Gillian McKeith means well
Thursday August 26, 2004
Your criticism of Dr Gillian McKeith is scientifically correct, but medically hazardous (Bad science, August 19).
In criticising her discussion on chlorophyll, and her other moments of “bad science”, are you suggesting that to eat whole, unprocessed foods is potentially damaging? Are you suggesting that the suffering obese people she is trying to help might be better off without her advice? Should they continue to eat chemically ridden, processed, nutrient-less foods?
McKeith is one of the only people on primetime (or anytime) television who advocate a diet that is not based on profit. If you want to criticise someone in the food industry, why not have a go at the companies promoting kids’ cereals with fortified vitamins as a nutritious start to the day, when they are packed with sugar, refined carbohydrates and chemicals?
How right you are that the whole human biological system is beautifully elegant and balanced: I too cannot understand why people feel the need to contrive a crude (and fallacious) alternative. So many seem to be in a rush to return to mediaeval superstition and scholasticism.
Kew, New Zealand