The REAL JimKKKins Scandal: Dr. William Davis, Dr. Doug McGuff and "Dr." David Duke
In his zest to pull his a$$ out of the firestorm he created, by knowingly going on prominent white-supremacist and anti-semite David Duke's radio program, Jimmy Moore has done a great service to the community by "outing" two prominent MD's associations with same.
Don't you mean disservice? No. Service, because nobody seemed to be aware of this, and it is important information. Unlike the one-man Jimmy Moore show, these are prominent men with "real jobs", besides their books, blogs and whatever else, as medical doctors. They also have books published by mainstream large publishing houses and "handlers" -- whatever the title: managers, agents, publicists, assistants, you get the picture.
The following post was brought to my attention in comments here, and just so it doesn't get buried, I'm putting it here and encouraging all of my readers to go read it: Two prominent physician/authors -- one a NY Times bestseller -- promoted their books on white supremacist David Duke's radio show.
I'm sure that both McGuff and Davis knew pretty quickly that Jimmy Moore had tied their names to the term neo-Nazi in a title of a blog post on a fairly well-traveled blog:
If I’m A Neo-Nazi, Then I Guess Dr. William Davis And Dr. Doug McGuff Are Too?
I realize this was on a Saturday (Dec. 29), and it's a holiday season and all that, but the silence in a community that went viral (with disinformation) over Dr. Jack Kruse within 24 hours is rather deafening. The accusations made by Kruse & Co. were serious -- terrorism, "calling in" fake terror attacks and all that. The sanctimony was flying all around about how awful the three haters, especially yours truly, were, and how we should rot in jail for our crimes. Heck, FatHead still went on in defense of JimKKKins long past the time everyone knew it was Jack that was the lying hack. But so far ... not a whole lot except for the not-unexpected support for JimKKKins by Nikoley.
So McGuff did respond on Jimmy's blog (appropriate venue) and on Free the Animal. I don't suppose someone who claims to be duped into appearing for not one, but two, hours on David Duke radio has kept up with paleo politiks, but just reading Richard's take should have given him a clue that it might not be the best place for a serious response. In any case, below is a screenshot of his response on LLVLCblog.
At first blush, and especially compared to JimKKKins' lame whine and cheezy excuse rant, this was well received here. It is how apologies are done. Take responsibility, don't point fingers of blame, apologize.
But after mulling it over, and (forgive me for not naming names) in consideration of the questions raised by some commenters, this apology rings a bit hollow in the end and raises more questions than it answers.
First, it is missing one key component of a good apology for something of this magnitude: What are you going to do about it? There is no indication that McGuff plans to do anything. Specifically, the explanation is missing a direct and unequivocal denouncement of David Duke. Just saying "I wouldn't have done the interview were I not duped" (paraphrase obviously) is insufficient here. And here is where I put on my what-if-I-were-in-their shoes and think on what I would do. It is a very serious reputation killer to be associated with a notorious neo-Nazi. If I were duped into this -- which he basically has to admit to a certain level of stupidity/idiocy expecting us to believe that -- I'd be doing all I could to expose Duke's deceptive tactics. First, to preserve my reputation, and second, so that others are warned and spared having it done to them as well. Indeed when (or if) we get Davis' side of the story, he could have been saved his own mistake had McGuff spoken out.
McGuff's response was to want to hurl, but he did NOTHING??? Whomever vetted this and set me up would be fired. Gone. Buh bye! I want to see the innocuous links Duke sent to his manager at Ultimate Science to see if they are really innocuous. The way I'm reading this apology, McGuff knew he was interviewing with *A* David Duke, but he didn't realize until some weeks later that it was *THE* David Duke????? So nobody in his outfit bothered to listen to the radio show? Check out the link? C'mon!
Here is a screenshot of a Google Search on American University England David Duke. So here we have an MD with a popular fitness book who couldn't be bothered to spend 30 seconds to do that? Who vetted Duke and do they have a job McGuff???? I mean this guy ain't exactly Donald Trump ... or even Wheat Belly for that matter ... but it doesn't sound like he was just fitting in one more interview if a flurry of PR appearances. Body by Science has been out since May 2010 ... almost 2 years before this interview. I would say this is more than sloppy.
