The China Study - Fact or Fallacy - Raw Food SOS

7/26/12
The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? Raw Food SOS
Raw Food SOS

Rescuing good health from bad science.
The China Study: Fact or Fallacy?

7 07 2010 Disclaimer: This blog post covers only a fraction of whats wrong with The China Study. In the years since I wrote it, Ive added a number of additional articles (http://rawfoodsos.com/the-china-study/) expanding on this critique and covering a great deal of new material. Please read my Forks Over Knives review (http://rawfoodsos.com/2011/09/22/forks-over-knives-is-the-science-legit-a-review-and-critique/) for more information on whats wrong with the conclusions drawn from Campbells casein/aflatoxin research, and if youd rather look at peer-reviewed research than the words of some random internet blogger, see my collection of scientific papers based on the China Study data (http://rawfoodsos.com/2011/07/31/one-year-later-the-china-study-revisited-and-re-bashed/) that contradict the claims in Campbells book. Ive also responded to Campbells reply to my critique (http://www.vegsource.com/news/2010/07/china-study-author-colincampbell-slaps-down-critic-denise-minger.html) with a much longer, more formal analysis than the one on this page, which you can read here (http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/08/03/the-china-study-a-formal-analysis-and-response/). When I first started analyzing the original China Study data, I had no intention of writing up an actual critique of Campbells much-lauded book (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1932100660/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=rfs0920&linkCode=as2&camp=217145&creative=399373&creativeASIN=1932100660). Im a data junkie. Numbers, along with strawberries and Audrey Hepburn films, make me a very happy girl. I mainly wanted to see for myself how closely Campbells claims aligned with the data he drew fromif only to satisfy my own curiosity. But after spending a solid month and a half reading, graphing, sticky-noting, and passing out at 3 AM from studious exhaustion upon my copy of the raw China Study data (http://www.amazon.com/Diet-Life-Style-Mortality-China-Characteristics/dp/0801424534), Ive decided its time to voice all my criticisms. And there are many. First, let me put out some fires before they have a chance to ignite: 1. I dont work for the meat or dairy industry. Nor do I have a fat-walleted roommate, best friend, parent, child, love interest, or highly prodigious cat who works for the meat or dairy industry who paid me off to debunk Campbell. 2. Due to food sensitivities, I dont consume dairy myself, nor do I have any personal reason to promote it as a health food. 3. I was a vegetarian/vegan for over a decade and have nothing but respect for those who choose a plant-based diet, even though I am no longer vegan. My goal, with the The China Study analysis and elsewhere, is to figure out the truth about nutrition and health without the interference of biases and dogma. I have no agenda to promote. As I mentioned, Im airing my criticisms here; this wont be a China Study love fest, or even a typical balanced review with pros and cons. Campbell actually raises a number of points I wholeheartedly agree withparticularly in the Why Havent You Heard This? section of his book, where he exposes the reality behind Big Pharma and the science industry at large. I admire Campbells philosophy towards nutritional research and echo his sentiments about the dangers of scientific reductionism. However, the internet is already flooded with rave reviews of this book, and Im not interested in adding redundant praise. My intent is to highlight the weaknesses of The China Study and the potential errors in Campbells interpretation of the original data. (IMPORTANT NOTE: My response to Campbells reply, as well as to some common reader questions, can be found in the following post: My Response to Campbell (http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/16/the-china-study-my-response-to-campbell/). Please read this for clarification regarding univariate correlations and flaws in Campbells analytical methods.) (If this is your first time here, feel free to browse the earlier posts in the China Study category (http://rawfoodsos.com/category/china-study/) to get up to speed.) On the Cornell University website (the institution thatalong with Oxford Universityspawned the China Project), I came across an excellent summary of Campbells conclusions (http://www.news.cornell.edu/chronicle/01/6.28.01/china_study_ii.html) from the data. Although this article was published a few years before The China Study, it distills some of the books points in a concise, down-n-dirty way. In this post, Ill be looking at these statements along with other overriding claims in The China Study (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1932100660/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=rfs0920&linkCode=as2&camp=217145&creative=399373&creativeASIN=1932100660) and seeing whether they hold up under scrutinyincluding an in-depth look at Campbells discoveries with casein. (Disclaimer: This post is long. Very long. If either your time or your attention span is short, you can scroll down to the bottom, where I summarize the 9,000 words that follow in a less formidable manner.) (Disclaimer 2: All correlations here are presented as the original value multiplied by 100 in order to avoid dealing with excessive decimals. Asterisked correlations indicate statistical significance, with * = p<0.05, ** = p<0.01, and *** = p<0.001. In other words, the more stars you see, the more confident we are that the trend is legit. If youre rusty on stats, visit the meat and disease in the China Study (http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/06/01/a-closer-look-at-the-china-study-meat-and-disease/) page for a basic refresher on some math terms.) (Disclaimer 3: The China Study files on the University of Oxford website (http://www.ctsu.ox.ac.uk/~china/monograph/) include the results of the China Study II, which was conducted after the first China Study. It includes Taiwan and a number of additional counties on top of the original 65and thus, more data points. The numbers I use in this critique come solely from the first China Study, as recorded in the book Diet, Life-style and Mortality in China, and may be different than the numbers on the website.) From Cornell Universitys article:
rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/ 1/137
7/26/12
Even small increases in the consumption of animal-based foods was associated with increased disease risk, Campbell told a symposium at the epidemiology congress, pointing to several statistically significant correlations from the China studies. Alright, Mr. CampbellIll hear ya out. Lets take a look at these correlations. Campbell Claim #1 Plasma cholesterol in the 90-170 milligrams per deciliter range is positively associated with most cancer mortality rates. Plasma cholesterol is positively associated with animal protein intake and inversely associated with plant protein intake. No falsification here. Indeed, cholesterol in the China Project has statistically significant associations with several cancers (though not with heart disease). And indeed, plasma cholesterol correlates positively with animal protein consumption and negatively with plant protein consumption. But theres more to the story than that. Notice Campbell cites a chain of three variables: Cancer associates with cholesterol, cholesterol associates with animal protein, and therefore we infer that animal protein associates with cancer. Or from another angle: Cancer associates with cholesterol, cholesterol negatively associates with plant protein, and therefore we infer plant protein protects against cancer. But when we actually track down the direct correlation between animal protein and cancer, there is no statistically significant positive trend. None. Looking directly at animal protein intake, we have the following correlations with cancers: Lymphoma: -18 Penis cancer: -16 Rectal cancer: -12 Bladder cancer: -9 Colorectal cancer: -8 Leukemia: -5 Nasopharyngeal: -4 Cervix cancer: -4 Colon cancer: -3 Liver cancer: -3 Oesophageal cancer: +2 Brain cancer: +5 Breast cancer: +12 Most are negative, but none even reach statistical significance. In other words, the only way Campbell could indict animal protein is by throwing a third variable cholesterolinto the mix. If animal protein were the real cause of these diseases, Campbell should be able to cite a direct correlation between cancer and animal protein consumption, which would show that people eating more animal protein did in fact get more cancer. But what about plant protein? Since plant protein correlates negatively with plasma cholesterol, does that mean plant protein correlates with lower cancer risk? Lets take a look at the cancer correlations with plant protein intake: Nasopharyngeal cancer: -40** Brain cancer: -15 Liver cancer: -14 Penis cancer: -4 Lymphoma: -4 Bladder cancer: -3 Breast cancer: +1 Stomach cancer: +10 Rectal cancer: +12 Cervix cancer: +12 Colon cancer: +13 Leukemia: +15 Oesophageal cancer +18 Colorectal cancer: +19 We have one statistically significant correlation with a rare cancer not linked to diet (nasopharyngeal cancer), but we also have more positive correlations than we saw with animal protein. In fact, when we look solely at the variable death from all cancers, the association with plant protein is +12. With animal protein, its only +3. So why is Campbell linking animal protein to cancer, yet implying plant protein is protective against it? In addition, Campbells statement about cholesterol and cancer leaves out a few significant points. What he doesnt mention is that plasma cholesterol is also associated with several non-nutritional variables known to raise cancer risknamely schistosomiasis infection (correlation of +34*) and hepatitis B infection (correlation of +30*). Not coincidentally, cholesterols strongest cancer links are with liver cancer, rectal cancer, colon cancer, and the sum of all colorectal cancers. As we saw in the posts on meat consumption (http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/06/01/a-closer-look-at-the-china-study-meat-and-disease/) and fish consumption (http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/06/09/a-closer-look-at-the-china-study-fish-and-disease/), schistosomiasis and hepatitis B are the two biggest factors in the occurrence of these diseases. So is it higher cholesterol (by way of animal products) that causes these cancers, or is it a misleading association because areas with high cholesterol are riddled with other cancer risk factors? We cant know for sure, but it does seem odd that Campbell never points out the latter scenario as a possibility. Campbell Claim #2
7/26/12
Breast cancer is associated with dietary fat (which is associated with animal protein intake) and inversely with age at menarche (women who reach puberty at younger ages have a greater risk of breast cancer). Campbell is correct that breast cancer negatively relates to the age of first menstruationa correlation of -20. Not statistically significant, but given what we know about hormone exposure and breast cancer, it certainly makes sense. And there is a correlation between fat intake and breast cancera non-statistically-significant +18 for fat as a percentage of total calories and +22 for total lipid intake. But are there any dietary or lifestyle factors with a similar or stronger association than this? Lets look at the correlation between breast cancer and a few other variables. Asterisked items are statistically significant: Blood glucose level: +36** Wine intake: +33* Alcohol intake: +31* Yearly fruit consumption: +25 Percentage of population working in industry: +24 Hexachlorocyclohexane in food: +24 Processed starch and sugar intake: +20 Corn intake: +20 Daily beer intake: +19 Legume intake: +17 Looks to me like breast cancer may have links with sugar and alcohol, and perhaps also with hexachlorocyclohexane and occupational hazards associated with industry work. Again, why is Campbell singling out fat from animal products when otherstrongercorrelations are present? Certainly, consuming dairy and meat from hormone-injected livestock may logically raise breast cancer risk due to increased exposure to hormones, but this isnt grounds for generalizing all animal products as causative for this disease. Nor is a correlation of +18 for fat calories grounds for indicting fat as a breast cancer risk factor, when alcohol, processed sugar, and starch correlate even more strongly. (Animal protein itself, for the record, correlates with breast cancer at +12which is lower than breast cancers correlation with light-colored vegetables, legume intake, fruit, and a number of other purportedly healthy plant foods.) Campbell Claim #3 For those at risk for liver cancer (for example, because of chronic infection with hepatitis B virus) increasing intakes of animal-based foods and/or increasing concentrations of plasma cholesterol are associated with a higher disease risk. Ah, heres one that may be interesting! Even if animal products dont cause cancer, do they spur its occurrence when other risk factors are present? That would certainly be in line with Campbells research on aflatoxin and rats, where the milk protein casein dramatically increased cancer rates. So, lets look only at the counties with the highest rates of hepatitis B infection and see what animal food consumption does there. In the China Study, one documented variable is the percentage of each countys population testing positive for the hepatitis B surface antigen. Population averages ranged from 1% to 29%, with a mean of 13% and median of 14%. If we take only the counties that have, say, 18% or more testing positive, that leaves us with a solid pool of high-risk data points to look at. Animal product consumption in these places ranges from a meager 6.9 grams per day to a heftier 148.1 grams per daya wide enough range to give us a good variety of data points. Liver cancer mortality ranges from 5.51 to 59.63 people per thousand. Lets crunch these numbers, shall we? Heres a chart of the data Im using.
(http://rawfoodsos.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/hep_b_counties_chart.jpg) When we map out liver cancer mortality and animal product consumption only in areas with high rates of hepatitis B infection (18% and higher), we should see cancer rates rise as animal product consumption increasesat least, according to Campbell. That would indicate animal-based foods do encourage cancer growth. But heres what we really get.
(http://rawfoodsos.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/animal_products_liver_cancer_hep_b_18.jpg) In these high-risk areas for liver cancer, total animal food intake has a correlation with liver cancer of dun dun dun +1. Thats it. One. We rarely get a perfect statistical zero in the real world, but this is pretty doggone close to neutral. Broken up into different types of animal food rather than total consumption, we have the following correlations: Meat correlates at -7 with liver cancer in high-risk counties
7/26/12
Fish correlates at +11 Eggs correlate at -29 Dairy correlates at -19 In other words, it looks like animal foods have virtually no effectwhether positive or negativeon the occurrence of liver cancer in hepatitis-B infected areas. Campbell mentioned plasma cholesterol also associates with liver cancer, which is correct: The raw correlation is a statistically significant +37. If its true blood cholesterol is somehow an instigator for liver cancer in hepatitis-B-riddled populations, wed expect to see this correlation preserved or heightened among our highest-risk counties. So lets take a look at the same previous 19 counties with high hepatitis B occurrence, and graph their total cholesterol alongside their liver cancer rates.
(http://rawfoodsos.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/cholesterol_liver_cancer_hep_b_18.jpg) In the high-risk groups, the correlation between total cholesterol and liver cancer drops from +37 to +8. Still slightly positive, but not exactly damning. If I were Campbell, Id look at not only animal protein and cholesterol in relation to liver cancer, but also at the many other variables that correlate positively with the disease. For instance, daily liquor intake correlates at +33*, total alcohol intake correlates at +28*, cigarette use correlates at +27*, intake of the heavy metal cadmium correlates at +38**, rapeseed oil intake correlates at +25*so on and so forth. All are statistically significant. Why doesnt Campbell mention these factors as possible causes of increased liver cancer in high-risk areas? And, more importantly, why doesnt Campbell account for the fact that many of these variables occur alongside increased cholesterol and animal product consumption, making it unclear whats causing what? Campbell Claim #4 Cardiovascular diseases are associated with lower intakes of green vegetables and higher concentrations of apo-B (a form of so-called bad blood cholesterol) which is associated with increasing intakes of animal protein and decreasing intakes of plant protein. Alright, weve got a multi-parter here. First, lets see what the actual correlations are between cardiovascular diseases and green vegetablesan interesting connection, if it holds true. The China Study accounted for this variable in two ways: one through a diet survey that measured how many grams of green vegetables each county averaged per day, and one through a questionnaire that recorded how many times per year citizens ate green vegetables. From the diet survey, green vegetable intake (average grams per day) has the following correlations: Myocardial infarction and coronary heart disease: +5 Hypertensive heart disease: -4 Stroke: -8 From the questionnaire, green vegetable intake (times eaten per year) has the following correlations: Myocardial infarction and coronary heart disease: -43** Hypertensive heart disease: -36* Stroke: -35* A little odd, oui? When we look at total quantity of green vegetables consumed (in terms of weight), weve got only weak negative associations for two cardiovascular conditions, and a slightly positive association for heart attacks (myocardial infarction) and coronary heart disease. Nothing to write home about. But when we look at the number of times per year green vegetables are consumed, we have much stronger inverse associations with all cardiovascular diseases. Why the huge difference? Why would frequency be more protective than quantity? What accounts for this mystery? It could be that the China Study diet survey did a poor job of tracking and estimating greens intake on a long-term basis (indeed, it was only a three-day survey, although when repeated at a later date yielded similar results for each county). But the explanation could also boil down to one word: geography. Let me explain. The counties in China that eat greens year-round live in a particular climate and latitudenamely, humid regions to the south. The Green vegetable intake, times per year variable has a correlation of -68*** with aridity (indicating a humid climate) and a correlation of -60*** with latitude (indicating southerly placement on the ol map). Folks living in these regions might not eat the most green vegetables quantity-wise, but they do eat them frequently, since their growing season is nearly year-round. In contrast, the variable Green vegetable intake, grams per day has a correlation of only -16 with aridity and +5 with latitude, indicating much looser associations with southern geography. The folks who eat lots of green veggies dont necessarily live in climates with a year-round growing season, but when green vegetables are available, they eat a lot of them. That bumps up the average intake per day, even if they endure some periods where greens arent on the menu at all.
7/26/12
If green vegetables themselves were protective of heart disease, as Campbell seems to be implying, we would expect their anti-heart-disease effects to be present in both quantity of consumption and frequency of consumption. Yet the counties eating the most greens quantity-wise didnt have any less cardiovascular disease than average. This tells us theres probably another variable unique to the southern, humid regions in China that confers heart disease protectionbut green veggies arent it. Some of the hallmark variables of humid southern regions include high fish intake, low use of salt, high rice consumption (and low consumption of all other grains, especially wheat), higher meat consumption, and smaller body size (shorter height and lower weight). And as youll see in an upcoming post on heart disease, these southerly regions also had more intense sunlight exposure and thus more vitamin Dan important player in heart disease prevention. (And for the record, as a green-veggie lover myself, Im not trying to negate their health benefitspromise! I just want to offer equal skepticism to all claims, even the ones Id prefer to be true.) Basically, Campbells implication that green vegetables are associated with less cardiovascular disease is misleading. More accurately, certain geographical regions have strong correlations with cardiovascular disease (or lack thereof), and year-round green vegetable consumption is simply an indicator of geography. Since only frequency and not actual quantity of greens seems protective of heart disease and stroke, its safe to say that greens probably arent the true protective factor. So that about covers it for greens. What about the next variable in Campbells claim: a bad form of cholesterol called apo-B? Campbell is justified in noting the link between apolipoprotein B (apo-B) and cardiovascular disease in the China Study data, a connection widely recognized by the medical community today. These are its correlations with cardiovascular disease: Myocardial infarction and coronary heart disease: +37** Hypertensive heart disease: +35* Stroke: +35* And hes also right about the negative association between apo-B and plant protein, which is -37*, as well as the positive association between apo-B and animal protein, which is +25* for non-fish protein and +16 for fish protein. So from a technical standpoint, Campbells statement (aside from the green veggie issue) is legit. However, its the implications of this claim that are misleading. From what Campbell asserts, it would seem that animal products are ultimately linked to cardiovascular diseases and plant protein is ultimately protective of those diseases, and apo-B is merely a secondary indicator of this reality. But does that claim hold water? Heres the raw data. Correlations between animal protein and cardiovascular disease: Myocardial infarction and coronary heart disease: +1 Hypertensive heart disease: +25 Stroke: +5 Correlations between fish protein and cardiovascular disease: Myocardial infarction and coronary heart disease: -11 Hypertensive heart disease: -9 Stroke: -11 Correlations between plant protein and cardiovascular disease (from the China Studys diet survey): Myocardial infarction and coronary heart disease: +25 Hypertensive heart disease: -10 Stroke: -3 Correlations between plant protein and cardiovascular disease (from the China Studys food composite analysis): Myocardial infarction and coronary heart disease: +21 Hypertensive heart disease: 0 Stroke: +12 Check that out! Fish protein looks weakly protective all-around; non-fish animal protein is neutral for coronary heart disease/heart attacks and stroke but associates positively with hypertensive heart disease (related to high blood pressure); and plant protein actually correlates fairly strongly with heart attacks and coronary heart disease. (The China Study documented two variables related to plant protein: one from a lab analysis of foods eaten in each county, and one from a diet survey given to county citizens.) Surely, there is no wide division here between the protective or disease-causing effects of animal-based protein versus plant protein. If anything, fish protein looks the most protective of the bunch. No wonder Campbell had to cite a third variable in order to vilify animal products and praise plant protein: Examined directly, theyre nearly neck-and-neck. If youre wondering about the connection between animal protein and hypertensive heart disease, by the way, its actually hiked up solely by the dairy variable. Here are the individual correlations between specific animal foods and hypertensive heart disease: Milk and dairy products intake: +30** Egg intake: -28 Meat intake: -4 Fish intake: -14 You can read more about the connection between dairy and hypertensive heart disease in the entry on dairy in the China Study (http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/06/20/a-closer-look-at-the-china-study-dairy-and-disease/). At any rate, Campbell accurately points out that apo-B correlates positively with cardiovascular diseases. But to imply animal protein is causative of these diseases and green vegetables or plant protein protective of themis dubious at best. What factors cause both apo-B and cardiovascular disease risk to increase hand-inhand? This is the question we should be asking.
7/26/12
Campbell Claim #5 Colorectal cancers are consistently inversely associated with intakes of 14 different dietary fiber fractions (although only one is statistically significant). Stomach cancer is inversely associated with green vegetable intake and plasma concentrations of beta-carotene and vitamin C obtained only from plant-based foods. This is congruous with conventional beliefs about fiber being helpful for colon health. And as a plant-nosher myself, I hope its truebut thats no reason to omit this claim from critical examination. Here are all of the China Studys fiber variables as they correlate to colorectal cancer: Total fiber intake: -3 Total neutral detergent fiber intake: -13 Hemi-cellulose fiber intake: -10 Cellulose fiber intake: -13 Intake of lignins remaining after cutin removed: -9 Cutin intake: -14 Starch intake: -1 Pectin intake: +3 Rhamnose intake: -26* Fucose intake: +2 Arabinose intake: -18 Xylose intake: -15 Mannose intake: -13 Galactose intake: -24 Surprise, surprise: I agree with Campbell on this one! All but two of the fiber variables have inverse associations with colorectal cancers. The first part of Campbell Claim #5 passes Denises BS-o-Meter test. Let us celebrate! But before we get too jiggy with it, I do have a nit to pick. Fiber intake also negatively correlates with schistosomiasis infection, a type of parasite. Try Googling schistosomiasis and colorectal cancer (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=schistosomiasis+colorectal+cancer) and youll get more relevant hits than youll ever have time to read. Ill elaborate on this in a few paragraphs, so hang tightbut for now, Ill just point out two things: 1. Schistosomiasis infection is a very strong predictor for colon and rectal cancers, more so than any of the other hundreds of variables studied in the China Project (it has a correlation of +89 with colorectal cancer). 2. The only fiber factions that dont appear protective of colorectal cancer (pectin and fucose) also have the most neutral associations with schistosomiasis infection (+1 and -5, respectivelywhereas other fiber factions had correlations ranging from -9 to -27 with schistosomiasis). In all cases, the correlation between each fiber faction and colorectal cancer parallels its correlation with schistosomiasis. In other words: Is it the fiber itself thats protective against colorectal cancer, or is it the fact that the counties eating the most fiber happened to also have the lowest rates of schistosomiasis? It would, I think, be wise to prune these variables apart before declaring fiber itself as protective based on the China Study data. There is research conducted outside of the China Project suggesting fiber benefits colon health, but often that association dissolves when researchers adjust for other dietary risk factors, such as with the this pooled analysis of colorectal cancer studies (http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/294/22/2849) published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Bottom line: Its never a good idea to go looking for a specific trend just because we believe it should be there. Chains of confirmation bias are often what cause nutritional myths to emerge and persist. Fiber may be beneficial, but we shouldnt approach the data already expecting to find thislest we overlook other important influences. Moving on. Now, what about the second part of this claim: Stomach cancer is inversely associated with green vegetable intake and plasma concentrations of betacarotene and vitamin C obtained only from plant-based foods. Is this a fair assessment? Lets find out. Here are the correlations between stomach cancer and each of these variables. Green vegetables, daily intake: +5 Green vegetables, times eaten per year: -35** Plasma beta-carotene: -14 Plasma vitamin C: -13 Ah, looks like were facing the Green Veggie Paradox once again. The folks with year-round access to green vegetables get less stomach cancer, but the the folks who eat more green vegetables overall arent protected. Once again, Ill suggest that a geographic variable specific to veggie-growing regions could be at play here. As for beta-carotene and vitamin C concentrations in the blood, Campbell is correct in noting an inverse association with stomach cancer. However, the correlations arent statistically significant, nor are they very high: -14 and -13, respectively. Campbell Claim #6 Western-type diseases, in the aggregate, are highly significantly correlated with increasing concentrations of plasma cholesterol, which are associated in turn with increasing intakes of animal-based foods. From his book, we know Campbell defines Western-type diseases as including heart disease, diabetes, colorectal cancers, breast cancer, stomach cancer, leukemia, and liver cancer. And indeed, the variable total cholesterol correlates positively with many of these diseases: Myocardial infarction and coronary heart disease: +4 Diabetes: +8 Colon cancer: +44** Rectal cancer: +30* Colorectal cancer: +33** Breast cancer: +19 Stomach cancer: +17
7/26/12
Leukemia: +26* Liver cancer: +37* Perhaps surprisingly, total cholesterol has only weak associations with heart disease and diabetesweaker, in fact, than the correlation between these conditions and plant protein intake (+25 and +12, respectively). But well put that last point aside for the time being. For now, lets focus on the diseases with statistical significance, which include all forms of colorectal cancer, leukemia, and liver cancer. (Despite classifying stomach cancer as a Western disease, by the way, China actually has far higher rates of this disease than any Western nation. In fact, half the people who die each year (http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/200612/06/content_752101.htm) from stomach cancer live in China.) First, lets dive into the dark, murky chambers of the digestive tract and start with colorectal cancers. Off we go! What Campbell overlooks about colorectal cancers and cholesterol As I mentioned earlier, a little somethin called schistosomiasis is a profoundly strong risk factor for developing colon cancer and rectal cancer. In the China Study data, schistosomiasis correlates at +89*** with colorectal cancer mortality. Yes, 89higher than any of the other 367 variables recorded. This, ladies and gentlemen, is what we call a positive correlation.
(http://rawfoodsos.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/schisto_colorectal_cancer_all.jpg) It just so happens that total cholesterol also correlates with schistosomiasis infection, at a statistically significant rate of +34*:
(http://rawfoodsos.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/schisto_total_cholesterol_all.jpg) Basically, this means that areas with higher cholesterol levels also hadfor whatever reasona higher incidence of schistosomiasis infection. Its hard to say for sure why this is, but its likely that the high-cholesterol and high-schistosomiasis groups had a third variable in common, such as infected drinking water or other source of schistosomiasis exposure. From this alone, it shouldnt be too shocking that higher cholesterol also correlates with higher rates of colorectal cancer (+33*):
rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/
7/137
7/26/12
(http://rawfoodsos.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/total_cholesterol_colorectal_cancers_all.jpg) Clearly, we have three tangled-up variables to sort through: total cholesterol, colorectal cancer rates, and schistosomiasis infection. Is it really higher cholesterol that increases the risk of developing colon and rectal cancers, or is the influence of schistosomiasis deceiving us? To figure this out, lets look at what cholesterol and colorectal cancer rates look like only in regions with zero schistosomiasis infection. If cholesterol is a causative factor for colorectal cancers, then cancer rates should still increase as total cholesterol rises.
(http://rawfoodsos.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/total_cholesterol_colorectal_cancers_no_schisto.jpg) The above graph showcases a correlation of +13. Still positive, but not statistically significant, and a major downgrade from the original correlation of +33*. It does seem schistosomiasis inflates the correlation between cholesterol and colorectal cancerssomething Campbell never takes into account. Is blood cholesterol still a risk factor? Its possible, but we would need more data to know whether the +13 correlation persists or whether there are additional confounding variables at work. For instance, beer intake is another factor correlating significantly with both total cholesterol (+32*) and colon cancer (+40**). If we remove the three counties that drink the most beer from of the data set above, the correlation between cholesterol and and colorectal cancer drops to -9. See how tricky the interplay of variables can be? What Campbell overlooks about leukemia and cholesterol Next in our lineup of Western diseases is leukemia, which has a statistically significant correlation of +26* with total cholesterol. (Although the implication here is that animal product consumption raises leukemia risk, it should be noted that animal protein intake itself has a correlation of -5 with leukemia, whereas plant protein actually has a correlation of +15 with this disease. But lets humor this claim anyway by looking solely at the role of blood cholesterol.) If youll recall from the post on fish and disease in the China Study (http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/06/09/a-closer-look-at-the-china-study-fish-and-disease/), leukemia correlates very strongly with working in industry (+53**) and inversely with working in agriculture (-53**). Although its possible the cause is nutritional, its also quite likely that an occupational hazard is to blamesuch as benzene exposure, which is a major and well-known cause of leukemia in Chinese factory and refinery workers. Lo and behold, cholesterol also correlates strongly with working in industry (+45**) and inversely with working in agriculture (-46**). If an industry-related risk factor raises leukemia rates, it could very well appear as a false correlation with cholesterol. How can we tell if this is the case? Lets try looking at the correlation between leukemia and cholesterol only in counties where few members of the population were employed in industry. If cholesterol itself heightens leukemia risk, our positive trend should still be in place. In the China Study data set, the range for percent of the population working in industry is 1.1% to 41.3%, so lets try looking at the counties where the value is under 10%:
(http://rawfoodsos.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/leukemia_total_cholesterol_minus_industry.jpg) For the low-industry counties, the correlation between leukemia and total cholesterol is close to neutrala mere +4. As you can see, this is hardly a damning trend. And in case youre wondering if higher cholesterol could possibly spur the rates of leukemia in folks who are already at risk, this isnt the case either: Using only counties that had 20% or more of the population working in industry, presumably the folks who had the most exposure to chemicals like benzene, the correlation between cholesterol and leukemia is a slightly protective -3. What Campbell overlooks about liver cancer and cholesterol
7/26/12
I may not be vegan, but that doesnt mean I like beating dead horses. Instead of rehashing the earlier analysis of liver cancer under Campbell Claim #3, Ill just repeat that cholesterol does not have a significant correlation with liver cancer when you divide the data set into separate groups: areas with high hepatitis B rates an areas with low hepatitis B rates. From page 104 of his book: Liver cancer rates are very high in rural China, exceptionally high in some areas. Why was this? The primary culprit seemed to be chronic infection with hepatitis B virus (HBV). But theres more. In addition to the [hepatitis B] virus being a cause of liver cancer in China, it seems that diet also plays a key role. How do we know? The blood cholesterol levels provided the main clue. Liver cancer is strongly associated with increasing blood cholesterol, and we already know that animal-based foods are responsible for increases in cholesterol. Campbell connects some of the dots, but misses a very important one. Indeed, hepatitis B associates strongly with liver cancer. Indeed, cholesterol associates with liver cancer. But what he doesnt mention is that cholesterol also associates with hepatitis B infection. In other words, the groups with higher cholesterol are already at greater risk of liver cancer than groups with lower cholesterolbut its not because of diet. In addition to greater rates of hepatitis B infection, higher-cholesterol areas had additional risk factors for liver cancer, such beer consumption, which also inflated the trend. Despite Campbells claims, cholesterol itself does not appear to significantly heighten cancer rates in at-risk populations. Given Campbells casein research and earlier observations about the animal-protein consuming children in the Philippines getting more liver cancer, I wonder if Campbell approached the China Study already expecting a particular outcome. In a massive data set with 8,000 statistically significant correlations, even a smidgen of confirmation bias can cause someone to find a trend that isnt truly there. An example of bias in The China Study Body weight, associated with animal protein intake, was associated with more cancer and more coronary heart disease. It seems that being bigger, and presumably better, comes with very high costs. (Page 102) Consuming more protein was associated with greater body size. However, this effect was primarily attributed to plant protein, because it makes up 90% of the total Chinese protein intake. (Page 103) Lets read between the lines. Here we have Campbell claiming two things, a few paragraphs apart: One, that body weight is associated with more cancer and heart disease, and two, that body size in China is linked not only with a greater intake of animal protein, but also with a greater intake of plant protein. In fact, the link between body size is stronger with plant protein than with animal protein. Yet notice how Campbell only implicates animal protein in the association between body weight, cancer, and heart disease. If he were to describe the data without bias, Campbells first statement would be this: Body weight, associated with animal protein intake and plant protein intake, was associated with more cancer and more coronary heart disease. Maybe his editor just overlooked that omission, eh? Right afterward, Campbell notes: But the good news is this: Greater plant protein intake was closely linked to greater height and body weight. Body growth is linked to protein in general and both animal and plant proteins are effective! (Page 102) Wait a minute. This is good news? Didnt Campbell just say being bigger comes with very high costs and that its associated with more cancer and coronary heart disease? Why is body size a bad thing when its associated with animal protein, but a good thing when its associated with plant protein? Does less animal foods equal better health? People who ate the most animal-based foods got the most chronic disease. Even relatively small intakes of animal-based food were associated with adverse effects. People who ate the most plant-based foods were the healthiest and tended to avoid chronic disease. This oft-repeated quote from The China Study is compelling, but is it true? Based on the data above, it seems like an unlikely conclusionbut lets try once more to see if it could be valid. As an illustrative experiment, lets look at the top five Chinese counties with the lowest animal protein consumption and compare them against the top five counties with the highest animal protein consumption. A data set of 10 wont yield any confident conclusions, of course, and I wont treat this as representative of the collective body of China Study data. But since animal protein consumption among the studied counties ranged from 0 grams* to almost 135 grams per day, we should see a stark contrast between the nearly-vegan regions and the ones eating considerably more animal foods. That is, assuming its true that even relatively small intakes of animal-based food yield disease. *The county averaging zero grams per day wasnt completely vegan, but the yearly consumption of animal foods was low enough so that the daily average appeared less than 0.01 grams. Here are the counties Ill be using. The first five are our near-vegans; the second five are our highest animal product consumers. From both groups, I had to exclude a top-five county due to missing data for most mortality variables (illegible documentation, according to the authors of Diet, Life-style and Mortality in China) and replaced it with a sixth county where animal protein consumption matched within a few hundredths of a gram. Below are the names of each county, as well as values for their daily animal protein intake, the percentage of their total caloric intake coming from fat, and their daily intake of fiber (in case the latter two variables are also of interest).
