This also goes to show that all those cryptic degrees and titles after one's name like Jeremy's excessively lists add up to ZILCH if one is, first and foremost, an industry whore, charlatan or just plain biased.

What's funny is how he counsels folks to be skeptical of "new research", for us to question whether it's unbiased/reliable/relevant... yet, these same kooks demanded us to take as gospel the very minimal studies that they insisted to force the 1st World in the 80's to dive into the low-fat paradigm. Maybe they're subconsciouly admitting that THIS time around, folks need to be more careful, since low fat dieting's not the panacea it was ushered in as.

Funny too, is with all those professional titles to his name, he can't even figure out how to punctuate: "the Atkins' philosophy" should have no possessive apostrophe (ok, ok, a minor quibble, but work with me here, heh-heh... this guy boasts of being Mr. Big, so I've raised the bar in my standards of critique only to find he falls flat on the ground).

A further hypocrisy of his "Is the information reliable? - who produced it and why?" supposed litmus test, I echo Demi's observation that Jeremy himself fails this self-imposed standard by curiously refusing to cite references to a number of supposed studies he indirectly refers to. Not a good start to his Brave New Standards.

That he can't even accurately cite the A-B-C's of the Atkins Diet's guidelines:

"Eating what you like (and as much as you like), as long as it hasn't the slightest whiff of starch"

...draws into further question his ability to even recite common information. If he can't even accurately recite what it is that he's criticizing, how can we trust much of anything he spouts off? It does, however, help expose how he can similarly distort the results of other studies.
I vaguely recall, months ago, we came, saw and mostly laughed past the kidney stone red herring study. Without rehasing it in full, there are too many variables affecting what could cause kidney stones, and nobody's truly pinned it on low carb dieting. Period.

He touts long term health and long-term sustainability issues, and then leaps to claim:

"The growing evidence is that the Atkins diet is unable to support either of these aims"

One wonders what growing evidence he refers to. While politicians may temporarily get away with lies to the public simply by stating and restating them, e.g. Iraq's teeming with WMD's just outside Baghdad while buying uranium from South Africa, we should instead hold these certified health industry mouthpieces to higher scrutiny.

He then really presses his luck in thinking he's created an unbroken chain of logic by employing a final, unfounded scare tactic:

"Crippled by the physical side-effects of the Atkins diet in five... years for the sake of a few more pounds weight loss in the short-term"

... his own house of ill-constructed cards come tumbling down under his own overstressing them. I'd love for the five-year Maintenance Phase graduates to deluge this quack with their own letters of how they lost a heck of a lot more than just a few short term pounds, kept it off *more* than five years, and are fitter and healthier than they've ever been.

Granted, more unbiased research will better help define all this and extend even further the evidence that this diet heals rather than harms, but his manipulative writing style attempts to close the door to even that, for all the wrong reasons.

Surgeons can be sued for malpractice against a single patient... tis a shame Jeremy can't have some of those abused titles stripped for a dereliction of professional duty. The Court of World Opinion at large, however, will render a verdict... maybe one reason these goons are working overtime is to save up for the early retirement they'll be faced after they're run out on a rail.... "getta rope" says I!