So as suggested here in comments, I'd be on the horn to my lawyer had I been legitimately duped. There would be an announcement -- front and center -- on my website denouncing Duke and putting my side of the "I was duped" story out. I would at least reach out behind the scenes to people who might be equally targeted by Duke.
Speaking of websites, there is one: http://www.bodybyscience.net/home.html/ What you'll see is that McGuff "blogs" on the home page. WHERE IS HIS DENOUNCEMENT OF DAVID DUKE, A COPY OF THE COMMENT ON LLVLC & FTA THERE??? The cynic in me says he's hoping this blows over with the fewer readers/followers knowing, the better.
No folks, there is more fire to hold to this man's feet.
And now on to Dr. William "Wheat Belly" Davis. That book is an abomination of bad science and it's no wonder Duke didn't pick up and run with the addiction and conspiracy theories nature of it all. Davis has, thusfar, been silent. Folks posted on his blog, and no response yet. One responder urged Davis not to "go there". Here is my comment in moderation.
There has been a lot of urging in comments for me to lead some kind of charge to pressure Jimmy Moore by getting "big guns" to pressure him. I will have more to say on that shortly, but suffice it for now that I have neither the time nor inclination to do that! Yes, I will continue to share information here, name names and connect dots and whatnot. As this new year unfolds, I'll be on top of who is appearing with whom and invited to speak where and all of that. And I won't hold my tongue. It matters not if Jimmy apologizes tomorrow. He sank his own boat and anyone that associates with him moving forward is subject to being called out here, and let the chips fall where they may. I am sharing my opinions, not telling others how they should think, feel, respond.
But there are bigger fish here. Mainstream publishing houses involved. And it's now almost a year that has elapsed, and admission by one of these authors that he knew in relatively short order but did nothing about it. I think the questions of who booked the appearances must be answered. If the publishers were involved, that needs to be explored further. If they were not? Then the onus falls more squarely on these authors and their "peeps".
If you're so inclined to join Heimlich to contact the publishers, here ya go:
Press Contact: Staci Shands
212-512-3599
staci_shands@mcgraw-hill.com
Body by Science ISBN-10: 0071597174; ISBN-13: 978-0071597173
From WB website: Contacts for media appearance only ... well this is about one!
Contact:Danielle Lynn
RODALE BOOKS
Public Relations Manager
733 Third Avenue, 9th Floor
New York, New York 10017
212-808-1621
Email: Danielle.Lynn@Rodale.com
Dr. Davis’ Office address:2600 N. Mayfair Rd., Suite 950
Wauwatosa, Wisconsin 53226
Phone 414-456-1123
Wheat Belly ISBN-10: 1609611543; ISBN-13: 978-1609611545
Oh ... and the publisher of some popular paleo books is set to publish a book by Jimmy Moore some time this fall. Victory Belt. Just saying. Don't want to be accused of employing "gestapo tactics" by someone who never heard of a neo-Nazi.
Comments
I think there's a heavy element of cognitive dissonance going on there.
It all boils down to the money involved, I suppose. Let's be real, Duke's audience and the market of VLC have quite a lot of interlap. No, of course not all LCers are sympathetic to Duke's agenda, but if you're trying to sell books, they're a prime market. I would not be terribly surprised the publisher would try to get their material plugged on there.
As for the authors themselves, I have to raise an eyebrow at the idea they didn't know. On level I can buy it. After all, I think it's natural to assume it wasn't *the* David Duke. Surely my manager wouldn't put me on a Neo-Nazi program. So maybe I can buy McGuff didn't know until he couldn't back out of it. And I guess it's natural to hope it would all be swept under the rug, which it was until Moore outed them.
My own suggestion would be to take the time to compose a well-written snail mail. I do think that in this world of instant e-communications, a snail mail has added impact. JMO.
"My radio programs interview a wide range of experts in many areas of life, politics, finance, health, science, and the fact that I interview them obviously does not mean I necessarily agree with every position they may represent, and certainly does not necessarily mean the individual agrees with every position that I hold. I endeavor to engage the personalities I interview in a low key, almost anonymous manner, so as not to affect the interview by issues extraneous to the subject at hand."
