followup...

Widow: Atkins wasn't obese at death

'I was outraged when I first read that'

Tuesday, February 17, 2004 Posted: 5:05 AM EST (1005 GMT)

http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/02/1...idow/index.html

Veronica Atkins: 'Let Dr. Atkins rest in peace, for heaven's sake, and let me grieve in peace.'


(CNN) -- The widow of low-carb diet guru Dr. Robert Atkins said Monday that she was "outraged" at charges her husband was obese at the time of his death and denied his heart problems had anything to do with the protein-heavy diet he espoused.

"I was outraged when I first read that because it's totally not true," Veronica Atkins said from Miami, Florida.

"He was not overweight. He did not have heart failure," she added.

Atkins slipped and fell on an icy street April 8, suffering a severe head injury, and remained in a coma until life support was withdrawn April 17. He was 72.

The Wall Street Journal published a story based on a medical examiner's report saying that Atkins had a history of heart disease and heart attacks, and that at the time of his death, the more than 6-foot-tall doctor weighed 258 pounds -- considered obese by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's body-mass index calculator.

Veronica Atkins said her husband gained as much as 60 pounds after entering the hospital after the accident.

"The physicians told me it was because of all the liquids they were giving him," she said of the intravenous feedings her husband received.

She also denied reports that a heart attack caused her husband's fall.

"He did not have a heart attack, he definitely did not have a heart attack. That comes from his cardiologist," she said.

Atkins' injuries from the fall were critical, his widow said.

"Half of his head was gone, half his brain had to be taken off, practically," Veronica Atkins said. "The cranium certainly was gone. I mean, it was a severe, severe, severe trauma to the head."

Mrs. Atkins said her husband had developed a condition called "cardiomyopathy" about three years before his death and suffered a heart attack in April 2002, which he discussed openly in interviews.

In an interview on CNN's "Larry King Live" in January 2003, Atkins himself said the heart attack may have been related to the cardiomyopathy -- a serious disease of the heart muscle. Atkins said his cardiomyopathy came from a viral infection, a common cause of the disease.

A group called the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) provided the medical examiner's report on Atkins' condition at his death to The Wall Street Journal, the group said.

A statement on the PCRM Web site said it obtained the report from a doctor not connected to the group.

Ellen Borakove, spokeswoman for the New York City office of the chief medical examiner, said the records were erroneously sent to Dr. Richard M. Fleming of the Fleming Heart and Health Institute in Omaha, Nebraska. She said the medical examiner's office is filing a complaint with the state of Nebraska.

She said the records would not be released to anyone else, but said they clearly indicate that Atkins died from the head injury.

Veronica Atkins called PCRM "enemies of us," saying they were "ultra, ultra vegetarians," adding she is considering a lawsuit against the group for its use of the medical examiner's report.

"Let Dr. Atkins rest in peace, for heaven's sake, and let me grieve in peace," she said.

PCRM has been criticized by the nonprofit National Council Against Health Fraud as "a propaganda machine" for vegetarianism, with strong ties to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, which opposes using animals for food. The Atkins diet encourages people to eat meat.

PCRM insists it is independent of PETA.

My pleasure - I was up most of the night fuming over this.



YES! Absolutely!! - in the modern media world, such "name-calling" is essential to getting one's message out - to fail to do that is to lose the argument. In person-to-person interactions name-calling is inappropriate, but the international media is a completely different beast and must be approached with those differences in mind.



I wasn't attacking you personally, either - rather, I was merely engaging your opinions.



Honest vigor in defending one's opinions does not mean that one is being unfriendly - merely vigorous in our dissent.

This forum welcomes debate and yet is much friendlier than any other forum I've ever been a part of.

Article comparing Al Qaeda to PCRM/PETA/ALF...

New Front on Ecoterror?

Some Want to Target High-Profile Activists in Battle on Ecoterror

By Dean Schabner, ABC News

Feb. 26, 2002 — Some congressmen and industry advocates want the federal government to take a hard look at some well-known animal rights and environmental groups, and maybe shut them down as supporters of terrorism.

The idea was floated earlier this month at a congressional subcommittee hearing on ecoterrorism by Richard Berman, the executive director of a group called the Center for Consumer Freedom.

