Talk:Steven Gundry/Archive 1

Questions about the diet

A friend started Gundry's diet, so I researched it a bit and have some issues. 1. It's difficult to find any neutral or critical reviews, even though there are two and they are from famous publishers. The Atlantic and the Independent . 2. Although he only started publishing academic papers on the topic, they are very numerous, mostly published by an organization of which he used to be a board member, are only cited by another paper he has published, and of which he is the sole author (except sometimes Epstein) with no institutional affiliation or sponsorship. 3. With the exceptions of Atlantic and Independent (above), there are no major media publishers which have reviewed his diet at all, which is surprising given all the positive testimonials. Media that have done reviews or interviews are effusive and appear to be paid for. Therefore, because these issues are very basic, and together provide a clear picture of the actual nature of Gundry's recent public activity: There should be an explicit statement in this article that concerns have been raised about the validity and truth of Gundry's recommendation by reputable authors at the Independent and the Atlantic. Another sentence would summarize the issues raised by each. Personally, I am weary of the influence that commercial rhetoric has on science, and I think this article is biased by almost completely ignoring the problems with Gundry's recent work. Zoticogrillo (talk) 02:13, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

References

I don't disagree, but this sounds a bit like WP:SYN - e.g. Wikipedians reviewing the publish research and saying "we think it seems fishy." It's not really our place to say. - Scarpy (talk) 22:35, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Very good point. I'd have to concisely summarize the conclusion of the Atlantic article without crowding out other relevant facts. However, the article as it stands has bias and is perhaps self promotional. I'll give drafting it a shot and post proposed text here. Zoticogrillo (talk) 22:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, I've found considerable difficulty finding credible, non promotional, articles on his work. Like, at all. Other than the Atlantic article. Which is very critical (but with credible, relevant references). It is that fact that will result in a disproportionate focus on the critique of his work--it's not a result of bias in drafting. Zoticogrillo (talk) 22:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

A number of prolific scientists now working in 'the popular space' seem to have issues with Gundry's 'science'; but a Wikipedia article section in Lectin discusses Gundry's claims.

Questions about the supplement

Dr. Gundry seems to dislike (a) soyfoods (not soybeans, but soyfoods, specifically soyburgers, soymilk, and 'soy products') because of phytoestrogens and goitrogens, which disrupt thyroid and adrenal glands, fertility, etc., (b) wheatgrass because of he claims that dietary chlorophyll is indigestible (test that claim; chlorophyll as juice is not a grass, which is indigestible to humans), and (c) goji berries (he disbelieves 'unsubstantiated health claims') because they are powerful allergens (lectins) and disrupt immune system, may lead to 'leaky gut' and generate inflammation, etc. He represents a 200-patient AHA (American Heart Association) clinical study of his own patients; however, he does believe in maximizing polyphenols (mostly from berries and cherries) while eliminating lectins. He also suggests eliminating nightshades. So that's what he teaches or seems to be teaching, which I put forward prior to presenting MY criticisms. His operation is the Center for Restorative Medicine. Many Americans do complain of 'low energy'! His Yale thesis was on history of human diet. His supplements (Gundry MD Vital Reds'Metabolic Enhancing Blend' with 8 thermogenic ingredients</ref>; 'Digestive Support Blend' with 5 probiotic strains</ref>;: extracts of aronia cherries, pomegranate, mulberry, though he dislikes caffeine, 8 extracts in the thermogenic 'Metabolic Enhancing Blend', Digestive Support Blend' with 4 probiotics, a complex Vitamin B blend with 8 forms of Vitamin B, all for reasons of evidence) seem to provide affordable soy-free lectin-free polyphenols in a CGMP facility in the USA; this practice of developing a proprietary evidence-based blend may not be suspect in itself, though some folks consider it a COI (even if it's both 'best practice' and the most direct solution to an otherwise unmet need. However, he begins one online infomercial with a comment about human anecdotal belief but in the end relies upon anecdotal user comments from his product's consumers).