McGuff is a well intentioned, reasonable man who is trying to benefit his fellow man by promoting a safe and effective means of exercise that he thinks may improve the health of many people. He made a big mistake by participating in an interview with this disreputable individual. This apparently happened because the individual who manages his fitness center lacked the sophistication to properly vet the request, and because McGuff was too busy to do the vetting himself.
So what are the important lessons we take from this episode?
That we must punish and villify McGuff until he publically flagellates himself sufficiently for making a mistake? Because anyone who writes a blog, or book, or gives an interview, or promotes anything must be absolutely perfect and above reproach in all aspects of their lives! Clearly, the force has been disturbed, and the blood lust of the blogosphere must be satisfied. I know this may seem unreasonable, but he made a MISTAKE. He F***ed up! He didn't do this right. I don't know anything more horrifying or unforgiveable than someone making a mistake, and then not flogging themselves sufficiently for it.
But that isn't enough: We must make him fire his fitness center manager, who likely is nothing more than a low wage admin, just to be sure that this individual never again dares to fail to vet an request for an interview. Clearly, this individual should be blacklisted, and never allowed to work again for such a heinous action.
And after that, we must demand further redemption and rehabilitation: he needs to undertake expensive and possiblity futile legal action against Duke to demonstrate his commitment to.... ????
And finally, let's be sure that anyone who ever dares to publish a book, gives an interview, or publishes a blog post has the above participation and content reviewed by at least one PR professional, and at least one lawyer. Because that is how we we will make the internet a better and safer place for everyone.
McGuff is a well intentioned, reasonable man who is trying to benefit his fellow man by promoting a safe and effective means of exercise that he thinks may improve the health of many people.
I don't know that he's not, but how do you know that he is? Is he a personal friend? Thing is he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt from a general audience.
I don't think he should be villified without just cause, but the more one thinks of the events as he tells them, and as Diana points out, the TIMING, the more this stinks.
He claims his representation was contacted multiple times. That Duke was represented as a history professor at American U in England. What would a history prof be interested in anyway? As my Google search shows, that should be the end of it. The person who sweeps the floors in his office could do that!! I doubt it is returning different hits than a year or so ago.
So before I let him off the hook, I want to see the innocuous links. How was the interview conducted, phone? Skype? In person? Where? WHO ultimately arranged it, and with the book being involved was McGraw Hill involved in any way?
Your last paragraph is frankly absurd. Interviews don't happen spur of the moment, there is planning involved and there should be some modicum of checking and this man is not some nobody. Please tell me you are not among those who thinks Duke is a reputable source of nutrition information and nothing else matters. That seems to be the vibe I'm getting but that doesn't jibe with your posts here in the past.
I'm not sure either of these three just made a mistake. It is possible for McGuff or Davis, but if I'd really been punk'd by David Duke and there was a two part interview complete with links and commentary by Duke on that website and I'd found out about it? I'd be on it post haste to get it removed as being done under false pretenses, and if that wasn't legally possible, I'd post the communications and disconnect my self from that person. Period.
January 1, 2013 at 11:01 am
Yes, it was indeed a mistake to go on his show.
It occurred at a time when I was being swamped with interview requests, as many as 4-20 per day. The request came from a Dr. Duke in Europe, so it didn’t even occur to me that there was a connection to the infamous Dukes.
So it was all inadvertent. Let the critics make what they will of it; it does not reflect AT ALL on my views nor of the value of these concepts.
Per my 12/30/12 item, I submitted inquiries to Rodale Books and McGraw-Hill in which I requested a statement.
Also, yesterday I submitted an inquiry to Dr. McGuff re: his statement.
I'll report the results in a follow-up item and will send you the link.
Cheers and Happy New Year -- Peter
And the Duke interview request made the cut?
Better yet, if Jimmy "agrees with his ideas on nutrition" but "not with his politics," can we assume that if Hitler was still alive, and also a low-carber, could we expect to see him on his podcast? Just wondering...
