Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by e-mail at the address shown and delete
all copies of this message. This e-mail transmission may contain information that is proprietary, privileged, confidential, or otherwise legally exempt
from disclosure. If you are not the named addressee, please be aware that you are not authorized to open, read, print, retain, copy, or disseminate
this message or any part of it. Thank you for your compliance.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by e-mail at the address
shown and delete all copies of this message. This e-mail transmission may contain information that is proprietary, privileged,
confidential, or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you are not the named addressee, please be aware that you are not
authorized to open, read, print, retain, copy, or disseminate this message or any part of it. Thank you for your compliance.
ForwardedMessage.eml
Here is the correspondence that I have concerning the le er I signed. I didnt save the follow up e mail from Bonnie but as I recall she said she had what she
needed, which was my name and tle.
Thanks,
Marlene
Hope you will consider signing to help preserve science and public health. Individuals who want to sign on have to do it by this Wed
Nov 3.
From: Bonnie Liebman
Date: Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 2:36 PM
To: Bonnie Liebman
Subject: Le er to BMJ re Dietary Guidelines--Please respond by Nov. 3
Dear Colleague:
On Sept. 24, the BMJ (formerly the Bri sh Medical Journal) published an inves ga on en tled, The Scien c Report Guiding the US Dietary
Guidelines: Is it Scien c? The ar cle (a ached) was wri en by Nina Teicholz, a journalist and author of The Big Fat Surprise Why Bu er, Meat, &
Cheese Belong in a Healthy Diet.
The ar cle is riddled with errors. For example, Teicholz claims that the report of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Commi ee used weak
scien c standards because it relied on fewer reviews by USDAs Nutri on Evidence Library (NEL) than the 2010 DGAC commi ee and instead
conducted ad hoc examina ons of the scien c literature.
In fact, there were no ad hoc examina ons. The appendices to the 2015 DGAC report specify the search strategy, inclusion criteria, search results,
and AMSTAR ra ngs for the systema c reviews, meta-analyses, and other studies used by the DGAC. The a ached le er documents ten addi onal
factual errors in the ar cle.
(Note: The BMJ ar cle was med to coincide with an October 7 hearing of the House Agriculture Commi ee, where it was used to cri cize the
2015 DGACs scien c integrity.)
The a ached le er urges the BMJ to retract the inves ga on. Please let us know by Tuesday, November 3, if you would like to co-sign the le er.
(Please also feel free to pass it on to your colleagues.)
Thanks,
Bonnie Liebman
bliebman@cspinet.org
_______________________________
Bonnie F. Liebman, MS
Director of Nutri on
Center for Science in the Public Interest
1220 L St., NW Suite 300
Washington, DC 20005
bliebman@cspinet.org
Ph: (202) 777-8335
Fax: (202) 265-4954
A achments:
59.4 KB