Not buying the product, even if that decision is made in advance of investigating a claim, is not in itself a strong reason to discount or ignore the claim, especially if it's a well-organized claim. Many 'well-organized claims' exist in the world. So...

Over my years of watching health claims (while studying other topics), I have noticed that various proprietary products that are translated from validated research evidence may into widely-used consumer products may not have post-market surveillance research data for the products' actual therapeutic usefulness.

I suspect that 'health professionals' must get some marketing solicitations. What do health professionals do with their professional opinions, other than to practice professionally and to give professional opinions to their clients and patients? MaynardClark (talk) 21:23, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

References

Terrible lead...

Looks like it was written by a crank with a sixth-grade education.

I've read the body and all of the references. There are no reliable sources given to support the hyperbolic and un-encyclopaedic sentence that "Scientists have classified the claims as psuedoscience." Which "scientists"? ALL Scientists? Which Claims? ALL the claims? Where is there a "scientific classification system" whereby 'scientists' might 'classify' something as 'pseudoscience'?

Personally, I am skeptical of the "Plant Paradox", but reading this article on Wikipedia actually makes me think the skeptics who wrote this are equally ignorant.

Also, aren't there rules about this, being that this is a BLP? It reads like slander. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.94.207.215 (talk) 15:12, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Profiteering accusations

@Smartse: This is awful. I'll add this to the BLP notice board if necessary. It may be true that this is mentioned in the citations, but the implication is way too far below the belt for an encyclopedia. Let's be adults here and not turn Wikipedia in to a playground for snark. Twitter and Facebook are available if you want to take cheapshots. - Scarpy (talk) 20:14, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Scarpy: There are no accusations of anything. It's merely stating the facts that numerous RS have mentioned:

The Atlantic:

Yes, he also sells supplements he recommends. The last 20 or so minutes of his infomercial is a string of claims about how supplies are running low, and it’s important that you act immediately, and that if you do manage to get through to a customer representative you should order as much as you have room to store—the shelf life is great, etc. And the necessity of supplements is the crucial argument of the book. He writes, “Getting all of the nutrients you need simply cannot be done without supplements.” The GundryMD line of products includes something he invented called vitamin G6. Another is a “lectin shield” that’s “designed to neutralize the effects of lectins.” These are available on his website for $79.99. There you can also get six jars of Vital Reds for $254.70. (Despite the name and claims to “boost energy and metabolism,” these reds claim not to be amphetamines.) I asked him when he got into the chemistry business.

T. Colin Campbell [1]:

In conclusion, there are many people who desire good health and deserve good information and we resent that they must suffer such poor quality and confusing information under the assumption that it is good science. Is it possible that Dr. Gundry is just out to make a quick buck? He admits that his patients give up to a dozen vials of blood for testing every couple of months at his clinic. Overtesting is common practice in supplement-driven clinics. This extensive testing, (which are another topic), is almost always used to demonstrate some type of nutritional pathology, which of course can only be corrected by taking the suggested supplements. And of course, Dr. Gundry sells supplements, including “Lectin Shield” for about $80 a month. According to his website, “This groundbreaking new formula was created to offset the discomforting effects of lectins (proteins commonly found in plants that make them harder to digest). Lectin Shield works to protect your body from a pile-up of lectins and to promote full-body comfort.”

New Scientist (Anthony Warner (chef)):

When speaking of the clients he treats in his exclusive California clinics, Gundry, who also sells a range of pricey supplements, notes that “the more supposedly healthy foods that I eliminated, the more their health improved”. If we substitute the words “their health improved” with “they lost weight”, then the apparent paradox is perhaps not so surprising. It is not hard to imagine that you will lose weight if you cut out staple foods after a doctor tells you that many contain toxins able to tear holes in your gut.

Washington Post:

It’s also a likely fad when everyone — regardless of age, health status or medical needs — is advised to follow the same diet. How can one diet work for everyone? Finally, it’s a fad when scare tactics persuade you to spend money on supplements. Of course, anti-lectin advocates sell expensive pills (just $79.95 a month) that claim to neutralize or reduce the negative effect of lectins.