Obviously Jimmy is either functionally retarded, or an asshole liar. The problem for him is - instead of admitting he goofed, he painted himself in the corner. Looks like the whole paleo movement will move away from Jimmay- if they're smart.
How come it's not on his media page? He has an interview with Joan Hamburg from WOR radio in NY (pretty well known locally but not a big name, so if he's only highlighting the "highlights" ......)
First, where's the outrage for allegedly being duped into doing the interview? It was "inadvertent" and "make of it what you will"? That's surprisingly passive language when your reputation has been damaged by links to a notorious Nazi.
Dr. Davis also seems to have missed the "I'm sorry" portion of this train wreck -- unless he's not sorry.
Also, why aren't he and McGuff taking action now to demand that Duke remove the interviews from his website? If, as they claim, they were duped, their attorneys are on firm ground to go after Duke for misrepresentation.
Methinks they protest too little.
Me also wonders if the idea was to move some product to the white supremacist and/or apocalyptic preppers who listen to Duke. These people buy a lot of expensive goods as they prepare for their delusional end-of-the-world scenarios.
Then there's McGuff's statement posted on Moore's blog: "I did not find out I had granted an interview with THE Dr. David Duke until a few weeks later when someone I had done a consult with about a year prior, left a voicemail saying how much he enjoyed the interview and gave the name of the website."
He has a client who listens to the David Duke Show? Interesting connection.
Finally, when Dr. McGuff made this discovery -- eight months ago -- did he inform his co-author, John Little, or his publisher that he had just promoted their book for two hours on Nazi radio? If not, why not?
For Jimmy to decry "My Plate" is worse than appalling. If he tried it, he'd lose weight. This is man who wants sympathy because he used to eat dozens of donuts, claiming that grains by definition are fattening. It is galling. I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone can stand him, can't see thru his lies and bullshit.
For an example of how fattening the "My Plate" concept is, look here:
http://gokaleo.com/?p=152
Jesus.
Read the whole thing but I can't resist a quote: "There was nothing in the MyPlate guidelines that required me to eat pizza or soda or twinkies or high fructose corn syrup (or refined grains or seed oils, for that matter). In fact, the guidelines discourage all those things."
Hear that, Jimmy? I know you're reading this!
For the record, "My Plate" ISN'T grain heavy - it's balanced. A concept they don't understand. They are literally unbalanced.
Was their presence tacit support? Maybe, but all this drama over these appearances, in my opinion, is serving to raise Duke's profile. Isn't Duke the real problem here?
'Body by Science' is nothing more than a half-arsed re-hash of 20 year old medical textbooks. It is filled with nonsense such as the non-existent Type IIab muscle fibres and the supposed (but unproven)benefits of Nautilis machines.
and while we're at it: I distinctly remember a post about a recent interview that Paul Jaminet gave, where on his own site someone remarked that the interviewer linked to some pretty extreme right wing stuff from his web site.
Jaminet's answer was something like "the interview was one focused on nutrition, everything else is merely down to free speech", continuing a theme that seems to be very dear to free market liberals (right now Robb Wolf is probably thinking very carefully about what to write in his book on the topic).
I have the utmost respect for PJ as a researcher, but we might as well get it over with once and for all (once someone finds that comment; I haven't been able to yet).
As to your last point, no, I don't think this helps Duke. Any such "help" is on the heads of Jimmy Moore, Davis and McGuff.
The circumstances of each appearance seem to differ. I'll be blogging on that at some point. I'm interested to see the publisher responses.
I'm sorry but I'm still not buying that someone like Davis gets punked like this. If you give an interview, don't you at least follow up to find when/where/etc. it is aired? The Rense distribution is notorious as well. These people are NOT this stupid.
That you've posted this charge twice now with no further information, tells me you are trying to stir the pot and paint others with the same brush. No -- I'm not going to "get it over with once and for all -- UNTIL someone finds what you're looking for.
Even these 3 cases have some key differences that I'll be summarizing in a post here soon.
And he's lied. The story he tells doesn't jive with the events as they occurred. And he's outed these two docs, and their circumstances are slightly different.