9/137
7/26/12
(http://rawfoodsos.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/top_five_vegan_and_non.jpg) To give you a visual idea of these quantities, 135 grams of animal protein is the equivalent of 22 medium eggs per day, 24 grams of animal protein is the equivalent of four medium eggs per day, 12 grams is two eggs, and 9 grams is one and a half eggs. Obviously, thats quite a wide range even among the top consumers of animal foods, so the highest animal-food-eating counties (Tuoli and XIanghuang qi) may be the most important to study in contrast with the near-vegan counties. Animal protein intake by county:
(http://rawfoodsos.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/animal_protein_intake.jpg) For reference, some other diet variables:
(http://rawfoodsos.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/percent_cals_from_fat.jpg)
(http://rawfoodsos.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/fiber.jpg)
7/26/12
And now, mortality rates for important variables (as per 1000 people). Ill save you my commentary and just show you the graphs, which should speak for themselves. Remember, the five left-most bars (Jiexiu through Songxian) on each graph are the near-vegan counties, and the five right-most bars (Tuoli through Wenjiang) are the highest consumers of animal products.
(http://rawfoodsos.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/death_from_all_cancers.jpg)
(http://rawfoodsos.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/mi_and_chd.jpg)
(http://rawfoodsos.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/stroke.jpg)
(http://rawfoodsos.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/diabetes.jpg)
11/137
7/26/12
(http://rawfoodsos.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/brain_and_neurological_diseases.jpg)
(http://rawfoodsos.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/lymphoma.jpg)
(http://rawfoodsos.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/leukemia.jpg)
(http://rawfoodsos.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/stomach_cancer.jpg)
(http://rawfoodsos.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/breast_cancer.jpg)
12/137
7/26/12
(http://rawfoodsos.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/cervix_cancer.jpg) As you can see, the mortality rates for both groups (near-vegan and higher-animal-foods) are quite similar, with the animal food group coming out more favorably in some cases (death from all cancers, myocardial infarction, brain and neurological diseases, lymphoma, cervix cancer). This little comparison might not carry a lot of scientific clout due to its small sample size, but it does blatantly undermine Campbells assessment: People who ate the most animal-based foods got the most chronic disease People who ate the most plant-based foods were the healthiest and tended to avoid chronic disease. Sins of omission Perhaps more troubling than the distorted facts in The China Study are the details Campbell leaves out. Why does Campbell indict animal foods in cardiovascular disease (correlation of +1 for animal protein and -11 for fish protein), yet fail to mention that wheat flour has a correlation of +67 with heart attacks and coronary heart disease, and plant protein correlates at +25 with these conditions? Speaking of wheat, why doesnt Campbell also note the astronomical correlations wheat flour has with various diseases: +46 with cervix cancer, +54 with hypertensive heart disease, +47 with stroke, +41 with diseases of the blood and blood-forming organs, and the aforementioned +67 with myocardial infarction and coronary heart disease? (None of these correlations appear to be tangled with any risk-heightening variables, either.) Why does Campbell overlook the unique Tuoli peoples (http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/06/23/tuoli-chinas-mysterious-milk-drinkers/) documented in the China Study, who eat twice as much animal protein as the average American (including two pounds of casein-filled dairy per day)yet dont exhibit higher rates of any diseases Campbell ascribes to animal foods? Why does Campbell point out the relationship between cholesterol and colorectal cancer (+33) but not mention the much higher relationship between sea vegetables and colorectal cancer (+76)? (For any researcher, this alone should be a red flag to look for an underlying variable creating misleading correlations, whichin this casehappens to be schistosomiasis infection.) Why does Campbell fail to mention that plant protein intake correlates positively with many of the Western diseases he blames cholesterol forincluding +19 for colorectal cancers, +12 for cervix cancer, +15 for leukemia, +25 for myocardial infarction and coronary heart disease, +12 for diabetes, +1 for breast cancer, and +10 for stomach cancer? Of course, these questions are largely rhetorical. Only a small segment of The China Study even discusses the China Study, and Campbell set out to write a publicly accessible booknot an exhaustive discussion of every correlation his research team uncovered. However, it does seem Campbell overlooked or ignored significant points when discerning the overriding nutritional themes in the China Project data. What about casein? Along with trends gleaned from the China Project, Campbell recounts the startling connection he found between casein (a milk protein) and cancer in his research with lab rats. In his own words, casein proved to be so powerful in its effect that we could turn on and turn off cancer growth simply by changing the level consumed (page 5 of The China Study). Protein from wheat and soy did not have this effect. This finding is no doubt fascinating. If nothing else, it suggests a strong need for more research regarding the safety of casein supplementation in humans, especially among bodybuilders, athletes, and others who use isolated casein for muscle recovery. Unfortunately, Campbell extrapolates this research beyond its logical scope: He concludes that all forms of animal protein have similar cancer-promoting properties in humans, and were therefore better off as vegans. This claim rests on several unproven assumptions: 1. The casein-cancer mechanism behaves the same way in humans as in lab rats. 2. Casein promotes cancer not just when isolated, but also when occurring in its natural food form (in a matrix of other milk substances like whey, bioactive peptides, conjugated linoleic acid, minerals, and vitamins, some of which appear to have anti-cancer properties). 3. There are no differences between casein and other types of animal protein that could impose different effects on cancer growth/tumorigenesis. Campbell offers no convincing evidence that any of the above are true. We do share some metabolic similarities with rats, so for the sake of being able to entertain the possibility that #2 and #3 are valid, lets assume that the effect of casein on rats translates cleanly to humans. How does Campbell justify generalizing the effects of casein to all forms of animal protein? Much of it is based on a study he helped conduct: Effect of dietary protein quality on development of aflatoxin B[1]-induced hepatic preneoplastic lesions, published in the August 1989 edition of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. In this study, he and his research crew discovered that aflatoxin-exposed rats fed wheat gluten exhibited less cancer growth than rats fed the same amount of casein. But get this: When lysine (the limiting amino acid in wheat) was restored to make the gluten a complete protein, the rats had just as much cancer occurrence as the casein group. Jeepers! Campbell thus deduced that its the amino acid profile itself responsible for spurring cancer growth. Because most forms of plant protein are low in one or more amino acids (called limiting amino acids) and animal protein is complete, Campbell concluded that animal protein, but not plant protein, must encourage cancer growth. Time to whip out the veggie burgers! Of course, this conclusion has some gaping logical holes when applied to real life. Unless you consume nothing but animal products, youll be ingesting a mixed ratio of amino acids by default, since animal foods combined with plant foods still yield limiting amino acids. The rats in Campbells research consumed casein as their only protein source, the equivalent of someone eating zero plant protein for life. An unlikely scenario, to be sure. Moreover, certain combinations of vegan foods (like grains and legumes) have complementary amino acid profiles, restoring each others limiting amino acid and resulting in protein thats complete or nearly so. Would these food combinations also spur cancer growth? How about folks who pop a daily lysine supplement after eating wheat bread? If Campbells conclusions are correct, it would seem vegans could also be subject to the cancer-promoting effects of complete protein, even when eschewing all animal foods. Also, it seems Campbell never mentions an obvious implication of a casein-cancer connection in humans: breast milk, which contains high levels of casein. Should women stop breastfeeding to reduce their childrens exposure to casein? Did nature really muck it up that much? Are children who are weaned later in life at increased risk for cancer, due to a longer exposure time the casein in their mothers milk? It does seem strange that casein, a substance universally consumed by
7/26/12
young mammals, is so hazardous for healthespecially since its designed for a time in life when the immune system is still fragile and developing. At any rate, Campbells theories about plant versus animal protein and cancer are essentially speculation. Despite a single experiment with restoring lysine to wheat gluten, he hasnt actually offered evidence that all animal protein behaves the same way as casein. But check this out. After delineating his discovery of the link between casein and cancer, Campbell writes: We initiated more studies using several different nutrients, including fish protein, dietary fats and the antioxidants known as cartenoids. A couple of excellent graduate students of mine, Tom OConner and Youping He, measured the ability of these nutrients to affect liver and pancreatic cancer. (Page 66) So he did experiment with an animal protein besides casein! Unfortunately, Campbell never mentions what the specific results of this research were. In describing the studies he conducted with his grad students, Campbell says only that a pattern was beginning to emerge: nutrients from animal-based foods increased tumor development while nutrients from plant-based foods decreased tumor development. (Page 66) I dont know about you, but Id sure like to see the actual data for some of this. After a little searching, I found one of the aforementioned experiments conducted by Campbell, his grad student Tom, and two other researchers. It was published in the November 1985 issue of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute: Effect of dietary intake of fish oil and fish protein on the development of L-azaserineinduced preneoplastic lesions in the rat pancreas. (A preneoplastic lesion, by the way, is a fancy term for the growth that occurs before a tumor.) In this study, Campbell and his team studied three groups of carcinogen-exposed rats: One fed casein plus corn oil, one fed fish protein plus corn oil, and one fed fish protein plus fish oil (from a type of high omega-3 fish called menhaden). All groups received a diet of about 20% protein and 20% fat and ate the same amount of calories. Providing background for the study, the authors note that previous research has showed fish protein to have anti-cancer properties (emphasis mine): Gridley et al. [n15,n16] reported on two studies in which intake of fish protein resulted in a reduced tumor yield when compared to other protein sources. Spontaneous mammary tumor development in C3H/HeJ mice was reduced. The incidence of herpes virus type 2-transformed cell-induced tumors in mice was also reduced in animals fed a fish protein diet. Perhaps this shouldve tipped Campbell off that not all sources of animal protein spur cancer growth like casein does. For reference, the cited studies are Modification of herpes 2-transformed cell-induced tumors in mice fed different sources of protein, fat and carbohydrate published in the November-December 1982 issue of Cancer Letters, and Modification of spontaneous mammary tumors in mice fed different sources of protein, fat and carbohydrate published in the June 1983 issue of Cancer Letters. So what were the results of Campbells experiment? According to the study, both the casein/corn oil and fish protein/corn oil groups had significant preneoplastic lesions. We dont know whether to blame this on the protein or the corn oil, sinceaccording to the researchersintake of corn oil has previously been shown to promote the development of L-azaserine-induced preneoplastic lesions in rats. However, the group that ate fish protein plus fish oil exhibited something radically different: It is immediately apparent that menhaden oil had a dramatic effect both on the development in the number and size of preneoplastic lesions. The number of AACN per cubic centimeter and the mean diameter and mean volume were significantly smaller in the F/F [fish protein and fish oil] group compared to the F/C [fish protein and corn oil] group. Furthermore, no carcinomas in situ were observed in the F/F group, whereas the F/C group had an incidence of 3 per 16 with 6 total carcinomas. Theres some significant stuff here, so lets break this down point by point. One: The cancer-inducing properties of fish protein, if there are any to begin with, were neutralized by the presence of fish oil. This means that even if all animal protein behaves like casein under certain circumstances, its effect on cancer depends on what other substances accompany it. Animal protein is therefore not a universal cancer promoter; only a situational one, at best. Two: What does fish protein plus fish fat start to resemble? Whole fish. Campbell just demonstrated that animal protein may, indeed, operate differently when consumed with its natural synergistic components. Since there wasnt a rat group eating casein plus fish oil, we dont know what the effect of a dairy protein plus fish fat would have been. However, it would be interesting to have more studies looking at cancer growth in mice fed diets of casein plus milk fat. If casein loses its cancer-promoting abilities under that circumstance, as fish protein did with fish oil, then wed have good reason to think the various factions of whole animal products might reduce any cancerpromoting properties a single component has in isolation. And Campbell and his team conclude: [A] 20% menhaden oil diet, rich in omega 3 fatty acids, produced a significant decrease in the development of both the size and number of preneoplastic lesions when compared to a 20% corn oil diet rich in omega 6 fatty acids. This study provides evidence that fish oils, rich in omega 3 fatty acids, may have potential as inhibitory agents in cancer development. Remember how Campbell said, summarizing this research, that nutrients from animal-based foods increased tumor development while nutrients from plantbased foods decreased tumor development? Last I checked, fish oil aint no plant food. Why does Campbell avoid mentioning anything potentially positive about animal products in The China Study, including evidence unearthed by his own research? For someone who has openly censured the nutritional bias rampant in the scientific community, this seems a tad hypocritical. But back to casein and milk for a moment. Its interesting that the only dairy protein Campbell experimented with was casein, since wheythe other major protein in milk productsrepeatedly shows cancer-protective and immunity-boosting effects, including when tested side-by-side with casein. Just a sampling of the literature:
7/26/12
Diets containing whey proteins or soy protein isolate protect against 7,12-dimethylbenz(a)anthracene-induced mammary tumors in female rats (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10667471). When 100% of the casein-fed rats had at least one tumor, soy-fed rats had a lower tumor incidence (77%) in experiment B (P < 0.002), but not in experiment A (P < 0.12), and there were no differences in tumor multiplicity. Whey-fed rats had lower mammary tumor incidence (54-62%; P < 0.002) and multiplicity (P < 0.007) than casein-fed rats in both experiments. Furthermore, whey appears to be at least twice as effective as soy in reducing both tumor incidence and multiplicity. (So much for plant protein being more protective against cancer!) Developmental effects and health aspects of soy protein isolate, casein, and whey in male and female rats (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11488559). We found that SPI [soy protein isolate] accelerated puberty in female rats (p < .05) and WPH [whey protein hydrolysate] delayed puberty in males and females, as compared with CAS (p < .05). Female rats fed SPI or WHP or treated with genistein had reduced incidence of chemically induced mammary cancers (p < .05) compared to CAS controls, with WHP reducing tumor incidence by as much as 50%, findings that replicate previous results from our laboratory. Tp53-associated growth arrest and DNA damage repair gene expression is attenuated in mammary epithelial cells of rats fed whey proteins (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16614397). Results indicate that mammary glands of rats fed a WPH [whey protein hydrolysate] diet are more protected from endogenous DNA damage than are those of CAS [casein]-fed rats. A role for milk proteins and their peptides in cancer prevention. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17430183) Animal models, usually for colon and mammary tumorigenesis, nearly always show that whey protein is superior to other dietary proteins for suppression of tumour development. A bovine whey protein extract stimulates human neutrophils to generate bioactive IL-1Ra through a NF-kappaB- and MAPK-dependent mechanism (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20032479). Our data suggest that WPE [whey protein extract] has immunomodulatory properties and the potential to increase host defenses. Whey proteins in cancer prevention (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2025891). Whey protein concentrate (WPC) and glutathione modulation in cancer treatment (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11205219). Given all this, it seems unlikely that caseins effects on cancer apply to other forms of milk proteinmuch less all animal protein at large. Isnt it possible (maybe even probable) that casein has deleterious effects when isolated, but doesnt exhibit cancer-spurring qualities when consumed with the other components in milk? Could casein and whey work synergistically, with the anti-cancer properties of whey neutralizing the pro-cancer properties of casein? Ill let you be the judge. In summary and conclusion Apart from his cherry-picked references for other studies (some of which dont back up the claims he cites them for), Campbells strongest arguments against animal foods hinge heavily on: 1. Associations between cholesterol and disease, and 2. His discoveries regarding casein and cancer. For #1, it seems Campbell never took the critical step of accounting for other disease-causing variables that tend to cluster with higher-cholesterol counties in the China Studyvariables like schistosomiasis infection, industrial work hazards, increased hepatitis B infection, and other non-nutritional factors spurring chronic conditions. Areas with lower cholesterol, by contrast, tended to have fewer non-dietary risk factors, giving them an automatic advantage for preventing most cancers and heart disease. (The health threats in the lower-cholesterol areas were more related to poor living conditions, leading to greater rates of tuberculosis, pneumonia, intestinal obstruction, and so forth.) Even if the correlations with cholesterol did remain after adjusting for these risk factors, it takes a profound leap in logic to link animal products with disease by way of blood cholesterol when the animal products themselves dont correlate with those diseases. If all three of these variables rose in unison, then hypotheses about animal foods raising disease risk via cholesterol could be justified. Yet the China Study data speaks for itself: Animal protein doesnt correspond with more disease, even in the highest animal food-eating countiessuch as Tuoli, whose citizens chow down on 134 grams of animal protein per day. Nor is the link between animal food consumption and cholesterol levels always as strong as Campbell implies. For instance, despite eating such massive amounts of animal foods, Tuoli county had the same average cholesterol level as the near-vegan Shanyang county, and a had a slightly lower cholesterol than another nearvegan county called Taixing. (Both Shanyang and Taixing consumed less than 1 gram of animal protein per day, on average.) Clearly, the relationship between animal food consumption and blood cholesterol isnt always linear, and other factors play a role in raising or lowering levels. For #2, Campbells discoveries with casein and cancer, his work is no doubt revelatory. I give him props for dedicating so much of his life to a field of disease research that wasnt always well-received by the scientific community, and for pursuing so ardently the link between nutrition and health. Unfortunately, Campbell projects the results of his casein-cancer research onto all animal proteina leap he does not justify with evidence or even sound logic. As ample literature indicates, other forms of animal proteinparticularly whey, another component of milkmay have strong anti-cancer properties. Some studies have examined the effect of whey and casein, side-by-side, on tumor growth and cancer, showing in nearly all cases that these two proteins have dramatically different effects on tumorigenesis (with whey being protective). A study Campbell helped conduct with one of his grad students in the 1980s showed that the cancer-promoting abilities of fish protein depended on what type of fat is consumed alongside it. The relationship between animal protein and cancer is obviously complex, situationally dependent, and bound with other substances found in animal foodsmaking it impossible extrapolate anything universal from a link between isolated casein and cancer. On page 106 of his book, Campbell makes a statement I wholeheartedly agree with: Everything in food works together to create health or disease. The more we think that a single chemical characterizes a whole food, the more we stray into idiocy. It seems ironic that Campbell censures reductionism in nutritional science, yet uses that very reductionism to condemn an entire class of foods (animal products) based on the behavior of one substance in isolation (casein). In sum, The China Study is a compelling collection of carefully chosen data. Unfortunately for both health seekers and the scientific community, Campbell appears to exclude relevant information when it indicts plant foods as causative of disease, or when it shows potential benefits for animal products. This presents readers with a strongly misleading interpretation of the original China Study data, as well as a slanted perspective of nutritional research from other arenas (including some that Campbell himself conducted). In rebuttals to previous criticism on The China Study, Campbell seems to use his curriculum vitae as reason his word should be trusted above that of his critics. His education and experience is no doubt impressive, but the Trust me, Im a scientist argument is a profoundly weak one. It doesnt require a PhD to be a
7/26/12
critical thinker, nor does a laundry list of credentials prevent a person from falling victim to biased thinking. Ultimately, I believe Campbell was influenced by his own expectations about animal protein and disease, leading him to seek out specific correlations in the China Study data (and elsewhere) to confirm his predictions. Its no surprise The China Study has been so widely embraced within the vegan and vegetarian community: It says point-blank what any vegan wants to hear that theres scientific rationale for avoiding all animal foods. That even small amounts of animal protein are harmful. That an ethical ideal can be completely wed with health. These are exciting things to hear for anyone trying to justify a plant-only diet, and its for this reason I believe The China Study has not received as much critical analysis as it deserves, especially from some of the great thinkers in the vegetarian world. Hopefully this critique has shed some light on the books problems and will lead others to examine the data for themselves.
http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/06/09/a-closer-look-at-the-china-study-fish-and-disease/
Actions
Comments RSS Trackback
Information
Date : July 7, 2010 Tags: animal products, China Project, China Study, raw food, raw food diet, Raw Foods, raw vegan, T. Colin Campbell, vegan, veganism Categories : China Study, Miscellaneous
882 responses
7 07 2010 The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? Raw Food SOS: Troubleshooting | Protene.com Your Personal Health Care Center (03:13:30) : [...] more here: The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? Raw Food SOS: Troubleshooting Posted in Life Style Tags: campbell, campbell-claim, china, chinastudy, legume-intake, [...] Reply 11 09 2010 How2eatRAW (22:30:31) : Check it! http://www.vegsource.com/news/2010/09/dr-campbell-is-mercola-a-snake-oil-salesman.html Reply 26 06 2012 Joey (03:44:22) : Interesting and thought-provoking review. Read Campbells reply to Mingers criticism here: http://www.vegsource.com/news/2010/07/china-study-author-colin-campbell-slaps-down-critic-denise-minger.html Reply 11 01 2011 Eric Krieckhaus (22:50:18) : Thank you for this work Denise. What a thoughtful and critical (in the very good sense of that word) piece of work. Your approach is direct and compelling. For some time now Ive been discouraged that so many people who dont know statistical analysis misuse it dreadfully but people who SHOULD know their statistical analysis and are able to use it responsibly and yet STILL misuse it dreadfullywell thats another ball of wax! Again, thank you. Reply 6 02 2011 dlibby (15:40:11) : I find this very amusing!!! All of you give this Denise so much credit and really dont understand the formulas!!!Ill stick with the experts who have spent years,time and money to prove their facts!!!Also, we will be meeting with Colin Campbell on Feb.26th at Sublime Restaurant in Ft. Lauderdale along with Dr. Neal and other Drs and scientist!! Ill print this out and bring it with me!!Im sure they will have fun with this!!! It is very obvious that we are dealing with denial and reisistance to validate your own choices!!!! Those of you who put so much faith into this article, should really do your own research!! Reply 31 03 2011 Dean (15:04:37) :
7/26/12
dlibby. This is the first most unintelligent post I read yet. Your response is unscientific, immature and meant to inflame. So Ill respond with your tone. You brag about meeting Colin, which is irrelevant. He could care less what you say or his critics say. I bet you didnt print this and didnt show him. I bet your dinner meeting consisted if you paying $100s to sit a 100 ft away while he gave a speech and signed a few books. You then say do your own research but you say stick with the experts. I guess youre the expert to determine who are the experts. The fact that you cannot undersatnd the formulas indicates you are just a cow eating the grass and you have no mind or no brains to study nutrition. Faith in science is not faith, its fact. Colin attempted science and failed. The writer here responds with more science than Colin ever considered and hes the one selling books to millions. So, continue being a Campbell groupie and keep on living in denial yourself. Reply 19 08 2011 mich (22:19:12) : You obviously have no idea what youre talking about but i must admit that as lame as your youre reply to Dlibby was, it was also quite comical. Reply 15 03 2012 Annie (22:20:54) : Nice try dlibby in disguise. Ad hominems are not great arguments. Neither is supporting yourself with a different name. Reply 29 04 2011 E (14:02:27) : I understand the formulas. Im a statistician. And I know that by doing only univariate correlations, Campbell is making a first-year undergrad-level error. Statistical modeling involves multiple statistics, not one or two variables taken in isolation. The fact that when we run multivariate analysis on several factors the claimed association between animal products and disease vanishes or reverses tells us that what we were measuring in the univariate analysis was not the effect of animal products, but the effects of additional confounding variables. Minger, fresh from University, no doubt has the rules of good statistics still strong in her mind. Campbell has been in the field for years and may have let his statistical practice slip or not kept up with modern techniques. Skills need to be kept sharp and practiced constantly to be useful, and statistics is no exception. I would put more faith in someone with recent statistical training or refresher training than in someone who has been practicing the same stodgy, ineffective techniques for decades without learning anything new, and who is approaching the data with a clear bias. Reply 5 02 2012 Philip Gillibrand (22:58:59) : Er, I think you should try reading the posts in more detail. It is Campbell who did the multivariate analyses in The China Study, and Denise Minger who has made the first-year undergrad-level error by doing univariate analysis. Trying reading the book before commenting. Reply 6 06 2011 MarkL (05:40:16) : I find you amusing (pardon my lack of exclamatory punctuation, but I harbor the however inane notion that the words I select will suffice to augur what opinions I reserve)andpardon my lack of restraint for that which followssomewhat deficient in the realms of literary abilities, general science research, & understanding, and anger management. Admittedly, to draw so much conclusion from so few words might be suspect here, but Ive already sought pardon, and I yet think you to be quite immature and, in this specific arena of diet-and-health, overtly unqualified so as to be, in any relevant manner, a serious consideration to the issues in review here. Reply 21 08 2011 Dan (22:10:18) : Dear dlibby, I have not double checked Denises math. Have you? We get that you believe her conclusion is wrong. Why? Prove to us that you assertions are founded in reason instead of in your own bias or blind clinging to authority. Her method of analysis is transparent. Yours is not. She has point out direct correlations in source data. You replied only by calling her names. If her conclusion is wrong, then logical and analysis should prove that it is wrong. Calling her more names will not make her analysis more or less true. If she is wrong, show us why. Dont just say you can. Show us. That will change more minds to your way of thinking than anything you have written to date. If you cannot, then please tell us why you wrote what your wrote. Reply 5 02 2012 pojoel, Sweden (09:51:13) : This is exactly how CAGW-skeptics are treated by climate threat alarmists.
7/26/12
The skeptic points out direct correlations in source data. The alarmist replies by calling the skeptic names. Interesting. Reply 5 02 2012 Philip Gillibrand (23:05:22) : Thats because the same pattern exists between the China Study and climate change science. Some people spend many years doing careful analysis of all the data, setting their studies in the wider context of previous knowledge and publishing their results in peer-reviewed journals. This is called science. Then other people, with no training in the subject, think they know better, do some simplistic and superficial analysis, and stick it on a blog. This is called skepticism. Reply 12 05 2012 jmy (16:12:15) : this is how the general public and the media public gets it wrong so many times Reply 1 04 2012 Gary Mullennix (14:31:39) : Fun. I am curious as to how the restaurant meeting with the Dr.s went and if they in fact laughed and scorned Mingers responsive analysis. Science relies upon the constant examination by others to find any and all inconsistencies or errors. To believe all that is said in one book or by one scientist doesnt make you right. It just means youve picked a side. Root on fan!! Reply 18 04 2012 Kenneth (17:28:17) : http://www.vegsource.com/news/2010/07/china-study-author-colin-campbell-slap http://www.vegsource.com/news/2010/07/china-study-author-colincampbell-slaps-down-critic-denise-minger.html s-down-critic-denise-minger.html Reply 25 10 2011 Ryan Kingsland (19:48:59) : Youre really smart. Reply 22 03 2012 Bob Flood (05:15:14) : Denise, I just read this post, and I am amazed at your excellent analysis. A few days ago, a friend loaned me a copy of The China Study, and my initial reaction was disappointment that Campbells graphs and charts provided so little evidence for his major conclusions. Then I found your critique, which articulated my own suspicions and raised several more that I did not even consider. Your criticism was very courteous and deferential to Campbell, and I commend you for it. Not everyone would be as tolerant, especially to a famous researcher who uses an intervening variable like cholesterol when the raw data provide little or no direct correlation between animals products and various diseases. Most veterans of statistical analysis would have no patience for this slipshodor slippery presentation. Thanks again for your significant contribution. Bob Flood Reply 8 05 2012 John Vellinga (03:19:34) : Congratulations on being a nutritionally semi-educated, statistically-illiterate, but well spoken blogger. As much as you dismiss Bill Gates educational failure vs. his business success in computers as evidence that education makes no difference in scientific endeavour; you might consider this: Bill Gates has been farting around with computers since he was a kid long before most people knew that they even existed. He learned a lot by creating. The big difference between science and creation using applied science is that there is no truth. It just progresses. Bill Gates NEVER argued against the underlying science. He NEVER claimed that silcon was not a good medium for chips. He NEVER said that software was just a fad. (he did muse that why would anyone need more than 640K but that is just more of the same). Bill gates was a fly compared to IBM when he started. He did not refute everything they did or said or discovered. He made a way to progress it. He wrote their operating system. If YOU want to be Bill Gates or have any credibility in your conceit to compare yourself to him, you might want to adapt your approach, You would stop attacking IBM (Dr. Campbell) and his thesis (silicon chips make good processors). Were you to wear his pedigree, you would have been doing research into nutrition since the age of 8 in your bedroom at night with Mom yelling GO TO BED. You wear your lack of education like a badge. I have a degree in statistics and engineering. Undergraduate only. So I am also not that well educated. However, I did focus on the statistics. Your analysis is deeply flawed in its critique. Reply 8 05 2012 John Vellinga (03:29:44) : By the way, my favourite univariate analysis is this: ce cream causes drowning. It is hard to find a stronger correlation coefficient than that between the consumption of ice cream the incidence of drowning. Try to figure that one out. Reply 12 05 2012 danmcakes (08:02:20) : Gee that wouldnt have something to do with people eating more ice cream in summer would it? Gee errr youre so smart mister.
7/26/12
Reply 14 06 2012 lemurleap (22:10:14) : To go on and on about Bill Gates and then end with a conclusion that the analysis on a separate topic is deeply flawed without explaining how doesnt really set you up as a credible critic. Reply 24 06 2012 Garey (23:52:08) : What many of you fail to realize is that owning a television and actually watching it from time to time causes heart attacks, especially in the USA where every heart attack is associated with a television in the home. Therefore, if you throw your television away, you will avoid heart attacks and certainly will have less stress in your life. I think I am correct, therefore I am. (I have a 50% shot at being right at least. If I am right, I am right and if I am wrong, I am wrong. See, 50/50 Reply 25 05 2012 Mircea C (12:47:04) : The only amusing and ironic thing here is the fact that no matter what subject on Earth there is , people fight about it. Football, electronics, religions, politics and now some study. I wonder: what is worse to health? Meat, processed foods or all the frustration and unhappiness that leads to disputes everywhere for every possible subject? So great I gave up meat because of respect for life and I dont even care if it was unhealthy or not. Best wishes everyone! Reply 14 06 2012 Adarondax (23:53:28) : Lets see if I understand this. Preferred sources of protein are fish, eggs, and whey. Dont eat Elmers Glue. Get some sun each day. Get tested regularly for schistosomiasis. Does that sum it up in a nutshell? Reply 18 06 2012 Alison (15:48:12) : Very interesting. As far as the cholesterol link is concerned, it depends whether you see high cholesterol as a cause, or as a symptom of disease. Whilst much of the scientific community out there assumes it is causative, if you contemplate cholesterols role within the body as a substance the body uses in repair and restoration, then any kind of disease is almost certainly going to result in higher levels as it scoots around the body doing its job. Seeing it as a symptom rather than a cause would throw the whole caboosh out of the window. As far as the study is concerned, its called the China Study because it studied people in China. Generally, the chinese especially in rural areas eat a far more natural diet, whether predominantly plant-based, or meat-based, so how can it possibly have any real bearing on the effects of diet on people eating the Western diet, full of sugar, processed carbs, chemicals and food that is generally mucked-about-with? Dairy is also not a good comparison whilst many groups in the World consume dairy and are healthy on it, it is raw and unpasteurised complete. As the pasteurisation process destroys some of the elements within the milk, it becomes denatured and doesnt react in the body in the same way as raw milk. The elements within the food communicate with the body give it instructions on what to do with it. Once they are damaged, the body cannot process it as it should, and it then has the potential to become toxic. A small amount now and again may be tolerable, but when that is the only source of dairy consumed continuously, there has to be a fall-out at some point. Is it the cows milk Casein that is the problem, or the fact that some of the other elements that are needed for its digestion and processing in the body have been destroyed prior to its consumption? Statistics cannot ever be true when there are so many different variables to take into consideration and even missing just one can, and frequently does, throw concepts off into a whole different and sometimes downright dangerous direction. How can anyone ever make assumptions based on statistics if they dont even understand (or only THINK they understand) why certain things act in certain ways or what they do? Reply 7 07 2010 Destination Healthy Foods (20:17:03) : This study inadvertently points out how dangerous factory farming really is along with aflatoxins and low fat dairy products. Reply 7 07 2010 Apple-Man (23:33:14) : This. is. Awesome. GREAT job, Denise! I dont know what to make of all this- its crazy. Campbells crazy. I know youre always nice to everyone, so Ill say it for you; Campbells a freakin LIAR. I cant believe this! Wow, Im totally NOT referencing China Study again. Well at least now we know the truth. Lets spread it, people! Once again, thank you and congratulations. This is amazing. Reply 18 07 2010 kat (01:42:09) :
7/26/12
Apple-man, Not sure if youll get this, but I just wanted to say you have an admirer. Ill admit Ive been lurking around the 30bad forum out of a mix of curiosity and amazementIve never seen passive-aggressive played out in typed words like that in my life, and Im in awe. Anyhoo, I appreciate your ability to keep your head up and speak your mind as an individual. Kudos to you and your ability to think critically. Keep it real, man. Reply 8 05 2012 John Vellinga (04:24:06) : Amateur hour. This is the problem with blogs. People who dont know their ass from a hole in the ground spread the truth. Reply 8 07 2010 Stephan (00:34:25) : Fantastic. Im particularly interested in the correlation between wheat and disease. Ive been writing about this for a while mostly on the basis of fairly weak indirect evidence because theres very little research on the health effects of wheat vs. other grains except in celiac patients. This is probably the best support Ive seen for the hypothesis. And to think it came from the China study! Heres a study supporting wheats association with obesity in China (compared to rice; see table 3): http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v32/n6/abs/ijo200821a.html And my interpretation: http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/07/wheat-is-invading-china.html Reply 8 07 2010 Stephan (00:46:53) : By the way, I would be super grateful if you could work your magic on the wheat data to see if its likely to be spurious or not. e.g., is it due to wheats association with heavy metals, infectious disease, latitude, etc. I suspect controlling for latitude will attenuate the association, since as I understand it wheat is mostly eaten in Northern China. Im going to link to this post in the next few days, after Richard Nikoley does, since he passed it on to me. Reply 8 07 2010 Gary (03:27:52) : As I read this, Denise, I cant help but wonder: will your findings have any ramifications on your own approach to diet and health? Reply 8 07 2010 Asclepius (11:51:35) : Superlative work and well explained. Reply 8 07 2010 Tweets that mention The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? Raw Food SOS: Troubleshooting on the Raw Food Diet -- Topsy.com (12:15:29) : [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Lloyd Y. Asato, Margot M.. Margot M. said: #chinastudy is a fallacy, not fact http://bit.ly/cWyC6m #primal #paleo #zerocarb #vegetarian #beef #cancer #cholesterol #fail [...] Reply 8 07 2010 Darrin (15:09:12) : Wow. Just wow. I am reminded of the confirmation bias when it comes to The China Study, a well-known cognitive bias which means that people only see what they want to see, ignoring any and all evidence to the contrary. So when a longtime veg*n comes out with an exhaustive study proving food from animal sources to be unhealthy once and for all, its definitely time to go back over his data with a skeptical eye. A big kudos to you, Denise, for putting this together. Truly a page to keep as a reference for a long time to come. Reply 9 07 2010 Monica (23:06:16) : so similarly, when a meat-eater comes out with a repudiation of a study that proves food from animal sources to be unhealthy once and for all, is it time to go over his/her/their data with a skeptical eye? I think your comment exposes your bias. also, I think both of these studies miss the point. Reply 10 07 2010 Fashionable (11:21:04) : Meat eating is not an ideology, its just a baseline human activity. Veganism, on the other hand, is.