And just in case we need more:

Joseph A. Schwarcz (director of McGill's Office for Science and Society) [2]:

Gundry sells supplements that supposedly block the non-existent nefarious actions of lectins. As with the plethora of other supplements he foists on visitors to his website, an asterisk leads to the disclaimer, in the tiniest of fonts, that “these statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration; this product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.” Then what, pray tell, are these products intended to do? Given that the pills cost $100 for a month’s supply, a cynic might say that they are intended to make money for the marketer. As far as the claims go, “help protect against infectious bacteria,” “reduce your overall appetite,” and “help relieve joint pain” sure sound like claims of cures or prevention. Where are the studies that show that “Lectin Shield” delivers the goods? We are also told that this supplement can “help you get the body you want, the energy you deserve, and the vitality you know is inside — just waiting to break free.” Give me a break.

Given three sources felt the need to point out the $80 cost of the supplements, we have little choice but to also mention this. What we are not saying is that he has invented his pseudoscientific lectin theories in order to sell his supplements. How is repeating statements in reliable sources "awful" or in any way non-compliant with BLP? SmartSE (talk) 21:10, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Smartse: That he "invented his pseudoscientific lectin theories in order to sell his supplements" is exactly the implication is given the current wording and context and that's and why it's not compliant with BLP. I'm sorry, but your hand-waving of "well, it's in these sources" doesn't justify quoting those sources in any context. Context, due weight and balance matter. - Scarpy (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

You're very mistaken if you think that the sources do not justify it. WP:WEIGHT demands that it is included. WP:NPOV does not mean that we are neutral, it means that we accurately represent sources. SmartSE (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Scarpy: The template you've added implies that there are other sources that contradict what's in that section. Having spend considerable time researching this, I'm fairly sure that there aren't, but I'm mistaken, please link to them. SmartSE (talk) 22:28, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Smartse: Gundry might be completely out to lunch when it comes to lechtins, it doesn't mean that his motive was to create a panic about lectins to sell supplements as is currently implied by the text. If you think there's a better template, be my guest. But your wording it not "charitable" it's conniving, condescending, imputes malice and profit motive, is POV and looks and awful lot like a BLP violation to me. The noticeboard may agree or disagree, but this kind gaming Wikipedia to defame someone's character is wrong even if you manage to get away with it. - Scarpy (talk) 22:34, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

The balance warning seems unjustified to me. Substantial claims require substantial evidence. Dr. Gundry clearly makes the former but, for whatever reason, appears to lack the later in forms which are sufficiently respected by the scientific community to spawn any apparent substantive supportive references. Should reasonable supportive references appear they should be added and the article revised accordingly of course. But in the meantime the article as composed seems to reasonably summarize Dr. Gundry's dietary vision plus sufficiently credible independent judgement of its nature and value. I perceive no composition bias and thus view the balance warning as misleading. --H Bruce Campbell (talk) 08:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

@H Bruce Campbell: I'm baffled as to how people can't disentangle criticism of his book from WP:BLP guidelines. It's like we're saying here "Steven Gundry, three publications gave your book negative reviews, so it's okay to for us here at Wikipedia to insulate that that you're attempting to defraud consumers with your supplements." Sorry, I suppose I thought we were better than this? Just having a "reception" section in a BLP article is crazy. As if he was born in to the world like a company releasing a movie and his "reception" can be encompassed by criticism of his book. Disgraceful. Around 2015 I started thinking that Wikipedia might be the last gem in the sea of mudslinging and snark that the Internet had degraded to, but seems it's seeping in here too and Wikipedia is becoming yet another relational aggression tool. Take a good look in the mirror, my friends, I know deep down inside you're both better than this. - Scarpy (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

In my view Smartse correctly points out "You're very mistaken if you think that the sources do not justify it. WP:WEIGHT demands that it is included. WP:NPOV does not mean that we are neutral, it means that we accurately represent sources." and "The template you've added implies that there are other sources that contradict what's in that section. Having [spent] considerable time researching this, I'm fairly sure that there aren't, but I'm mistaken, please link to them.". These observations appear to be sound, have not been eroded by subsequent debate, and demonstrate that the balance warning is misleading. There's no entangled criticism related corruption of Wikipedia guidelines nor aggression involved - this is simply a pure hearted effort to reflect the state of affairs involving Dr. Gundry.

