Atkins attacked - again! A couple of months ago (Daily Dose, 3/5/04), I wrote to you about how the mainstream press (no less than the venerable Wall Street Journal, mind you) jumped on the anti-meat bandwagon by irresponsibly reporting the ill-begotten "facts" behind the late Dr. Atkins' physical condition at the time of his death. To recap, the far-from-objective February 10th Journal piece cited a New York
City Medical Examiner's report that pegged the 6-foot Atkins' weight at more than 250 pounds at the time of his death - CLINICALLY OBESE, they trumpeted gleefully. But as I said back in March, what they utterly failed to give "equal time" to is the fact that the comatose Atkins had been pumped full of 60 pounds or more of fluids during the 9 days he languished in a hospital bed after the fall that ultimately killed him. That puts his living weight at closer to 190 pounds. On top of that, the purloined ME's report upon which the Journal article was based had been wrongfully leaked to the mainstream (see also "meat-hating") press by the Physician's Committee for Responsible Medicine, a well-known animal rights organization! Hardly an objective, unbiased source, huh? Why do I bring it all up again now? Because this same contingent of misguided whack-jobs are at it again. This time, they're bankrolling a Florida man's lawsuit against the Atkins diet for supposedly causing his heart disease after only two months on the plan. Yeah, right. Eight weeks worth of the high-protein, low-carbohydrate diet that millions of Americans have used to lose untold tons of weight caused this moron to need heart surgery - which is exactly what the lawsuit claims. Now, I'm not disputing the fact that this 53-year-old Florida man (one with an admitted family history of heart disease, mind you) needed emergency heart surgery - most folks who've steered clear of the high-protein, low-carb approach to eating for most of their adult life generally do. But to shamelessly publicize his own poor health (no doubt brought on by years of vegetarianism) to attempt to destroy the only truly sound nutritional advice being disseminated in the world today is just plain despicable. How do I know this litigation is nothing but a headline grab by the animal-rights kooks? I mean, besides the fact that the PETA-affiliated Physician's Committee for Responsible Medicine (whose membership rolls boast less than 5% doctors, by the way) is shelling out for the legal fees? Keep reading… Litigation: The new Public Relations In a continuation of a disturbing pattern I wrote about some months ago (Daily Dose, 10/14/03), the "Fat Nazis" continue to grab headlines in the gullible, news-hungry mainstream media by filing frivolous lawsuits they KNOW THEY WILL LOSE - like this latest mockery of the judicial system in Florida. Why do they do this? Because they're smart - immoral, but smart. You see, the American judiciary model guarantees every dog his day in court, so there really aren't any penalties for filing lawsuits that are doomed to fail. Whether a lawsuit is viable or not is up to a judge to decide, after all. That means if you have the money, you could sue virtually anyone for virtually anything: Bad luck, the weather, your height, whatever. However, to the media, the simple filing of a notable or unusual suit is news. That's why the PETA-philes have filed this particular suit in the Sunshine State - to malign the thing they've identified as their political enemy: Animals as food. How can I be sure this guy isn't really suing for legitimate damages done to him by the Atkins nutritional model? Because I'M smart. First off, according to CNSNews, the plaintiff isn't suing for money (except the forty bucks and change he spent on Atkins merchandise), but rather to try to force Atkins-affiliated foodstuffs
to sport a warning label about the "heart risks" he insists they pose. Second, his legal fees are being paid for by a propagandist group known to be hostile to the defendant! And third, he ADMITTED the suit was designed only to raise awareness of the "dangers" of the Atkins diet in an interview with the Palm Beach Post… Which brings us to the real problem here, which isn't the PCRM or its views. They're entitled to believe and attempt to publicize whatever misguided tripe (well, maybe not tripe - that's a meat
product) they want. It's the media, as usual. As long as they're willing to waste ink over every outrageous stunt their meat-hating brethren can dream up, our already obscenely overburdened court system will keep being forced to process this kind of drivel. And your tax dollars will be paying for it. But when do you think THAT fact will make the headlines? Always giving "equal time" to the under-reported truth, William Campbell Douglass II, MD | 