7/26/12
Also, the raw facts on display here are just devastating, regardless of what ones dietary inclination is. Reply 19 09 2010 Rusel Talis (13:55:08) : I get sick just reading some comments. Bushrat got it right. When all agree, well.. thats impossible, U all have missed a valid point CONTAMINATION. Yes, it will raise your immune responses, but there is such a thing as viral overload and we are there. I am so busy my website has not updated since 2008 , unlike the rest of the cutting edge world I spend time washing everything , and if I kept animals I would Neem em Alex @ amoderate life tells it plainly , not one longevity culture were vegan but missed my point of Contamination they were in isolated areas , no huge cash transactions no dirty money, their animals were clean , their soil was clean and they did not have synthetic Creatine or Carnitine or Acetyl Cystein and dont mix their food with poison (alcohol, to name just 1) Reply 10 07 2010 Darrin (19:04:48) : so similarly, when a meat-eater comes out with a repudiation of a study that proves food from animal sources to be unhealthy once and for all, is it time to go over his/her/their data with a skeptical eye? The data isnt the issue here its the interpretation. Campbell clearly took some serious leaps in the conclusions he made from the data, which is thankfully laid bare here. But yes, if a monumental study a la The China Study came out showing vast nutritional benefits from meat compared with vegetables, I would certainly hope the skeptics would come after it from every angle, especially if it came from someone like Dr. Cordain, who has an established history of being pro-meat. Thats how science progresses, Monica. Not by deleting, distorting, and generalizing, hoping the public will swallow it without question, but by making bold conjectures that you test rigorously and let others try to falsify. Thats why we no longer believe that the Earth is the center of the universe, rather that the sun is the center of the solar system. I think your comment exposes your bias. Yup. I am just full of biases. (Im only human after all.) However I am one of the few people who will own up to them being biases and not facts. Half of what everyone knows is wrong. The hard part is trying to figure out what half that is. Reply 12 07 2010 Bushrat (03:04:10) : Exactly what is the point that is missed? Reply 13 11 2010 Sam (13:33:00) : Darrin, Campbell was not a vegetarian until after the study and not a vegan until a long time after the study. I dont think your observation about the confirmation bias is applicable here. Reply 5 06 2011 Tumeria Langlois (20:09:46) : With all due respect, you were never a vegan. Veganism is NOT about diet. It is a commitment to living a compassionate lifestyle, respecting all sentient Beings and choosing not to exploit them in any way, shape or form. You may have followed a plant based diet, but vegan- NO! There is no such thing as an ex-vegan. That would be the same as saying Well I used to think it was wrong to kick puppies, but now, what they heck, kicking puppies is just fine as long as I enjoy it. Reply 6 06 2011 Andrs (08:21:37) : With all due respect, you still are killing them in several ways (monocrop the worst): http://www.fathead-movie.com/index.php/2010/01/08/the-vegetarianmyth/ Life is nothing without death. Assume it, respect all our humans predecessors with their hunting allowing our bigger brains and grow up, since you are not ethically superior to us, full conscious humans. Reply 12 06 2011 Buzzy2010 (12:36:16) : I think the expression veganism as an idealogy was used. You are wrong when you say there is no such thing as an ex-vegan. Can a person not change ones mind? Or ones philosophy? Many great artistic and scientific advances occurred through such a shift or change in an individuals philosophy of suddenly seeing something another way, from a different point of view. So, if it is not possible to be an ex-vegan, does that mean that I can never become an vegan? That I cannot one day, or over time, adopt your philosophy? Are you saying that people cannot change (or leave/join religions for example?)
7/26/12
Reply 29 08 2011 Mark Gottlieb (04:29:48) : Hey please chill a bit Tumeria. I think Ive become a vegan over the last couple of months, consumming only plant based nutrition that seems to fit the definitions Ive seen of vegan. I like animals, love my three cats, they seem to like their human too. I dont much care for house flys though. Living in an older log cabin in Montana, I seem to have plenty of house flies. And I swat them daily otherwise my cats and I wouldnt like our existence so much. I think Im still a vegan. And this overall blog post is very interesting and seems worth serious consideration. Reply 8 05 2012 John Vellinga (04:27:41) : Badly done. Did you know that the first studies on car safety were done by the US Air Force? They wanted to know why so many pilots were dying. Turns out they were mostly dying in cars. People like Denise would have poo-pooed this. Reply 8 07 2010 Jeremy (15:22:46) : Great post! You explain things precisely and concisely. A couple of typos: In these high-risk areas for liver cancer, total animal food intake has a correlation with liver cancer of dun dun dun +1. Should be 0. so for the sake of being able to entertain the possibility that #2 and #3 are valid Should be #1 and #2. Reply 8 07 2010 Alex@amoderatelife (15:56:02) : Hi Denise, as a biologist, I commend you for your detailed research and fact finding in this premiere article debunking a very dangerous compilation of hand picked misinformation. As a reformed raw vegan who now follows a real foods lifestyle according to the Weston Price tradition, I can tell you unequivocably that eating animal products and preparing foods in a traditional manner has indeed increased my health. Weston Price and other traditional foods enthusiasts were discussing these issues in the 1930s and purporting a healthy balance of all foods and a removal of processed foods, but to no avail. It is of interest as well to note that Jon Robbins of vegan fame also wrote a book called healthy at 100 where he revisits all the long lived cultures in the world to determine what each one ate and he NEVER found a vegan culture. All ate some form of dairy/meat, all ate fermented foods and all had limited processed sugars or grain products. All prepared their food in traditional ways and when their youth began eating the SAD diet, they all developed the same degenerative diseases seen accross the country, but they developed them much more quickly. Robbins does NOT promote this book because it obviously goes against his vegan agenda. I will be sharing your study on my Thoughts on Friday Link love post and getting it out there to the Real Food community! Thanks so much for your hard work! Alex@amoderatelife. Reply 25 07 2010 Deb (20:31:41) : Alex: I cant thank you enough for mentioning the work of Weston A. Price!!!! After Googling his name and reading about his work, I am now ordering the Nourishing Traditions Cookbook by Sally Fallon. Please let me know if there is more information supporting this lifestyle. THANK YOU! Reply 30 07 2010 Lily (02:22:20) : Alex.key words SOME form of meat or dairy the China Study promotes 10% or less of animal protein which would account in my opinion as some. I wasnt aware that there was a vegan agenda and he probably doesnt promote it because he believes in animal rights. People can and do live healthy as vegans but just because you are vegan does not make you healthy.potato chips and beer is veganbut not so healthy. I do agree that processed foods should be kept to a minimum and the body does need raw fruits ad vegetables but raw meat??? I think Denise is a little off on this one. Reply 30 07 2010 neisy (02:30:55) : For the record, the only raw meat I eat is fish (sushi/sashimi). We have Vegsource to thank for the raw meat advocate title. Reply 27 08 2010 JP (20:09:15) : Lily, part of the few (if only??) who dares tread on the steps of St. Denise! I dont see this as first class nor worthy of publication in the New England Journal. Healthy people for years have known moderation. I love The China Study because it challenges Americans to change their diet. The US spends more than any other society on Healthcare, yet we have some of the most unhealthy people. Why?
7/26/12
You make a fantastic point that all of his research is based on a 10% or less animal protein consumption plan. I agree, Denise is a little off on her un-biased review. Nothing wrong with telling people to eat more healthy. Reply 6 02 2011 dlibby (15:47:12) : Well said!!!!!!!!!!!!! Reply 6 06 2011 MarkL (05:54:05) : dl, you really oughta try and stop the punctuationpeople might think youre incapable of a confrontation without tossin them the bird, when their perspectives differ from yoursor your heroes. hopefully, we all contain passion about our existences, but the excess of hubris and anger, nee arrogance, can easily consume our prospects for sensitivity and reason.tools without which we are unable to do more than dribble and sputter about, such as you seem to immerse yourself in the processes of. You are passionate. Good, Why not get busy with the objective education you are in need of? Or you could remain an ignorant cheerleader for anyone whom your whims attract you to. And even if you do, still watch the exclamation marksit has been said that the next syndrome is writing in all capsand thenthe possibilities of either utter madness, or a life in politicsperhaps both. Reply 15 04 2012 apanz (01:42:54) : I like the enthusiasm you state with your exclamation marks. Dont change because of the negative view of someone with anger issues ) Reply 12 04 2011 Wayne (18:03:51) : Mingers blog reads more like a science paper than many science papers. Unlike Campbell Minger follows all the rules of logic. And your comment, love The China Study because it challenges Americans to change their diet. is laugh out loud dumb. Reply 17 03 2011 Sarah (22:48:33) : Exactly. Key word here, some. I eat a mostly whole, plant-based diet, but I still eat some animal products, but less than 10%. I will never be 100% vegan. After adopting this diet, I got down to the size I was in high school. I love my food, and I imagine maintaining my diet and preventing disease will be effortless because of plant-foods. Im very thankful! Reply 28 10 2011 hoohoo (22:35:27) : Actually there is a girl on Youtube come to think of it there are two people I know of on Youtube who were previous vegans and had to include meat in their diet because of deficiencies. The girl had a B12 deficiency that could NOT be helped with B12 shots or taking supplements. She decided to eat fish and is healthy now. Her symptoms IIRC were pretty severe. I probably have her video in my favorites so Ill look for it. Im sure some people already know of her. She got a lot of shit for going back to meat, especially from raw food vegans. Reply 8 07 2010 Spencer (17:34:10) : Great work! Its really nice to see that critical thinking is far more important than just having a great academic pedigree. Reply 8 07 2010 Terry (17:42:15) : Although not explicit, there seemed to be an inference that cholesterol could be a cause of some diseases, when there was positive correlation. Since the body produces cholesterol, it is very possible that the disease (especially involving the liver) modifies cholesterol levels. Great work! Reply 8 07 2010 The China Study Discredited | Food Renegade (17:59:30) : [...] Ive finally read what I consider the go-to article online for helping folks in love with The China Study see the light. The post is written by someone who [...] Reply 8 07 2010 China Study Problems of Interpretation | Health - Diet, Exercise and Natural Health Blog (18:20:59) : [...] The China Study: Fact or Fallacy [...] Reply 8 07 2010 hans keer (18:27:36) : Its been a while since I looked at the China Study. You and Chris Masterjohn did a great job in interpreting the thing well. VBR Hans
7/26/12
Reply 8 07 2010 Sue (19:45:06) : Wow!! This is more work than my Masters thesis was. Fantastic job!! I expect to see you on Oprah soon. Reply 8 07 2010 Chris Kresser (19:49:49) : This is truly a monumental work, Denise. It vividly illustrates the danger of science with an agenda, as practiced by Campbell and others of his ilk. Thank you. Reply 8 07 2010 FoodRenegade (20:04:09) : LOVE this summary! Ive long passed out Chris Masterjohns critique and subsequent dialog with Campbell as an online resource for those wondering about any holes in The China Study. But this summary, along with your prior posts over the past month, are the most thorough Ive ever seen. You can bet Ill be passing this along to others from now on! KUDOS to you and your hard work. And THANK YOU so much for doing this research for yourself. I know I certainly wouldnt have done it, although Im glad to see it done! Oh, and I second Stephans desire to see you put your skills to work analyzing the wheat connection. Im VERY curious about that, mostly because Ive been following Stephans own analysis of whatever relevant studies are out there. Reply 8 07 2010 Paul C (20:08:28) : Great work, thank you for providing your research. I am somewhat depressed after your skillful demonstration of how other variables like parasite infections and other unknown variables can affect the data. This leads me to believe nutrition science will forever be based on beliefs rather than reasoned science, leaving opportunities for egotistic scientists to lead themselves and the rest of us down paths of good intention but harmful destination. Reply 12 07 2010 Bushrat (03:14:27) : Actually, her demonstration proves how important a thorough understanding of statistics is for any scientific venture. There is a great deal of bad science in all areas that boils down to the researchers basic statistical illiteracy. Reply 8 07 2010 Robert McLeod (21:25:36) : I assume your correlation coefficients R^2 are in the range of [-100,100] instead of the typical [-1.0,1.0]? Very interesting to see the tight correlations between infectious vectors and cancers. Theres evidence for similar correlations between bacterial infection of the arterial wall and heart disease. Also the anti-dairy protein angle is interesting as well. From what I recall, the Lyon heart trial also had some evidence for dairy intake as being a major difference between the trial and control groups, with the trial group ingesting about half the dairy products and having lower incidence of heart disease. Reply 13 07 2010 Chris Masterjohn (13:19:27) : Robert, her correlation coefficients (r) range from -100 to +100 but her r-squared values range from 0 to 100. You can derived them simply by squaring the r values she reported. Squared numbers cant be negative. Chris Reply 15 12 2010 Phillip (22:10:44) : Except i Reply 8 07 2010 Richard Nikoley (21:29:08) : Denise: Im so glad you contacted me and I hope my post and efforts to get the word out does your marvelous, high quality, honest and integrated work justice. By the look of comments youre getting some ver well deserved recognition. Nothing short of your collection being the go-to critique of The China Study is acceptable. Right now Im using Google to source other likely interested parties to make them aware of your work and I challenge and encourage others to do likewise. Reply
7/26/12
6 02 2011 dlibby (15:52:16) : I have looked at your website and found you to do a great injustice to good health and twist the truth to your own beliefs!!!! Remember there are more people who look into theories of long time study and the long term benefit,s as to those who have little knowledge and pick it apart for their own agenda!!! Reply 8 07 2010 The China Study: Junk Science and Lies (22:08:48) : [...] Sorry for the re-post, but this is too important not to pass around. Free The Animal has an outstanding post on the misleading pile of dookie that is The China Study. Here is the original analysis that Richard is referring to to which was generated by Denise Minger [...] Reply 8 07 2010 jon w (23:13:43) : wow, this is amazing. hope you decide on a career in nutrition research. I will link to this wherever I can. Reply 8 07 2010 Kevin Neilson (23:34:14) : Congratulations on a wonderful bit of analysis. First-rate. Extraordinary. Add superlative of choice. K Reply 9 07 2010 CrossFit 1776 | CrossFit in Williamsburg, VA | Williamsburg Strength and Conditioning | Speed, Strength and Agility Training for Football, Wrestling and Mixed Martial Arts in Williamsburg Debunking The China Study, Bill Kristol the War Criminal an (00:52:25) : [...] ten thousand annihilation of The China Study. The China Study Fact or [...] Reply 9 07 2010 Julie (01:25:44) : That was a really good read. As a non-academic/statistician, you clearly described the data in a way that everyone can understand. Thanks, Julie Reply 9 07 2010 Tuck (03:06:42) : Wow. Bravo. Incredibly impressive work. Reply 9 07 2010 Kurt G Harris MD (03:25:05) : Simply superb. This really belongs in a peer-reviewed journal. This piece is far better and certainly more important than the average dross I read in medical journals. Like Stephan, I have been trying to put the hurt on wheat as one of the three neolithic agents of disease that are responsible for the diseases of civilization. http://www.paleonu.com/panu-weblog/2009/6/23/the-argument-against-cereal-grains.html http://www.paleonu.com/panu-weblog/2010/3/12/the-argument-against-cereal-grains-ii.html To find that the actual data on which the China Study was based has a stronger relative risk associated with wheat than almost any other food variable is simlutaneously shocking and gratifying. I second Dr. Guyenet in asking you to dig deeper into the wheat issue. Nice work. Reply 9 07 2010 WOD for TJs Gym CrossFit San Rafael/Corte Madera/Novato Fri. July 9th, 2010 TJ's Blog (04:38:34) : [...] Yago, thanks for keeping the dream alive! On another note and this will disappoint some of you. The Debunking of the China Study. Thanks Coach Barnes. Here is another link to The Protein Debate, a paper of two [...] Reply 9 07 2010 Real food and environmental information wrap up | A Moderate Life (05:26:35) : [...] to make a correlation that eating animal protiens in any form is bad for your health. Well, Denise Minger of Raw Food SOS who rather recently added animal protien back into her diet presents an exhaustive review of [...] Reply 9 07 2010 Jamie (06:27:26) : Fantastic work! Mad respect for someone to dedicate the time to robust scientific rigor. Pity Powell couldnt do the same himself!
7/26/12
Reply 9 07 2010 the china study. katka, dnevno. (07:12:07) : [...] niti asa, pravzaprav, da bi se s tem sploh ukvarjala), zato pa me toliko bolj razveseli takenle post (ki sem ga odkrila preko tega [...] Reply 9 07 2010 Eva (07:26:41) : Wow, that was a lot of work just for me to READ it! Most impressive. Its amazing what intelligence, objectivity, and hard work can accomplish. I would REALLY love to see you eventually tackle other similar projects. Its so wonderful and so sadly rare to find someone who can root out basic unvarnished truths from piles of numbers. What I want is to understand what is healthy, but that has been amazingly hard info to find! You obviously have a wonderful natural talent for pushing aside the bull and getting to the meat of the matter (excuse the pun). Reply 9 07 2010 A Critique Worth Reading For His Glory & for Our Good (07:27:07) : [...] because I want to move on to bigger and better things here!), but I wanted to point you all to a great article I just read (most of it). Its very long but I think worth at least skimming. The author [...] Reply 9 07 2010 China Study Problems of Interpretation | Ideal Health Care (07:38:10) : [...] The China Study: Fact or Fallacy [...] Reply 9 07 2010 Valtsu (08:46:51) : Such a wonderful post! Thank you Reply 9 07 2010 Dave (10:11:06) : Outstanding, and one of the few examples to be found (including amongst real scientists like, ahem, T. Colin Campbell) of the proper use of classical statistics. Nice job not extrapolating correlations beyond what they are, which are numbers derived from data, as opposed to hypothesis tests. Reply 9 07 2010 matt180 (10:16:26) : Really solid, and a great reminder at just how twisted, knotted, confusing, and convoluted epidemiological research can be hence why I never cite epidemiological study as evidence of any pre-asserted hypothesis. Reply 9 07 2010 Pork Chops, Beet Greens, a Nice Iron Session, and The China Study, Debunked Theory to Practice (11:10:49) : [...] resembling serious, quality, ethically-performed science after considering Denise Mingers complete dismantling of the workwell, theres just not much hope for them. And I use the term work loosely, here. [...] Reply 9 07 2010 Dave (11:27:54) : BTW, being a data junkie, you should check out Jaynes book on Probability Theory. I expect you would get a lot out of it. You can read the first three chapters online here: http://bit.ly/9RNnwO Reply 9 07 2010 The Healthy Skeptic Rest in peace, China Study (12:34:24) : [...] Usually I direct those folks to Chris Masterjohns excellent critique of the China Study. Now, however, Ill be sending them over to read Denise Mingers freshly published China Study smackdown. [...] Reply 9 07 2010 Sally (12:34:44) : Apart from his cherry-picked references for other studies (some of which dont back up the claims he cites them for) Ive long believed this of many authors who promote a vegan diet. I followed a vegan diet for about 5 years. While all my numbers were great, I didnt feel well. When I added animal products back into my diet, I felt much better and the numbers all improved. Reply 9 07 2010 JLL (13:01:17) : Great post, I found it through the paleonu.com blog, which I follow regularly. Ill be checking your blog from now on also, even though my diet is pretty different from yours (see my blog for more info).
7/26/12
- JLL Reply 9 07 2010 Marc (13:34:34) : Superb! I liked your avocado post also. Marc Reply 9 07 2010 CrossFit Peachtree | CrossFit in Buckhead | CrossFit in Atlanta | CrossFit in Midtown | Personal Training Atlanta | Atlanta Strength and Conditioning Coach | CrossFit Football in Atlanta | Atlanta Speed and Agility Training (13:51:48) : [...] here is the link that sums it all up, a 9,000 word masterpiece, The China Study: Fact or Fallacy. Ill quote from the [...] Reply 9 07 2010 Jae (13:54:09) : I cant thank you enough for this!! I agree with Dr. Harriss review that you approached the data in a tone as close to neutral as possible, which I am especially thankful for (b/c it shows how careful of a thinker you are and that you are not pushing an agenda). You tore apart everything that deserved tearing apart, and you left us with some real gems hidden in the data that Campbell buried. Thanks to Richard for pointing so many of us toward this, too. =) Reply 9 07 2010 Emily Deans MD (14:15:33) : Amazing work. Thank you so much. I shudder to think that much of the 2010 USDA guidelines are based on similarly derived association data. This is why I believe the safest way to eat is as close as we can muster to how our ancestors ate, using as much scientific knowledge as we can glean from controlled prospective trials to figure out which Neolithic foods are also safe (and which paleo foods are best left out too). Im also intrigued by the possibilities of real health policy implications that could literally help hundreds of millions of people in China. Implementing hepatitis B and parasite infection control throughout the countryside, for example. Reply 9 07 2010 Jim Storey (16:28:41) : Very nice, rigorous critique of Campbells methodology! Simply, the vegan crowds premise that humans supposedly evolved eating only plants is absurd to anyone with the slightest knowledge of evolutionary biology or paleontology. Anyone promoting such as agenda, even with a string of credentials after their name, is pretty much doomed before they begin . BTW, some of us are currently having a discussion on Campbells (negative, of course) review of the New Atkins Diet book, if anyone is interested. I enjoy it, not because any great scientific revelations are there, but several vegans are active and I get some sort of perverse pleasure in taking aim at. Sorry, its a personality defect Ive got to get over someday not today, however. Reply 9 07 2010 jeff (17:06:40) : really excellent. the china study has been hanging around in the back of my mind while my reading and eating have carried me in other directions entirely. i feel reassured by your logic and analysis. thank you. Reply 9 07 2010 Shelby (17:29:10) : Thank you so much for all of your hard work and dedication to finding the truth. I found this critique through Robb Wolfs website and couldnt be more pleased with it. Ive had vegans/vegetarians throwing The China Study at me as if it were gospel for far too long. Even The Protein Debate between Campbell and Cordain seems to have no effect on the illusions. This is something that always scares me in the realm of science and health, when a persons own opinions clouds their judgment and causes them to form a theory and only ask the questions that will give them the answers they seek. Bravo to you for such a well crafted critique. Reply 9 07 2010 The China Study Smackdown Roundup | Free The Animal (17:51:05) : [...] had a chance yet to read Denise Minger's expose, STOP what you're doing and go read it, instanter. The China Study: Fact or Fallacy. And know this: even if you don't care about T. Colin Campbell, The China Study, hapless vegans, or [...] Reply 9 07 2010 Robb Wolf (19:09:21) : Outstanding analysis. Really looking forward to more work from you. Reply 9 07 2010 China Study & T. Colin Campbell: Someone just made you there vegan bitch. (19:53:11) : [...] Study and offering a more levelheaded and non-biased interpretation of the data. You can read it here. It also seems that the true conclusion to be drawn from The China Study is that wheat not meat is [...]
7/26/12
Reply 9 07 2010 Pallav (20:11:26) : awesome work denise, the analysis and time spent by you in this is awesome, especially eye opening is the role of wheat in this. i wonder if you could do one article on wheat itself and perhaps homogenised/pasteurised/UHT milk as well. Reply 9 07 2010 jon w (20:12:17) : you should publish this, or at the very least, you should post a version of this to amazon.com as a book review Reply 12 05 2012 jmy (16:22:02) : it wouldnt even make it past the first peer after he finished crying. Reply 9 07 2010 Perfect Health Diet The China Study: Evidence for the Perfect Health Diet (20:32:30) : [...] Denise Minger, http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/. Hat tip Stephan Guyenet, for the [...] Reply 9 07 2010 Don Matesz (22:01:52) : HI Denise, Thank you for putting this together, I know how much time and work went into it. I will definitely link to this from my blog and also refer my students to it. This is by far the most thorough critique of Campbells work that I have seen so far. Kudos! Like Stephan, I would like to see the data on wheat parsed a bit more. I hope you can get around to that. Don Reply 9 07 2010 The China Study Toppled - A Tale of the Confirmation Bias (22:25:19) : [...] Heres the link: China Study: Fact or Fallacy? [...] Reply 9 07 2010 Anthony Knox (22:29:09) : What everyone else said. Excellent work. You have a very bright future in whatever field you choose to pursue. Reply 9 07 2010 Around the Fitness Horn x lyssa (22:33:50) : [...] The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? [Raw Food SOS] [...] Reply 9 07 2010 Tom Naughton (22:38:53) : Thank you, thank you, thank you. I receive frequent emails and blog comments from vegetarians who believe the China Study was handed down by The Almighty. Now I know where to send them. Ive read other articles on Campbells selection bias, but this one is the most comprehensive by far. Reply 9 07 2010 neisy (23:23:56) : To all who have responded, e-mailed, or simply read in silence so far: a sincere and enormous thank you. I wasnt expecting this analysis to generate so much interest, especially given its daunting length, and Im thrilled so many people have found the information useful. A number of you expressed interest in the wheat/heart disease correlation. My next post will be delving into this issue (based on China Study data) in great depth, although the post might not be up for a week or so. In the meantime, a blogger named Brad Marshall wrote a fantastic post on this exact subject in 2005 so mosey on over there if you havent already, and take a gander: http://bradmarshall.blogspot.com/2005/12/is-wheat-killing-us-introduction-maybe.html Ill be testing whether the wheat/heart disease connection holds true when adjusting for other factors (like latitude). Campbell actually published a paper mentioning this correlation in 1998, so he was definitely aware of it, although obviously chose not to include it The China Study. To those of you whove asked questions, Ill be getting back to you individually (probably not very promptly, though sorry in advance!).
7/26/12
Thanks again, everyone! Reply 10 07 2010 anand srivastava (07:33:54) : Thanks for doing what the authors should have done with this data. I hope you tease out more information from the study. I would be waiting for your Wheat results. I have also gone nearly wheat free, after reading so much about it. It was interesting to note that it does cause such wide ranging damage and not just to gluten sensitive people. Now I will try to be more strict. Thanks for pointing to the excellent article by Brad Marshall. It actually contains more gems than just the wheat. It shows that Rice is more beneficial than potatoes (Tubers). This to me totally doesnt make sense. I have been reading about the Paleolithic diet, and it makes sense that Tubers would have been in our diet since ages, but to think that Rice which is a neolithic food, is more beneficial than potatoes, just doesnt compute for me. I hope that you will also work your magic on the rice and tuber data from the study. It will be interesting if the data shows a negative (or at least insignificant) correlation for rice with the various diseases. It will allow me to eat rice more guilt free. I will help me relish biryani guilt free . Thanks again, and hope that you get into nutrition field. Reply 11 07 2010 Ed (11:13:05) : Denise, if you havent already noted it, you might keep an eye out for potential confounders (high omega-6) vegetable oil, and sugar, when looking at the wheat data. Reply 12 07 2010 Bushrat (03:25:20) : In line with eds comment you should also look at trying to break down cholesterol into HDL, LDL and trigs and see what affect this has on the data. The current theory that I believe holds the most water is that the ratio of HDL to LDL is the best indicator of coronary heart disease and cardiovascular disease. Further, the type of LDL matters (i.e. small and dense or big and fluffy). Im not sure whether this distinction is made in the data you have, but if it is then it would be interesting to see how closely the different types of cholesterol correlate with various heart problems. Reply 10 07 2010 Summertime The Red Pill (00:17:09) : [...] read the link from my previous post. Its amazing stuff. Also see here and here. Wheat> 67% relative risk [...] Reply 10 07 2010 anon (00:29:25) : This work is amazing. Nobels have been awarded for much less. To my thinking, you have persuasively established wheat as the #1 threat to modern human health. (Staff of life indeed!) That Campbell has finally been put to rest pales beside this accomplishment. (Though I do have to wonder about what kind of man can discover the slow yet extraordinary danger wheat posed to billions of his fellow man and then consciously attempt to hide that fact from them! The mind reels. Reply 10 07 2010 Interesting Reading #528 Amazing graphics card, Bluetooth4.0, YouTube mobile, Spy stuff and much more The Blogs at HowStuffWorks (00:42:53) : [...] The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? When I first started analyzing the original China Study data, I had no intention of writing up an actual critique of Campbells much-lauded book. Im a data junkie. Numbers, along with strawberries and Audrey Hepburn films, make me a very happy girl. I mainly wanted to see for myself how closely Campbells claims aligned with the data he drew fromif only to satisfy my own curiosity. But after spending a solid month and a half reading, graphing, sticky-noting, and passing out at 3 AM from studious exhaustion upon my copy of the raw China Study data, Ive decided its time to voice all my criticisms. And there are many [...] Reply 10 07 2010 Richard Nikoley (00:44:12) : Anon: Lets not fall into the same trap Campbell did and which Denise worked so hard to show. What she did was to demonstrate that other associations were much stronger than animal products and pointed out that Campbell failed to mention those. At best, she falsified Campbells conclusions as laid out in his book. Let me be clear: she falsified his conclusions, not the hypothesis that animal products are bad, because you simply cant do that either way with epidemiology.