If anyone seeks to improve the narrative surrounding Dr. Gundry their only legitimate option is to find credible supportive sources and cite them in the article. Nothing else is a constructive use of time or exercise of respect and civility in this matter.

I believe the balance warning should be removed - it's clearly improper. --H Bruce Campbell (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to hear you feel that way Scarpy but we obviously disagree and BLP does not mean that negative information cannot be included and our readers should be aware of what the scientific community think of his theories. To me, that is a vital function of Wikipedia. SmartSE (talk) 18:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@Smartse: This edit is a step in the right direction. It looks a little more like an article about a person and less like one about a movie or a video game or some other dehumanized commodity. Looking now he has been an author on some other books [3], [4], [5] and a large number of peer-reviewed articles. It's better than "reception" but gives a different impression that it's all he's authored. - Scarpy (talk) 19:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@H Bruce Campbell: I believe you've yet to accomplish the feat of disentangling the person from a set of ideas he advocates for. For example when you say If anyone seeks to improve the narrative surrounding Dr. Gundry their only legitimate option is to find credible supportive sources and cite them in the article. you are committing exactly that kind of attribution error. I don't believe the part of Gundry you dislike is the fact that he saved lives performing necessary heart surgeries, I believe the part of Gundry you dislike are his opinions about lectins. So what you really mean to say here "If anyone seeks to improve the narrative surrounding The Plant Paradox their only legitimate option is to find credible supportive sources and cite them in the article." That's an honest to goodness defensible position. What isn't defensible is to conflate his entire career with a set of opinions in a book he published. - Scarpy (talk) 19:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

@Turjan: Please stop removing this from the lead. First off, the lead is a summary of the rest of the article and sourcing requirements are lower than in the main body. In Steven_Gundry#Diet there are multiple sources which discuss the fact that Gundry's theories are not supported by evidence and are pseudoscientific. While you cited that it is not compliant with WP:NPOV to include this in the lead, the opposite is the case and it would be contrary to that policy to not make it abundantly clear to readers that his theories are not supported by scientists or dieticians. As I mentioned, I am open to discussing slight modifications to the wording, but the general gist of his theories being pseudoscience and him also selling supplements (see above) cannot be removed. SmartSE (talk) 12:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I will continue to remove what remains a false statement. Here is what you have written in the lede: "Scientists and dieticians have classified Gundry's claims about lectins as pseudoscience.[6][5]" If this is a factual statement, it should be a simple matter for you to answer this question: (a) which scientists, specifically have classified his claims as pseudoscience, and (b) what authority do they have to make this classification? Neither of the two references you cited to support this claim. As I have stated repeatedly, the two articles in question are written by, and contain quotations from some dietitians and other individuals (Amazon book reviewers!) who are unqualified to pass scientific judgement on scientific questions -- NOT scientists. There is no mention of pseudoscience, or classification, or scientists who have made any such classification. I read through these articles in detail, and cannot find the name of a single scientist who has commented on the claims made by these RDs, book reviewers, and journalists -- not ONE quotation. This statement as written reflects your own personal opinion, and nothing more -- it violates WP:NOR, WP:SYN, WP:NPOV, as well as WP:BLP, since it is essentially slanderous. WP:BLP requires that: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[1] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." If you continue to re-post the same false statement, I will have no choice but to continue to remove it immediately, and I will eventually have to seek to have Wikipedia's policies enforced here.Turjan (talk) 05:04, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

