while i am somewhat dissapointed by d'adamo's lack of footnotes and frustrated by his avoidance of indexes i haven't yet found a credible direct dispute to any significant claims of his i am aware of a text that might indicate behavior of lectins on stomach tissuus would need to be directly studied but i wasn't willing to spend in excess of us iirc to find out what exactly it found depite it being a real scientificly strict apparently as i didn't actually get to read the study while not as rigourously strict with the science as it should be at least what is presented in his books er yt doesn't seem to be significantly paranormal or disprovable so while it has a stigma of pseudoscience that stigma hasn't really been justified some supposed refutation i have come across turned out to be of even poorer quality either reflecting it's own pseudoscience or a lack of familiarity with the nominal subject i would really like to see some explicit maybe even rigorous debunking of d'adamo's occasionaly controversial i can't see why offerings as of yet i consider this closer to protoscience than unfalsifiable pseudoscience in any case i don't think that anything i previously posted on this matter is all that fantastic is the mere mention of doctor d'adamo or eat right for your type er yt enough to invalidate the respose i offered other than that vague stigma is my above answer to the utility of divergent blood types unhelpful or incorrect i do believe that i was careful enough to avoid anything that wasn't npov maybe i shouldn't have tread so lightly so as to provoke more of a direct response because while i like how it advocates my type o consumption of most animal proteins i find it's avoid lists including wheat and dairy to be cumbersome