7/26/12
On the other hand, Denise has created a ripe field for new hypotheses to be tested in rigeur. Reply 10 07 2010 anon (00:47:27) : Richard, I agree. The correlations are damning, but not proof. StillDenise gets my personal Nobel. Reply 10 07 2010 Nutrition and Physical Regeneration The China Study Has No Clothes: Smackdown Of T. Colin Campbell (02:09:22) : [...] Minger, editor of the website Raw Food SOS: Troubleshooting on the Raw Food Diet, has done an exhaustive and detailed analysis of The China Study. Minger, a former lurker at the [...] Reply 10 07 2010 Tom Nikkola (02:24:13) : Outstanding article. Thank you. Reply 10 07 2010 Milk Builds Strong Bones? - Page 2 (02:24:53) : [...] ton of raw foods. I think she eats her animal products raw? anyway, she Dismantles the China Study The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? Raw Food SOS: Troubleshooting on the Raw Food Diet and asks Why Campbell didn't look at his own evidence which shows that WHEAT, not animal products [...] Reply 10 07 2010 Buh-bye, China Study | The Low-Carb Curmudgeon (02:36:07) : [...] That all changed today. I think its time for T. Colin Campbell to get a real job. [...] Reply 10 07 2010 Chalk fight (03:03:41) : [...] The China study: fact or fallacy? If you have some time give this a read. Its very long but its very good info. [...] Reply 10 07 2010 Olivia (05:39:49) : Youre wicked awesome! Reply 10 07 2010 Kimmy Bozman (05:53:09) : Oh, woman! You are amazing! You really took the bullet for those of us who have recently thought to commit to the same thingwith so much more grace and accuracy than I ever could have. Well done! Thanks for the number crunching, research, analysys and balanced presentation. Thanks for avoiding an alarmist perspective (present too frequently on BOTH sides of the fence when it comes to the China Study.) and making the fruits of your labors public information. Thank you, thank you, sincerely1,000,000 thanks! Reply 10 07 2010 Miki (06:39:19) : Unbelievable amount and quality of work. I knew Collin T. was full of it when I learned he was part of that group for responsible medicine that somehow omit to mention they are all vegetarians on a mission. A case of diluted personal integrity you could call it. I read the earlier critic but yours is by far the most comprehensive and comprehensible. I am going to translate as much of it as I can to Hebrew (the language of my blog) and if the review I wrote of The Vegetarian Myth is any indication we are going to have a lively debate here. Looking forward to the piece on gluten. It should be noted however that recent research shows that not all wheat varieties are equal in terms of damage they can inflict, with most recent verities been more potent. Miki Reply 10 07 2010 Gary Wu (07:04:57) : Wonderful analysis! I too were stuck by the associations between wheat and the many diseases listed. Kudos to you for the detailed analysis and concise writing. Reply 10 07 2010 The China Study: Evidence for the Perfect Health Diet medifastprogram.net offers medifast medifast program weight loss (07:42:11) : [...] Denise Minger, http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/. Hat tip Stephan Guyenet, for the [...] Reply
7/26/12
10 07 2010 anita (11:34:08) : well done! the number crunching you did is a amazing (interesting hobby!!)..thanks for giving me a concise argument with sciency numbers that I can present to others!! Reply 10 07 2010 michael (12:43:16) : Wow! This is a new subject for me, and I am speechless. What a great, great, analysis you did. I just added you to my blogroll. I dont want to miss a single post you write from now on. I love your reasoning, all your hard work involved, and care youve taken in making this one great well researched article. Thank you. Reply 10 07 2010 Janet (13:28:49) : Good job doing plots. Thats really important to see data trends, as it really is true that a picture is a better summary than numbers. And as a long time teacher of statistics and researcher myself, Im absolutely thrilled to see people analyzing data themselves. Seriously, its really wonderful to see that whatever Ive taught in intro stats class that no one wanted to take gets used by some people. Your analysis is a good start, but like all nutrition data, this data is tough, and correlations arent enough to analyze it properly. If you continue in this vein, you may want to learn more statistics. Here are some issues you need to deal with: 1) Outliers. In the plot of that disease that starts with s versus a cancer (colorectal?), you have most of the data clustered around zero prevalence of the S disease, with little evident trend and then you have one outlier from a place with high S disease, and then two points in the middle. That one outlier may be enough to give you the high correlation, and if you took it out, you might have insignificant correlation, and certainly if you took both that point and the 2 middle points out, you would. 2) Confounding between meat and income. Places with highest grain intake are likely the poorest, and places with the highest meat intake are the wealthiest. See the study discussed here about grain/meat intake in China: http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2007/07/real-world-giffen-good.html Obviously income has enormous health impact that go beyond meat intake. 3) Simpsons paradox: When you have confounders that might make an enormous difference in the outcome, you have to stratify by them, which you did in some places, when you looked separately at cancer risk of people people with Hep B (if I remember correctly) and without. In some cases, once you stratify, you see that a correlation actually reverses. Heres one example of that in some sex discrimination data: http://www.umsl.edu/~banisr/4326/sexbias.htm 4) Ecological fallacy. Ecological data is a good place to start, but its the most crude type of data because obviously there are lots of reasons why, say, Mississippi and Colorado and Massachusetts are different, and a pattern seen across states (or in this case, Chinese provinces) might not hold for each individual within them. In fact, it might be the opposite. When you break down and look within each state, the data might look different. Heres one example: blue states (Democratic majority states) are richer, but once you look within each state, richer people are more likely to vote Republican. At the same time, some states have stronger association between income and party affiliation than others. http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2005/11/income_matters.html These are just a few issues that I saw off the top of my head. I dont mean to be discouraging. Nutrition data is just really really hard. And obviously all these issues apply to the original published analysis that you are reanalyzing their data. I hope that you go on to improve the analysis beyond this, or find individual data to work with. Or ways to improve ecological data (which is hard to work with, and I am not so familiar with the methods people use with ecological data.) Some nutrition data that is publicly available is public release NHANES, the main US federal survey of nutrition. I think anyone can get that, and they are very thorough in documenting things like serving size (though obviously as soon as you have people measure their food, they are going to change their eating habits to some extent, and people also lie about which food they eat.) Good job with this analysis. I havent seen the original book, but if it really is as you say, its great to see challenges to claims resulting from substandard data analysis. Nutrition is really hard to study, though. Reply 11 07 2010 neisy (01:19:07) : Janet, Im glad I checked my spam queue, because your fantastic post was snagged there. Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts on this you bring up so many excellent points and obviously have a wealth of experience with stats! 1) When writing this critique, I considered posting graphs adjusted for outliers (and played around with this while to see how the correlations were affected), but ultimately chose to just plot the data as recorded in the original monograph. My reasoning: The only correlations supporting Campbells claims were the uncorrected ones, and since I was analyzing his claims (not necessarily the validity of the correlations), I figured itd be best to post the graphs reflecting that. In most cases, the outliers vanished naturally once I removed confounding variables. For instance the outlier you pointed out, in the graph plotting schistosomiasis and total cholesterol, is the same county represented by the outlier in the graph immediately after it (total cholesterol and colorectal cancer). Once the data is adjusted for schistosomiasis infection, that county and its misleading placement disappears. EDIT: I just realized you were talking about schistosomiasis and colorectal cancer, not schistosomiasis and cholesterol. My bad! Without the farthest outlier, the correlation remains very high (+74). Without the farther three outliers, including the two in the middle you mentioned, the correlation also remains high (+55). 2) Great point regarding meat and wealth. Thanks for the link Ill check it out. Its unfortunate the China Study didnt document income/financial variables, but it may be something that could be approximated indirectly (for instance: Wealthier areas may have less diseases related to poor living conditions, like pneumonia and tuberculosis, so we could divide regions based on indicators of substandard living and see what that does). This is something Ill be looking into further. Thanks for bringing it up.
7/26/12
3) Stratifying data did seem to portray the correlations in a new light. Very interesting link; thank you! 4) Ecological fallacy in my opinion, this is one of the biggest design limitations of the China Study. Despite the large number of people initially involved, all data was aggregated at the county level, resulting in only 65 data points none of which preserved the intricacies of individual diet and disease rates; only the averages of a population. Since regions tended to be somewhat isolated and reliant on the same foods (usually what grew locally), this may be less of a problem with the China Project than with other studies of its kind, since regional diets tended to be homogeneous (according to the projects research team). As youre aware, this sort of study can never yield proof only clues and hypotheses so even the most rigorous analysis will have limitations. It could definitely be worthwhile to integrate the ecological data with individual/controlled studies to create something even more definitive. Thanks again for your thorough comments. Given your background on this subject, Id be particularly interested if you see anything I can fine-tune in the analysis above (especially because my lack of credentials will, to some people, be reason enough to dismiss everything Ive written). I want this to be as accurate as possible, even working within the studys obvious limitations. Denise Reply 6 02 2011 dlibby (16:08:58) : Where did you study nutritional science? Have you been at it for 50 some years?? Wow.I havent seen your name or your credentials to match that of T.Colin Campbellamazing but I guess you dont need it on this blog because you have obviously convinced some of these readers and certainly not the majority thankfully, of your misleading data, But then I dont believe that anyone here really knows science or has any real education that is pertnet to this subject!!!You may have a small following but Campbells book has sold millions and has reached those who do know what he is talking about!!!Some of you should go to Lona Linda and research what scientist all over the world have found!!They come together ever year for seminars to educate those on vegetarian/vegan diets!!That is something you can not argue with!!Ill be taking your data to Sublime in Ft. Lauderdale on the 26th to share with Campbell and other educated experts, who have spent most of their lives promoting good health!!! Reply 20 11 2011 asrdeejay (06:14:43) : Compare the digestive systems of herbivores, omnivores, and us..which do our most resemble? Your agenda is showing, dlibby. She used Campbells own information, anyone with the insight, patience, and understanding of statistics could have done thatand she did. Study anatomy, and youll have your answers as to how we need to eat. Reply 20 11 2011 asrdeejay (06:17:23) : http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/carn_herb_comparison.html Reply 10 07 2010 Insanity log (13:44:53) : [...] [...] Reply 10 07 2010 Khrystyna (13:50:41) : This is amazing, congratulations on what youve achieved here its seriously impressive. You are such an inspiration to me as a fledgling nerd of nutritional science (I just finished a 4 year degree). Maybe if I try really hard I can be as smart as you and blog as well as you do about these things one day *sigh.* Only problem is I cant handle numbers so statistics is a disaster area for me lol http://foodfloraandfelines.blogspot.com/ Reply 10 07 2010 Dr. William Davis (13:53:19) : This is absolutely brilliant! Like Stephan (above), Id also love to hear more about the data surrounding wheat. Ive suspected such correlations before, but I wasnt aware they were embedded in Campbells data. Reply 10 07 2010 Chipping Away at The China Study Liberation Wellness (16:05:41) : [...] Ive finally read what I consider the go-to article online for helping folks in love with The China Study see the light. The post is written by someone who [...] Reply 10 07 2010 Whatsonthemenu (16:22:21) : Thanks for making your exaustive analysis available to the public for free. Since I used to live in China, I can put a lot of the dietary data into context. I didnt notice any data about plant versus animal fat. Eastern city-dwelling Chinese use a lot of refined vegetable cooking oils, specifically soy and corn, to stirfry vegetables on high heat for a short period. Since Campbell is anti-fat, an examination of plant versus animal fat is not relevant to debunking his claims, but I would be interested in any data, if available. Reply 10 07 2010
7/26/12
mrfreddy (16:43:14) : interesting responses on the 30 bananas a day forum, some are touting Campbells previous retort to his previous critics (Colpo and Masterjohn), which I can paraphrase as they are misinterpreting uncorrected raw data what the hell does that mean? Seems to me you worked very hard to correctly interpret the raw data. And Campbell worked very hard to torture the raw data to conform to his own biases. I guess by corrected data, he means only that data that confirms what I already know That guys legacy, hopefully, will be as the text book example of how not to do science. If you are a young, or even experienced scientist, you should constantly be asking yourself, what would TC Campbell do? And then you should probably do the opposite! others are taking the how could she, she is killing more animals Doesnt matter to them one bit that Campbells conclusions appear to be very seriously in error. Reply 10 07 2010 neisy (19:38:38) : Hi Mr. Freddy, Ive parted ways from 30BAD and wont be posting there again, but youre free to pass this along if folks there are confused. Ive seen Campbells responses to previous critics and have been perplexed by the misinterpreting uncorrected raw data accusation. My best guess is that hes referring to the Death from all causes or Death from all cancers variable, which several critics cite in their reviews in order to vindicate animal foods. Both of these variables can be misleading taken out of context: In the raw data, correlations between animal food consumption are inverse for death from all causes (meaning the meat eaters tend to live longer) and also inverse for death from all cancers (meaning the meat eaters tend to have lower rates of cancer, in totality). These are easy things to cite for anyone looking to discredit The China Study. But what the uncorrected data here overlooks are the many, many confounding variables at play. Do the meat eaters also live in areas with better health care and living conditions (leading to fewer instances of non-diet-related disease)? Do the meat eaters experience less death from external causes, another variable that contributes to all-cause mortality? Any number of entangled variables could sway the Death from all causes variable, rendering it fairly useless uncorrected. Similarly, the Death from all cancers variable can be misleading without looking at individual rates of specific cancers. Some are obviously related to lifestyle habits (like smoking and lung cancer), exposure to external hazards (like toxins in the workplace), infections (like hepatitis B or schistosomiasis)so on and so forth. If, for instance, plant-eaters tended to be heavier smokers than the meat-eaters and exhibited much higher rates of lung cancer, then the Death from all cancers variable would lean in favor of meat consumption for reasons unrelated to diet. In these cases, Id certainly agree with Campbell that using the uncorrected data is unwise and potentially misleading. That said, it appears Campbell himself relies on the raw data, since the correlations he cites are only valid before correcting for confounding variables. The analysis on this page avoids those traps by looking at individual cancers instead of cancer in the aggregate, dividing populations into high-risk and lowrisk groups, and adjusting for variables known to influence disease rates. I hope that clarifies some things. Denise Reply 10 07 2010 John (22:32:34) : Dont be fooled people, Denise has misinterpreted raw data, just as many inexperienced researchers do. Denise is not qualified to read such data correctly. Please refer to the use and misuse on pp. 54-82 of the China Project monograph. The following is Dr Campbells rebuttal. The rest can be found http://www.vegsource.com/articles2/campbell_china_response.htm China Project results are no exception to these limitations of single experiments. It was very large, unique and comprehensive but it was observational (i.e., not interventional), simply observing things as they were at a single point in time. It provided an exceptionally large number of hypothetical associations (shown as statistically assessed correlations) that may indicate but does not prove cause and effect relationships. These unanalyzed correlations are considered raw or crude. It is highly unusual to find such raw data in a scientific report because, in part, untrained observers may misunderstand such raw data. For the monograph, we were somewhat uncertain whether to publish such raw data but decided to do so for two principle reasons. First, we wanted to make these data available to other researchers, while hoping that data misuse would not be a significant problem. Second, because these data were collected in rural China at a time when data reliability might have been questioned, we chose to be as transparent as possible. We discussed data use and misuse on pp. 54-82 of the China Project monograph that curiously was overlooked by Masterjohn and JayY. Reply 10 07 2010 neisy (23:08:45) : Hey John, its probably sufficient to post this on one entry instead of three of them. I agree wholeheartedly with what Campbell says about the limitations of the China Project data (and for the record, I read the warning chapter in the China Study monograph before diving into the data). If you read my critique, youll see that I dont slap down the raw correlations for this very reason: Theyre misleading and can easily imply trends that arent actually there. This is why I focus on untangling variables and adjusting for confounding factors, thus rendering the data no longer raw. Campbells claims, on the other hand, only appear to be valid before those adjustments are made. In every instance I analyzed, his claims matched with the raw correlations but not with the corrected ones. If you feel you or someone you know would be better qualified to handle the statistics, by all means, track down a copy of Diet, Life-style and Mortality in
7/26/12
China and analyze it for yourself. Ive tried to be very transparent with my process here so that others may replicate my methods or identify any logical errors, should there be any. If you have suggestions for how I can improve upon this analysis, Id be glad to hear them. Apart from that, RE: your quote from Campbell youre preachin to the choir. Thanks, Denise Reply 10 07 2010 Richard Nikoley (22:41:19) : And who do you think youre trying to fool, John? That poor excuse for a rebuttal (filled with ad hominem and hand waving pretty much all Campbell ever does) has been around since 2006 and was in response to Masterjohn and Colpo. It does not in the least address the brunt of Denises critique. Denise is not qualified to read such data correctly. You fools crack me up. Reply 11 07 2010 mrfreddy (14:13:17) : Also saw your goodbye post on the 30bad site, also well done. You have a fun to read writing style. I dont think Ill ever be posting there, haha Id be an even bigger and more square-er peg than you in that environment. I was just over there having a look around cuz I was curious about how the vegan true believers would react to your astounding analysis. I expected to see some head in the sand reactions, but wow, I was suprised at what I found some interesting characters over there Reply 10 07 2010 Rosemary Rich (16:58:57) : Hello Denise, I found this via Dr. Harris as well. One word. Masterful. Also urge you to explore the wheat correlation. Thanks! Reply 11 07 2010 Debunking Junk Science: Goodbye China Study | Abundant Brain (02:28:27) : [...] The China Study: Fact or Fallacy- by Denise Minger This entry was posted in general, scientific research and tagged Denise Minger, junk science, Raw Food SOS, T. Colin Campbell, The China Study, vegan, vegetarian. Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL. Exploding Nutrition Myths #1: Agave and Glycemic Index [...] Reply 11 07 2010 Rick (05:19:57) : Two things that cant be vilified too muchwheat and The China Study. Great job Denise. Campbell actually raises a number of points I wholeheartedly agree withparticularly in the Why Havent You Heard This? section of his book, where he exposes the reality behind Big Pharma and the science industry at large. The best way to sell a lie? Shove it in with some truths. Reply 11 07 2010 rayna (07:15:44) : Your analysis is completely OVER-SIMPLIFIED. Every good epidemiologist/statistician will tell you that a correlation does NOT equal an association. By running a series of correlations, youve merely pointed out linear, non-directional, and unadjusted relationships between two factors. I suggest you pick up a basic biostatistics book, download a free copy of R (an open-source statistical software program), and learn how to analyze data properly. Im a PhD cancer epidemiologist, and would be happy to help you do this properly. While Im impressed by your crude, and at best preliminary analyses, it is quite irresponsible of you to draw conclusions based on these results alone. At the very least, you need to model the data using regression analyses so that you can account for multiple factors at one time. Reply 11 07 2010 neisy (10:17:01) : Hi Rayna, Given that this is the first critical comment posted so far, youll probably get flamed pretty soon but Im very grateful for your suggestions, and particularly for your offer to help me get this information publicized even further once it passes your standards. For that, a giant thanks! For the sake of making this critique more accessible to readers, I only included the simplest/linear graphs to illustrate some relationships between mortality
7/26/12
rates and confounding variables. However, while analyzing the data I did run multiple variable regression analysis on (nearly) all the mortality statistics you see here. I found the results were similar to what I achieved by stratifying the data/eliminating variables by hand (ie, combing through the data in the monograph and using only counties without a certain risk factor maybe a more crude method than is typically used by statisticians, but again, it produced similar results to running multiple regressions, and I was more interested in seeing whether generally positive or negative associations were in place rather than determining exact numbers). In fact, when running MRA the protective trends for animal foods were even more accentuated in most cases (I recall a -70 between animal protein and cardiovascular diseases). For what its worth, Campbells claims all align with the raw correlations but not with adjusted ones, as far as I can tell, which makes me very curious about his own methods for analyzing the data. I didnt venture beyond linear regressions because I didnt visually identify curvature in my scatterplots, but if you think this was an error on my part, please let me know. I realize there are probably more sophisticated methods that you PhD-ed epidemiologists use, and I would be much indebted if you let me in on your secrets. At any rate, I want to make it clear that Im not trying to draw conclusive statements from the China Study data or prove anything beyond my original point: that Campbells analysis of the data overlooks important variables influencing disease rates. Thats the intent of this critique. Nothing more. I dont see how, in any conceivable way, he could reach the conclusions he did after taking obvious risk factors into account. Campbell is the one insisting this mammoth collection of ecological data shows that meat-eaters are less healthy than plant-eaters and I am simply testing whether this is supported by the data. Again, thanks for your generous offer to help. When you get a chance, please shoot me an email at deniseminger@gmail.com and we can discuss this more. Im going to dedicate all of next weekend (translation: I will probably work for 48 hours straight and not sleep) to recording the results from multiple regressions and any other analytical methods you recommend. As it stands, Im confident in the critique on this page, but Im certainly willing to perform additional analyses if that would make this more readily accepted in the medical field. Thanks, Denise Reply 11 07 2010 Ed (11:07:41) : Rayna, I think you miss the point. The only conclusion Denise draws is that Campbells presentation of correlations from the data is misleading and inaccurate at best. You are over-interpresting Denises post. Defensive much? Also, here is something I dont know. How do you perform multiple regression on 300 variables with 65 data points? And if thats really the right way to do it, why didnt Campbell do it that way? Would this only further damn his analysis? Reply 12 07 2010 JD (15:04:54) : You dont. There arent enough degrees of freedom to do such an analysis. Its impossible. Reply 13 07 2010 DML (03:36:31) : Rayna is right: This analysis, while impressive and very well done, is indeed over-simplified. However, Ed is also right: Denise is not attempting to draw any conclusions as such; rather, she is pointing out the inaccuracies of Campbells interpretation of the data. The irresponsibility lies with the paleo quacks who are now declaring that this proves that wheat is indeed the cause of disease. Maybe, maybe not; at best this analysis generates a possible hypothesis that there is a possible link between wheat consumption and disease. Nothing more. Reply 28 09 2010 moksha (22:16:04) : can someone cite for me the study/analysis that shows how rheumatoid arthritis follows wheat consumption in populations as wheat expanded outward from the fertile crescent? i have seen it referred to but have not the actual analysis. i have a family member that i am trying to make aware of this nasty. (yes DLM, Denise is not the only bright light to find something sinister about our opioid-stimulating wheat consumption) Reply 11 07 2010 Jenna (08:05:13) : hmmmmmmmm rayna, are you the woman the militant vegan named Freelee JUST RECRUITED because shes threatened by the fact the China study is bunk?!?! anyone else, read it here http://www.giveittomeraw.com/forum/topics/my-official-critique-of-the?commentId=1407416%3AComment%3A1376265&xg_source=msg_com_forum youre probably a vegan too, huh rayna? *eyeroll* Reply 11 07 2010 rayna (08:31:04) : for the record, i did NOT say that the china study *isnt* bunk i simply pointed out the errors in denises analysis and conclusions. and my offer still stands i
7/26/12
am happy to assist denise with a more appropriate analysis. and if the results still show that dr. campbells claims are untrue, then i am happy to share this publicly. but i think if one is going to undertake a scientific stab at something, one should do so responsibly. thats all im saying. Reply 12 07 2010 JD (14:38:56) : But your critique of Denise applies even more to Campbell himself. Are you not grasping the point that Campbells claims, on the other hand, only appear to be valid before those adjustments are made. In every instance I analyzed, his claims matched with the raw correlations but not with the corrected ones.? Reply 11 07 2010 rayna (08:22:16) : i dont think my being vegan invalidates my intellectual capacity for critiquing denises analysis. im an epidemiologist. i critique my OWN studies with far greater detail than ive done here, trust me. Reply 11 07 2010 Jenna (16:22:47) : rayna wrote this on another forum here http://vegsource.com/talk/raw/messages/100021596.html 2) Much of her conclusions are drawn from purely ecologic data that is, data that is in aggregate such as comparing the average fat consumption in Japan and the U.S. and the corresponding breast cancer rates. Sure, it can be informative, but it doesnt tell us anything about some of the other factors that might be related to fat consumption and breast cancer. Ecologic studies are considered to be at the bottom of the epidemiologic study totem pole. And we can NOT draw individual-level conclusions from them, i.e. we cannot say that an individual who consumes less fat will, on average, be protected from breast cancer (even if thats true, we cannot draw this conclusion from an ecologic study theres even a term for it: ecologic fallacy). (so she says the conclusions are faulty b/c theyre drawn from purely ecological datahmm. thats what the China Study IS, ecological data.so apparently this book was bunk from the start?? looks like campbell is guilty of the ecological fallacy then) OK, my disclaimer: Im an epidemiologist, and yes, scientists are NOT objective (Ill say it: Im an ardent veggie with a happy veggie family). Hell, science is not objective. I mean, you could be given a blob of numbers that mean nothing. It takes some context, interpretation, and data processing to make anything meaningful out of those numbers. Yes, scientists can be biased, and so can the studies they conduct, and the analysis of those studies. But good scientists do the best they can, are open about their methods, and fair when discussing their results. I applaud Dr. Campbell for making his raw data available very few scientists do this. I will be totally honest and say I have not read The China Study (I guess I feel itd just be preaching to the choir, but I think I will read it now). Reply 11 07 2010 DNA Testing News China fiction? (08:44:33) : [...] Nikoley of Free the Animal and Stephan Guyenet of Whole Health Source have been talking about an analysis of the China Study raw data performed by a young woman named Denise [...] Reply 11 07 2010 Die veblffende Biegsamkeit von Fakten: The China Study Urgeschmack (10:10:07) : [...] bislang fundierteste und vernichtendste stammt nun von Denise Minger, selbst ehemalige Veganerin. Sie untersuchte die Originaldaten und fand, dass Campbell bestenfalls [...] Reply 11 07 2010 Sue (10:13:45) : Rayna, why dont you do a more appropriate analysis as you say and see what you come up with. Reply 11 07 2010 Jenna (11:32:55) : the vegans are organizing a gang up. like mafia, they are. shows how threatened they are by this !! http://www.30bananasaday.com/forum/topics/the-china-study-dr-campbell? page=14&commentId=2684079%3AComment%3A628510&x=1#2684079Comment628510
7/26/12
Reply 11 07 2010 Alex (12:11:00) : Dear vegans, Please actually rebut these criticisms instead of just appealing to the authority of your credentials. Thank you Reply 11 07 2010 James (12:45:40) : You have a cat as an avatar and youre not a vegan? An animal lover that eats animals, now theres a contradiction if I ever saw one. Reply 11 07 2010 Alex (15:01:14) : I love animals, but I am not in bondage to a newage hippy ideology that prevents me from being at peace with the natural world as it is, carnivores, omnivores, herbivores and all. Reply 28 09 2010 moksha (22:20:12) : gawd i am so tired of this inane veg-head reply i read the secret life of plants waaaay back veg-heads: that salad you are munching is screaming all the way down that i enjoy my ancestral evolutionary diet that includes meat hardly means i am a heartless animal hater duhhhh Reply 11 07 2010 Veganbibelns fall | Kostdoktorn.se (12:22:21) : [...] The China Study: Fact or Fallacy [...] Reply 11 07 2010 James (12:43:55) : lol rebute criticisms that are based on misinterpreted data, makes a lot of sense. Reply 12 07 2010 Bushrat (03:44:18) : If Denise has misinterpreted the data than you should be able to show this. Ill be awaiting your reply. Reply 11 07 2010 Rebecca (13:10:42) : A friend of mine in stage 4 cancer had given me The China Study to read so I could give her my opinion on the research given. Upon comletetion I wanted to burn it. Our bodies are not made from cookie cutters and to say so bodly that animal fats and dairy are bad for mankind is lunacy. Look at history and what mankind has been successfully eating for thousands of years Greed and the love of the almighty dollar is the main reason our diet has become such an issue. Government, food production and big pharma work hand in hand. Dr Campbell, very proudly, listed all of the grants he recieved for his studies! For those who are educated beyond their intelligence, I am thankful for Denises great work. But as for me with a PhD (plain high school diploma),The truth or rather the untruths about the China Study didnt take charts and graphs. It was as clear as the nose on my face. The bible says Everything in moderation, no truer words have ever been spoken. Reply 16 08 2010 herbguy (08:46:21) : All things in moderation indeed! Remember that originally, in Genesis 1:29-30, both man and beast was given every green plant for food. Surely, for healing, it would seem to make sense to go back to the basics. Reply 16 08 2010 Martin Levac (16:21:42) : Common sense and religion dont mix. I fail to see how it makes sense to go back to basics when the basics are religion. Unless, of course, were talking about faith. Are we talking about faith? Reply 25 08 2010 Bill Strahan (21:57:30) : Yeah, every green plant. If you like the Garden of Eden idea, remember it had plants, and animals, not grains. In factGenesis 3:19, when they were kicked from the garden: In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
7/26/12
Sounds like bread was part of the punishment. No bread for me, thanks! Reply 11 07 2010 Emily Deans, M.D. (13:49:12) : The most curious thing about the whole exercise is that Ms. Mingers correlations made with the uncorrected data apparently match Dr. Campbells. I would imagine that Ms. Minger made a few mistakes in her analysis along the way. She is only human, was burning the midnight oil, and has no world class epidemiologists on hire to help check her work. Dr. Campbell, as a full professor at Cornell, no doubt has some very fine epidemiologists at his disposal. If he chose to publish the correlations from the uncorrected data, I cannot credit that it was a mistake. How many correlations and associated withs in the current up-for-debate 2010 guidelines come from the China Study data and the papers published by Dr. Campbells group? The China Study data set is problematic, as explained by the epidemiologist in the comments, and of course by Ms. Minger herself. Nevertheless such a large data set is important, and could have some meaningful information. If the data is processed correctly. Reply 11 07 2010 Weekend Link Love | Mark's Daily Apple (15:00:13) : [...] China Study. Yes, weve seen it belittled, but never in such amazing fashion. Raw Food SOS thoroughly discredits the China Study, and Richard Nikoley is there with a bullhorn to spread the word. Rob Wolf is all over this one as [...] Reply 11 07 2010 T. Colin Campbells The China Study: Finally, Exhaustively Discredited | Free The Animal (15:22:44) : [...] here is the link that sums it all up, a 9,000 word masterpiece, The China Study: Fact or Fallacy. I'll quote from the [...] Reply 11 07 2010 Kat's Food Blog The China Study (15:29:43) : [...] I have read rebuttals against the China Study before but this past week read through a most interesting and thorough discussion of not just the China Study book, but of the actual raw data the study was based on. Denise from Raw Food SOS took the time to sort through all the data and what she found was quite interesting. Many of the claims made by Campbell were simply false. Read her full post here: http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-orfallac/. [...] Reply 11 07 2010 Whatsonthemenu (16:20:43) : Rayna suggested: At the very least, you need to model the data using regression analyses so that you can account for multiple factors at one time. Engineer Richard Kroeker did just that two years ago. You can see his results on an Amazon discussion thread here . Reply 11 07 2010 Miki (16:33:24) : When doing wheat correlation latitude may have to be taken care of since vitamin D is important factor in both CHD and cancer. Reply 11 07 2010 Whatsonthemenu (17:07:00) : John wrote: We discussed data use and misuse on pp. 54-82 of the China Project monograph that curiously was overlooked by Masterjohn and JayY. I located the monograph here . I read the foreward and the study description and methods but could not find any information about data use and misuse that would be relevant to this debate. I also have a copy of The China Study. I would very much appreciate it if you or someone else could direct me to text in the book or online that would explain how Campbell and others connected data from the monograph to their conclusions about animal and plant protein and fat. The monograph itself states in the section Study description and methods that no conclusions can be drawn from varying data on fat consumption, noting that fat consumption raises (in its words) both protective HDL and harmful LDL. Links or page numbers will do. Reply 11 07 2010 Ut i solen igen Paleofriend (19:47:36) : [...] andra har redan skrivit om slakten av The China Study skriven av en lekman; Denise Minger, och djuret Richard Nikoley har sammanfattat och listat de [...] Reply 11 07 2010 Apolloswabbie (21:00:07) : Thank you Denise! My friend Greg Glassman once wrote Truth is like a beach ball, it takes a lot of effort to hold it underwater and eventually, it will rise to the surface. Reply
7/26/12
11 07 2010 Scott Miller (22:12:09) : Just need to thank you, Denise, for this well-researched post. Pretty much closes the book on Campbells erroneous, biased scientific conclusions. Reply 12 07 2010 Michael (00:06:52) : Hi Denise, Thank you for your wonderful analysis. Like others before me I am interested in a more detailed parsing of the data concerning wheat and whether the wheat consumed was refined processed wheat. Even though he is a vegan, my guess is T. Colin Campbell would agree with any correlations throwing modern refined processed wheat under the bus. Look forward to more of your work (and I also sent you an email). Take care.. Reply 12 07 2010 Whatsonthemenu (02:25:13) : In the monograph, wheat is identified in English and Chinese as wheat flour. There is no information about whether the wheat flour was whole, unbleached white, or bleached. Reply 12 07 2010 Michael (02:37:12) : Yes, I was aware of that, and those two links I mentioned below were helpful. I also asked Chris Masterjohn and he wasnt sure but going from memory he thought it was refined (which may also include bromating, treating with transglutaminase etc.). Reply 12 07 2010 Whatsonthemenu (12:54:42) : You can read Chinese, too? : ) I wonder how Masterjohn would know what kind of flour was consumed during a study that took place in the 70s. Bleached flour was certainly around in China then, and today nearly all flour sold in stores is refined white flour. However, I do not know how rural collectivized farms treated wheat flour back in the 70s. If I can find a Chinese internet forum where foreign nationals can post, I might ask. Reply 12 07 2010 Whatsonthemenu (23:32:10) : I looked up the email addresses of a few Chinese professors of nutrition, contacted them, and one has responded (its morning in China). Dr. Duo Li of Zhejiang University stated briefly in his reply that rural Chinese ate whole wheat products in the 70s and that refined wheat was rarely consumed then. Reply 13 07 2010 Chris Masterjohn (13:40:23) : Actually Michael what I wrote to that particular question was I dont think the China Study really collected details about kinds and processing of wheat. I think there were only two districts that consumed wheat and dairy and they were modernized, but thats off memory. (And when I say memory, I mean it has been five years since I looked at the monograph.) My comments about the processing were a question to you about the type of wheat flour Dr. Davis was using in his self-experiment. Chris Reply 13 07 2010 Michael (18:04:04) : Chris, My bad. When you referred to the two districts as being modernized, I assumed you meant in your recollection you thought they were consuming refined wheat and pasteurized dairy. Reply 12 07 2010 Michael (00:23:29) : Okay, two of the links posted in this comment thread, Brad Marshall and Richard Kroeker, point to the consumption of refined wheat flour, i.e. white flour, which changes the landscape considerably. Brad Marshall seems to dismiss this issue because white rice is also consumed, but white rice does not have the same impact on the body as white flour (refined wheat flour). Nor does this take into account all the processing other than refining that typical modern day refined wheat flour undergoes. Both however are outstanding links. Reply 12 07 2010 Whatsonthemenu (13:12:22) :
7/26/12