Berman, whose group represents restaurant and tavern owners and advocates protecting "the public's right to a full menu of dining and entertainment choices," said a number of high-profile activist groups, including People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, have links to groups named on the FBI's domestic terrorism list, such as the Earth Liberation Front.

He came to the hearing advocating that the government wage war against domestic terrorism the way the war has been waged against accused terror mastermind Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network — not just by going after those who carry out illegal acts, but by trying to cut off financial support for organizations identified as being terrorist.

In cases of domestic offenders, he said the federal government could crack down by revoking the tax-free status of not-for-profit organizations found to fund domestic terror groups.

"I'd like Congress to look at the tax-exempt status of groups like PETA," Berman told ABCNEWS.com. "I don't see this being any different from George Bush being able to shut down foundations funneling money to al Qaeda. The difference in degree of activity doesn't mean anything if you're on the receiving end of it."

Where Does the Money Come From?

Berman was dismissed by officials at PETA and Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine — another group that he accused of ties to organizations that have been linked to criminal activity — as a showman doing his best to earn his paycheck as a lobbyist for restaurant and tavern chains. But many members of the House Resources Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health seemed to take him more seriously.

"I would say there is real cause for concern," said Joshua Penry, the staff director of the subcommittee. "A lot of the evidence is circumstantial, but in some cases it's deeply troubling."

As one piece of evidence, Berman submitted a federal tax return showing that PETA gave $1,500 to ELF, which has taken credit and been blamed for millions of dollars in vandalism in recent years.

"The reality is these groups are getting their money from somewhere," Penry said. "That's the question, just where are these groups getting their money?"

James Jarboe, the domestic terrorism chief of the FBI's Counterterrorism Division, said during testimony at the hearing that ELF and the related Animal Liberation Front have caused more than $43 million in damage in more than 600 attacks since 1996, including the firebombing of the Vail ski resort in 1998, which did $12 million in damages. The FBI calls both groups terrorist operations.

"These are hardened criminals," said subcommittee Chairman Rep. Scott McInnis, R-Colo. "They are dangerous, they are well-funded, they are savvy, sophisticated and stealthy, and if their violence continues to escalate, it is only a matter of time before their parade of terror results in a lost human life."

Members of ALF, ELF Elusive

The two groups have managed to almost completely elude law enforcement, despite not being shy about trumpeting their successes. They issued a joint statement in January claiming responsibility for 67 illegal acts last year, including setting a fire that destroyed a $5.4 million horticulture building at the University of Washington.

The fact that many Americans support protecting the environment and oppose cruelty to animals, combined with the success of ELF and ALF in avoiding any human casualties in their attacks, seems to some of the lawmakers at the hearing to have created undue sympathy for the activist groups.

"We must strip away the Robin Hood mystique and perceived high ground that some have given these radicals," McInnis said. "It's just a matter of time before a human life is taken."

The lawmakers were thwarted in their efforts to get information about ELF and its backers from a Portland, Ore., man who has acted as the group's spokesman. Craig Rosebraugh took the Fifth Amendment more than 50 times when he appeared before the subcommittee. Outside the hearing room he also refused to answer reporters' questions.

FBI and Justice Department officials declined to comment on whether efforts to break up ELF and ALF have gone beyond more traditional law enforcement practices to include any attempt to cut off funding.

PETA: We’re Strictly Legal

Berman's accusations against PETA also included a claim that the group gave money to Rodney Coronado, who was convicted of arson for setting fires at fur farms, and to Josh Harper, who was "arrested a half-dozen times and convicted of assault on a police officer."

The president of PETA, Ingrid Newkirk, said Harper was "the guy who hit a police officer with a piece of tofu during a demonstration" and said the group does contribute to the legal funds of those arrested in animal rights demonstrations.

"For young activists who sometimes get overzealous we do provide for the right to counsel, which is a fundamental American right," she said.

Newkirk said the group would never give money to be used to support violence or anything illegal, but said she did not remember the check to ELF, which was reported on the organization's 2000 tax return.

"We have an annual budget of $17 million and he has to go back two years to find something for $1,500," Newkirk said. "It certainly wasn't for anything that he would like it to be for because we don't fund anything that's illegal."

