I have no wish to exclude significant criticism (here's another one). I don't care if it works or not. But I do think that sources are often selectively used (perhaps inadvertently) to over-emphasize risks and controversy, downplay positive or even neutral facts, and not include all significant views, which violates WP:NPOV. Wikipedia also could state (without endorsing) the verifiable fact that the Ornish diet was ranked among the top diets by US News and World Report, (see their expert panel) and tied with the DASH diet and Mediterranean diet as top heart healthy diet. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:45, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I would support adding a few lines about what the Ornish diet actually is but obviously a correct balance is needed, this is because "Ornish diet" actually redirects to this article which I created in 2019. Based on what I have seen it is indeed classified as a fad diet so we should keep all the criticisms but just expand on what this diet involves with reliable sources. The Ornish diet is not a vegan diet, it is ovo-lacto vegetarian "Non-fat dairy foods (no more than 2 servings/day) and egg whites are included" [4]. Also "It severely restricts total and saturated fat. Most foods containing cholesterol or refined carbs, oils, excessive caffeine and nearly all animal products besides egg whites and one cup per day of nonfat milk or yogurt are banned. Fiber and complex carbs are the kings on this regimen." [5] Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:24, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

@Psychologist Guy: Thanks for your additions. I still think that singling out "Criticism" with a devoted subheading (in addition to the amount of content) runs afoul of WP:NPOV by over-emphasizing criticism & controversy: per WP:STRUCTURE "Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents. It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other." See also WP:BLPBALANCE (Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral.) and WP:CSECTION. I don't think there should be a "Criticism" section for the diet or Ornish himself, just as I don't think there should be a "Praise" section. And I think the back-and-forth between Moyer and Ornish is given undue emphasis. A good article will neither look like it's trying to scare readers away from the diet, nor sell them on it. This article isn't there yet. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree we need to expand and improve the article but my understanding is that many of these articles related to nutritionists or diet gurus who have promoted fad diets or pseudoscientific/unorthodox dietary ideas either have "reception" or "criticism" sections on their biographies at Wikipedia (there are many examples). Just one example would be Steven Gundry who has a "criticism" section, whilst John A. McDougall, Mark Hyman and Lelord Kordel have a "reception" section. I would support reception over criticism as the heading title. It's never going to be possible to have an equal balanced article when it comes to people promoting fad diets or unproven dietary ideas because there is far more criticism for their ideas in the reliable sources. We can't give a false balance, we have to give the mainstream scientific view. In this case, it is a bit more difficult because Ornish has some science behind his diet but has gone overboard with a lot of unproven claims. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:56, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

@Animalparty: I have no problem with not including sub-headings but I would support adding an image of his diet (similar to how the Anthony William article has images). I would rather have all the information about his diet on this article, I don't think we need to create a separate "Ornish diet" article but I suspect that might be suggested at some point. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:08, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

"Reception" is fine: it's more neutral than "criticism" (which has negative as well as neutral connotations), and allows a diversity of views to be presented with less biased framing. In my personal opinion based on anecdotal observations, I think many Wikipedia articles are just plain biased, written by too many editors who are overly sensitive to anything that someone has called "fad diet", and overly eager to slap on the "pseudoscience" label and pile on criticism or skeptical view points in a disproportionate balance than found in the totality of reliable literature, in what often comes across as a crusading, paternalistic effort to save poor readers from themselves. This isn't restricted to dietary articles (of which I have little experience in editing), but is found in several areas regarding controversial subjects or "fringe" views (even silly radio shows on the paranormal). I've never argued that controversial subjects warrant equal coverage of positive and negative aspects, but in many cases positive or neutral elements are inexplicably omitted from the same sources where criticism is drawn from. If that's not cherry-picking I don't know what is. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Family and Personal Life

Please add some detail about his family and personal life == He often chooses to appear with his wife yet there is nothing in the article that says anything about her. Could you add some detail. Since this is health related, it would be nice to know why Dean looks so much older than his wife. Is he older or does she actually have better health than him? 49.228.144.214 (talk) 03:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)