I scrolled up the thread and couldnt find the link to Marshall. Kroekers information comes from a present-day Chinese initiative to enrich flour. I looked online for information about Chinese wheat production and processing and couldnt find any information specifying one way or the other how flour was processed back in the 70s. I will probably send emails to some middle-aged Chinese who might be able to recall. Reply 12 07 2010 Vindication, Maps, and the Athletic Vagabond Theory to Practice (00:24:44) : [...] late in the week to an epic dismantling of Campbells study (links here) by Denise Minger, of the Raw Foods SOS blog. Denise has produced an erudite body of work that ought to keep all the Campbell apologists [...] Reply 12 07 2010 Bushrat (04:09:22) : Denise, I think you would be very interested in this paper: Siri-Tarino, Sun Q, Hu F B, Krauss, R M. Meta-Analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2010, vol. 91, pp535-546 It is a meta-analysis of just over 20 papers that looked at the link between saturated fat intake and heart disease. Very good statistical analysis, and I think at one point the authors show that in two studies the researchers misinterpreted their own data. Reply 12 07 2010 Bushrat (04:09:52) : Denise, I think you would be very interested in this paper: Siri-Tarino, Sun Q, Hu F B, Krauss, R M. Meta-Analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2010, vol. 91, pp535-546 It is a meta-analysis of just over 20 papers that looked at the link between saturated fat intake and heart disease. A very good statistical analysis. Reply 12 07 2010 Rnngrens Nutritionsblogg The China Study avsljad, ls och grt alla veganer (07:47:17) : [...] Originalinlgget [...] Reply 12 07 2010 r (07:52:34) : Hi Denise, As promised, Im posting my response to your email on your site. You asked that I provide some tips on where to start and how to proceed. BTW, you mentioned epidemiology secrets and I just want to say: no secrets!! Epidemiology is just critical thinking, but with numbers. Its no different from many other disciplines. Maybe some time you can help me with writing (scientists are generally terrible writers, hehe). Note: Ive included some comments on what went wrong and how it can be corrected merely for demonstrative purposes not at all malicious attacks, OK? This is how we all learn after all. In caps, I will highlight steps in the action plan for you. STEP 0: Do a literature search. I find it helpful to keep an excel spreadsheet with columns for author, title, journal, year, summary of paper, strengths of the study, weaknesses, and concluding remarks. This is essential, as one shouldnt just blindly go into an analysis without having at least some background information on the subject matter. No need to be an expert, but good to know whats already out there, and what needs to be done. 1. Correlations: For this discussion, the outcome will be colorectal cancer, since you used it on your post. Similarly, the primary exposure of interest will be total cholesterol. By by basing your conclusions on uncorrected correlations alone, youve made a huge leap that doesnt have much ground to stand on. The simple correlations are biased, as you yourself pointed out when evaluating total cholesterol, schistomiasis, and colorectal cancer. As such, if you dont adjust for potential confounders via multiple regression, the association you observe is biased. We almost always need to adjust for confounders, and this is very true in your case. STEP 1: Its a good habit to evaluate the correlations between all exposures and also between all exposures and the outcome at the individual level. So, for *every* analysis you plan on doing, run create scatterplots for every X against X and every X against Y, using the *individual* data (where possible), and provide the correlation + 95% confidence interval for each. STEP 2: Create histograms for every exposure of that is categoric and density plots (or you can create histograms with very narrow bars) for every exposure that is continuous. This will tell you how the variables are distributed and what the appropriate summary statistics for them would be. For example, if total cholesterol is not normally distributed (follow a bell curve) then *median* total cholesterol might be a better summary statistic then *mean* total cholesterol (good to know when you present descriptive statistics of the data youre using). Sometimes its useful to present different stats for a single variable. 2. Individual data vs. aggregated data: You stated you didnt see much curvature, but keep in mind that you were presenting with aggregated data (eg. average total cholesterol for all individuals) instead of including individual-level data (the exposure and outcome for a single individual). Consequently, there was a big loss in information, and you cant make accurate decisions on how to model your data if you plot aggregated data. Related to this, your analysis was ecologic (used aggregated/grouped data) but you made individual-level conclusions when you used the term risk factor. This is referred to as an ecologic fallacy and its just that. A fallacy. For example, all we can say based on your cholesterol-colorectal cancer example (the one that doesnt account for schistomiasis) is that the counties with higher mean total cholesterol tend to have higher incidence rates of colorectal cancer. We cant make the leap to calling cholesterol a *risk factor* for colorectal cancer. STEP 3: Dont aggregate your data in your analysis. Why? You lose A LOT of information when you aggregate data and you can bias your results. So keep
7/26/12
that data at the individual-level. For descriptive tables, by all means, aggregated data is necessary for obvious reasons. But in your analysis, individual-level data when youve got it is essential. 3. The right regression model: One of your outcomes was incidence rates of colorectal cancer. When you do your analysis with individual-level data, with incidence rates of colorectal cancer as your outcome, linear regression = WRONG model. Make sure you know which models to use and when. To start when modeling raw rates (case counts and person time), we almost always use Poisson regression, and often we need to account for overdispersion as well. Get to know some of the other common regression models as well. STEP 4: Write out all of the primary exposures of interest you want to investigate and the corresponding outcome of interest and how youre setting up your outcome variable (are you interested in colorectal cancer *incidence rates*, *prevalence*, a simple yes/no the person has colorectal cancer?) STEP 5: Write out what the appropriate regression model would be for the different analyses you plan to conduct. 4. Confounders: These are factors that are related to the exposure and the outcome of interest such that *not* adjusting for them will produce a biased association between exposure and outcome. As you saw, schistomiasis might be a confounder. And in fact, county might be too and is actually upstream of schistomiasis in some sense, right? Two confounders that almost *always* must be included in a model are AGE and SEX (provided your analysis isnt restricted to one sex). This is especially true for chronic disease (eg. cardiovascular disease and cancer). In this particular case, body mass index (BMI) would be very important to include as well. County may also be important. STEP 6: For every analysis you do, write out all potential confounders you can think of and why. You know the data better than I do as youve worked with it extensively. And, from STEP 0, youll know your context. STEP 7: Write out *how* the confounders are related to the exposure and outcome. Is the confounder protective (i.e. decrease risk) for the outcome? Or is it a risk factor? How is it associated with the primary exposure of interest? This is where those scatterplots in STEP 1 come in handy! The purpose of this is to give you an idea of *how* an observed association might be biased if you *dont* adjust for certain confounders. It is tedious, but thorough and, like STEP 6, will allow you to approach your analyses with more contextual background. 5. Cleaning and recoding your data: Raw data is not *in and of itself* a bad thing. It is simply the data in its original form. But in order to be useful for analysis we often need to clean it and recode it. When I say clean it, I mean setting up the *dataset* that is free (to the greatest extent possible) of unnecessary data (for example, if youre interested in ovarian cancer, you wouldnt include men), or mistakes (for example, if an individual in the data was coded as being a man with ovarian cancer, this is clearly wrong). In this case, you might either omit it since you dont have a way to check which is correct or, based on other data for that individual choose to change man to woman or ovarian cancer to no ovarian cancer. Recoding means setting up the *variables* to be useful. For example, we might recode BMI in categories of underweight, normal, overweight, and obese rather than leave it as continuous. Some variables may already be categoric, if the corresponding data were collected that way. STEP 8: Clean your data. You will likely need to set up multiple datasets. STEP 9: Write out *how* youve cleaned your data. (This is good record keeping.) STEP 10: Recode your data. This might include combining variables too. STEP 11: Create a data dictionary similar to the one on the Oxford site. But in addition, include a description of how youve coded your data (eg. 1=underweight, 2=normal, 3=overweight, 4=obese). Again, good for record keeping, but also keeps you honest so others know how you set up your data. This will often be apparent when you present your results, but not always. Its a good habit to keep track of this, in any event. STEP 12: Replot all newly *categorized* variables against the outcome(s) of interest. Why? Because the categorized data may reveal non-linear relationships with the outcome (in fact, this is a strength of categorizing data that we can account for some non-linear relationships). For example, underweight might be a risk for something, whereas normal BMI is protective, while overweight and obese are a risk (U-shaped). 6. Exploration of your data through descriptive statistics: Almost all scientific papers start out with a Table 1 which presents a description of the data. It tells us things like Whats the % of women and men in our data, What is the proportion of people with and without the exposure and with and without the outcome? STEP 13: Create descriptive tables of all relevant variables. This includes your primary exposure of interest, confounders, and outcome. Obviously, you will have different tables for each analysis as youre interested in different primary exposures (cholesterol? meat? total caloric intake?) and outcomes (cardiovascular disease? colorectal cancer? bladder cancer?). To save time, you might include all relevant exposures and confounders in rows, and cross-classify them with all outcomes of interest in columns. 6. Analysis: The fun part. STEP 14: Run your models. Keep track of what you include in your models b/c oftentimes we will evaluate several models for each analysis depending on whats called fit statistics. Since you are familiar with p-values and I assume interpretation of beta coefficients, use these to help inform you of which variables to include in your final model *within the context of the analysis at hand* (this is key if you have reason to believe that a confounder is important to include, keep it in the model even if its non-significant). STEP 15: Create tables for results from *all* analyses (including the models you decide to can in favor for another one) and what regression model was used. This is much more transparent than simply producing your final model. Theres more post-analysis stuff that should be done, but really Steps 1-15 is a pretty thorough. 7. Publish: I cant stress this enough. This is a long-term goal for sure, especially as you will likely end up with multiple papers! But once you think youve got the data setup and analyses down, you need to write it up and send it on for peer-review. Peer-review is not perfect for sure, but it is the best measure we have for good
7/26/12
science. It gives credibility to your efforts. Besides, you *do* want to be acknowledged for your efforts, right? By publishing in a peer-reviewed journal, youre more likely to gain more widely publicized attention, which I think should be the goal of most epidemiological studies; we want to improve public health through informing not only our peers, but also the public. As a last note, I know this is a huge undertaking, but these are steps to a thorough analysis. I have no doubt youre capable of tackling it. Best wishes. Reply 12 07 2010 r (07:54:10) : PS. Im sure you already planned to do this, but make all of the above available. With your large readership, you can make this a collaborative effort. Reply 12 07 2010 mrfreddy (www.beefandwhisky.com) (11:42:16) : R, I havent read it yet, so perhaps you can tell me, which of your 16 steps did TCC follow for his China Project publication? If your argument is that anything less than your complete process is bad science and not to be trusted, what might this say about TCCs work? Reply 13 07 2010 r (21:59:56) : im not trying to defend TCCs work by this post, im merely providing a framework for denise since i offered help, and she accepted. Reply 12 07 2010 CPM (14:16:21) : Hi R, Thanks for sharing all that information on data analysis. I think data analysis is very interesting, and I appreciate you sharing your knowledge. It is amusing though that some people are so simple-minded to think that you are somehow defending the China Study by critiquing Mingers work here. I believe that a vegan website is prominently displaying your comments as some type of defense of the China Study. They are so blind to see how much your thoughtful commentary is so incredibly damning of Campbells work itself. Every criticism you have found with Mingers work applies also to Campbells work, and in most cases it applies even more frequently and strongly to Campbells. The key thing is, Mingers work is just an analysis used to bring to light the problems with Campbells work, whereas apparently many people are using Campbells findings from this ecological data to base and support (and defend) their views on optimal nutrition. These findings that Campbell derived from the uncorrected raw data are so important to some people that they feel the need to attack anybody that questions the analysis and interpretations that were used to reach these findings. Reply 13 07 2010 r (22:01:26) : fair points. but i think its important to remember that the china study relied not only on the data from the china project, but hundreds of other studies as well. Reply 12 07 2010 Rick (08:30:49) : Denise, you might not want to trust this Rayna woman. She is part of a group called Debunking the China Study Critics herehttp://www.30bananasaday.com/group/debunkingthechinastudycritics/forum Where she posted thisMy response to Denises acceptance of my offer to assist, Its purpose was to re-articulate the limitations of her analysis, but also to inform. Good science should prevail, after all. Also, I think its good to attack with kindness. Clearly she is not approaching this with intent to help you but to prove you wrong and make it look as though your argument is weak. I encourage everyone to go to the first link and see what the insane vegans are doing. They arent interested in science, theyre interested in pushing their own agenda. This is plainly obvious. They arent even interested in you doing more analysis, they just want to destroy your hard work because they dont like its outcome. Sickening. Reply 12 07 2010 r (15:37:08) : Im really sorry for using the wrong words. I can see how they can be misconstrued. Anyhow, I think its important to be kind, whether I agree. When I wrote it out attack, I was thinking of a shirt my husband has with bouncing Buddhas acting as bullets as a funny way to portray pacificism. I genuinely wished to offer help and guidance to Denise as she is clearly a smart, ambitious woman who simply needed a little push to expand what shes already done. In any event, I can see Im not at all welcome here, so I will close out and wish everyone luck.
7/26/12
Reply 13 07 2010 Bushrat (04:52:24) : Perhaps you could send an email to Campbell and offer to help him with his statistics. He clearly needs a refresher course. It seems that the China study is nothing but a large data set waiting for someone to properly analyse it. With your experience and statistical knowledge you should try it. You would certainly do a better job than Campbell. Reply 3 05 2011 Victoria (23:57:11) : RToo bad others have made personal attacks on you. Denise did an impressive job. But as you pointed out, it needs to be checked by others who are qualified to do so. A mistake she may have made would be almost impossible for her to identify herself. I hope she follows your suggestions and submits her work for peer-reviewed publication. Reply 12 07 2010 Sam Mac (11:17:51) : Fantastic. This is analyzing data done right. If only all our scientists were this diligent and competent we would be living in a much better world. A big thanks for all the hard work. Reply 12 07 2010 Catherine Clark (11:59:53) : My husband had throat cancer last year and lost most of his swallowing capacity due to the procedures done. He was advised to go vegan to keep the cancer from returning. We believe this was successful, as well as doing his best to get his system back to a better PH. However, veganism, and he was practicing it in good form using high quality foods, still left him in a weakened state. When we became the pick-up location for raw milk products in our area, he met a nutritionist that advised him to add some raw eggs and raw, high quality animal protein to his diet. He started with the raw eggs in his blends, as he is now mostly tube fed from the cancer procedures. What a difference! The addition of just 1 raw egg in each of his tube blends made a huge difference in his energy levels. Of course he uses eggs from a trusted source from our local farmers market, with very clean conditions and healthy hens that are allowed for forage for themselves and we can tell the eggs are of good quality. He also found that adding a small amount of high quality, grass feed meat to his diet made another difference in his energy level. So while he continues to alkalize his system, he has now balanced his dietary needs so that he is now able to return to work in the trades and even lift his floor sander once again as he now finds his strength returning, which it wasnt doing on a vegan diet. Reply 12 07 2010 r (15:38:53) : Catherine, I saw this and just had to respond. I am so happy to hear your husband is doing better. I hope he doesnt have to have any more chemotherapy or radiation therapy horrible stuff!! Best wishes to you both. Reply 12 07 2010 A Challenge and Response to The China Study | Life Outside The Box | Tynan (13:58:03) : [...] people, all suggesting that I check out the same article. A really smart and thorough girl wrote a critique of The China Study which resonated with me. Ive been sent a few critiques of the China Study before, but none [...] Reply 12 07 2010 Alex (14:36:52) : Awesome post. Thank you, Denise! Alex Reply 12 07 2010 anon (15:07:26) : Denise, I dont know if youve actually heard from Campbell directly, but he is bad-mouthing you to third-parties, and questioning whose water your carrying. However, you ought to read it so you can pre-emptively address his velveteen slander: http://tynan.net/chinastudyresponse It is a nasty piece of work, probably the most impressive array of back-handed compliments Ive ever read. Reply 12 07 2010 Binko Barnes (16:29:20) : There are plenty of good reasons to abstain from meat eating. But maximizing nutrition and health is not one of them. Humans evolved eating meat. In fact, its pretty much a universal truth that all societies of humans seek out animal products and consume them on as regular a basis as they are able. However, its perfectly valid to abstain from meat for ethical or environmental reasons. Most Buddhists, for example, refrain from meat eating because reverence for all life is central to Buddhism. Just dont expect to have your choice validated on nutritional grounds. As a poster noted above, John Robbins, who is vegan, let his honesty overcome his bias
7/26/12
and wrote a book called Healthy At 100 about the most healthy societies on earth. All of them consumed some degree of animal products. Im baffled by the need that people have to seek endless validation for their choices. If vegans decide to stop eating meat because they believe that factory farms are barbaric or because they believe that industrial meat production is very destructive of the environment why isnt that enough? Personally, I would like to be a vegan. But I cant. I want good health. I want to live a moral life but I dont want to sacrifice my health to do so. Reply 13 07 2010 Alex (19:44:18) : Vegans do not have a monopoly on morality. Here are my thoughts on that: http://feedmelikeyoumeanit.blogspot.com/2010/04/case-against-dogmatic-veganism-short.html Reply 14 07 2010 anand srivastava (09:33:17) : Just pointing out that the current Dalai Lama eats meat. He is not happy about it, but eats it because he is not healthy otherwise. He is from a region that is traditionally at a very high altitude and experiences very little sun. This makes it very important to eat meat for the Vitamin D. Infact he is the first Dalai Lama to be Vegetarian . http://www.ivu.org/people/writers/lama.html Farming is bad period. That includes Vegetables and grains grown in Farms. We should return to eating only that which grows in the Wild. But I guess that is not practically possible. So everybody tries to determine their own ways. Reply 26 04 2012 THINk (23:48:00) : If the current Dalai Lama eats meat, then he is not a vegetarian. Also, there are very few natural sources of vitamin D, and beef is not one of them (minus the liver). Cholesterol in our skin (cholesterol helps give our cells structure) is a precursor for vitamin D, and is converted into vitamin D through direct contact to sun light. Sustainable farming is our way of using what our beautiful-life-giving Earth has to offer without destroying it. So, farming is not bad as long as it doesnt upset the Earths natural balances. I grow organic vegetables in a space I made in my garden. Does that make me a demon farmer thats destroying our planet? No. Thats Monsantos job. Reply 12 07 2010 Mark (17:18:42) : Can you please increase the font size? Very difficult to read and hard on eyes. Reply 16 08 2010 herbguy (08:58:37) : I second that motion! With all the sincerity and respect my bifocals and tear strained eyes can evoke. Reply 12 07 2010 Mark (17:25:44) : I dont have time to review every comment but did quickly scan the text. This analysis seems very impressive, especially given the writers young age with no training in nutritional science (see her web page). She claims to have no biaseseither for or againstbut nonetheless liberally uses adjectives and cutesy expressions that leaves me wondering. As far as her substantive comments are concerned, almost all are based on her citing univariate correlations in the China project that can easily mislead, especially if one of the two variables does not have a sufficient range, is too low to be useful and/or is known to be a very different level of exposure at the time of the survey than it would have been years before when disease was developing. There is a number of these univariate correlations in the China project (associations of 2 variables only) that do not fit the model (out of 8000, there would be) and most can be explained by one of these limitations. A more appropriate method is to search for aggregate groups of data, as in the affluent vs. poverty disease groups, then examine whether there is any consistency within groups of biomarkers, as in considering various cholesterol fractions. This is rather like using metanalysis to obtain a better overview of possible associations. I actually had written material for our book, elaborating some of these issues but was told that I had already exceeded what is a resonable number of pages. There simply were not enough pages to go into the lengthy discussions that would have been requiredand I had to drop what I had already written. This book was not meant to be an exhaustive scientific treatise. It was meant for the public, while including about as much scientific data and discussion that the average reader would tolerate. She also makes big issues out of some matters that we had no intent to include because we knew well certain limitations with the data. For example, only 3 counties (of the 65) consumed dairy and the kind of dairy consumed (much of it very hard sun-dried cheese) was much different from dairy in the West. It makes no sense to do that kind of analysis and we did none, both because of the limited number of sample points and because we discovered after the project was completed that meat consumption for one of the counties, Tuoli, was clearly not accurate on the 3 days that the data were being collected. On those days, they were essentially eating as if it were a feast to impress the survey team but on the question of frequency of consumption over the course of a year, it was very different. Still, the reviewer makes a big issue of our not including the data for this county as if I were being devious. In short, she has done what she claims that should not be donefocusing on narrowly defined data rather than searching for overarching messages, focusing on the trees instead of the forest.
7/26/12
I very carefully stated in the book that there are some correlations that are not consistent with the message and, knowing this, I suggested to the reader that he/she need not accept what is said in the book. In this very complex business it is possible to focus on the details and make widely divergent interpretations but, in so doing, miss the much more important general message. In the final analysis, I simply asked the reader to try it and see for themselves. And the results that people have achieved have been truly overwhelming. One final note: she repeatedly uses the V words (vegan, vegetarian) in a way that disingenuously suggests that this was my main motive. I am not aware that I used either of these words in the book, not once. I wanted to focus on the science, not on these ideologies. I find it very puzzling that someone with virtually no training in this science can do such a lengthy and detailed analysis in their supposedly spare time. I know how agricultural lobbying organizations do itlike the Weston A Price Foundation with many chapters around the country and untold amounts of financial resources. Someone takes the lead in doing a draft of an article, then has access to a large number of commentators to check out the details, technical and literal, of the drafts as they are produced. I have no proof, of course, whether this young girl is anything other than who she says she is, but I find it very difficult to accept her statement that this was her innocent and objective reasoning, and hers alone. If she did this alone, based on her personal experiences from age 7 (as she describes it), I am more than impressed. But she suffers one major flaw that seeps into her entire analysis by focusing on the selection of univariate correlations to make her arguments (univariate correlations in a study like this means, for example, comparing 2 variableslike dietary fat and breast cancerwithin a very large database where there will undoubtedly be many factors that could incorrectly negate or enhance a possible correlation). She acknowledges this problem in several places but still turns around and displays data sets of univariate correlations. One further flaw, just like the Weston Price enthusiasts, is her assumption that it was the China project itself, almost standing alone, that determined my conclusions for the book (it was only one chapter!). She, and others like her, ignore much of the rest of the book. Can any other diet match the findings of Drs. Esslestyn, Ornish and McDougall, who were interviewed for our book (and now an increasing of other physicians have done with their patients)? No diet or any other medical strategy comes close to the benefits that can be achieved with a whole foods, plant based diet. I also know that critics like her would like nothing better than to get me to spend all my time answering detailed questions, but I simply will not do this. As we said in our book, no one needs to accept at face value what I say. Rather, as we said in the book, Try it and the results will be what they are. So far, the reports of positive benefits have been nothing less than overwhelming. I hope this helps, although it was written in haste. Colin http://tynan.net/chinastudyresponse Reply 12 07 2010 Whatsonthemenu (23:41:00) : Young girl? She looks like an adult to me. How would you like being called gramps? Ageism cuts both ways. If Denise Minger is a young girl, then your co-author of the China Study was a young boy when he helped you write the book, Dr. Campbell. Reply 13 07 2010 Alex (02:57:08) : Mark/Colin says: I know how agricultural lobbying organizations do itlike the Weston A Price Foundation with many chapters around the country and untold amounts of financial resources. The Weston A Price Foundation is a non-profit. As such, their books are open to the public. Their budget for 2009 was$1,406,000. This hardly qualifies as untold amounts of financial resources. http://www.westonaprice.org/funding-3.html (or check their actual IRS filing). The fact that you failed to check the facts on this, and instead resorted to ad hominem (feminem?) attacks, undermines any claim you might have to objectivity or sound research methodology. Reply 27 08 2010 Igor (10:05:33) : Yup, hes definitely taking the low road. Not only by attacking the Weston A. Price Foundation, which is a tiny, underfunded, understaffed group composed mainly of volunteers, but by insinuating that the author of this piece is a shill. I wonder how much hes being paid by the soy/corn/cotton industry? Reply 1 01 2011 E S Hunt (22:49:13) : The harshness of the comments directed at this book are quite suspect. To ignore the whole sum of the book with flippant demeaning statements is more diversion than science. ? Trying to elevate one-self by putting down others perhaps? Campbells work looks at some real anomalies in the health/nutrition /science fields of today, and they are not minor, and should not be dismissed. Thank you Colin Campbell for your science, and your bravery in revealing some of these situations to the public. Im aware of more such actions, and I think you may have understated it. I think some of your analyses are intriguing, Denise. I hope the statistical methods suggested by others will strengthen and refine your observations, and further good scientific findings. Reply 12 07 2010
7/26/12
CPM (18:46:42) : You know, instead of worrying about WPF boogey-men and telling people to just try the diet espoused in the book and see if it works, it would be nice if Campbell simply explained how he performed his analysis of this particular data set and reached his conclusions, and then he could make this publicly available, say in a scientific journal where it could undergo peer-reviewor at least on the internet so that interested parties could review his methods. Just sayin Reply 13 07 2010 DML (04:24:15) : LOL! I agree CPM! I was just about ready to make a similar point, but you beat me to the punch. His post was mostly hand-waving and ad hominem attacks, as Alex stated. I do think he made some valid points, too bad it was surrounded by nonsense. Reply 13 07 2010 N (17:13:10) : Ms. Minger, thank you for sharing the fruits of your study of this research. It has clearly generated a great deal of conversation and that usually is a good thing. I hope that it helps you move towards the graduate studies in nutrition that you state elsewhere on your blog interest you and that you might become equipped with a professional toolbox for this kind of analysis. @CPM Im not interested in taking sides in the conclusions that people are debating here, but regarding your comment Campbell has published extensively on these topics. You might start with Diet and chronic degenerative diseases: perspectives from China by Campbell and Junshi, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol 59, 1153S-1161S, available for free download at http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/59/5/1153S . Unlike the third party summary of results without discussion of methodology that Ms. Minger used to structure her analysis, a choice that makes sense for presentation purposes, this summary of research includes description of the analyses and some reasoning behind the choices made in them, as well as references to the individual studies for further study. Theres room for discussion and debate about the conclusions reached based on any experimental results, but Dr. Campbell has been exceedingly transparent and professional in carrying out his research and there is no cause for accusations of obfuscation or fraud as I see in many of these comments. Reply 13 07 2010 JD (18:05:10) : Interesting to see that Campbells own published work seems to rely on nothing but univariate correlations. At one point, he says, based on an overview of the univariate correlations, colon and rectal cancer mortality rates were consistently inversely correlated with all fiber and complex carbohydrate fractions except for pectin. He never mentions any terms or concepts (such as regression or multivariate) anywhere else that suggest anything other than univariate correlations. Reply 13 07 2010 CPM (18:41:46) : Hi N, Im not that experienced at this sort of thing, but in the paper you reference it appears all of his correlations are univariate. That has been a criticism by some of Minger. There has been the implication in some of Campbells responses to critics that he used a more sophisticated analysis than his critics did, but as of yet no one has pointed out any evidence of this as far as I can tell. Like I said, Im not that experienced in this sort of stuff and I might be missing something, but the paper you referenced appears to be very lacking in the epidemiological requirements that some are demanding of Minger and in fact appears less sophisticated than Minger in the analysis of confounding variables. Reply 13 07 2010 N (19:25:29) : With the amount of research in discussion here theres no way around looking at specific studies if that is the level of detail you desire. A summary can be only that. I provided that citation as more detailed summary (but still only a general summery) that also included references that would allow one to identify the literature where these studies were discussed in full detail. It is simply a more informative starting point than the paper Ms. Minger used for presentation purposes. For example, using the academic summary rather than the popular one, it is easy to follow up with Nonassociation of Aflatoxin with Primary Liver Cancer in a Cross-Sectional Ecological Survey in the Peoples Republic of China, in CANCER RESEARCH 50, 6882-6893, and see the multivariate regression analysis that examines the relationship between the variables of interest that cannot be answered by the univariate approaches given in the summary and examined in further detail by Ms. Minger. While methods such as this multivariate regression analysis can be found in several of those specific studies, I do think that Dr. Campbell relies a bit heavily on simple correlations. However he is attempting to map out mechanisms of disease that are not easily modeled with conventional statistics alone, and this employs other areas of expertise in addition to the simple data analysis. Again, his conclusions are open for debate, but his approach here is uncontroversial. There is a whole discipline of computational biology dedicated to that kind of modeling that came of age after Dr. Campbells research career came to a close that might further explore these ideas in a more data intensive way. At the level of the individual study, however, his methods meet professional standards and are described in detail that should be taken into account before leveling the kinds of accusations seen throughout this discussion. Reply 13 07 2010 JD (20:15:45) : N the fact that Campbell used multiple regression in a previous article on alfatoxins doesnt excuse his failure to do so as to The China Study; it makes it even more inexplicable. Moreover, this just doesnt make sense: However he is attempting to map out mechanisms of disease that are not easily modeled with conventional statistics
7/26/12
alone. Not true at all. Reply 13 07 2010 N (20:27:52) : @JD The paper mentioned *is* part of The China Study. The China Study is not a single work, except perhaps as a reference to the data set gathered. Whatever summary of The China Study we look at, whether it is the popular book, the popular summary on the Cornell website that Ms. Minger used, or the journal article I provided, in the end it hangs on those individual studies such as the article an alflatoxins. It is a large body of work. And quite Im curious why you would say that the complex systems involved in disease development are easily modeled by conventional statistics alone. Reply 13 07 2010 JD (22:27:11) : OK, so what youre saying is that Campbell was somehow able to use multiple regression for the aflatoxin part of the China Study, but when it came to his much-publicized conclusions about plants vs. meat, he was suddenly forced to use univariate correlations because of . . . something about conventional statistics? Unbelievable. Univariate correlations are conventional statistics themselves, just of a fairly worthless sort. Nor is there anything about disease development that prevented Campbell from controlling for numerous other factors. Reply 13 07 2010 N (23:24:37) : @JD No, thats not what Im saying at all. And its become clear that youre not interested in real discussion on the matter. But I will clarify one last time. Hes clearly fond of summarizing information with correlations, and I suggested that this was perhaps overdone, but he is able to back that up with references to the in-depth analysis on which his conclusions are based. Those lists of sources at the end of these articles and taking up a good 35 pages at the end of his book arent for decoration, they provide supporting information. Debate his conclusions, but these methods are not suspect. Reply 13 07 2010 neisy (23:30:37) : Actually, many of Campbells references dont actually support what he cites them for. For example, in Chapter 1, Campbell states Heart disease can be prevented and even reversed by a healthy diet and lists two references. Both those references are for studies that use diet *in conjunction* with other lifestyle changes (quitting smoking, stress management, exercise) or drugs (cholesterol lowering medications), making it unclear whether diet alone or the other changes improved heart health. And both studies were merely preliminary. Other examples of misleading citations abound in the book. Footnotes make things look authoritative, but even they require further investigation to validate. Reply 14 07 2010 N (00:11:20) : Indeed, attention to references is always a must. Both for the information they provide and the information may they fail to provide. In my attempts to clarify my meaning I probably overstated the confidence one could place in the unchecked content of any given reference in order to explain that they are present to provide information that cannot be included in such a high level summary of results. My point is simply that there is room to debate his conclusions, but that this should be done based on a full appraisal of the work and not just the summarized information. I think this should be a pretty uncontroversial position! Reply 12 07 2010 Kevin (18:56:42) : Awesome post, thanks Denise! I included snipets and linked to your article in my blog post: http://healthymindfitbody.com/2010/07/12/the-china-study-bitesthe-dust/ Cheers, Kevin Reply 12 07 2010 Alex (19:14:07) : Can you please increase the font size? Very difficult to read and hard on eyes. Mark, you can use your browsers zoom function to increase the text size on your end. Reply 12 07 2010 Rick (20:32:12) : LOL. Classic Campbell there. Can you imagine anyone else in a position of prominence behaving the way he does? How can anyone take this buffoon seriously? Reply 12 07 2010 AgingBoomersBlog.com China Study Unmasked (20:50:49) : [...] who has fallen for the nonsense in Campbells so-called research, you must click here right now to read Denise Mingers outstanding expose of the bogus and dangerously misleading China [...] Reply 12 07 2010 Yet another independent debunking of "The China Study" book (21:31:34) : [...] list of debunkers. I highly recommend her six-part series, but these two are good places to start: The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? Notice Campbell cites a
7/26/12
chain of three variables: Cancer associates with cholesterol, cholesterol [...] Reply 13 07 2010 neisy (02:06:29) : Hi all, Once again a gigantic thank you! for the feedback, questions, and other comments that keep pouring in. Im up to my nose in a sea of emails (anyone have a snorkel handy?), and if youve written to me, I do promise a response is on the way! Maybe not very soon. But itll come. Cross my heart. I was thrilled to see that Mr. Campbell took the time to reply to my critique. Also thrilled to see he called it impressive and insinuated I may have a research team (nope, just me), although I wish he had gotten a little deeper into the methodology he himself used. Ill be addressing all of the points he raised in my next blog post, which will be a combination of responses to both his reply and to some questions Ive received from readers. It seems the main criticisms against my review so far are that Im using raw data and univariate correlations. This misses the point completely, as Im trying to point out that its Campbell whose claims, in every single instance, align perfectly with the raw data but become erroneous once major confounders have been adjusted for. Ill try to explain this point better in my reply, as perhaps I didnt make it clear enough in the critique. In addition, as Ill explain in my reply, univariate correlations werent the only ones I used in my analysis theyre just the only ones I chose to include in this post. I felt theyd be effective for getting my message across to a standard audience who may not be too interested in stats jargon, since theyre a simple way to illustrate the effects of confounding variables and theyre easy to graph visually. I also ran multiple variable regressions on the data I used and it corroborated with what I achieved through the more crude methods highlighted in this critique. In the not-too-distant future, Ill be writing a separate post with the results of these regressions and maybe including downloadable spreadsheets with some data, so any skeptics can test for themselves what Ive done. Again, I cant even express how grateful I am for all the responses. I have not replied to most of the comments left on this post due to time constraints, but I *have* read each and every one of them. So, thank you. And stay tuned. Reply 13 07 2010 Eva (04:07:08) : I am disappointed that Campbell decided to make rude insinuations instead of simply explaining how he got his numbers. My prediction is he and some associates will be creating a continuous stream of hoops for Ms Minger to jump through which they will claim are needed in order to be professional. They will claim they are doing this as a kind favor to help her. The more hoops she jumps through, the more byzantine and laborious the hoops that will be presented. Meanwhile, they themselves will continue to not give any explanation for their own erroneous looking conclusions. But hey I could be wrong and if the truth varies greatly from that prediction, it should become vastly more interesting. I will stay tuned to see how it comes out! Reply 13 07 2010 xtremecoutureathleticpharmaceuticals (04:51:55) : You did a great job with this. I am impressed. I will refer athletes to this very post the next time one of them brings up the China Study. Dr. John Fitzgerald (Blood Doc John) XCAP.tv Reply 13 07 2010 Neet Ielasi (08:26:53) : As one who tends to glaze overwhen it comes to long winded posts,i (almost ) read every word you wrote..Again Denise you are freakn amazing woman,finally some one with a balanced view point on that stinking China study,thanks for a balanced view point you are sharing with us here. I am also a reformed raw vegan,thank goodness,before my health totally melted in a puddle in front of me! keep up the good work babe Reply 13 07 2010 el-bo (10:53:47) : there goes my, planned, internet hiatus :D i was pretty sure you wouldnt have put so much work into this without first checking that you had something more to offer, in terms of critique, than previous attempts maybe you showed your hand too early and maybe it was a mistake to pander to those, like myself, who needed the simplified version but at least we got the rather disappointing and inevitable (and dismissive/patronising) campbell rebuttal out of the way to watch the masses scurry around on the sidelines condemning you at all stages, disregarding your stated intention and your, still, valid doubts regarding campbells own methodology is more than a little amusing.such entertainment and no one is charging for tickets whatever the outcome, it is inspirational to see the huge effort you have put into this and the way you have handled yourself through it all. it seems there is more to comelooking forward to it Reply 13 07 2010 Chris Masterjohn (13:49:42) : Fantastic job Denise! Ive finally gotten through your material and Im glad youve taken the critiques offered thus far to a new and much more in-depth level. Ive posted a link to your work on my blog.
