After 20 plus years of working in the health & nutrition field, I have found that criticisms directed at me are either personal attacks or, to a lesser extent, questioning my scientific conclusions. The former, in some cases, will be addressed, but I prefer to let the science speak for itself.

 

Quackwatch – Dr. Barrett

This occurred in 2003. Dr. Barrett’s attack is both misleading with respect to the science that I present and ad hominem in nature. Testimonials were used by me but only as a verification of the science’s Real-Life results. A manufacturing issue occurred that was quickly remedied, and it is important to note that no one was harmed. It is illegal to say that a nutritional product can help a disease even if it is true, and of this I am guilty. I am certainly a research scientist, but I never stated that I was a doctor or a PhD. I was an adjunct professor in the pharmacy department. Please see the attached letters from both the former Associate Dean of Academic Affairs and former President of Texas Southern University.

 

The Weston A. Price Foundation

The attacks by Weston A. Price Foundation are particularly painful because I initially thought we would be colleagues, not adversaries, since we agree on many points. I don’t think the Foundation thoroughly read my work. Let me be specific: I was a consultant to the listed companies. Because “Google” didn’t find them isn’t my fault. I never moved to another city and never “renamed” anything. I became a nutritional consultant and, as a paid consultant, companies would utilize my recommendations as they saw fit. I write very succinctly. In fact, I am one of the few medical writers giving footnote references close to where they were used in the article, and I extensively quote from those references so that readers can form their own conclusions. I have no idea what the Foundation found “baffling,” and why it claims that I am “oversimplifying.” My Hidden Story of Cancer book with Dr. Habib, MD, is over 600 pages in its last (6th printing) hardcover edition. An article has to abbreviate and distill this enormous amount of information. The Foundation simply doesn’t like my prime thesis of how to prevent cancer via increased cellular oxygenation from PEOs.

 

Retraction Watch

The Journal of Lipids paper was retracted because I did not specifically disclose that I have patents concerning plant-based oils. I was invited to write the paper and paid no fee. My article was based on the failure of fish oil in 3 major trials, and these failures were published in prominent journals. I was merely explaining why fish oil should fail on the basis of human physiology and biochemistry. My article was reviewed by Prof. Angel Catalá and was thoroughly vetted.
(From 1985 to 2004, Prof. Catalá served as a full Professor of Biochemistry and was a Member of the Argentine Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. His laboratory has been interested for many years in the lipid peroxidation of biological membranes. He has published over 100 papers in peer-reviewed journals, several chapters in books, and four edited books, including Lipid Peroxidation in 2012.) He is a specialist in the topic I wrote about.
The website relied on the conclusions and insights of a medical student. Compare that with the expertise of Prof. Catalá. In addition, my article was thoroughly edited by a medical editor. I am saddened that Retraction Watch is quick to criticize but unable to provide quantitative scientific references that bolster their unfounded criticisms.

 

End Sickness Now! — Steve Carter

I am speechless about this one. I rely on quantitative science (biochemistry / physiology) first, and then studies to confirm the science. You can read the science for yourself in my work. Studies are no substitute for established biochemistry and physiology. I also present technical analyses in highly respected journals. Mr. Carter appears to hate certain journals as much as he hates me, and he advocates fish oil. Once again, Carter does not want to acknowledge the significant body of existing science about the dangers of fish oil, and my Journal of Lipids article was merely a response to why fish oil failed in 3 major trials. The problems with fish oil aren’t based on my studies; they are based on existing biochemistry and physiology, and if you read any of my work, you will see the extensive scientific references I utilize. I never said I was a doctor and clearly state that I was an adjunct professor in the Department of Pharmacy and Health Science. See “The Story of Radiant Health” and the attached letters from both the former Associate Dean of Academic Affairs and former President of Texas Southern University regarding the quality of my science and research. This is a likely fish oil proponent defending a position regardless of the numerous failed clinical trials over the last several years. Again, if you read my work, the science is quite clear. Physicians around the world use my recommendations with their patients because their patients’ health improves. Nobel Prize-winner Warburg’s cancer work is at the forefront today, and I have the honor of standing on the shoulders of the greatest physiologist of the 20th century. Carter calls fish oil “perfectly healthy.” Read Chapter 7 of my book, PEO Solution, and you will come to quite a different conclusion. He calls renowned physicians that support my work “shameful.” I do nothing in violation of the injunction cited, as I am a research scientist, regardless of what Mr. Carter thinks. What he thinks, or for that matter what I think, is entirely irrelevant. What matters is where the science leads us. Whether you accept it or reject it, science does not change to suit your “beliefs.”

 

Response to Dr. Gaby’s Commentary of “Vytorin Failure Explained – A New View of LDL” in the October 2008 – Townsend Letter

While I am an advocate of healthy skepticism, there are rules of logic, science and fair play that must be adhered to when challenging a new discovery. Dr. Gaby’s main assertion throughout his review of my recent article in the Townsend Letter is to reiterate the purely emotional argument that he simply “doesn’t like this.” This is not only insufficient reason for decrying my findings; it is no reason at all. Dr. Gaby repeatedly argues against specific scientific points without producing the corresponding science or citing the metabolic pathways that support his position. (Read the full statement here – PDF)

 

Site Disclaimer

The views expressed on this web site. represent the personal opinion of Brian Peskin based on his years of research, and some conclusions may be contrary to popular opinion.

Brian Peskin earned his Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering from Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.I.T.). He received an appointment as an Adjunct Professor at Texas Southern University in the Department of Pharmacy and Health Sciences (1998-1999). The former president of the University said of Brian’s discoveries: “…His nutritional discoveries and practical applications through Life-Systems Engineering are unprecedented.” Brian founded the field of Life-Systems Engineering Science in 1995. This field is defined as The New Science of Maximizing Desired Results by Working Cooperatively with the Natural Processes of Living Systems.