A professional weight lifter said:
"Everybody wants to be a bodybuilder, but ain't nobody wanna lift no heavy ass weights!"
The "Body By Science" thing seems to appeal to people who want to look like they exercise, but don't want to actually exercise. I guess it is fine for people who consider lifting weights to be a chore like trimming your nose hair, but I don't see how it can produce better results than a system designed for people who actually enjoy lifting weights.
If you hate to exercise then there are a bunch of systems geared towards you but I don't think they will produce the same results as the systems designed for people who consider physical activity to be the best part of their lives, for me the reward of going from obese to non-obese is that I get to do the things I enjoyed doing when I was young.
Imo people who need to lose 50 pounds or more would be better served by walking than the Body By Science nonsense, people say "I don't have time to walk for 40 minutes a day," which is an illusion, in fact they have time to walk 2 hours a day, they just won't admit it to themselves.
Walking is a complete waste of time as a method for weight loss. This is because humans are ultra-efficient walkers.
Exercise only causes weight loss in conjunction with calorie restriction. Exercise without calorie restriction typically causes a GAIN of both weight and body fat.
Except when they are fat, out-of-shape and inefficient walkers. As was I, in March 2011. Part of my weight loss program was lots of brisk walking - and calorie restriction. It helped me lose 20 pounds. It wouldn't help me lose weight now, because I'm adapted.
"Exercise only causes weight loss in conjunction with calorie restriction."
Agreed.
"Exercise without calorie restriction typically causes a GAIN of both weight and body fat."
I don't think this is true.
Some people say this depends on the type of exercise. Marathons and long distance running can cause a paradoxical insulin resistance. I think it's attributed to the large amounts of free fatty acids in circulation after so much running for such a long period of time. This may be why it is sometimes hard for those who do long duration moderate to intense exercise have a hard time losing fat. (I do not think this counts walking though. Since I really like to do it and am very biased toward promoting it for everyone.)
Others might say that resistance training, particularly heavy weight training, will partition energy to lean tissue, even if it is in excess, at least for a period of time post exercise. Perhaps this will increase lean mass, but not so much fat mass, unless you are talking about gorging which will certainly pack on pounds since calories will always matter.
In a nutshell, I think it's important to be more specific when talking about "exercise."
Why would that ever be true? Eating more than you use = gain, exercise can increase muscle mass which is heavier than fat . . .okay. But, what does exercise have to do with increased body FAT? I assume that since exercise is in the equation, it's not the same as just gaining fat form eating too much.
@EvelynLB - exactly.
But really, I bet dollars to donuts that just sitting less is probably the best "exercise" for metabolic function. This is a very hard thing to control for most people in their jobs though. It was for me when I was working.
I own a copy of WB and have read parts. His blog went downhill for a year prior to publication with whacky theories like the battery acid post. Conspiracy theorists make strange bedfellows and in an effort to fight "Big Whatever" I can see (not saying it happened, but I can see!) these two concocting a cover to reach Duke's audience with the WHeat Belly message.
Be assured, I realize you didn't mean to overcomplicate things or put non-exercisers off - but I think a lot of non-exercisers, embarking on a weight loss program, are put off by the technical talk about insulin, etc., ya know?
Yes, exercise that preserves or increases lean mass is best. But here's what I wonder and please correct me if I'm wrong - that despite all that we see on the Internet, even on good, well-intentioned sites, that the vast majority of women won't put appreciable amounts of muscle on, even if go as heavy as they can (without injury). Even if they become fanatical. I have seen a lot of "Yes you can!" and "You go girl!" lifting websites, but I think their results are atypical. But I'm willing to be corrected.
Agreed on the job thing. My own sad conclusion is that the vast majority of modern people are as thin as they are paid to be. Models, dancers, actors, athletes are paid to be lean. Manual laborers as well - my professional waiter father was thin. (He also didn't overeat.) The rest of us have to consciously compensate. It's damn hard. Who wants to exercise after a full day of office work? And if you have a family, it is REALLY difficult.