7/26/12
Chris Reply 13 07 2010 ffnz (16:05:10) : Hello Denise, Thank you for sharing your analysis. A question: did you use age adjusted data, that is, compare the prevalence of diseases in similarly aged participants across counties and countries? Reply 15 07 2010 ffnz (20:04:39) : Does anyone recall reading whether Denise used age-adjusted data for her analysis? Ive looked, but havent been able to find any reference to this on the site. Thanks. Reply 13 07 2010 Fat Head Outstanding Critique of The China Study (17:19:00) : [...] read critiques of The China Study before, but a young blogger recently posted her own, and its a thing of beauty. As Ive mentioned in a few posts, my college physics [...] Reply 13 07 2010 Martin Levac (18:00:15) : Denise, Campbell said this here: http://tynan.net/chinastudyresponse No diet or any other medical strategy comes close to the benefits that can be achieved with a whole foods, plant based diet. In rebuttal: http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/ketones-and-ketosis/low-carb-gaining-a-foothold-with-the-mainstream/ Just in case you need some ammo. Reply 13 07 2010 Mark (18:08:13) : I was a vegetarian/vegan for over a decade and have nothing but respect for those who choose a plant-based diet, even though Ive chosen to eat animal products for health reasons. My goal, with the The China Study analysis and elsewhere, is to figure out the truth about nutrition and health without the interference of biases and dogma. I have no agenda to promote. If you had said, data doesnt support the plant based diets claim, would have been fine by me. Here you are saying youve chosen to eat animal products for health reasons. Animal products are dangerous to neutral is one thing, you infact go to an extent of terming them as healthy. Can you tell us how animal protein is health protective? You write youve respect for those who follow plant based diet but wouldnt do it yourself. I smell some fish here! Reply 13 07 2010 neisy (19:08:29) : Hi Mark, Thats not quite what I said. I eat animal products for health reasons means I reintroduced them into my diet and discovered the health problems I experienced as a vegan vanished. In repeated experiments of going back to veganism and then back to non-veganism, Ive found that, for me, the animal products are the factor keeping those problems from cropping up again. I prefer to eat whole foods than to supplement, so non-vegan is the route Ive gone rather than stuffing my cupboard with pills. For me, this is what helped. I also believe the human body is incredibly adaptable and can survive on numerous combinations of foods, so I dont feel I have the authority to say that what does (or doesnt) work for me will (or wont) work for others. I just want to give people access to information, and then let them use it how they wish. I have no interest in delineating a single optimal diet. There are plenty of other folks tackling that goal. Reply 13 07 2010 Alex (19:11:30) : I have respect for people who choose to live their life as Buddhist monks, but I wouldnt do it myself. I have respect for firefighters, but I wouldnt do it myself. Reply 13 07 2010 Joy Houston (19:16:05) : After reading Lynne McTaggarts book The Field, Id have to agree with your end summary that Campbell, and all researchers to some degree, find what they are looking for. The fact that they are looking for results skews the possibility on non-biased data. Thank you for the very comprehensive breakdown. Impressive. Reply
7/26/12
13 07 2010 meatnpotatoesforlife (19:27:55) : In fact, when running MRA the protective trends for animal foods were even more accentuated in most cases (I recall a -70 between animal protein and cardiovascular diseases) I find this very interesting. Campbells dug his own grave with his response and cant wait for more on this series. I also find his claims of the Tuoli data being unreliable to be disingenuous, as if they spent an entire year in every other county to get their raw data. Also, thanks to the innanets, we now have visual proof of what some these nomadic tribesmen actually eat. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZMCZo9TPNs Granted this is Mongolia and not Tuoli but Id imagine the diet is similar all across the wide swath of land from Mongolia to the Central Asian countries. Great work, as usual Denise! Reply 13 07 2010 Daniel (19:33:05) : Amazing work Denise! A very outstanding analysis of the China Study. I am amazed by the amount of work you put into this. Ive read critiques of the study but your work is the best so far in my opinion. While I somewhat agree with your skeptics that it would be ideal to use multiple regression analysis on your data and show it to us, it would be better for them to prove to us that Campbell used only or mainly multiple regressions to construct his conclusions, and also show us that by using multiple regression on the data, it will lead to a different conclusion than yours. Reply 13 07 2010 r (20:21:47) : A number of people have pointed out that the criticisms of Denises analysis apply to Campbell as well, and since they seem to be at least somewhat familiar with statistics, Ill expand on my initial critique (Denise, I hope this will be helpful to you as you build on your initial analysis). First and foremost Denise did not take into account potential confounders. I think everyone understands at this point that confounders can bias the observed correlation towards or away from the null (i.e., correlation=0). She only *partially* took schistosomiasis into account by restricting her analysis to counties without schistosomiasis. Her p-values only reflect the test of whether the correlation was significantly different from zero. *Not* if there was a statistically significant change in the exposure-outcome correlation after taking schistomiasis into account. Let me repeat that. The p-values Denise provides reflect whether correlation=0. They do not tell us whether or not schistosomiasis is a potential confounder. To determine this, we need to know if the correlation of +33 for all counties was statistically significantly different from the correlation of +13 for just the counties without schistosomiasis. This is where 95% confidence intervals would be helpful, but Denise doesnt provide these. Nor does she tell us what the correlation is only among counties *with* schistosomiasis. There are several ways to tease out whether we should include a factor in our analysis, but here are two commonly used methods, using the schistosomiasis/cholesterol/colorectal cancer example: Method 1: 1. Calculate correlation for entire sample > Denise calculated this to be +33. 2. Now stratify on the variable you think is a potential confounder, i.e., schistosomiasis, and calculate the correlation within each stratum. > Denise stratified on county but well let this slide b/c this was probably her only choice. For counties with no schistosomiasis, the correlation was +13. What about the correlation for counties with schistosomiasis? Denise does not provide this. 3. Compare the within-strata correlations (+13 and ??) to the correlation for the the entire sample (+33), and test whether they are statistically significantly different from each other (not whether they are significantly different from 0). One should first perform a global test, and if the result is significant, proceed with pair-wise tests. > Denise did not do this. 4. If the correlations are significantly different from each other, then there is evidence that there may be confounding. If they are not significantly different from each other, there is evidence for no confounding. > Denise did not do this. 5. Bonus step: if the pair-wise tests between stratum-specific correlations are significant, this is evidence for effect modification. > Denise did not do this. Method 2: 1. Run a full model that includes cholesterol and schistosomiasis as exposures (ideally, the model would include more than just this, but well keep it simple) and colorectal cancer as the outcome. Obtain the adjusted correlation, and make a note of the residual deviance or log likelihood for the model. 2. Run a reduced model that does not include the variable you think is a potential confounder, i.e., just include cholesterol as an exposure. Make a note of the residual deviance or log likelihood for this reduced model. 3. Now take the difference of the deviance or the -2 times the difference in the log likelihoods. This is your chi-square test statistic with k degrees of freedom (in our example, the degrees of freedom=1). Calculate the corresponding p-value. A significant/small p-value strongly suggests that the we should stick with the full model (i.e., the one with cholesterol and schistosomiasis). A large/non-significant p-value suggests that the full model doesnt add much more information and therefore we would opt for the more parsimonious model. In other words, the reduced model (i.e., the one with cholesterol only) is probably sufficient. Im assuming Denise did none of this since there was no mention of it. To her credit, Denise does mention why she took a look at schistosomiasis. When people criticize Campbell for not including schistomiasis, it is very possible that upon further inspection, it was *not* a potential confounder as Denise concluded based on her results. A factor is a confounder if and only if it: 1. Is associated with the exposure (cholesterol)
7/26/12
2. Is a risk factor or protective factor for the outcome (colorectal cancer), and 3. Is not on the causal pathway between the exposure and outcome. Perhaps criterion 1 was not met and therefore not included in Campbells final analysis. Only Campbell and colleagues know for sure what the detailed analyses were; a final presentation will always include only the most salient points. As for many of Campbells conclusions being drawn from purely ecologic data, I think this ignores the fact that while the China-Cornell-Oxford Project was a large component of the book The China Study, the books thesis is based on hundreds (in fact, nearly 1000) of additional references that corroborate the Projects findings. Reply 13 07 2010 JD (22:33:58) : This is all very interesting, but it does nothing to disprove Mingers criticisms of Campbells findings. Nor is this accurate: the books thesis is based on hundreds (in fact, nearly 1000) of additional references that corroborate the Projects findings. Impossible. There are not hundreds or 1,000 valid studies that would corroborate the conclusion that plants are so superior to meat. For example, a recent systematic review of valid studies found no evidence that meat, eggs, dairy, or saturated fat have any relation to heart disease. See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19364995?dopt=Abstract Reply 14 07 2010 Marco (07:33:12) : Seriously? Does your browser not show italicized text? Maybe the font size is too small? Perhaps you simply lack the ability to read or comprehend the intent? No offense if it wasnt your intent (or rather, no offense at all- just take this as an opportunity to reevaluate your critical thinking skills and writing style)- Your observations are nothing more than pedantic bigotry. Logically, pigeonholing only works if you do so relative to the intent. You dont seem to show an understanding of her intent, so your pigeonholing seems disingenuous and rude. If you understand the intent, you might recognize that she is using a similar methodology as Campbell. Campbell doesnt explicitly outline how he comes to his conclusions, but it is possible to extrapolate his methodology based upon his final numbers and the original data set. Campbell uses data acquired using a specific methodology and then uses that data to support a claim. Denise seems to be emulating the same methodology Reply 14 07 2010 Marco (07:38:45) : Oops, premature entering same methodology and found that there is plenty of data contrary to Campbells claims. Your observations, by derivative, only suggest that Campbells methodology wasnt sufficient to begin with, which support Denises findings. I find it hard to believe that you are some kind of champion of proper analysis when you have little foresight in the logical conclusion of your own observations. Reply 14 07 2010 Bushrat (12:51:06) : Also, for another a very good meta analysis of 21 (If I remember right) papers that found no link between saturated fat and heart disease have a look at this paper: http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/ajcn.2009.27725v1?papetoc Reply 11 09 2010 the0great0t (13:55:56) : The health authorities are fully aware of the serious flaws and omissions in this meta-analysis. This study was funded by the National Dairy Council, dairy being the number one contributor of saturated fat in the U.S. and many other parts of the world. It was also conveniently published just before the USDA lowered the dietary recommendations of saturated fat for the first time in 20 years, from 10% to 7% of total calories. Below is a section from the statement released by the European Heart Network in regards to their opinion of this meta-analysis, titled European Heart Network position piece: Impact of saturated fat on cardiovascular disease obscured by over-adjustment in recent meta-analysis However, the meta-analysis (and an accompanying opinion piece by the same authors (4)) is compromised by a number of serious flaws and omissions. These are enumerated and discussed in detail in an editorial from Jeremiah Stamler (5). The most serious of these flaws is an over-adjustment for serum cholesterol levels. The meta-analysis involves data from 16 studies that evaluate the impact of saturated fat intake on CHD incidence or mortality, and 8 studies that evaluate the impact of saturated fat intake on stroke incidence or mortality. The authors state that wherever possible, risk estimates from the most fully adjusted models were used in the estimation of the pooled [relative risks]. It is well-established that saturated fat intake is associated with increased level of serum cholesterol (6), and that serum cholesterol levels are associated with CHD and CVD (7). Therefore, serum cholesterol levels lie on the causal chain between saturated fat intake and CHD and CVD, and to adjust for serum cholesterol levels in a meta-analysis will obscure the impact of saturated fat intake on these health outcomes. Yet 7 of the 16 studies included in the meta-analysis of CHD events, and 4 of the 8 studies included in the meta-analysis of stroke events were adjusted for serum cholesterol levels. These studies accounted for nearly half of all CHD and CVD events included in the meta-analyses. Adjustment for serum cholesterol levels will inevitably bias the results of the meta-analyses towards finding no association between dietary saturated fat intake and cardiovascular disease, but the authors do not mention this limitation in their article. As Jeremiah Stamler asserts in his editorial, what was actually found by
7/26/12
the meta-analysis was a statistically non-significant relation of SFA [saturated fat] to CHD independent of other dietary lipids, serum lipids, and other covariates (5). A more appropriate and informative analysis would have included non-adjusted associations between saturated fat and cardiovascular disease. An examination of the forest plots provided in the article shows that those cohort studies that did not adjust for serum cholesterol levels were more likely to find a positive association between saturated fat intake and cardiovascular disease, suggesting that a meta-analysis of unadjusted data would likely produce positive results. References 5-7 (5) Stamler J. Diet-heart: a problematic revisit. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2010; 91: 497-499. (6) Clarke R, Frost C, Collins R, Appleby P, Peto R. Dietary lipids and blood cholesterol: quantitative meta-analysis of metabolic ward studies. BMJ, 1997; 314: 112. (7) Prospective Studies Collaboration. Blood cholesterol and vascular mortality by age, sex, and blood pressure: a meta-analysis of individual data from 61 prospective studies with 55,000 vascular deaths. The Lancet, 2007; 370: 1829-1839. The full statement from the European Heart Network can be found here: http://www.sydan.fi/lehtiarkisto/sydan_210/artikkelit/fi_FI/elainrasvat/_files/83538765767049682/default/EHN%20position%20piece%20%20sats%20meta%20analysis.pdf Below is a published study showing reversal of severe heart disease backed up with angiogram evidence. http://www.heartattackproof.com/resolving_cade.htm Reply 16 07 2010 anon (20:20:12) : r, will you be demanding the same of Campbell? Or is this just a bunch of intimidation and hand-waving? Reply 13 07 2010 anon (21:38:28) : It is amazing how many vegans are insistent that Denise do her analysis their way, while, for Campbell, opacity and just trust me serve just fine. r, youd be waiting forever before Campbell could jump through those hoopsin his recent defense, he relies on conspiracy theorizing, snarky remarks about girlishness and his big finish! try it; youll like it. (Of course, his defense was written in haste no doubt he would demolish Denise with actual data if only he werent so very, very busy.) Reply 14 07 2010 anand srivastava (11:29:57) : It seems to me that there are not many only one. They all seem to reason in the same way. It maybe that they all are into group think. When I was reading the 30BAD site. I noticed that Apple-Man (the second poster to this article) was trying to reason with the people there. It was so funny and saddening. I am not sure how he felt about banging his head into the void. I can only pity the pure vegans as to what it does to their brains. I am surprised that some eventually survive with their critical thinking abilities still alive. Lierre Kieths book The Vegetarian Myth is amazing when you understand that she survived the crippling effects of Tofu. Reply 13 07 2010 el-bo (21:41:23) : still confused as to why criticisms of campbells findings would be answered by critiquing denises work, further. Reply 13 07 2010 el-bo (21:46:48) : >It is amazing how many vegans are insistent that Denise do her analysis their way, while, for Campbell, opacity and just trust me serve just fine."n his recent defense, he relies on conspiracy theorizing, snarky remarks about girlishness and his big finish! try it; youll like it.<makes my hair stand on end Reply 13 07 2010 Sarah (22:33:30) : Thanks for the highly informative post. I have two hopefully simple questions first, it seems that the data in the study regarding cancer rates was actually rates of mortality from various cancers. Even in the 1970s, I believe some cancers were successfully treated, but that there would have been quite a strong effect of access to regular medical care (ie, early diagnosis) that would favour populations in industrialized areas. Is this accounted for, or is the assumption in the analyses (both Mingers and Campbells) that mortality rate from cancer = incidence of cancer? Is this also the case for other diseases referenced? Second, my impression from both the China Study book and Mingers post was that individual data was not actually available to be used in the manner suggested by the previous poster? I thought that aggregate data was all that existed; ie, individuals were surveyed regarding dietary habits, and this data was plotted against data from hospitals and health authorities on cancer and disease rates for the local populations as a whole. If this is the case, then surely no more accurate analysis can be done because there is no data on what the individuals who developed cancer or various cardiovascular ailments typically ate. Im no expert in any of this I took stats in university so I can follow the arguments but it seems that the data itself, while certainly suggestive of further lines of inquiry, is insufficient for even identifying real correlations, because there only established link between individuals who participated in the dietary survey and individuals who suffered from various diseases is geographical. How big are the counties? Do they have similar population sizes? China is certainly not a genetically homogeneous country, either were differences in ethnic distributions accounted for?
7/26/12
I guess what Im saying is that Im unconvinced that this data set deserves all the attention its been given. I think Mingers analysis is good in that it points out the shortcomings of The China Study, but it should NOT be used (and I believe she would agree) to argue the opposite point. In the same way that the data doesnt really support the assertion that an all-plant diet is healthy, neither does it support the assertion that an omnivorous, high-meat, or any other type of diet is healthy. Reply 14 07 2010 Chris Masterjohn (02:32:33) : Heres my review of Denises review if anyone would like to read it: Denise Minger Refutes The China Study Once and For All http://www.westonaprice.org/blogs/denise-minger-refutes-the-china-study-once-and-for-all.html Chris Reply 14 07 2010 nomo17k (07:10:30) : Denise. Such a great effort. Why dont you submit a paper on your findings to a respected peer reviewed journal? Given the popularity of your blog, it probably wont be hard for you to collect enough money from readers (donations!) to fund the expenses required for the whole process, if your paper successfully ends up being published. In science, peer review by qualified, relatively unbiased judges is the most important process. You havent proven anything unless your work stands that test. Unfortunately blog is just about the worst place for this kind of process, since most are just interested in promoting their agenda. I cannot trust any of the commenter here, because I have no way of knowing their qualifications. The implication of nutrition science is huge for the public. As such, if your critique of the China Study really stands the test of rigorous scientific reviews, that would be very important. Since I have no knowledge of nutrition, I wish to see how your work is received in the nutrition science community. Please do consider my suggestion seriously. Reply 23 06 2011 Darrel (22:39:53) : I whole heartedly agree. Upon peer review, I dont think there would be much of Ms. Mingers study left standing. Sorry about that. Reply 14 07 2010 Disputing the China Study | Cooking Blog (09:33:31) : [...] The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? Categories: nutrition Tags: Comments (0) Trackbacks (0) Leave a comment Trackback [...] Reply 14 07 2010 peterlepaysan (10:43:46) : nomo17k, you apparently think that a review of someones published conclusions (not peer reviewed) have to be peer reviewed. those of us that reside on planet earth find this somewhat odd. the book is in the public domain. denise minger reviews the book. you demand peer review??????????????? you appear to be a particularly bad pr flack for vegans. oh, btw, nutrition science is a non sequiter. I am bemused by the thought that book reviews have to be peer reviewed. I doubt that any book review has ever involved new research. the book is there ,we can all read it. the review is there, we can all read it. you want peer review? time you started eating meat and getting the brain cells activated. Reply 16 07 2010 nomo17k (04:57:40) : Let me just say a junk comment like yours only serves to taint the serious work that Denise is trying to do exactly the reason why peer review by qualified experts instills a bit more confidence in people who want real information, not religious beliefs from zealots.
7/26/12
By the way I eat meat. Just not the kinds of shit you may be eating at McDonalds. Reply 23 06 2011 Darrel (22:41:18) : Lets state this simply: If its not peer reviewed, its garbage. Reply 14 07 2010 Mark (12:49:13) : While Denises effort is excellent, she too may be biased. As she states, she wanted to critique Campbells China study. So you can not rule some element of bias, without malicious intent. Im not smart enough and stat wizard to tell where Denise is making mistake if at all she made any mistake. Her thought process is pretty cool though i.e. If high meat and dairy = high cholesterol = higher rate of chronic diseases such as cancer and CVD then high rate of meat consumption should be equal to high rate of chronic diseases. Mathematically speaking, if A=B=C then A should be equal to C. Other way to look at this stuff is, there are many world class nutritionist believe that high cholesterol is a risk factor for CVD. Many health organizations specifically focuses and advises people to use less meat, less saturated fat, less dairy along with exercises to reduce the risk of CVD. Framing ham study specifically established risk between high cholesterol and higher rate of CVD.. so Independent of Campbells China Study..how come Denises analysis show it otherwise? Logically thinking it sounds something is a miss? Isnt it? Reply 14 07 2010 CPM (13:18:43) : Hi Mark, I dont think she is the one saying A=B=C, you might want to read it again. Also, you may want to look at these for starters: http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-saturated-fat-review-article-by-dr.html http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2009/12/dirty-little-secret-of-diet-heart.html Reply 14 07 2010 Daniel (18:05:08) : Mark, I think you are trying to mean A=>B and B=>C, so A=>C. So are you trying to say Meat and saturated fat leads to a higher LDL, High LDL leads to a higher incidence of heart diseases so meat and saturates fat leads to a higher incidence of heart disease? Is not exactly A=B=C. From this logic we cannot really deduce no meat and saturated fat => no heart disease. There could also be other factors that cause heart disease. Not to mention that meat or saturated fat actually increases the large fluffy LDL which is harmless and not the small dense ones. Heres a metaanalysis on saturated fats: http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/ajcn.2009.27725v1 The reason why these authorities are advising people to cut out meat and dairy is because of the Ancel Keys 7 countries study which like Campbells study, is guilty of some omissions. Countries like France that consumed a large amount of animal products has less CVD than in the US for example. Reply 14 07 2010 Pallav (13:57:23) : Hey Denise, you might want to give vegetarianism a go again with sprouting + boiling grains(specifically brown rice GBR) and legumes before consuming them to dilute the phytic acid concentration in them which might be inhibiting the micro nutrient uptake by your body . The idea of veganism is mainly practised in the east but sometimes the west takes it without considering the traditional eastern processes prior to consuming the grains and pulses. Conclusions which do not consider the traditional cooking practices cant be entirely relied on! Reply 14 07 2010 anand srivastava (14:31:33) : Pallav, I am an Indian too. And no I dont believe that the Vegetarianism of India can apply to other people. There are three very distinct qualities that are required for being a vegetarian. 1) You must live in a tropical place with year round sun. Vitamin D3 is an absolute requirement. And if you dont get it from sun you must get it from Meat. This applies to people staying indoors and to people living in Northern Climates or high altitudes. This is not negotiable. Nowadays you can supplement. 2) You need to eat a lot of Dairy. The dairy will provide a lot of missing nutrients, like Vitamin B12, Zinc, Iron, Vitamin K2, etc. If you cannot handle Dairy you cannot be vegetarian period. This is also not negotiable. 3) You need to eat a lot of vegetables, particularly greens.
7/26/12
Rest of all is fluff. Even Indians in this age are not taking care of the 3 points. You should know that heart disease, cancer and diabetes are growing like a wild fire in India. The reason is the lack of the above 3 cultural necessities, which people have stopped, due to changed occupations, and doctors advice. Unfortunately you cannot even get good quality dairy in the cities. Bottomline you remain Vegetarian in the present circumstances at a great peril. Move to a village and take up some job that requires staying in the sun most of the day, get a source of grassfed dairy, eat a lot of traditionally grown vegetables, and eat less, then you can be a vegetarian. Incidently eating less calories, but highly dense nutrients helps get rid of a lot of problems. The way Denise is structuring her diet contains a lot of eating less calories (although it involves eating a lot of quantity of food). Reply 14 07 2010 Pallav (14:58:52) : Hi Anand, Its good to see other indians taking interest in nutrition and understanding doctors advice is not always right. For all the points you raise im on the side of population aware of them from health blogs like this! Why i bring eastern cooking practises in the debate is because like a sea saw we are move in favour of plant based diets or animal based diets. weston price versus campbell. Considering the effort put in this research id certainly hope a more balanced take on nutrition can be had giving due credit to both plant and animal based diet (a combination of both) and not allow irrational reductionism to creep in. Giving plant portion of the diet credit is not possible without considering the holistic traditional cooking practice which goes into making it nutritious. Reply 27 08 2010 Igor (10:46:26) : @Pallav Since you brought it up, are you aware that the WAPF doesnt endorse a carnivorous, but rather, omnivorous, diet? That it encourages people to eat grains that have been soaked, sprouted, or fermented, just like you recommend? I often hear people talk about the WAPF as if they were advocating an exclusively meat-based diet. That is simply not true. It makes me wonder if people who think that have actually bothered to read their literature. Reply 14 07 2010 Whatsonthemenu (15:16:27) : In contrast, the variable Green vegetable intake, grams per day has a correlation of only -16 with aridity and +5 with latitude, indicating much looser associations with southern geography. The folks who eat lots of green veggies dont necessarily live in climates with a year-round growing season, but when green vegetables are available, they eat a lot of them. Im wondering how you got that correlation. According to monograph maps and data for green vegetable intake per day, the counties with the highest intakes, Wuhua (monograph code UF 434.9g), Echeng (OB 360.4g), Panyu (UB 341.9g), and Qianshan (JB 311.2) are all located at mid to low latitudes. On the other hand, counties with the very highest latitudes, Baoching (GA 98.0g), Tuoli (WA 26.0g), Changling (FA 86.3g), xinyuan (WB 69.2g), all have very low daily intakes. There are some ups and downs. Some counties at higher latitudes have higher consumption than counties at lower latitudes, and some counties near each other have very different consumption amounts. Speaking as someone who grew up in Michigan and ate out of a garden every summer and as someone who lived in northern China, I cannot visualize how people in a northerly climate with a three-month growing season could possibly eat more green vegetables per day on average than people with access to vegetables year round. Of course, vegetables can be canned and pickled, but salted vegetables are a separate category in the monograph. Im interested in knowing how you got that correlation. Reply 14 07 2010 neisy (18:05:46) : Im wondering how you got that correlation. Its already calculated on the Green vegetable intake (per day) page in the monograph. Look in the table on the most far-right column next to the variable for latitude. Reply 14 07 2010 Whatsonthemenu (18:17:06) : According to the monograph, p557, titled D043 GREENVEG -33 G001 LATITUDE Look at the dots on the map on the preceding page, p556, diet survey GREEN VEGETABLE INTAKE (g/day/reference man, fresh weight). The black dots representing highest intake are concentrated on or near the coast at mid to lower latitudes with a few further inland at mid to lower latitudes. The two mid inland dots are around Beijing, I believe. I notice that the clusters of black dots representing high intakes are around Shanghai and Guangzhou. As I recall from the monograph, while most counties were rural, some suburban counties were included. Reply 15 07 2010
7/26/12
neisy (01:38:34) : Hi Whatsonthemenu, Any chance youre looking at the book Mortality, Biochemistry, Diet and Lifestyle in Rural China rather than Diet, Life-style and Mortality in China? The former actually features the China Project II, which studies additional counties and Taiwan, rather than the first China Project. Many of the numbers may be different. If youre not looking at a book but using the data from Oxfords website, this is also the China Study II data and will be different than what I (and Campbell) used. The overall trends should mostly be the same, but specific correlations could be different between the data sets. Ill put a disclaimer about that on the page where I link to it. If you are using Diet, Life-style and Mortality in China, let me know and Ill check to see if Ive made an error. I try to be scrupulous about that and check my work 80 times, so Im hoping this isnt the case. Reply 15 07 2010 Whatsonthemenu (02:09:59) : Yes, I am. That explains the discrepancy. You might want to revisit this hypothesis, however: Since only frequency and not actual quantity of greens seems protective of heart disease and stroke, its safe to say that greens probably arent the true protective factor. Would you agree that foods which confer some health benefits, such as omega-3 rich fish, offer more protection if eaten regularly than if eaten only a few months of the year? Eating, say, 2 servings of fresh green vegetables a day for four months isnt the same as eating those 2 servings for a period of 10 months. If you believe that latitude-dependent vitamin D is a protective factor, I would agree with you completely. However, regular consumption of fresh green vegetables may also offer some protection. Reply 14 07 2010 Chew Man Foo (15:18:58) : Now all Denise has to answer is http://www.drmcdougall.coms anecdotal evidence that moving from meat eating to vegan diet helps many people get off diabetes and heart medication. Watch the testimonial videos Meanwhile, shes still got to answer all the global warming problems with the way we raise livestock now (according to a recent U.N. report, raising livestock accounts for more global warming than all human transportation combinedsee: http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/content?oid=775299 for one footnote). Reply 14 07 2010 Pallav (17:56:46) : Too much of anything is bad! balance between plant/animal diet has to be maintained. people on either extreme of the spectrum will suffer a variety of problems. Reply 15 07 2010 Alex (02:52:52) : I think we can call agree that there are big problems with the way we raise livestock nowenvironmental problems and health problems. I disagree that Denise has to answer those issues in the present article. Thats a whole other issue. Having said that, I would add that raising livestock using non-CAFO, polyculture methods, grass-fed for cattle, is better in every respect than what most animal operations are doing now. Managed properly, animals are a net positive for the environment, not a net negative. And we have the technologyweve had it for thousands of years. We just dont have the political will and proper economic incentives to make the changes. Reply 14 07 2010 Alternative Medicine Expertise from Aspire Natural Health Blog Archive More (and probably the last) on the China Study (15:37:37) : [...] Denise Minger published a statistics-based scathing review of the China Study (found here at http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-orfallac/-305). This has, as expected, created some heavy [...] Reply 14 07 2010 Whatsonthemenu (15:48:06) : Back again. The green vegetable page on the monograph lists a correlation of -33 with latitude. This shocked me. Some southwest inland provinces are extremely poor, and I wondered if some very poor lower latitude outliers are throwing the statistics. I noticed that the correlation with elevation is almost the same at -30. Rocky, acidic soils are not good for crop cultivation. Looking at provinces with extremely low green vegetable intakes, I noticed Huguan (CB 0.0, midnorth inland), Shangshui (DA 15.3 mid inland), Xuanwei (RA 6.8 low inland), Longde (XB 17.6 midnorth inland), and Jingxing (BB 8.4, midnorth, listed as in a coastal province but appears to be inland on map). By looking at the locations on a map, I know that some of these counties with very low daily green vegetable intakes are located in mountainous areas, but I do not know their exact elevations, and Im not ambitious enough to check them out. My point is that I think we can learn more by looking at the trees than the forest with regard to daily green vegetable intake and many other food items as well. Reply
7/26/12
14 07 2010 Whatsonthemenu (18:08:39) : Oops, I misinterpreted latitude. A negative correlation is expected for green vegetables if people consume less of them the further north they live. Reply 14 07 2010 Ian (17:55:48) : Here is a rebuttal to Denises article that accuses her of a naive understanding of statistical analysis. Here is one of the most damning of the criticisms: when she refers to statistical significance, all thats being tested is the null hypothesis that there is no correlation (i.e. correlation = 0). it is not testing whether an exposure is or is not a risk factor for the outcome, even though Denise uses this term loosely. Also, we all know that correlation is not causality and risk factors are not the same as causes. http://www.30bananasaday.com/group/debunkingthechinastudycritics/forum/topics/a-cancer-epidemiologist/ Reply 14 07 2010 neisy (18:02:45) : As Ill explain better in my next post (hopefully up by tomorrow), Im simply replicating the methods Campbell used which were mainly univariate correlations straight from the raw data and showing how they failed to account for confounders. The criticisms RE: my statistical methods apply directly to him. They can nail me for taking a too simplistic approach, but in doing so, theyre cutting of their foot to spite their leg, so to speak. Reply 14 07 2010 Ian (18:14:14) : Im simply replicating the methods Campbell used, which were mainly univariate correlations. The criticisms RE: my statistical methods apply directly to him. Not according to the article I cited. Campbell did not perform his analysis on raw data and any good scientist would adjust for confounding variables. Are you saying Campbell didnt do that? Campbells study is flawed, but that has already been noted by Anthony Colpo, Chris Masterjohn, and many others. The article also accused you of deleting a comment. QUOTE. Your analysis is completely OVER-SIMPLIFIED. Every good epidemiologist/statistician will tell you that a correlation does NOT equal an association. By running a series of correlations, youve merely pointed out linear, non-directional, and unadjusted relationships between two factors. I suggest you pick up a basic biostatistics book, download a free copy of R (an open-source statistical software program), and learn how to analyze data properly. Im a PhD cancer epidemiologist, and would be happy to help you do this properly. While Im impressed by your crude, and at best preliminary analyses, it is quite irresponsible of you to draw conclusions based on these results alone. At the very least, you need to model the data using regression analyses so that you can account for multiple factors at one time. UNQUOTE Reply 14 07 2010 neisy (18:25:10) : Not according to the article I cited. Campbell did not perform his analysis on raw data and any good scientist would adjust for confounding variables. Are you saying Campbell didnt do that? Yes. For the most part, anyway. As Ill show you in the next post, Campbells correlations all perfectly match the raw data. I dont know how I can state that any more clearly His way of adjusting was primarily to separate disease groups into two clusters (diseases of affluence and diseases of poverty), and cite the (raw) correlations between those disease groups and various blood markers and foods as a way of linking them to diet. He zeroed in on the (raw) correlations with cholesterol and disease, and based many conclusions about animal food consumption off of that. He did not thoroughly adjust for confounders for the disease groups, as far as I can tell, presumably because he was more interested in the forest than the trees, as he himself stated in his response to me. I will be discussing all of this in the post Im working on, so just sit tight, kay? I havent deleted a single comment, by the way, although Ive had to free a couple of valid ones from the spam folder. Reply 14 07 2010 CPM (20:04:24) : Hi Ian, The person that you claim to be defending Campbell has not said that she has reviewed any of his papers. There is one available free online at : http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/59/5/1153S If you look at this paper, and then look at your comment about any good scientist would adjust for confounding variables, you must deduce that Campbell is not a good scientist because there is no mention of confounding variables. And as has been said over and over and over again, the only documentation that seems to be available shows that Campbell performed simple univariate correlations on the RAW DATA. Reply 14 07 2010 N (20:32:09) : @CPM That is a high level summary where, for good or for bad, Campbell has chosen to summarize information with simple correlations. What is important is that where appropriate the studies in question are carried out including more sophisticated methods. And in general, where Ive followed the references in that article, he does.
