These Aren't "Hayseeds Trying to Turn a Quick Buck"

The response of Dr. Stephen Barrett of Casewatch (quoted in immediately previous segment) didn't sit well with John King of King Orchards, a 300-acre family cherry farm in Traverse City, MI. Barrett's advice--essentially, suck it up and don't discuss the health benefits of tart cherries--prompted a lengthy rebuttal on the King Orchards web site.

King points out to Barriett that both he and the FDA would be hard pressed to demonstrate any danger to the public from highlighting the health benefits of tart cherries because "it would not be possible to prove that cherries are dangerous, nor would it be possible to negate or dismiss the body of decades of research upon which the statements of potential health benefits of tart cherries rests." King goes on to provide a compelling argument not only for the health claims of tart cherries, but for the importance of family farming to the culture and economy of modern-day America. He also takes on Barrett's condescending attitude by stating that the notion that "the FDA or the pharmaceutical corporations are the only authorities on this subject, as contrasted with the growers who are presumed to be hayseeds trying to turn a quick buck by questionable means, is wholly false and rests on complete ignorance of the subject."

King's conclusion distills the entire matter: "...we should keep in mind lemons were curing scurvy 150 years before we could 'prove' that they could. Had that been discovered today, the FDA would be forcing lemon growers to remain silent about that if the same rationale were used that was applied to tart cherry growers." Check it out--it's a great read.

Comments

[Patrick Sullivan Jr.]

John Kings rebuttal was very well done.

We recently implemented the Natural & Alternative Treatements (NAT) Database into JigsawHealth.com. I've found it to be a particularly good resource because the primary author, Steven Bratman MD, looks at natural substances and conditions through a westernized scientific lense. He has sorted through all the randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled trials that have been done on natural substances. That's the gold standard. But he also gives lesser credit to studies that weren't as well designed, not double-blind, etc. to at least let you know that there is suggestive evidence. All in all, I've found it to be the best resource for fair and balanced scientific evidence.

All that said, Cherries isn't listed as a primary topic. The only reference is listed in the article about gout:

"Folk Remedies

A traditional remedy for gout (with negligible scientific evidence) calls for 1/2 to 1 pound of cherries a day. 6 You can also buy tablets containing concentrated cherry juice."

http://www.jigsawhealth.com/nat.aspx?&chunkiid=21705

To put it in perspective, there's no article on lemons either, only lemon balm.
http://www.jigsawhealth.com/nat.aspx?&chunkiid=21798

I'll email Dr. Barret and find out why not.

[Patrick Sullivan Jr.]

Oops, referred to Bratman as Barret in that last sentence.

Btw, here's a link to Dr. BRATMAN's website.

http://www.altmedconsult.com/

[Patrick Sullivan Jr.]

Just realized that I never heard back from Dr. Bratman or from EBSCO Publishing on this. I'll have to ping them again.