Body gets adopted to a new exercise activity pretty fast. Once I lost between 5 - 10 lb when soon after arriving to US went to work in a department store in order to get more fluent with my English. We had to walk fast most of the time from one end of a big department to another, put clothes on and off hangers, things like that. After initial weight loss, it stopped. Other ladies who worked in store were different in body types, but everybody complained on aching feet.
I am starting a resistance program. I am all in favor of resistance training. It's healthy and will, I hope, make me more functional and help me to stave off bone loss and other bad signs of aging. But I don't think I'll add much more muscle.
I don't understand this.
Also @Diana I suspect he means that each set should be 2-6 reps. Your number of sets should be limited to how many reps you can do in each set not to exceed 25 reps for that particular exercise. For example, if you are deadlifting, performing 5 reps per set, then you should do only 5 sets for 25 total reps.
I do like the 5 x 5 program. But as a lady I sometimes like to see ladies leading me, so maybe you'd like CAthe or Jari Love.
"That's all high intensity so I could not do a volume of work and just ended up feeling, as much as I hate the term, bulky."
That was my experience as well. I can't say whether or not I gained muscle doing all HI exercises, but what I do know is I felt pretty crappy. Could be because doing all HI work, for me, produced all the stress and anxiety of a marathon without all the calorie burn.
"I really feel best when I walk briskly a lot and lift at a moderate volume. "
Same. I walk about an hour a day in the evening plus whatever I do just going about my day, plus a routine of bodyweight exercises. It was actually delving into the Paleo world that made me give up heavy weightlifting, mostly because it largely didn't make sense to me.
Again, and sorry for sounding like a broken record, but I don't think most unjuiced women have the capacity to put on much muscle at all. The only claims for such are on bodybuilding forums, "broscience" forums, etc. I have looked on Pubmed and I cannot find one study that quantifies how much muscle women put on as a result of resistance training. I've read about improved body composition, etc., but I haven't read anything that measures how much muscle a woman can put on as a result of resistance training.
If anyone can find such, please let me know! I want to be wrong.
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/153/3/256.full
Since this is the Carb Sane Asylum, I have to ask you some questions. Did you measure how much muscle you put on and at what rate? Did you lose fat, thereby exposing the muscular structure underneath?
I'm not saying women can't put ANY muscle on - esp. young women. But promising gains of 10 pounds of muscle or more - I am deeply skeptical of this. I think that 5 pounds would be the max. But I don't know. I have to admit that when I saw JM's Dexascans I hadn't known that they can measure how much muscle a person can put on, in each extremity, etc. I would be fascinated to see such a study with women.
Alcohol has a high thermogenic rate, haha. I think that the highest dietary thermogenetic diet would be beer and steak, hold the potatoes.
http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/8440838
RESULTS: Increases in muscle strength of the weight trainers were significant for all seven exercises (5%-65%), with the greatest gains in the shoulder and trunk muscles. Percent body fat of weight trainers decreased significantly (from 38.8% to 37.9%, P < 0.05), while lean tissue mass increased by 1.5 kg (P < 0.01).
Note: these women were over 60.
That's 3.3 pounds, even less than I had thought possible. Of course it was also accompanied by body fat percentage decrease, although it doesn't seem as significant to my unscientifically trained eyes as it does to the scientists.
And it doesn't mention diet. I guess their diet remained the same.
I assume that younger women could add more muscle. But not a lot more. Let's be generous and double the amount of muscle young women could add: 6.6 pounds? Not a lot.
It's interesting that the improvements were greatest in the shoulders and trunk (I'm assuming erector spinae). Perhaps because those muscle groups are typically underdeveloped in non-resistance training?
Is there anyone among the big paleo bloggers who's not a right-winger anyway? I used to follow blog like PHD but the screeds about the evils of socialized medicine, links to quacks and cranks and the like put me off them even more than the diet they promote (since I never liked meat much anyway).
Giuseppe
I am gonna watch out for brussels. I'll be grateful if
you continue this in future. Lots of people will
be benefited from your writing. Cheers!
Also visit my site; Get Auto Commissions from home (www.619limo.com)
Post a Comment
Comment Moderation is ON ... I will NOT be routinely reviewing or publishing comments at this time..