7/26/12
Reply 14 07 2010 CPM (21:12:43) : Hi N, The thing is, he did use those simple correlations without mention of confounding variables, and Ian just damned Denise for this (even though she did use confounding variables to a degree) and said that a good scientist would never do this. I think people are going a little overboard in their defense of Campbell. I believe he chose to use these simple correlations in his book as well, and these have been given a certain weight by the general public because the publisher chose to make a big deal about the China data. The thing is, if someone has problems with Campbells conclusions and think he might be overly biased, you have to begin your critique somewhere, and you have to kind of take it one argument at a time. Many of his defenders are claiming that these are more than simple correlations, and he himself has said or strongly implied this when replying to critics. You have to address these simple correlations that he did choose to use or people will keep throwing them out there like they mean something. Reply 14 07 2010 N (21:34:12) : Yes, you have to begin somewhere, and that is at the level of the study. Reply 14 07 2010 CPM (22:40:32) : Hi N, It depends. The China Study was a book for the general public. Some of the arguments in the book were based on studies (and apparently some of the studies did not exactly say what Campbell claimed), but apparently some of the arguments in the book were just simple correlations from raw China data. Most of Denises critics wont even admit that Campbell ever used simple correlations in any manner. I also think if one of your larger arguments is going to be that Campbell is misusing science in this book, it is a valid point to discuss his use of simple correlations to support his points when apparently other correlations are contradictory. Some people are apparently ready to burn other people at the stake for using simple correlations, so maybe this is a worthwhile topic for a critic to at least explore. Reply 14 07 2010 N (23:41:10) : Well, Im much more interested in cutting through the noise and addressing the scientific matters at hand than letting angry mobs dictate how analysis should or should not be done. Theres nothing inherently wrong with using correlations, although care must be exercised. Like any statistic they must be used with demonstration that some understanding of what is conveyed is had. But people generally understand what a correlation means. In my experience that often dictates usage more than what may or may not be the most mathematically appropriate statistic for a given task even among scientists. Campbell uses simple correlation often, especially when summarizing results, probably for these very reasons. Where appropriate, as would be demanded in any of the peer reviewed setting where his individual studies are published, more sophisticated methods are used when necessary to demonstrate a given relationship. Being able to back up a relationship described using a correlation with a study that contains more in depth analysis is a perfectly valid way of conveying scientific information. A lack of such demonstration would be much more suspect. Along these lines, I hope Ms. Minger will follow up with the additional analysis that she has mentioned a few times now is coming. A book targeted toward a lay population is going to be even more casual in its descriptions of experimental results, although to his credit he still provides complete references. I have not found his references to be of poorer quality than average in the scientific community, although that is not to say Im surprised to hear that some can be found that seem questionable. But on the topic of the book, as far as I can tell Ms. Mingers discussion is not about the book but a Cornell news article summarizing a presentation given that summarized a wide range of research. Unfortunately this is even less informative, lacking references or any description of methodology at all. That is why I have suggested that the academic summary linked a few times here be used to advance the discussion, because at least it allows one to follow up with the appropriate studies in question. And to be sure at times Campbell does use correlations alone. Sometimes documenting an association is all that the situation requires. At other times complex mechanisms may not have conventional statistics that are well designed for testing them. An unproven computational or statistical model may be even more suspect than an experts manual mapping out of the most parsimonious relationship between associations. This isnt to say that its at all foolproof, but there comes a point where we approach the limits of our ability to extract and share information from a complex dataset. Its perfectly reasonable to set ones level of skepticism in the results accordingly. Skepticism in Campbells conclusions is healthy. I am by no means convinced that the evidence convincingly brings us to the end point he suggests. But Campbell has been exceeding transparent and professional in his work. To assert otherwise is an insult to the whole scientific community. Reply 1 01 2011 E (23:17:49) : aahhh a voice of reason Reply 16 07 2010 Neet Ielasi (07:36:27) : Babe,dont exhaust yourself.Rest and recover you are putting so much effort in here.I for one appreciate every single word you have written,you are very
7/26/12
enlightening,others may not and its not worth wearing yourself out for,ever! Reply 14 07 2010 Chris Masterjohn (20:16:49) : For the record, since I am named here, I cannot speak for Colpo although I suspect he would agree with me on this, I think Denise has made important contributions that go way over what I had done five years ago. You can read my opinion here: http://www.westonaprice.org/blogs/denise-minger-refutes-the-china-study-once-and-for-all.html Chris Reply 14 07 2010 Mark (20:02:20) : I love it! Will you be doing a wheat post based on the China Study data? Reply 15 07 2010 neisy (01:44:25) : Yes! Itll be the post after the next. Reply 14 07 2010 Mark (20:36:42) : Guys, I didnt mean to say Denise said if A=b and B=c then A has to be equal to C. This is what Dr Campbell is accused of doing. I dont fully understand Dr Cambells methodology so I cant say for sure whether he simply used above logic or there was more than this that was involved that led him to implicate animal protein. What Denise has done is from Raw data she tried to see if A equals C or if there is positive correlation between A and C. Just want to make sure Im understood properly. Reply 14 07 2010 Whatsonthemenu (22:49:21) : And one more thing regarding the weak positive and negative correlations between average green vegetable intake and heart diseases and stroke. You wondered why average intake does not have strong negative correlations indicative of a protective effect but frequency of green vegetable consumption does. You speculated geography might hold the answer, but then you headed in the direction of latitude. As I clarifed, the correct correlation between average green veggie intake and latitude is -33, not +5. Geography holds the answer, but its differences in latitude. Its suburban versus rural. Look at the green veggie intake map on p556. Notice the black dot clusters on the coast in the middle and in the south. The midcoastal cluster is around Shanghai. The south coastal cluster is around Guangzhou. If you check out these two hot spots on other maps, youll see these folks ate a varied diet with a bit of everything back in the 70s and 80s, and they still do today. The area that appears to have eaten a diet approaching a modern one with processed foods is around Shanghai with the highest consumption of added sugars and starches (like cornstarch as a sauce thickener) and of vegetable oils, no surprise to anyone whos been served a plate of bokchoy drowning in oily sauce. If youre still interested in the green veggie paradox why frequency is negatively correlated with those disease but average intake is not you might explore differences between suburban and rural veggie eaters. Reply 15 07 2010 Eva (03:05:51) : But Campbell has been exceeding transparent and professional in his work. To assert otherwise is an insult to the whole scientific community. My answer: An insult to one man is not an insult to all men. An insult to one violin player is not an insult to all violin players. And an insult to one researcher is certainly not in any way an insult to a whole scientific community. And if Campbell wants to be transparent, then he can tell us how he came to his conclusions instead of making excuses for doing the exact opposite. I have nothing but respect for those who try to do what is morally right and those who care about animals, but the predator/prey relationship is a natural part of the animal ecosystem and we are animals too. If we are to truly understand what is healthiest, we cannot think of diet as a religion and researchers that got some papers published as Gods that cannot be questioned. Vegans can be the best vegans only if they are willing to be totally objective about what may or may not be true. What you eat is a choice. What we are designed to eat is not. Maybe in a perfect world, we would always be designed exactly for what we think we should be designed for, but this may not be a perfect world. If we are designed to eat some meat, then understanding that will only help vegans understand better how to avoid problems when they choose not to eat those things anymore. It will allow them to find better vegan substitutes. It will allow them to be healthier. Diet issues are particularly tricky to understand because the addition of any type of food necesarily means the reduction in other foods. If you eat more fish, and your caloric intake remains the same, then you are eating less of something else. Is it meat that is healthier or is it less grains that are healthier? Or maybe it is saturated fat that is healthier? There are plenty of vegan sources of saturated fat. None of us know all the answers yet. SOme of what we now think will later turn out to be wrong. But which parts? Now is not the time to think we have all the answers and attack all who disagree with religious zeal. Both the meateaters and the vegans still have a lot to learn. The sooner we all admit that, the faster we will learn more about the truth. Reply 15 07 2010 Low Carb Diet Health & Weight Loss (Publication) Harder. Better. Faster. Stronger. (04:56:46) :
7/26/12
[...] for those of you who are worried about the China Study (Click here for information) read this, this and this for the debunking party! from Uncategorized Coconut [...] Reply 15 07 2010 Daniel (08:13:14) : I am looking forward to your next post. I am very interested by the connection of wheat with health in China. By the way, I found this in the amazon comment section to the book China Study. Richard Kroker, an engineer with a PHD, has done a multiple variable regression analysis on the China Study raw data. Did you obtain a similar result? http://www.amazon.com/Analyzing-the-China-Study-Dataset/forum/Fx1YJPR95OHW08P/TxY4S5EZD8Y2XE/1/ref=cm_cd_dp_ef_tft_tp? _encoding=UTF8&s=books&asin=1932100660&store=books Reply 15 07 2010 Informed Skeptic (18:19:38) : Might Denise be employed by T Colin Campbell in order to drum up publicity and sales of The China Study? Nothing sells books like a good controversy. I find it hard to believe that an untrained blogger could come up with such a rigorous analysis without professional help, and who better to provide that help than TCC himself. Also, the beginner mistakes in stats that Denise makes are probably a setup so that later T Colin Campbell can write a scathing defense of the book and sell even more copies. Reply 15 07 2010 anon (19:47:29) : Youd better stop thinking; youre about to sprain something. Reply 18 07 2010 Informed Skeptic (07:34:41) : Colin, knock it off please. Reply 15 07 2010 neisy (19:49:21) : *Sigh* I admit it. You caught me. Im actually a Japanese spy who infiltrates the meat and dairy industry headquarters Monday through Wednesday, collaborates with T. Colin Campbell Thursday and Friday, and spends Saturday fashioning my top-secret plans for world domination (which include implanting dairy cows with human embryos to breed an army of half-bovine ninja children). On Sundays I rest. Its a tough life, I tell ya. Reply 15 07 2010 Alex (22:03:41) : Can I be your assistant? Reply 15 07 2010 Michael (21:14:47) : The world is full of autodidactic folks, and thank God for them. This is why I specifically tackled the credential issue in my post about Denises work. Reply 15 07 2010 Mark (20:28:45) : Denise, Once you said, you introduced meat for health reasons, that really stopped many folks from reading it any further. This is what I read at some other forum where I frequent. Take it for whatever it is worth. Reply 15 07 2010 Michael (21:18:11) : Probably a good thing Mark. An inability to read a critique of ones position usually means you are still knee deep in the grip of ideology. Of course it doesnt mean if you do read you arent, but for those cant or wont it almost certainly means that. Reply 23 01 2012 Peter (13:33:10) : An inability to read a critique of ones position usually means you are still knee deep in the grip of ideology.
7/26/12
Damn good words of wisdom Reply 15 07 2010 Mo (21:43:54) : I havent been this entertained in a geeky statistics way since grad school. And the fight in the comments reminds me of many a technical conference between two parties whose entire existence apparently revolved around their hypothesis being the One True Way, which require all doubters to be struck down. Congrats Denise on a simple and elegant (though no doubt time-consuming and painstaking) analysis. Your post lives up to exactly what you said you were doing no more, no less, whereas the people posting helpful hints are out there tap-dancing on the edge of the stage. Reply 15 07 2010 el-bo (22:48:13) : oooops, sorry denise just discovered that you were only 23 years old (one of campbells criticisms that actually finds its way to print)all bets are off.. you are far too young to have anything of value to say.i mean campbells gotta be 40 years your senior.ever heard of respecting your elders trust, and respect, automatically defaults to the older dude sorry, thats just how it is im sure this essay of yours will look good in your scrapbook, denise, but leave the science to the older folk ) Reply 16 07 2010 Neet Ielasi (07:38:26) : Elbo! surely you are joking? Reply 16 07 2010 el-bo (09:48:09) : cmon, neets you know me :D:D:D:D:D Reply 16 07 2010 Neet Ielasi (21:45:23) : yeh i do you little scamp!! remember the misunderstood humor????? Reply 16 07 2010 kat (00:46:12) : Denise, I just wanted to show some support for what youre doing here, and say a big thanks! Im impressed with what youve done so far and look forward to your upcoming posts. I think its sad that the 30bad folks clearly dont understand what your work is showing (or even what you set out to do), and insist you jump through hoops. I can tell you that nothing short of peer review will satisfy them (theyre really geared up about this, and apparently Campbell is going to offer up a more detailedand lets hope less snarky and more professionalreply). I would recommend you didnt waste your time if I werent so interested in what your analysis shows! Anyway, dont let the haters get you down! Best wishes Kat Reply 16 07 2010 Hadley V. Baxendale (15:48:51) : Denise, you concluded your article with: Its no surprise The China Study has been so widely embraced within the vegan and vegetarian community: It says point-blank what any vegan wants to hearthat theres scientific rationale for avoiding all animal foods. That even small amounts of animal protein are harmful. That an ethical ideal can be completely wed with health. These are exciting things to hear for anyone trying to justify a plant-only diet, and its for this reason I believe The China Study has not received as much critical analysis as it deserves, especially from some of the great thinkers in the vegetarian world. Hopefully this critique has shed some light on the books problems and will lead others to examine the data for themselves. However, The China Study, on page 243 states in pertinent part that salmon, tuna, and cod may be eaten; only meat, poultry, dairy, and eggs should be avoided. Moreover, The China Study plainly states that the science shows that animal protein may be eaten without causing adverse health problems if the amount is 10% or less of ones daily calories; for the typical 2000 calorie eater that means that 50 grams of animal protein may be eaten daily. I do agree however that on page 242 of his book Dr. Campbell makes a leap when he opines that its not unreasonable to assume that the optimum percentage of animal-based products is zero, at least for anyone with a predisposition for a degenerative disease. But this has not been absolutely proven. Certainly it is true that most of the health benefits are realized at very low but non-zero levels of animal-based foods. Why he wrote the foregoing and advises the reader to try to eliminate all animal-based products from your diet, but not obsess over it, is beyond me. We read The China Study and find example after example of why it is okay to eat 50+ grams of animal-based protein daily without jeopardizing our health,
7/26/12
and why we should eat a variety of whole, unrefined plant-based foods, and in his list of foods to eat, he includes in pertinent part salmon, tuna, cod (fish), but then he throws in his assumptions which he admits has not been absolutely proven that we should avoid animal-based protein. What? This assumption without any scientific basis should not have been included in The China Study I dont know why Dr. Campbell threw this in his book on pages 242 244. In answer to his questions, What Does Minimize Mean? and Should You Eliminate Meat Completely? the research in The China Study answers: minimize means eating a serving of animal-based protein daily, and no, we should not eliminate meat completely. So The China Study does support Denises hypotheses; it does not support a vegan life-style! I think Denise would do us all a service if she pointed out the foregoing regarding Dr. Campbells advice to eat salmon, etc. Reply 16 07 2010 Mike Teehan (16:59:11) : Instead of driving yourself with all these numbers why not just look for visable proof in REAL people. I decided to try plant based eating and here is what happened: (the numbers have actually gotten better since this was published last October) Why Im a believer in Dr. Campbells advice: http://www.drmcdougall.com/stars/mike_teehan.htm Reply 18 07 2010 Richard Nikoley (06:06:49) : Hey Mike: While I congratulate you on the large weight loss and its certainly got to be healthier than where you were, man have you lost a LOT of lean mass. Those wanting to lose fat while PRESERVING, even building lean mass & strength might want to consider a paleo-styled diet including lots of animal protein & fat. Heres my 60 lb weight loss, but it was 100% fat loss. http://freetheanimal.com/2009/09/interim-progress-update.html Thats of about a year ago. Heres yesterday 6th & 7th pictures down: http://freetheanimal.com/2010/07/movnat-day-4-integrating-and-combining-skills.html yknow, long as were haulin out anecdotes & all. Reply 18 07 2010 Michael (06:29:13) : Good response Richard, though I think you are talking to a spammer, since he posted the exact same comment on my blog. Reply 9 02 2011 tracker (21:27:44) : Never seen a vegan body builder just sayin Reply 20 10 2010 Auggiedoggy (03:31:45) : Mike T, Been there, done that and came to the same conclusion as Denise. Reintroduction of animal foods, albeit less in volume than in previous years, has resulted in an improved state of health and one I think is optimal for me. My diet is plant-based with some meat to supplement it plus a drastic reduction in grain consumption. Glad you found something that works for you. Rob Reply 16 07 2010 neisy (18:48:59) : Hi everyone, Quick update: Ill be posting my response to Campbell either tonight or tomorrow. Alas, day job duties have stood in the way of cranking this out as quickly as Id hoped. Ive also been informed that Campbell is writing a more thorough response to my critique and will be posting it on his website, http://www.tcolincampbell.org, in the next day or so. Mr. Campbell has also released a newsletter asking the graduates of his course in plant-based nutrition to come to my blog (and others linking to it) and read and respond in a way befitting of Dr. Campbell and his message, so for those of you arriving here via that avenue, welcome! Thanks again for the comments, feedback, and occasional seething, embittered character attacks; I appreciate all of it. Denise Reply 16 07 2010 Maxwell (20:38:28) : I anxiously await the updates from both Denise and TCC.
7/26/12
I hope TCC will refrain from: 1) Any mention of his own qualifications and experience. 2) Any reference to Denises age and/or qualifications. If TCC has good science on his side (and I believe he probably does), he need not clutter up the argument with storytelling. Just the facts, please! This is not a typical lay audience. This is an audience that craves understanding. We dont want to be persuaded youre a credible source. We want to UNDERSTAND The China Study. Help us understand exactly how you analyzed the data. Help us understand what you found. Help us understand what you did not find. Advice for Denise: Please refrain from any snarky comments or little jabs at TCC. You might even owe the man an apology. Maxwell Reply 17 07 2010 anon (08:27:08) : Denise has been elegant throughout. It was Campbell who sank to ad hominems. BTW, You might even owe the man an apology is pretty snotty yourself. Reply 17 07 2010 Kyle (00:03:45) : I enjoy snarky, so please dont refrain, and it is your blog after all. Apology? I dont think so. If TCC had presented and defended all of his findings in a much more transparent manner from the get go this wouldnt be an issue at all. If his findings and conclusion are indeed all justified and scientifically correct great, Im sure Denise will be more than civil about it. Im sorry you didnt give us all the information the first time around. That might work though. Reply 17 07 2010 Tandi (00:58:42) : I am glad that you feel you have found a diet that works for you, however, I must question how a 23 year old English major has the knowledge or qualifications to even begin to evaluate epidemiological studies and scientific research? I believe that each individual should research health and nutrition and try to find accurate information and well conducted studies to support that information. However, It is also important to recognize your own limitations in interpreting data and research and avoid proclaiming yourself an expert who can adequately evaluate research when you clearly do not have the education or experience to do so. The statistical analysis you have tried to accomplish is extremely misleading not to mention inaccurate and naive. You do not have any experience in epidemiological research and therefore do not even begin to understand how data is to be evaluated and how conclusions should be drawn. To believe you can discredit scientific research based on personal nutrition study is arrogant to say the least. While I applaud your persistence in striving to justify your own personal beliefs about an optimal diet, this analysis is far from proof that the China Study is a fallacy. You dont have any experience in scientific research or epidemiological studies so how can you even begin to proclaim that you can prove any scientific research to be valid or invalid? Dr. Campbell has conducted research for over 40 years. Dr. Campbell is the Jacob Gould Schurman Professor Emeritus of Nutritional Biochemistry at Cornell University. He has more than seventy grant-years of peer-reviewed research funding and authored more than 300 research papers. What credentials do you have that qualify you to discredit his research? What credentials do you have that qualify you to even evaluate this research? I realize that you want to justify your own dietary beliefs but it is irresponsible to try to discredit scientific research merely because it goes against your own personal beliefs, when you clearly do not have the knowledge, education or experience to do so. I believe you owe Dr. Campbell a sincere apology for recklessly and naively disparaging his work without any knowledge, education, qualifications or experience to do so. Reply 17 07 2010 CPM (01:40:34) : Hi Tandi, Credentials blah, blah, blahCampbell used simple correlations of the raw data to make some of his key arguments; you dont need any experience in epidemiological studies and scientific research to see that. Denise simply took it one step further and introduced confounding variables to show how flawed the simple correlations were. She was not publishing her own epidemiology study; she was using hard numbers to criticize the one that had been published. If Campbell had just come out and said, yes, I used simple correlations and this is my reason why (and maybe in hindsight I should not have used these in my book) in replying to his critics maybe he would not catch so much flak, but instead he has belittled anybody who has questioned his use of these simple correlations, called them agents of the Weston Price Foundation, and claimed that his simple correlations of raw data were not in fact simple correlations of the raw data. How esteemed is that? The possibly bigger issue though is if Campbell has misrepresented the findings of his references, which Denise and others have claimed he has done. From what I understand that is almost a mortal sin among scientists. A rational person would have a hard time defending this, but many of his defenders do not seem to be so rational sometimes.
7/26/12
Reply 17 07 2010 N (01:54:06) : Are you unwilling or unable to follow references to supporting studies? Reply 17 07 2010 CPM (03:49:14) : Hi N, I dont have access to most of the scientific papers, and I dont have time to really look into it in that great of detail. Hopefully as Denise proceeds she can maybe go in that direction. Using the paper that has been used here before http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/59/5/1153S , I can however pick out a few statements such as the one below where it appears to me that while references might be important information, they do not represent a more in-depth analysis of the China data beyond Campbells simple correlations. I could be wrong without accessing the actual papers (just sometimes very limited abstracts), but I believe for example one of the studies referenced below is for Israeli data. Plasma cholesterol concentration was associated directly with all-cancer mortality rates measured in this study. Most notably, these associations were statistically significant for eight different cancers, including colon cancer (P < 0.01 for males and P < 0.001 for females) (55, 56, 66)." Some of his correlations may have better analysis to back them up, but some of them don't. Again, you can maybe argue whether the use of simple correlations were justified or not, but Campbell has bashed other people for doing this when they come up with contradictory correlations to his own, and he has said or implied that he has not used simple correlations of the raw data. As I said before, you got to start somewhere (and I know we disagree on where to start), but Campbell has seemingly always responded to his critics by claiming that he has always used a more sophisticated analysis than them and that his critics cannot be trusted because they used simple correlations of the raw data (and that they are all possibly agents of the Weston Price Foundation out to get him). Reply 17 07 2010 CPM (04:05:56) : PS Are you unwilling or unable to follow references to supporting studies? According to the person I originally responded to, I am not qualified to even look at his Campbells scientific papers anyway. I am not epidemiologist or a scientific researcher. Reply 17 07 2010 N (04:31:39) : Some of us have spent long hours in libraries to become familiar with these matters, and so dont see a lack of personal access as a reason not to investigate as far as it takes to answer these questions. And nobody said you werent qualified to read about this. A few statistics courses allow interpretation of results. I would hope that a student coming out of one of my statistics classes could recognize some of the problems in Ms. Mingers analysis for example. To do it yourself is another matter. Even with years of statistical expertise I do not have the epidemiological skills to carry out a proper analysis on this data. Reply 17 07 2010 JD (16:45:09) : I would hope that a student coming out of one of my statistics classes could recognize some of the problems in Ms. Mingers analysis for example. I would hope that someone who supposedly teaches statistics classes would realize that Denise isnt the one with the problem here shes just pointing out that Campbells univariate correlations are bunk. Reply 17 07 2010 Chris Masterjohn (13:53:52) : Tandi and others, Pointing out someones age or credentials is generally an implicit admission that one cannot competently address the persons argument. Denise has been extremely respectful of Dr. Campbell in a personal sense and has dealt with data. I think she deserves equal respect and those criticizing her should criticize her data and data analysis directly. It does not take a long time, not even a few statistics classes, to learn how to generate pearson correlation coefficients and multiple linear regression models. One can gain a very excellent understanding of these things from reading half of a statistics book, and one can gain sufficient understanding to perform them correctly by purchasing software and reading the tutorials. Besides which, someone who began college at 16 as stated on her web site and is now 23 could easily have taken plenty of statistics courses if she so chose to do, again, not that it would have been necessary. It is clear to me that the cancer epidemiologist that you are quoting, who has posted here and has been quoted many times over, neither read the China Study nor read Denises review, except perhaps by casual skim. This epidemiologist critcizes Denise for using ecological data and analyzing by county, conceding at one point that perhaps this is all she had access to. Had this person read either the book The China Study or read the original monograph, they would know that the China Study is an ecological study and pooled all the blood of all individuals in a local unit into a large vat so the investigators could measure more biochemical markers. Had Dr. Campbell only published in peer-reviewed journals, the discussion of his work would be limited primarily to peer-reviewed journals. When he chose to
7/26/12
write a best-selling book, however, he opened up his arguments to criticism by the public. This was the course he chose. As he acknoweldges in his own brief response to Denise that has been posted in the comments section here, he believes the better choice is to correlate animal food intake, cholesterol levels, and so on, with multiple depenedent variables such as diseases of poverty and diseases of affluence, but this was excised from the book due to space. Obviously, this is a novel approach, debatable, and would be controversial among researchers. In any case, it is not the same thing as adjusting for confounding variables by having multiple independent variables and that type of data was also not presented in The China Study. One need not follow 700 references to find this out. It is up to Campbell to state in the text after adjusting for when he presents his correlations, and he never states this because it isnt true. Denises analysis was very simple, and that is part of its strength. Many people have been floating the idea that any reputable scientist would adjust for confounding variables. This is, first, nonsense. Any reputable scientist would first and foremost present raw data. Look in ANY peer-reviewed publication where multiple regression is used and you will see that the first thing presented is the unadjusted data. As the cancer epidemiologist pointed out, one of the criteria of a confounding variable is that it must not be on the chain of causation between the thing whose effect it is confounding and the dependent variable. This is not something that can be determined by statistics. It requires discussion, argumentation, and subjective judgment. Ten researchers will present ten judgments on what may or may not lie in a chain of causation because frequently we just dont know. Adjusting for confounding variables is a partially subjective process subject to much uncertainty and disagreement, and this is why usually in a peer-reviewed paper the raw correlations are presented along with several different multiple regression models. In The China Study, there are over 8000 statistically significant correlations. There are many different factors one could put into a multiple regression model. Which ones do you pick? Ten researchers will give ten answers. There is no correct multiple regression model. Before one adjusts, one must make a case for it. What Denise did here is take simple correlations that Campbell was using and make a strong, well-developed argument that Campbell did not take into account many compelling confounding factors. And she did, contrary to many statements found within the comments section, analyze some of his references. The most remarkable of these was showing that his claim that animal protein uniquely promotes cancer in aflatoxin-treated animals is based on his own study showing that plant protein is just as effective as animal protein as long as the missing amino acids are provided as would occur on a mixed vegetarian diet. My analysis of why this contribution of Denises was so important can be found here: http://westonaprice.org/blogs/denise-minger-refutes-the-china-study-once-and-for-all.html Chris Reply 18 07 2010 Michael (06:31:33) : Nicely done Chris, you have taken some of the words right out of my mouth, as you will see in my follow up article on Denises work. Reply 17 07 2010 Rich (20:58:29) : I think Dr. Campbell owes me an apology for ostensibly being a scientist and penning his hack, biased conclusions in The China Study, and also for being a total unhealthy-appearing asshole in any video Ive seen of him. Also, his whole argument about The China Study being only one chapter of his book it was the TITLE of his book. Also, lets examine the subtitle: the most comprehensive study of nutrition ever conducted and the startling implications for diet, weight loss and long-term health PARDON ME if we take that seriously, Dr. Campbell. Seems that your argument that the actual study itself was fairly unimportant seems, well, disingenuous. Reply 22 07 2010 Frank (16:29:12) : Another name calling sheeple. Keep eating animals and you will know the truth the hard way. Reply 10 01 2011 Cam (22:03:01) : Wow, thats quite the rebuttal, Frank lol Reply 23 06 2011 Darrel (23:32:08) : RICH said: his whole argument about The China Study being only one chapter of his book it was the TITLE of his book.>> DAR Its very common for authors to have the title of their books chosen by their publisher (who chose titles to be provocative and sell books, which is their only goal). As Dr. Campbell notes, they submitted 200 title suggestions, not one of them was the title the publisher chose to use. To quote: We suggested 200 possible titles, not one of which was The China Study. But when we objected, he said that we already had signed the contract and this was his right and responsibility. http://www.tcolincampbell.org/fileadmin/Presentation/finalmingercritique.pdf Reply
7/26/12
27 08 2010 Igor (11:01:32) : @Tandi Your attitude is a tad elitist, dont you think? So the experts are there to tell us lowly peons how to eat and think and live our lives and we must never question their advice, uh? Reply 17 09 2010 SupremePundit (07:57:59) : This is why most people are confused by what they read in the papers. English majors writing about subjects they do not understand. If data is something that makes Denise happy than she should learn how to use it. Correlation is not Causation. If it was wearing clothes would be the cause of urination. The simple fact that the monograph is available and all of the data is contained in it will allow many more of these fools to come up with ridiculous correlations and claim they are causes. Reply 17 09 2010 CPM (13:52:09) : @ SupremePundit It is kind of funny you talking about other people being confused by what they readDunning-Kruger P.S. While Denise has said repeatedly that Correlation is not Causation, the eminent Dr. Campbell has said that he can cherry-pick simple correlations to prove that his hypotheses are correct (not just develop hypotheses, but to prove that hypotheses are correct.) Reply 9 02 2011 tracker (21:32:34) : A title after your name, a degree and $1 will buy you a soda at McDonalds. My great grandfather who had a third grade education, was one of the smartest men my father ever knew. People who had no formal education came up with all kinds of scientific discoveries. Until recently that is, when all of a sudden it doesnt matter how smart you are, or how much you study on your own, but instead credentials are dragged out as if it means something. It doesnt mean shit though. Ive seen plenty of men who have PhDs who couldnt really think their way out of a paper bag. Reply 17 07 2010 Martin Levac (01:14:55) : Tandy, it is just as irresponsible to take Campbells word as is without question. Do you take Campbells word as is without question? Reply 17 07 2010 N (01:56:29) : One doesnt need to take his word for it when following references to the specific studies in question to answer further questions. Most researchers are also much more responsive to questions when its evident that youve done this too. Reply 17 07 2010 Martin Levac (06:06:26) : But when one follows the references and finds they refute the word, as Denise has done, then one must start to doubt the word. Most researchers would soon realize that one doesnt need to be a researcher to figure that one out. Reply 17 07 2010 Sue (01:29:29) : Tandi LOL!! Reply 17 07 2010 Tandi (03:09:54) : Did I take Dr. Campbells research alone and decide that was all the evidence I needed, absolutely not. Research scientists are not all honest, and you can pretty much get any conclusion you want if you set it up correctly. So obviously you cannot just take a study at face value. However, I wouldnt necessarily blindly believe an oversimplified evaluation of research by some random person either. Quote from an epidemiologist on this evaluation: Your analysis is completely OVER-SIMPLIFIED. Every good epidemiologist/statistician will tell you that a correlation does NOT equal an association. By running a series of correlations, youve merely pointed out linear, non-directional, and unadjusted relationships between two factors. I suggest you pick up a basic biostatistics book, download a free copy of R (an open-source statistical software program), and learn how to analyze data properly. Im a PhD cancer epidemiologist, and would be happy to help you do this properly. While Im impressed by your crude, and at best preliminary analyses, it is quite irresponsible of you to draw conclusions based on these results alone. At the very least, you need to model the data using regression analyses so that you can account for multiple factors at one time. Reply 17 07 2010 Martin Levac (05:54:39) : Right, so if the same ideas that were generated by the epidemiological studies were eventually tested using interventional trials, and subsequently refuted,
7/26/12
would you then change your mind on the subject of optimal diet for human health? How about this one here, will that do?: http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/ketones-and-ketosis/low-carb-gaining-a-foothold-with-the-mainstream/ Dont let the facts get in the way of your beliefs. Reply 17 07 2010 arcomedian (07:16:47) : Is the book that Ms. Minger is analyzing a compendium of observational studies? If I understand her logic correctly shes not making assertions that certain variables have causal relationships, quite the contrary, shes highlighting the fact that the associations between those variables are weak. Moreover shes quite clearly outlining her methods which, while simple, dont seem egregiously flawed. Per the suggestion she should be using regression. check out the definition of correlation, (wikipedia is excellent). account for multiple factors at one time., please explain, especially why this is _necessary_ for her critique. I have to say that Im strongly put off by the suggestion that expert supervision is necessary for a clean statistical analysis. but if she wants help. On a more positive note I (a random stranger) also heartily endorse R. Its awesome: http://cran.r-project.org/ Reply 9 02 2011 tracker (21:36:17) : ///account for multiple factors at one time., please explain, especially why this is _necessary_ for her critique./// Its necessary so they can make data look like its something it isnt. They do it in real estate and unemployment statistics too. They adjust the numbers so that they take the season (or some other factor) into account. It can make the data look better or worse. And I dont need a math degree or a science degree to figure that one out. Reply 19 07 2010 arcomedian (01:05:45) : A correlation _is_ an association, in particular a simple linear association. I think what you mean is Correlation does not imply causation. In many, if not most, if not all (Id have to reread) of the cases above she was pointing out a _lack_ of correlation Reply 17 07 2010 Frank Buurman (08:32:25) : Denise, You also forget some possible relationships. Quite normal, because it is impossible to see/know everything. f.i.: you correlate wheat-consumption with the occurence of cancers. But how do we consume wheat: - bread is consumed with meat/cheese, containing preservatives, colouring agents and other suspicious stuff, or with sweet stuffs wich also correlate to cancers. - there is a big difference between old fashioned bread with sourdough, and bread with yeast. - cereals contain additives, maybe in overdose (f.i. Kellogs All-Bran contains metallic (!) iron and other stuff ) and are consumed with milk (a bad combination, because nutrientuptake, other then calcium is inhibited) So also your story is far from (statistical) complete Reply 17 07 2010 anon (15:46:39) : Yes, Denise, your analysis is invalid because you did not do a multiple regression analysis of the consumption of Kelloggs All-Bran in Xuanwei province. Reply 17 07 2010 Frank Buurman (16:41:56) : anon: you dont mention the other 2 points I pinpointed. beside that: - bread also contains additives like cysteine that may influence the results (the thiol side chain often participates in enzymatic reactions) - wheat in non-western countries is (often) more contaminated with aflatoxins. Reply 17 07 2010 Saturday Link Love: Edition 4 (09:03:00) : [...] you up to date on the latest about The China Study? If you have not read the long essay by Raw Food SOS, then I recommend you bookmark the link and read it asap. I will be doing a post on it myself very [...] Reply 17 07 2010 joseph (17:14:18) : denise, i read your reply to campbell first and was stunned, then i read this and was even more stunned. i think you might be the smartest 23 year old person ive ever seen. your writing style is also fantastic. if you wrote a book i would buy it immediately no matter what it was about.
