RE: Dr. Gaby’s August/September Editorial

Dr. Gaby got it wrong in his 1998 book review, and he is wrong again in 2018. His

editorial “Blood-Type Diet Not Supported by Research” is inflammatory, and his

interpretation of the one and only study mentioned is careless at best. Reviewing

and interpreting research studies is supposed to be his forte, yet he failed or

refused to acknowledge the flaws of the El-Sohemy et al, PLOS One study. Dr.

D’Adamo summarizes that “this study conclusively proved that if young, healthy

research subjects self-report eating potato chips, sandwiches, pizza, ‘beans’, mac-and-

cheese, French fries and processed meat products, all the while doing 13.7%

of the Blood Type Diet for six weeks, their final cardiometabolic markers will

probably not vary much by blood type.” An average compliance rate of 13.7% is

insufficient to prove anything.

The title of his editorial should read “There is no scientific research that proves the Blood Type Diet is ineffective.” There is a lot of ‘fake’ science out there with questionable research practices, falsification, bias, fraud, undisclosed conflict of interest, and professional jealousy. Many of us, until now, have relied on ‘experts’ like Gaby to help interpret the data to find the truth. Dr. Gaby ‘dropped the ball’ on this one.

The ABO blood typing system is only one of many, but it is the main typing system

in use and one with fatal outcomes if an incorrect blood transfusion is given. The

ABO and FUT polymorphisms create many distinct differences and need to be

factored into all research. lsn’t it important to know for example that non-O blood

types have 11% greater risk of coronary heart disease compared to O blood

types?

I am not a research scientist. I am a naturopathic physician in my fourth decade of

practice. ln this time I have prescribed the appropriate blood type diet (BTD) to

thousands of patients with consistently good results. ‘Physician heal thy self…follow the BTD in earnest for two months and prove to yourself the benefit. Dr. D’Adamo’s diet book Eat Right for Your Type is now published in 75 languages and is available in every corner of the world. lt is still only available in hard-cover after over 20 years. The continued and immense world-wide interest in this book should tell you that there is something to the BTD.

Dr. Peter D’Adamo is one of our greatest scientific minds and it is shameful that his work is so under-recognized. Read his Fundamentals of Generative Medicine textbook, and check out his computer programs, SWAMI (epigenetics) and OPUS23 (genetic interpretation) and his other sophisticated analytics. He is the leader in precision medicine, and editorials like Gaby’s unfortunately do humanity a huge disservice. lt seems we are doomed to suffer another Semmelweis effect. Semmelweis was the fellow that first suggested doctors wash their hands; he was ridiculed and persecuted until decades later we realized that he was right.

Sincerely,

Dr. Loren Kozak, ND, MIFHI

Dr. Gaby’s Response:

As I mentioned in my editorial, I have no doubt that people who follow the blood-type diet experience various improvements in their health. Every one of the four diets recommends the avoidance of refined sugar and processed foods. In addition, three of the most frequently allergenic foods – wheat, corn, and dairy products – are restricted (3 of the 4 diets prohibit wheat, 3 prohibit corn, and 1 prohibits dairy products). It is legitimate to ask whether the improvements that people experience are related to blood type or are merely nonspecific benefits of avoiding junk food and common allergens.

More than 20 years ago, I invited proponents of the blood-type diet to conduct a simple clinical trial that could answer this question. Participants would be randomly assigned to follow one of the four diets, and the investigators would determine whether people assigned to the “appropriate” diet fared better than those assigned to one of the three “inappropriate” diets. To my knowledge, no such trial has ever been conducted. Providing a definitive answer to this question would be more than just an academic exercise, because the dietary requirements for some of the blood types (e.g., eat a lot of animal foods; permanently avoid common foods such as wheat, dairy products, and corn that one might not really need to avoid; and restrict cruciferous vegetables) could have adverse health consequences. If such a study failed to demonstrate the importance of blood type for making dietary recommendations, then people would be freed to follow a potentially more effective approach, such as avoiding junk food and identifying hidden food allergens by means of an elimination diet followed by individual food testing.

The study I cited by Wang and coworkers was not the same study that Dr. Kozak mentioned, in which young subjects apparently ate a bunch of unhealthful foods. The study I cited was a follow-up study by the same research group, in which middle-aged overweight individuals were assigned to one of two diets that emphasized fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and other healthful foods and recommended avoidance of refined sugar. The researchers found that greater adherence to any of the four blood-type diets was associated with significant clinical improvement, but these improvements occurred independently of whether the diet did or did not conform to the person’s blood type.¹ To be sure, the study I cited was not a definitive test of the blood-type theory and, as Dr. Kozak noted, it does not prove the theory is invalid. However, the failure of the study to provide any support at all for the blood-type theory reemphasizes the need for its proponents to conduct a clinical trial.