David Gillespie’s errors: a summary

‘Nut-Net’ is the abbreviation of Nutritionists Network, a professional nutrition email discussion list with more than 800 nutritionists and dietitians as subscribers. In April 2010, an FAQ regarding fructose was distributed on Nut-Net and also published on the website of Nutrition Australia.

The FAQ is largely a response to the myths about frusctose that were spread by David Gillespie, author of Sweet Poison and now of a new diet book called Sweet Poison Quit Plan. Readers are allowed to sigh aloud before continuing to read.

Following the publication of the FAQ, David Gillespie sent the following letter to Nutrition Australia:

I am the author of Sweet Poison. A book you have reviewed at http://www.nutritionaustralia.org/national/frequently-asked-questions/fructose/detailed-summary-fructose.

In your review you make a number of comments which require justification.

You say “Unfortunately, Sweet Poison is based on gross misinterpretations of key aspects of the scientific literature, and entirely ignores others.” Which aspects of the book represent a gross misinterpretation of the scientific literature? And which aspects have been ignored? You go on to say “In fact, Sweet Poison is replete with errors and dubious claims.” Please identify the errors and the dubious claims.

Sincerely, David.

The book and David’s claims on the radio and on his website have been the subject of a thorough debunking on the pages of The Skeptic and elsewhere, but the response by Nut-Net’s Chris Forbes-Ewan, who also wrote about the book for The Skeptic, is so clear and through that we couldn’t help publish it. It can be read here.