which scientists, specifically have classified his claims as pseudoscience? T. Colin Campbell, Robert H. Eckel, Joseph A. Schwarcz (not cited in the article, but in the source linked above "Frightening the public with dietary risks that lack evidence, and selling supplements to reduce that imaginary risk would be one way to put it."). David J. Jenkins (again not directly in the article, but read the Atlantic source). Steven Novella - also not in the article but see [6]. Also "Dr. Gundry offers a contrarian, pseudoscientific voice. But he is wrong — and self-serving.” (via here. Here too. As I already said, the WP:LEAD is a summary and "scientists" is a way of summarising this and it is not original research to do so. Likewise with pseudoscience - Washington Post directly call it that, but every other source also agrees that his claims are not supported by evidence - i.e. they are pseudoscience.

NPOV means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic and it therefore imperative that these views are included in the article. BLP does not mean not excluding all negative material.

Why do you keep on also removing the information about him selling supplements? SmartSE (talk) 10:01, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Free adv.

This BS article should be a candidate for deletion. – Sca (talk) 14:14, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Howard2019

This irrelevant reference was removed:

• ref name="Howard2019"> Howard, Jonathan (2019). "Semmelweis Reflex". Cognitive Errors and Diagnostic Mistakes. pp. 467–500. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-93224-8_27. ISBN 978-3-319-93223-1.

It is totally off-topic. — Rgdboer (talk) 03:43, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

@Rgdboer: How so? See p. 488 e.g. Steven Gundry, a contributor to Gwyneth Paltrow’s website Goop, is another interesting example of a self-proclaimed Galileo. SmartSE (talk) 17:43, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

So he's mentioned, but the reference is appended to a statement that Gundry has published 300 articles and registered patents for medical devices. Does Howard support that assertion ? — Rgdboer (talk) 05:29, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Lectin Claims

The lectin information presented on this page doesn't give an accurate view of the broad scientific debate regarding this topic and would leave the reader with an inaccurate view of the current scientific research on the topic of lectins and specifically on Gundry's viewpoint.

For instance here's something from pubmed that could be incorporated to give the article a more nuetral point of view.

The citation of research on dietary lectins could be enhanced here: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=dietary+lectins

For instance here's a publication that seems to mirror some of Gundry's claims: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25599185/

"Some lectins can be harmful if raw, poorly cooked, or consumed in great quantities"

I think the source for this-"Some lectins can be harmful if raw, poorly cooked, or consumed in great quantities. is fine given this is more about diet, and MEDRS is probably not necessary. However I didn't add the content just corrected some confusing syntax, and have no concerns with removing the content altogether. Littleolive oil (talk) 03:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I see that the removal was not about the source but refers to an essay which I have not seen before. And while I tend to disregard essays-they aren't policy or community vetted-this one makes sense. Littleolive oil (talk) 03:33, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Page needs more neutral point of view

This summary on this article is of low quality; it doesn't have a WP:NPOV. Nutritional data is nuanced and requires precision. Which of Gundry's claims are disputed and which are not is ambiguous. Gundry has many claims about lectins that are not disputed.

I need to remind editors that "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article."

--Tonytopper (talk) 21:19, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

It's a summary of the sourced content in the main body of the article. SmartSE (talk) 21:30, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

That's a fair point, but the rest of the page seems to egregiously be misrepresenting his claim by cherry picking criticisms and being ambigious. It also doesn't follow the spirit of NPOV in my opinion. And Wikipedia makes it clear about NPOV "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus."

I tried adding some suggestions below around lectin claims and I may try to work them in somehow so that a reader would get a better impression on the precise claims that are disputed and which ones are in fact backed up by scientific publications. Suggestions welcome. Tonytopper (talk) 23:13, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

@Tonytopper: There's a common misconception that NPOV means that article content needs to be neutral, whereas in reality what NPOV means is that we summarise reliable sources, giving appropriate weight to different viewpoints. There are multiple sources disputing gundry's claims about lectins bit as far as I'm aware, zero (reliable) sources that support them. Consequently NPOV means that the article reflects that. It's not up to us to judge whether gundry is right or wrong or whether the other sources are right or wrong either, we just summarise what they say. Unless sources specifically mention gundry they don't belong in this article but instead in the lectin article. SmartSE (talk) 08:49, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

+1 to that. WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:YWAB explain this in depth. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:33, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, this is all becoming clearer as I navigate editing.

