After seeing a local reporter run a story based almost solely on information from PCRM, I sent off the following email. The report was mostly about low carb fast foods, and their fat content, but the newspaper relied on a teleconference with PCRM for its facts. It also repeated some of the lies PCRM has spread about Dr. Atkins without challenge. If anyone has other sources I can refer the reporter to on PCRM, I'd appreciate it.

Hello Jason,

I read your article in today's World with a bit of dismay, after seeing that you relied on the PCRM for your information. What a huge mistake to rely on an unethical, deceptive group. I should say that I am a low carb dieter who has lost 62 pounds, so I am perhaps a bit biased. But I'm not deceptive about who I am and why I have a passion for low carb--which is better than the PCRM can say.

I hate to say it, but you and the Tulsa World got snookered, Jason.

PCRM exists solely to push a vegan agenda. Their ethics are another question. After illegally obtaining Dr. Atkins' medical files, they released information that your article noted. What they failed to mention were the facts that they omitted, such as the fact that Atkins' weight was 195 when he was admitted to the hospital right before his death, not the 258 that got reported. The Wall Street Journal corrected the initial story, but of course it took on a life of its own and has been reported in various media across the country without corrections.

(For proof check out this link of photos of Atkins taken two weeks before his accident: http://business2.blogs.com/business...tkins_real.html).

Some other facts about PCRM:

* People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is using a private foundation called Foundation to Support Animal Protection to funnel as much as $432,000 to PCRM, which promotes itself as an independent medical organization.

* The American Medical Association's opinion about PCRM is unequivocal, saying that it "finds the recommendations of PCRM irresponsible and potentially dangerous to the health and welfare of Americans." In a separate public censure, the AMA "continues to marvel at how effectively a fringe organization of questionable repute continues to hoodwink the media with a series of questionable research that fails to enhance public health." In your story, you reported that the Atkins people said PCRM are animal rights advocates dressed up as public health advocates. The AMA is a more credible source for that, as it's got no bias in either direction in this argument.

* While PCRM claims to be primarily a network of doctors, the group's own literature shows that physicians make up less than 5% of its membership. Furthermore, the group's member physicians represent less than 0.5% of America's doctors. Far from being an unbiased source of health guidance, PCRM has asserted itself as a home for anti-meat, pro-vegan zealots who are committed to removing beef, dairy, poultry, and other animal products from our diets.

* A psychiatrist by training, the group's president Neal Barnard has made a name for himself in animal-rights circles since 1985, when he founded the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, an animal rights group dressed up as a medical association. In 2003, he was nominated for the "Animal Rights Hall of Fame." Barnard once called the feeding of meat to children "child abuse." (nothing radical in that statement, eh?)

I don't think there is a thing wrong with PCRM having its views on animal rights, but it should not masquerade as an unbiased group of doctors, and you shouldn't act as a media conduit for the group. It has an agenda that has nothing at all to do with nutrition. You should not have fallen for its slick websites and non-scientific research. Especially, listing two different websites the group owns is a bad idea, without listing sites that would correct its misstatements.

For more information on PCRM, this link has a ton of stuff: http://www.ncahf.org/articles/o-r/pcrm.html. (National Coalition Against Health Fraud). This has sources listed, so it's great for reporters who want to get the story right, not just repeat what PCRM tells them. You might include it in future stories involving PCRM so your readers can have better information about this group. The truth is, you probably should not rely on it for any stories in the future.

There is also a wealth of research on nutrition here, most of it relating to low carb diets and their safety: http://forum.lowcarber.org/forumdisplay.php?f=4. It is a low carb message board, but people tend to cite actual research in their opinions.

Hopefully, this will help you when you have the chance to rely on a PCRM source for a story next time...you should dig a little deeper before giving them such a great opportunity to spread their agenda. They do not care about research, they are not doctors, and they have an animal rights agenda that has nothing to do with nutrition as their main thrust. It's wrong to give them so much ink without researching who you are dealing with.

As to the gist of the article, those foods aren't as good or as nutritious as things you can make yourself. However, the links between dietary fat, obesity, and heart disease are very much in question. There is a plethora of research available to address that.

Here's hoping the next time you get a chance to teleconference with PCRM, you decline. They aren't a public health group at all.

Best regards,

You tell 'em!

OUtstanding letter!
You put him back in his place while giving him the straigth scoop and still being polite and civil, which is a very hard thing to do!

Excellent retort. Make sure you send it to the editor of the paper, as the reporter might just send your letter to the recycle bin out of sheer embarassement. No one likes to be caught with their pants down.

That was great.... Good work my man..

Excellent letter !!!

Very precise and to the point with a ton of backup. Let's see the PCM and others do half as well and I will eat my shirt

Dusty

would be nice to see the reply if you get one

Extremely well done, Scott!

Kay

I got a return email from this reporter, which I won't post (I get hinky about posting emails from others without permission).

He basically defended the article, saying that he'd made it plain that PCRM was an animal rights group and not a public health group. I told him that if he did, his editor cut it. He also attacked some of the sources I listed as beholden to the restaurant industry.

Fair enough, I told him, but that if he could give a thousand-plus words to a very biased group, wouldn't it also be fair to give equal space to an equally biased one?

Anyway, I'm hoping this did a tiny bit of good. I suggest that as you see these kind of distorted, PCRM-based articles, you confront the reporters and make sure they know who they are dealing with.

He did have a single line at the very end of the piece about the Atkins Center refuting them, but I explained that perhaps the Atkins Center isn't the best source for that, since it is inherently biased. There are AMA censures and other places with less to gain from the success of low carb that would be great sources for him to go to if he wanted to accurately portray the quacks at PCRM, that would not appear as biased. The way his article portrayed it was an impartial health group, with the company they criticized fighting back. Certainly, there are better ways to frame that disagreement that are fair to both sides.

Ultimately, it's no skin off my nose if PCRM manages to harm the low carb movement--I can eat this way whether or not they do that--but I'm like anyone who has found a good thing in that I want others to succeed at it as well.