SHAC Attack

Berman's accusation against Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, a group that advocates a non-meat, non-dairy vegan diet as the healthiest way to eat, was based on a letter that was co-signed by PCRM President Dr. Neal Barnard and Kevin Jonas, who heads a group called SHAC, for Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty.

The letter was sent to dozens of companies asking them not to do business with Huntingdon Life Sciences, a British research firm that also operates in the United States.

Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, ALF and others have battered away at the lab's financial backers with e-mails, threats, protests and bad publicity to convince investors to pull out.

The groups have been known to post the telephone numbers and e-mail addresses of bank officials on their Web sites, urging supporters to call and write often. Supporters of the groups and their cause have destroyed the property of Huntingdon backers, but no one has been convicted of any of the crimes or linked directly to the groups.

PCRM's Barnard said the inclusion of his group by Berman was just another attack by an industry lobbyist.

"It is unfortunate that the tobacco, meat, and dairy industries have launched a hate campaign against health and humane advocates," Barnard said. "Now that an average American's cancer risk has reached one in three, the tobacco, meat, and dairy interests are trying to obscure their roles in this disease.

"This is America and people can say what they want. If it gets to the point of libel, we will sue them," he added.

Elusive Opponents

If federal officials were to go after backers of groups like ELF and ALF, it's not clear what impact their efforts would have. The groups have Web sites, but given the lack of evidence of any kind of structural organization within the groups, it is not clear how much of a role funding plays in their ability to act.

According to law enforcement officials, both ELF and ALF seem to work more as grass-roots operations than many radical groups. There are no identified leadership figures, and those who act as spokespeople for the two groups have thus far avoided being convicted of any criminal links to the organizations.

Recent arrests on Long Island, N.Y., and in Phoenix for crimes believed to have been committed by ELF cells do not seem to have led law enforcement officials to any broader organization.

The Phoenix man who admitted setting fire to several houses being built on the edge of a nature preserve also lived in the housing development and said he was just angry that others were moving in.

In the Long Island arsons, three teenagers were arrested in February 2001 and confessed to setting fires and committing vandalism in a luxury housing development. They said they were members of ELF, but no other arrests have followed.

OMG! Lumping dairy and meat industries with tabacco? What hilarity!

This is true, they haven't directly killed anyone. However, when it comes down to it, these animal rights extremists feel the lives of animals are equal, if not morally superior to the lives of flawed human beings. This is the extremist religious-like subjective moral position the activist group(s) rest upon. They have a moral agenda to push at all costs, they care nothing for science or ethics.

Ultimately, if a diet which includes eating animal flesh would improve the health of a certain percentage of humans to the point of even saving their lives from diseases (diabesity & syndrome x); then the PCRM/PETA/ALF would sooner let those people die a slow painful death of ill health, rather than advocate a non-vegan diet. Attempting to force all people into a diet which may be poisonous to some, to me, is advocation of murder (via poisoning) to advance their religion. Very taliban-like behavior.

I think comparing militant animal rights extremists to other religious extremists is a fairly apt comparison.

Let's not forget that PCRM advocates veganism for children. Which, in fact, directly resulted in the death of some children, and to the parents being prosecuted for forcing their children on those diets. There's been several cases like that in the past couple of years.

Wa'il

I agree completely.

She is showing remarkable restraint considering the incredible brassy violation of civil rights the animal rights extremists are inflicting upon her and her family. How anyone could not see the similarities between fanatical islamic extremists and these obscene, vulgar, disrespectful and (indirectly) murderous animal rights extremists is just beyond me. The only tangible difference between the two, is the animal rights extremists are cowards; they refuse to openly state and act on their true beliefs. They refuse to admit they don't value human life and freedoms above their subjective moral dogmas. The truth is, to the animal rights extremist groups, saving animals is the most important thing and human prosperity, health, and freedom are all secondary. PCRM cowers behind lies, they pretend to be acting in the best interest of human health and prosperity. Hogwash, obviously. If this were true, then why do they care not to pay attention to the millions of humans who were saved fromt he brink of death by atkins-like programs? Why would they sooner send these people back to ill health on high-carbohydrate diets? As far as PCRM is concerned, as long as those people are eating animal flesh as part of their treatment, then they should be dead, and the world would be better off because "the animals are safe". To them, there is no exuse for not eating vegan, and if you eat animals you are a murderer and therefore your passing is justified.