The point I guess I've been trying to make, abiet not very clearly perhaps, is editors here have selected to include only sources that confirm a certain belief rather than choosing to find a broad set of sources.

There was a known backlash from the vegetarian community on his dietary advice and it's showing here on Wikipedia. Tonytopper (talk) 23:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with "beliefs", or the "vegetarian community" (whatever that is). It's science. Wikipedia's mission is to reflect accepted knowledge as found in the WP:BESTSOURCES. That's it. If you can find some that's missed, it can go in the article. Bon courage (talk) 06:54, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Lectin Claims

The lectin information presented on this page doesn't give an accurate view of the broad scientific debate regarding this topic and would leave the reader with an inaccurate view of the current scientific research on the topic of lectins and specifically on Gundry's viewpoint.

For instance here's something from pubmed that could be incorporated to give the article a more nuetral point of view.

The citation of research on dietary lectins could be enhanced here: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=dietary+lectins

For instance here's a publication that seems to mirror some of Gundry's claims: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25599185

Please discuss before removing this section. Tonytopper (talk) 00:45, 19 December 2022‎ (UTC)

Nope. Read WP:MEDRS, we do not add primary sources for biomedical claims. Also the paper you are citing is a very weak source from an alternative medicine journal, it was published in the Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine. Not an unreliable source for Wikipedia. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:37, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken, that source would be fine when dealing with WP-FRINGE and Wikipedia:Alternative_medicine actually.

Lectin restriction is not quackery or psuedoscience just because a newspaper reporter deemed it so. It's being practiced by a Yale-educated licensed physician, who yes sells supplements, which should rightfully add some skepticisms, but many many dietitions sell supplements as part of thier operations.

This likely falls better under Experimental medicine or unproven medicine.

Not trying to be a jerk here, but you should stop. There is enough circumstantial evidence for one to be suspicious you are part of the vegetarian/vegan backlash against lectin restriction and Doctor Gundry.

This page is WP:BLP so extra care should be taken regarding WP:NPOV

Experimental medicine gets things wrong and you are obviously passionite about protecting people from bad health information, which I admire, but just as much harm can be done throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak. Tonytopper (talk) 23:54, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Gundry writes articles for Gwyneth Paltrow's Goop website, which has been criticized for promoting quackery.

This is a clearly problematic entry that I am tempted to remove. It doesn't link Gundry's articles specifically and doesn't link the criticisms of Goop to anything related to what Gundry wrote, making it seem like a smear attempt. This article in general smells of activist editing and needs a more balanced touch in future edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonytopper (talk • contribs) 20:50, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Content is well sourced. The issue seems to be that you have a Steven Gundry POV. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:54, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

There are sources I guess but it's a corollary that is clearly trying to discredit. I am happy to engage in constructive back and forth but you aren't doing that. I have a NPOV. It seems you are into keeping this completely labeled as quackery, which is inaccurate. Tonytopper (talk) 00:38, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

The way it's currently written is cleary trying to create guilt by association which is against WP policy. Tonytopper (talk) 23:34, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring

Tonytopper is edit warring and should stop. I suggest that you revert your last edit, to avoid sanctions. Thanks. - Roxy the dog 21:24, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Calling edits "weasely" is not assumming good faith. Gundry makes many claims about lectins, only some of which are disputed. Makes no sense that this slight edit is a contengious edit unless their is an activist campaign here, which if that's the case it should be flagged as such. Tonytopper (talk) 22:02, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Pretty much all his claims are bogus/pseudoscience. You are ignoring WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:37, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

No, you are ignoring WP:NPOV. I can see your edits in the the history. And I know mine, and anyone can see them. They are extremely modest and move the article towards NPOV.

