Second letter

Dear Ms. Lanier:

I want to thank you and Dr. Willerson for your timely attention to this matter.  However, publication online in the Correspondence section of Circulation fails to set the record straight.  Therefore, I am requesting that my letter and their responses appear in the printed version of Circulation.  However, I think a more appropriate response to this serious matter would be for you to allow me an editorial on this subject in the printed version of Circulation.

You may think this is trivial and doesn't deserve a serious effort on my part to correct an error in basic science.  But, the idea that plants are "incomplete proteins" has been used for decades to discourage people from following diets based on plant foods -- the trend of the recommendations encouraged by the Heart Association.

Just as important, there are serious problems with credibility in our society these days.  The response I received from Dr. Howard could be interpreted as an attempt to avoid correcting an error made by the Committee.

I expect the response I receive from the Committee will be well thought out.  One concern I have is that they will return with a finding that the state of the scientific literature does not allow a firm conclusion on the adequacy of plant proteins.  In this case they should be required to retract their statement that, “Although plant proteins form a large part of the human diet, most are deficient in 1 or more essential amino acids and are therefore regarded as incomplete proteins.”  The burden of proof lies with those who make the claim.

Please help me make this an opportunity to correct misinformation that has remained in our scientific minds too long.

On a more personal note: Please expect my contentious tone (and my efforts to make this matter right) to continue until all parties concerned grant me the courtesy of a professional and honest answer to my concerns.

Sincerely,

John McDougall, MD

2002 John McDougall All Rights Reserved