There is not a doubt in my mind, that underneath, they really do believe that all people who fight against adopting a vegan lifestyle are murderers, and the world would be better off without them.

Also, many low-carbers put their pets on low-carb diets, with great health benefits to their pets.

However, PETA/PCRM do not approve of pets, and having pets is considered a mistreatment of animals rights. Regardless of the fact the man+dog alliance was a perfect combo for the hunter gatherer's evolution. But then again, hunting is the greatest sin, for them.

Wa'il

Excuse me, but philosophically I also think nonhuman animals lives are just as important as human lives. That does not mean that I think the tactics employed by some of these groups is right. And ethically, one of the major ethicists of all time Immanuel Kant would agree with me.

So, if you were in a cage with a starving tiger, would you flip a coin to see if he'd get to eat you or you'd try to kill him, presuming that your lives are equally important? I bet the tiger didn't read any philosophers and wouldn't feel a moment of conflict over his priorities.

Personally, I think its natural for every animal to feel their life is more important and their species is more important, then others. I'm sure that a cat feels mice are food whereas other cats are not.

Unfortunately I think that some of the ethical vegetarians are so extreme they put their pets on vegetarian diets too. And that, I think, is cruelty to animals.

This would exactly be one of my main points, actually. It is all a matter of perspective, isn't it?

Yeah. putting animals on a vegetarian diet is cruel and stupid. Cats would go blind on one. I am not an idiot.

I think the tiger would have no problems getting me before I got to it. I am not saying that in a survival sense I wouldn't try to save my own life-I am just saying it wouldn't be wrong for the tiger to do so either. I am also saying that my life is not more important in the grand scheme of the world-not that it isn't more important to me, personally.

I'm not trying to offend you, but if you truly believe that animals are morally equal to humans, then to be logically consistent, you must also believe that purposely killing and eating an animal would be morally the same as eating another human and committing cannibalism. If you really believe this, in your mind eating animals would be murder, and those who consciously choose to adopt a meat-eating lifestyle (read: those who make a conscious choice to consume meat and are not just ignorant/unaware of their food choices) are choosing to be murderers.
It seems to me that moral vegetarians truly can't respect the choice to be carnivorous while being logically consistent in their beliefs. They need to believe that those who choose to be carnivorous do what they do out of ignorance, either that or they are very cruel people ... but no matter the justification, they just truly cant accept the choice that was made and feel that in an optimal world, the choice should be changed.

I know it sounds like I am painting you and all vegetarians to be a group of crazy nuts who actively accuse meat-eaters of murder, that is not my intent. I am just trying to get you to recognize the fact that belief in vegetarianism is intrinsically linked with the belief that meat eaters are unknowingly doing something bad. It is impossible for a vegetarian to truly respect the choice others make to be carnivorous, because being carnivorous goes against the fundamental beliefs of the moral vegetarian. Keep in mind, I am not saying all vegetarians secretly wish to engage in gorilla warfare against cattle ranchers and steak houses . I am just saying that not doing anything to stop carnivores from eating meat, and actually respecting their choice to eat meat are two different things.

I know that not all vegetarians support the radical extremists which force their religious beliefs on others, I am sorry if it sounded like I was saying that. Most vegetarians (as I am sure you are) are peaceful, and do not feel people should be forced to convert to the vegetarian belief system (even if they do believe that we are doing wrong, unknowingly).

What I was trying to say is this. Religion and science are incompatible. A group which is founded on the belief that animals are equal or superior to human lives cannot and will not act in the best interest of science, because if science is ever at odds with their religious beliefs there will be a conflict of interests. It is impossible for a vegan group to also be a completely scientifically objective one. At worst, they will always choose to support the vegan philosophy at the cost of scientific realities of human health and nutritional needs, or at best, they will come to a comprimise and uncovering the secrets as to the optimal human thriving environment will STILL be sacrificed.

The fact is, any self-described scientific group who has well known ties into a certain religious/moral movement (such as the vegan PCRM) is always lying about their agenda. It is impossible to be health/science first, vegan second, and if they claim so they are lying. Science and religion are incompatible; religion is subjective and not based in observable, logical, tangible reality. Science is the exact polar opposite. Any scientific group with strong influential religious undertones is always going to be smoke and mirrors to promote the religion. The only question that remains will be is exactly how much does the group favor religion over science?