"Pretty much all his claims are bogus/pseudoscience" is ambiguious, and dubious, and actually wrong. Tonytopper (talk) 00:30, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I have not ignored NPOV. You did obviously not read WP:PSCI "Conversely, by its very nature, scientific consensus is the majority viewpoint of scientists towards a topic. Thus, when talking about pseudoscientific topics, we should not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other. While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community. Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight." Gundry's anti-lectin claims are pseudoscience, the medical community do not take his claims seriously. We do not give equal weight to fringe views, the scientific consensus is clear on lectins. Multiple users have tried to explain to you but you do not listen. We do not give equal weight to fringe views. All dietitians and medical experts describe the lectin free diet as nonsense, we have references that show this on the article [7], [8], [9], [10]. You are arguing from ignorance. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:43, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Then why are you removing the Talk section on this page about Lection claims? I am just trying to, at somepoint, help to get readers clarity on exactly which of those claims are contested and which are not.

Also, the scientific consensus on this topic is nascent and these articles conviently don't have any mention of gut microbiota which is also a fairly nascent scientific topic. You are clearly on a anti-Gundry soapbox and trying to maintain a yourown confirmation biases regarding Gundry.

I am just trying to expand this article to be more clear and more nuetral and you are trying to hold on to a claim which actually doesn't reflect scientific consensus or accuracy. Tonytopper (talk) 00:53, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

You clearly don't know all his claims and are stiffling my attempts to work towards having this article expand on them, evidenced by your removing of the section I tried to added to this page. Tonytopper (talk) 00:45, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I am not the one reverting very mild changes. After reviewing what WP calls edit warring some more it would seem that I am being edit warred. Tonytopper (talk) 23:31, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Psychologist Guy is edit warring and should stop.

Further notices will be used once I learn them. I am being impolitely treated and not welcomed and inaccurately accused of actions that the edit history just doesn't support. My simple and accurate edits are being reverted due to Psychologist Guy campaign to make Gundry out as a quack. He also doing this on the lectin-free diet page.

Also, my edits are being reverted wholesale which is wasting my contributions to this page. And my additions to this talk page about lectin claims was removed prematurely, without discussion.

--Tonytopper (talk) 00:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

If we check the history of this talk-page, you are repeatedly editing old comments you have made and are moving old comments around - this is against policy. You can only do this if other users have not commented since your last edit. You are making a mess of things. On the article itself you haven't actually added any reliable content, just messed around. You repeatedly edit-warred and wanted to add the claim that only "some" of Gundry's claims are pseudoscience [11] which is clearly not correct. This is not good editing, its a pointy POV. You are calling editors "activists" above because you disagree with reliable sources criticizing Gundry's ideas. There clearly is a bad POV here, your editing is not appropriate. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

That's a mischaracterization. Correcting typos and grammar for clarity is not against policy. You've already outed yourself as "pointy POV" as you call with the claim of "Pretty much all his claims are bogus/pseudoscience." However, you've made no case for me doing so, please point to where I have directly and clearly.

You are projecting something from some other experience. Tonytopper (talk) 03:06, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

" claim that only "some" of Gundry's claims are pseudoscience [5] which is clearly not correct."

Do I need to list and quote every claim Gundry has made around lectins? And give a source from PubMed to make that edit? Cause I may.

I don't see a reasonable list of claims that makes your ambigious case that "some of" isn't the much more reasonable and nuetral approach to the language here. Tonytopper (talk) 03:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Saying that all of his claims about lectins is psuedoscience is not WP:V.

Also, I suggest rereading WP:MEDRS yourself. "Note that health-related content in the general news media should not normally be used to source biomedical content in Wikipedia articles." "general news media" sourcing is rife here. Tonytopper (talk) 03:22, 19 December 2022 (UTC)