The important thing to groups like PCRM is always going to be sparing the lives of animals through veganism; making a vegan lifestyle fit scientific reality and humanity is a secondary priority. Everything they research and support will be done to make science fit the religious paradigm. It will never be examined whether or not the paradigm is the best one for everyone (which is true to SCIENCE), because examining the belief and modifying it to fit scientific reality would go against their religious beliefs. If what I say weren't true, animal rights groups and people wouldn't mindlessly bash dietary regimens which encourage the consumption of a wide variety of animal proteins (like Atkins) even when said programs have shown to improve health, when all other programs failed (INCLUDING vegetarianism) for a significant portion of the human population.

So in closing, I apologize if it seemed as if I were saying all vegetarians support the active violation of civil rights and quack religiously-influenced science. This is obviously untrue, most people, including most vegetarians and vegans, do not feel others should be forced to adopt their belief systems (even if they may believe others are unknowingly doing wrong).

All I was trying to say is that it is impossible for a group with a vegan agenda to contribute anything to science, and any claims that they are, are in a word, bullsh*t.

Actually the reason I became a vegetarian is this:

I don't think that I have the moral right to choose which animals to eat and which animals to not eat. Cultural mores and traditions decide it is ok to eat cows and not dogs or vice versa. I decided that I could not make those value judgements, so in order to be consistent I would have to eat all animals or none. Since I cannot put my cat upon a spit and call it dinner, I chose none. This was a personal philosophical choice on my part and does not reflect what anyone else chooses. I can just as well tell you that because you eat meat, you are being illogical in not including cat, dog and raccoon in your diet. Let me know when you make cat stew and I will come over for dinner.

A couple of other notes. Religion and science are not incompatible. They come to knowledge in two separate ways. Metaphysics, which is the realm of philosophy and religion has no place in science. Perhaps we are differing in our definition of religion here. I do not include vegetarian groups as religions.

Of course I can respect others choices. Just because I consider all life valuable and basically equal I am not arrogant enough to not understand that there are other viewpoints. Again, I am not an idiot. Nor am I close minded.

Paleoanth,
Moral beliefs that influence the way one lives life can be said to be characteristic of religion. While there is obviously far less organization in the vegetarian community than in real religions, I do think it is appropriate to call vegetarianism a kind of quasi-religion. It is a set of behavioral and moral precedents which is rooted in a subjective moral belief. This belief is, of course, that all sentiment organisms are inherently equal and should be treated as such. Behavioral precedents of the various branches of vegetarianism include respecting animals as spiritually equal sentiment beings which should be free and ideally never under human control, not eating meat, not eating eggs milk, or sometimes not using any animal derived products at all.

As for whether or not vegans/vegetarians are capable of truly respecting the conscious choice omnivores make to view animals as a lower form of life (and therefore eat them), I definitely think vegetarians and vegans are capable of respecting another person's right to choose to believe a moral doctrine different from their own. This is a civil rights issue you are talking about, I never claimed there was something about normal vegetarians that prevented them from respecting others civil rights; rational people regardless of their beliefs respect the civil rights of others (and therefore, the right to adopt whatever beliefs they wish). As I said in my first response, tolerance of someones right to choose, and how you actually feel about the choices they make are two different things. I still stand by the belief that true moral vegetarians/vegans believe that in a perfect world, carnivores would be "awakened" and convert to a "cruelty free" lifestyle. A christian doesn't necessarily not respect the right of someone to choose to be jewish, or vice versa, but I think both would think it ideal if others decided to adopt their faiths and convert.

I respect those who come to their moral beliefs after much thought and bring conviction to their conclusions. Line drawing gets very complicated. One decides not to eat meat, but animal products are so pervasive, even in our modern society, that animals are still being used in so many ways, right down to the glue that holds the books together that advocate vegetarianism.
And certainly ethical behavior in support of ethical behavior is a better stance than an attitude of "I'm right so the end justifies the means."
It is very very rare that the end justifies the means. The only clear example I've run across is the assassination of Heydrich, who was masterminding the extermination of Central Europe and was killed by Czech partisans. If Heydrich had lived the Third Reich would not have fallen back on the inept leaders that eventually brought it down.
And yes, Heydrich was a Nazi.