7/26/12
any chance youre single? heh heh heh Reply 18 07 2010 Richard Kroeker (17:51:52) : Say HeyNice work. Beware the truism no good deed goes unpunished. It was a shock to me at first to find out the depth of the chasm between what is known and what is accepted wisdom. After some time I got over it, as this is (sadly) not the only area of knowledge under assault by emotionally involved people with a predetermined answer. Those of us who do this type of work (data analysis) for a living are trained to see this bias in ourselves and we try hard to use tools that are resistant to manipulation. Just bear in mind that no honest researcher will withhold the raw data (nor their methods) from you. There is one thing I see mentioned above that I wanted to expand upon a bit. While this data set was a massive amount of work to accumulate, and even though it may be the best data generally available on mortality and nutrition; the data set does not hold answers so much as it helps us form the right questions. It is easy to over analyze a data set with fancy math tools; the hard work is to follow up on the initial (clear and obvious) questions. A correlation is a correlation. We are actually after cause and effect. You see this caution repeated many times above in one form or another. The heart of this issue is that the answers we seek can not be found in the numbers. The numbers guide you as to how to spend your limited time available in investigating cause and effect in matters of interest to you. This data set screams wheat is bad for you. After chasing previously formed questions about plant vs animal protein issues, cholesterol, vitamins and the like you have to come back the the big surprise; wheat is bad. At first you may not want to believe it even if you have a gluten allergy that has progressed to celiac disease. To make progress on this issue you have to go outside the data set to find a well supported mechanism that explains the nature of the problem. If you think the argument about plant vs animal foods is difficult, you dont know the meaning of the word. I have been studying the problem with wheat for two years now. Good luck with your quick follow up in a few days. I fell down the rabbit hole. The problem is not that nobody knows why wheat is bad for you. The problem is that we have not been listening. Check out the relationship in the china data set between Vitamin C blood levels and wheat consumption. I missed its importance at first, but it is very helpful in understanding why wheat has to be fortified with vitamins. But depleting vitamins is not the only problem with wheat; those who are interested should check out the newly discovered hormone zonulin that wheat can mimic. I also recommend Dangerous Grains by James Braly. The core of the issue with wheat are polypeptides that we can not digest completely. We are known to be rapidly genetically adapting to wheat and there is no clearer proof that it is a dangerous thing to eat. After two years (and counting) of investigating the health effects of wheat consumption I am fully aware of one salient fact. Assuming plant foods are naturally good for you is absolutely childish. Put in a very general way, all food kills you. The problem is just that you die much faster if you dont eat any. Your particular genes allow you to digest your historic foods better that novel foods. There isnt going to be one right answer. -Rich PS. I also recommend Sally Fallon and Mary Enigs simple discussions about why it is necessary to wash seeds (such as wheat) before eating them. Reply 18 07 2010 Moving forward The Red Pill (19:09:52) : [...] might find this interesting. T. Colin Campbell, the author of The China Study wrote a reply to Denise Mingers analysis (and bitch-slapping) of his data, to which she has replied again. All very interesting stuff, and that Minger is quite a brilliant [...] Reply 19 07 2010 Leanne (03:54:58) : Brava! This is one of the most objective and honest analyses I have read in many years. Denise, you have the heart and mind of a TRUE scientist. Please, disregard the snooty comments of those fools who confuse credentials with capability or integrity. As a layperson (non-statistician) who has read many medical studies while researching personal issues, I have encountered many an epidemiological study where the conclusion drawn did not account for many variables that could potentially affect the results. It is a pleasure to read the results of your hard work, that provide an effective counterbalance to shoddy science. Thank you. Reply 19 07 2010 Betty (22:31:10) : Im SO glad that you did this. Just before finding the Paleo diet and lifestyle, I bought and read Dr. Joel Fuhrmans books, Eat to Live etc., which are heavily based on the China Study data. I felt pretty confused, knowing that I eat butter, dairy, and meats and have perfect blood pressure and cholesterol. Thank you for cutting through the BS, and pointing out what should have been obvious. I hadnt gotten as far as reading the China Study itself, and most likely would have had a very hard time wading through it to draw the conclusions that you did in such a clear unbiased way! thank you, thankyou! Reply 20 07 2010 Tuesday 7/20/2010 ***20k & 14k*** Crossfit Denver 303-482-2420 > Colorados first Crossfit affiliate and best personal training (04:07:11) : [...] The China Study Fact Or Falacy? [...] Reply 20 07 2010
7/26/12
moox (08:10:17) : Absolutely brilliant!! I have been looking for an intelligent, objective critique of the China study for a long time and this definitely fits the description, without some of the biases of the surprisingly few other critiques to date. I used to be a big fan of Dr. Campbell and the China Study, having read it three times, believing that such an extensive and comprehensive study led by a Scientist with Dr. Campbells credentials had finally revealed the truth abiut diet, nutrition and disease. Having recently looked into the other side of the issue; paleolithic nutrition, low carb, high fat etc.. I started to have many questions and the direct correlation between animal protein and cancer made less and less sense. I was therefore very pleased to find this critique that meticulously takes apart Dr. Campbells theory by using the actual data from the original China Study itself. From this we can see that the conclusions Dr. Campbell arrives at and which he repeats incessantly in his book, namely that animal protein causes or rather facilitates the progression of cancer, are selective conclusions with no statistical basis from the data of the actual China Study. I would therefore like to thank Denise for her excellent work in helping to expose yet another hidden agenda attempt at misinformation. Reply 22 07 2010 Frank (08:54:23) : Moox, just keep eating animals and you will learn the truth the hard way. Denise Minger is a rank amateur and not even close to Dr. Campbells league. The China Study is a peer review work that we are fortunate to have available to us. Reply 22 07 2010 CPM (12:49:37) : Hi Frank, Campbells book, the China Study, is not a peer-reviewed work. It is just a book where some guy argues his hypothesis, one that he did not feel was getting enough air-time in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Reply 22 07 2010 Frank (16:38:03) : I said the China Study, not his book. His hands were tied on the title. And he is not some guy, he is a true scientist, he does not need air time. If you want vibrant health read his book, be grateful he produced something for you to criticize when you should instead be quiet if that is all you have to offer. Reply 27 08 2010 Igor (11:22:05) : If you want vibrant health, read Nourishing Traditions. Veganism aint a healthy lifestyle. Reply 9 02 2011 tracker (21:38:33) : What is this a religion? Be quiet if you disagree?! Apparently she violated the Holy Office of Veganism. I smell a witch hunt in the making. Reply 20 07 2010 Some Things to Read DC Skeptics (20:09:35) : [...] The China Study: Fact or Fallacy: Its no surprise The China Study has been so widely embraced within the vegan and vegetarian community: It says point-blank what any vegan wants to hearthat theres scientific rationale for avoiding all animal foods. [...] Reply 22 07 2010 Frank (16:48:46) : Vegans do not need to hear theres scientific rationale for avoiding all animal foods. They know from living it and enjoy excellent health and do not need to rely on the propaganda of the monied interests that have made this country the sickest nation on the planet. Here is a clue for you: have you noticed that all the name calling and inflammatory words couple with personal attacks never come from the ones providing information like that found in the China Study? That speaks volumes. Reply 22 07 2010 kat (16:56:14) : Rank amateur isnt inflammatory? Reply 22 07 2010 mrfreddy (16:58:40) : have you noticed that all the name calling and inflammatory words couple with personal attacks never come from the ones providing information like that found in the China Study? That speaks volumes actually no, I have not noticed any such thing. Go back and read any rebuttal written by TCC himself. Count the ad-hominem attacks. (btw, that means attacks on the messenger not the message). He works fromt the same template every time. 1) Question the credentials of his critic 2) Remind you of his own impressive CV 3) Mention that his diet has been proven to eliminate disease 4) Belittle the critic some more 5) Complain about being called names like buffoon (that one seems to have really gotten to him 6) Implore you to just try it? and most importantly 7) Never, ever respond to the actual criticisms in any meaningful way. step away from the kool-aid dude
7/26/12
Reply 22 07 2010 Frank (18:22:06) : Its acurate. Reply 22 07 2010 Frank (18:23:15) : Make that accurate. Reply 22 07 2010 Frank (18:26:58) : Correct that: accurate. But I think it is obvious that my statement is true. Its something I noticed over 30 years ago when I first got into this; it stuck out like a sore thumb. As i said; it speaks volumes. Reply 22 07 2010 Frank (18:32:36) : Wow, you are in all the way. You can have the last comment if you need it, this will be my last. You comment makes me think you are reading something else all together and there is no way to reach you. After 30 years of vibrant health i think Ill keep drinking the kool-aid dude. Reply 24 07 2010 Greg (08:20:13) : 3.5) Invent associations and/or motivations for the critic out of whole cloth Reply 27 08 2010 Igor (11:26:14) : If vegans have excellent health, then why is it every vegan Ive ever known and Ive known at least a dozen looked like they were on the verge of dying, sometimes after only a few weeks on their new diet? Reply 21 07 2010 Kate (12:24:43) : I have to commend your effort and time spent studying the data behind Campbells book, and you do raise some very good points (such as Campbell being unable to prove a direct link between animal proteins and cancer). I have not read the book yet, but have ordered a copy and am looking forward to making up my own mind about the study. What I would really like to know, but have been unable to find in any source, is whether Campbell was a vegan/vegetarian before embarking on this nutritional study. Many detractors imply this as a way of reducing Campbells credibility, accusing him of going into the project with an agenda. The accounts of his life I have read seemed to suggest that he was originally a believer in the meat and dairy industry due to family ties, but it was this research that changed his mind, which is not suggestive of going into the project with bias, but rather the opposite. I really wish there was a credible source which stated when he became a vegetarian/vegan. I also wish nutrition didnt need to be such a political minefield Reply 22 07 2010 deb (03:33:31) : What you will find out after recieving your book, is that he was neither vegetarian or vegan when he started all this. He grew up on a dairy farm, eating the very foods that are considered American. He also started out trying to find better sources of protein to fix an apperant defiency. Its great that Mrs. Minger set out to work so hard at refuting Dr. Campbells work, but she is no scientist with no credentials and no peer reviewed work. This is her opinion and her alone. I will gladly follow the doctors and scientists that not only have all those above, but live the life and are healthy for doing so. Not one takes medication for a chronic disease like so many others in the nation. Nutrition wouldnt be such a political minefield if it were left up to the dietians and doctors. Government and politicians let big dairy, meat, egg and pharma control most of what we read and hear and how we hear it through the regualr media. Reply 22 07 2010 CPM (05:19:16) : Hi Deb, There are plenty of doctors and scientists that think eating meat and fat is beneficial, and they live the life and are healthy doing so too. Campbell said that basically one of the reasons that he published the book is because he felt that similar views were under-represented in the scientific literature. In essence, Campbell is saying the majority of scientists dont share his views. That does not mean his hypothesis is wrong, but it does mean that credentials are kind of a pointless issue to bring to the argument. Especially when all Denise has done is point out flaws in his arguments and evidence in his book used to support his hypothesis. The book is not peer-reviewed scientific literature. It is some guy arguing his hypothesis to a jury of laypeople.
7/26/12
Reply 22 07 2010 arcomedian (05:32:52) : Hi CPM. I agree with your statement. Id like to add that lay-people should also read and (loudly) critique peer reviewed literature. Reply 22 07 2010 Frank (16:56:49) : She did not point out flaws. Read Dr. Cambells reply. And there were plenty of doctors and scientists who told us smoking was good for us too. They live the life and are healthy doing so too? Who are they. If they consume meat and dairy for years and years it will degrade their health; they are not immune to the laws of phisiology. Reply 22 07 2010 kat (17:09:00) : Frank, Campbell is not an omnipotent being so of course there will be flaws in his work, and Denise pointed out quite a few. You cant hope to understand that, and the weakness of Campbells response, if you dont read this post and the next. Read really slow if you have to. Just read it. Oh wait thats right, you dont need scientific rationale to defend a vegan diet. Seems strange you would even bother spamming up the comments if that truly were the case. Reply 22 07 2010 Frank (18:38:59) : Try this Kat, These attacks are a clear sign of the widespread success of Dr Campbells work. His 35 years of research is nothing to sneeze at. And the positive results so many have had from changing to a plant-based diet after reading his book, is frightening to his opponents. The results are real and undeniablebacked up by standard medical tests. Remove the cause of illnesses & they go away. An animal food-based diet is the cause of the majority of common diseases. A low-fat plant-based diet is the answer. His findings on the direct effect of dairy casein on cancer markers is astoundingadd casein, markers go up, subtract casein, the markers go down. It doesnt get any clearer than that. Get dairy completely off your plate if you want to be well. And while youre at it, remove the dead carcasses as well. Dr Campbell is a gentle & humble man, with all the best intentions of sharing his findings with the world, in order to help people. He is not out for fame or wealth. He simply is sharing the truth. Reply 22 07 2010 kat (18:52:19) : Frank, Seriously man, read the post. Its obvious that you havent. If you want to debate the issues that Denise raised then cool, well do that. But you simply cant do that without first reading the post. Coming here and trying to discuss these things based off of Campbells response is like trying to discuss Crime and Punishment by reading a cliff notes version of Romeo and Juliet. It aint the same. Dr Campbell is a gentle & humble man Well now Im not so sure youve actually read his responses, either. Reply 23 07 2010 Frank (00:06:55) : Seriously man, I read them both. What Denise raised really amounts to somebody wanting attention, there is nothing to discuss. As VegSource.com wrote we were mildly surprised that Dr. Campbell felt he needed to take the time to dignify Mingers musings with a response. Reply 23 07 2010 Martin Levac (00:38:45) : @Frank, Well Frank, I agree there is nothing more to discuss with you. Good bye. Reply 25 07 2010 Dave (17:40:25) : @deb, Yes, the dietitians and doctors are doing a wonderful job. Just look at the amazingly slim and healthy people all around! Im glad were not in the midst of any sort of chronic illness epidemic, like diabetes, obesity, cancer, and heart disease. Reply 25 07 2010 Dave (17:42:13) : @Frank,
7/26/12
I dont suppose you have any actual scientific points to make, as opposed to vague inferences about sociology and psychology? Reply 27 08 2010 Igor (11:29:58) : They also let big soy, corn, and cotton have their way too. Reply 22 07 2010 Sally (00:41:17) : Campbells response: http://www.tcolincampbell.org/fileadmin/Presentation/Responsefinaledition.doc Reply 22 07 2010 arcomedian (05:33:46) : Thanks for posting this Sally. I read it. Reply 22 07 2010 Emily Deans MD (02:02:44) : What is up with that obsession with WAPF? Too bad he didnt read Mingers response to his initial response! And that he hangs his hat on the mysterious missing comment that never really went missing. Who does his fact-finding? Unimpressive. Reply 22 07 2010 david (13:13:18) : subscribe Reply 22 07 2010 Thursday, July 22nd: Hunger and Obesity are 1 issue SouthBaltimore CrossFit (14:56:05) : [...] write the vegetarian manifesto. Well, and ex-vegan (but still raw food advocate) decided to look at his data in detail to see whether the conclusions held up at all (they dont, in any way). Now that article is long and complicated, but Dr. Harris of PaNu [...] Reply 22 07 2010 Frank Buurman (15:04:06) : I mentioned some points before, here are some others: 1: relativism: the fact that wheat (in some form, in a certain context) causes relative more cancers doesnt mean that meat (in larger quantities) wont. And what is meat ? There is a difference between USA and EU (Chinese ?) meat, between fresh meat and fabricated meat. Or between organic and conventional. What other products do consumers (who consume a lot of, or less, meat/wheat) eat, that arent taken into account ? (legumes & fruit, nuts, (un)refined oils, diary), have they been adapted to the western way of life ? 2: environment: what are the environmental factors ? Living in an unhealthy environment may be correlated to wheat consumption. Environmental factors play a very important role in the development of cancers. 3: smoking: do the big wheat consumers in China also smoke more ? So again my point: Denise (with all respect for her energy and superiour intelligence), you cannot make any definite conclusions from this data and you have to explain this limitations and possible other correlations in your publication to be taken serious in your overall analysis. Reply 22 07 2010 kat (15:21:43) : Frank, Please show where in this post Denise makes any definite conclusions. Thanks. Kat Reply 23 07 2010 Frank Buurman (11:14:48) : ok. definite is too hard. the definite conclusions are taken by others but with Denises analysis as excuse. When youre trying to superevaluate statistical data analysis, you have to break through the boundaries of the data themselves and through your own boundaries. Because life is very complex in all respects. And you have to account for that in your conclusions. ps Can someone tell me, why the so (scientifically) praised Mediterrenean diet is that healthy ? They consume a lot of wheat overthere (what I saw): bread, macaroni, cous-cous, bulgur Some other factors play a role.
7/26/12
Reply 22 07 2010 Nena Niessen (15:19:18) : Dr Campbell has done an amazing job with the China Study exposing the dangerous of consuming animal products. Just answer me one question , how long does meat stay in your body before is eliminated, and how long does vegetables take before they come out. I work at a cancer clinic and see the results of poor diet. kids as little as 5 years old already with cancer. Once the patient is switch to a plant base diet Miracles they get better!!! I myself Im a cancer survivor. I grow up in farm in Nicaragua My mother force me to eat meat not realizing the damage she was causing me. I had asthma, constipation , depression , parasites. And many other illness associated with meat and dairy. First time I had cancer was 17 and later at 27. I made the switch to plant base diet and my world change . Meat causes inflammation, constipation , retardation, meat has not fiber. How can this be good. If the number and chart are not right who cares the bottom line is plant base diet is best for any one who is looking for good health . I think that some times we complicate thing. Specially when it comes to food!!!. Even in the bible talks about a plant base diet. The test of the food if you care to look is on the book of Daniel. Reply 22 07 2010 Martin Levac (17:13:49) : Good for you Nena. See here for more information about different diets: http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/ketones-and-ketosis/low-carb-gaining-a-foothold-with-the-mainstream/ Let me ask you this, if an all plant diet was really best for humans, how come the group that did the best was eating a diet with the fewest plants? Reply 9 02 2011 tracker (21:44:02) : Actually sugar and refined carbohydrates cause inflammation. Low carb and paleo diets are anti-inflammation. Fiber may irritate the lining of the colon and bowels. Were not cows or horses after all and cannot digest it. To say that people are sick from eating meat when theyre eating a standard American diet that is high in both sugar and refined carbs is naive. People in the bible ate copious meat. I suggest you not cherry pick verses. Reply 22 07 2010 Elizabeth (19:14:26) : Denise, You are 23 years old. Who wrote this material for you? Your extracts from The China Study (book), which is just a meta analysis, is not working with all the data. Your critique is therefore a distortion. Note I dont know Campbell, nor do I particularly care about whether he is right or wrong I have been doing research independently in this field for 35 years myself and have no answers or any axe to grind. However, he is a person who has worked his life to help people be healthy. As a professional researcher however, I believe certain protocols must be followed or the field of nutrition on the web will become like a Rush Limbaugh hour full of ugly insinuations with very bad fact finding. I am surprised that if you are truly interested in fact finding, you would attack like this. Campbell is neither a crank nor crazy. He is a 72 year old scientist who has taught at MIT, Cornell and worked for the National Institute of Health. Where are your credentials? Just being a web blogger hardly qualifies you to make these conclusions, as nicely as you write. I hope you take your conscience into account before you publish material provided by others in the future. I am quite sure that your materials are well intended, but they are completely unscientific in their methodology and their conclusions as with Mr. Limbaugh. NES Reply 22 07 2010 CPM (20:02:39) : Hi Elizabeth, Rational thought requires no credentials. The results speak for themselves. The same goes for reading comprehension ability Also, it is very scientific of you to criticize Denises age, claim that somebody else wrote this for her with no evidence at all, and harp on credentials instead of content. You must be a student of Campbells. It is also very scientific of many of Campbells supporters such as yourself that feel that the intended audience of Campbells book are unqualified to judge its merits and must simply bow down to his credentials as though he is the only scientist in the world that has every published a book on nutrition, let alone published a scientific paper.
7/26/12
Reply 27 08 2010 Igor (11:36:28) : Elizabeth, What has Campbell offered you in exchange for smearing his critics? Are you one of his grad students? Are you sleeping with him? Reply 9 02 2011 tracker (21:47:37) : Your credentials and $.75 will buy you a cup of coffee. You dont critique anything she wrote, you dont say its wrong. You resort to ad hominem attack, equating her to Rush Limbaugh and accusing her of plagiarism. You say youre a researcher? Heh. No surprise there. Reply 22 07 2010 Julie (19:50:43) : Denise and everyone else, Please just read TCCs response and it is CLEAR that he is the expert and Denise is 23 with no qualifications! Has Denise ever been in a lab? Has Denise ever conducted a scientific study? I mean, PPPLLLLEEEAAASSEE!!! Reply 22 07 2010 MA (20:39:58) : Hi Julie, I see that like Campbell himself, his supporters come well equipped to debate the merits of the issues at hand. It is very important when discussing scientific merit not to use your own brain or a little bit of critical thinking and instead rely on what some random scientist told you (and be sure to mention age and credentials.) You have failed to account for the Weston Price boogeymen though, so your brilliant rebuttal is not a total success. Reply 27 08 2010 Igor (11:40:24) : What does epidemiology have to do with being in a lab? Reply 23 07 2010 GaryB (05:27:25) : Atkins diet all over again. I started a weight loss regime, I didnt follow Atkins diet but I basically cut way back on starch and thereby went way up on meat. I happened to have a full physical scheduled in month 2 of the diet: Lowest bad cholesterol scores Ive ever had, highest good. I suspect a lot of our health issues are less about meat and more about lack of exercise. I dont try to eat a lot of meat, but I eat it for taste and the taste can be exquisitely good. Or to quote whomever really said it: Eating healthy doesnt make you live longer, it just seems like it. Reply 24 07 2010 vizeet srivastava (06:03:08) : Thanks for such a detailed analysis. When I was in school my teacher used to say with statistics you can prove anything. In these kind of studies no matter how good your parameters are and how reliable is the data collected you can never eliminate foreign factors. Then there are big profit making companies who have stake in these researches. I believe more reliable way of doing analysis is following: 1. We need to understand our evolution. 2. We need to understand traditional diet world over. As we live in more secured environment i.e. we dont have insect byte, we eat clean food, we have good health care etc. But diseases like heart problems, diabetes, cancer, osteoporosis, autism, infertility etc are growing. Following is more elaborate: 1.Farming is not more than 10000 years old. How much we are adapted to it depends a lot on ancestory. So she cannot ignore this factor while doing her research. 2. We evolved from chimps 4 million years back. Chimps are not pure veg, they are 90% veg. Our gut got simplified to eat more non-veg. 3. Why humans have teeth decay and labor pain? This is another important question. 4. Are we getting all required minerals and vitamins? As we used to get in older times. We dont need these studies to understand what is good for humans. We just need to invest some time thinking and trying to find answers. Reply 25 07 2010 Dave (17:48:35) : When I was in school my teacher used to say with statistics you can prove anything. I dont think your teacher understood statistics. Statistics is just math. You cant prove anything with math, as this would imply that two people working on the same problem would get different answers. The whole point of math is to have a self-consistent formal system for solving problems.
7/26/12
The issue here isnt statistics, but people. People can prove anything to themselves, precisely because they dont use a rigorous reasoning system (and yes, I include myself in that group). Thats why we have mathematical methods for trying to understand the real world. The problem is that scientists dont properly apply those methods. Denise has not demonstrated much evidence for any particular hypothesis here. Instead, she has shown that the data contains remarkably weak support for just about everything that Dr. Campbell has said (or just about any other statement you could draw, apart from these variables are correlated). That doesnt mean Dr. Campbell does not have other evidence to support his views, but sadly he is choosing to not share this evidence with us, and so all we have to go on is the China Study. Reply 26 07 2010 Vizeet Srivastava (06:26:28) : You cant prove anything with math, as this would imply that two people working on the same problem would get different answers. Oh Really, then how do you prove? I said with statistics you can prove anything that also means you can really prove nothing. People keep on giving reference of studies which are based on statistics. I have zero faith in them. Reply 27 08 2010 Igor (11:44:41) : @Dave Perhaps its true that you cant prove anything with statistics, but that doesnt stop people from trying. Reply 9 02 2011 tracker (21:51:49) : Paleolithic people didnt have tooth decay. They didnt eat sugar or wheat. Saturated fat is required for brain development. We are not chimps, obviously. Our meat consumption as hunter gatherers is probably why. Reply 25 07 2010 NaturGym Blog Archive Whats evolution got to do with it? (Part 1 Why is evolution important?) (09:23:22) : [...] ignored. (For a great example of how evidence can be used to show whatever you want, look at this critique of The China Study. I might do a whole post on the debate around this later.) Unfortunately, large nutritional studies [...] Reply 26 07 2010 M Burke (14:12:38) : The China Study conspicuously leaves out grains/gluten as Framingham study does women/sugar and many studies are cited by opposing sides as proving their point because no one understands the data or the implications. Well done Denise! Reply 26 07 2010 Amelina (18:33:20) : I cant believe I read not only the entire post but also about 60% of the comments. Clearly I have not much to do with my time on a Monday afternoon The post was well worth it, though. Ive read so much material on both sides (whatever you want to label those sides) and Ive also been on both sides, too! In the end I usually appeal to the fact that no society or cultural group has ever existed on zero animal products. That there answers any and all questions I might have. Great work. Reply 27 07 2010 Parag (12:03:53) : Friends, You dont need to believe Dr. Campbell. Just read The China Study, slowly and completely, and figure out the truth for yourself. Facts speak for themselves. I, and a few of my acquaintances, tried a whole-foods plant-based diet (coupled with biweekly exposure to sunlight in noon and some physical activity) for a few months (strict compliance), and it is working wonders for us, so we continue to be on it. Some of my friends failed, because they were mostly eating junk (plant-based) foods. The China Study book is not just about Dr. Campbells work, but more than that it describes the work and results of numerous other research studies, independent and unbiased, that point to the undeniable benefits of a whole-foods plant-based diet. Denise has adopted a detailed but very narrow view that is insufficient to relate to the larger context. This approach will only add to further confusion and misleading conclusions. Reply 27 08 2010 Igor (11:49:49) : Im not interested in how this diet is working out for you and your friends over a period of a few months or even a few years. What is of interest is how youll fare over a lifetime of eating this way. My prediction is youll eventually learn the hard way that you need some animal foods in your diet to stay healthy. Reply 27 07 2010 mrfreddy (www.beefandwhisky.com) (12:23:19) : Friends, Heres Dr. Eades reaction to reading the China Study, and all this recent commotion-its a doozy!
7/26/12
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/cancer/the-china-study-vs-the-china-study/#more-4213 heres a little nugget: In fact, in my studied opinion, The China Study is a masterpiece of obfuscation. It is obfuscatory in so many ways it could truly qualify as a work of obfuscatory genius. It would be difficult for a mere mortal to pen so much confusion, ambiguity, distortion and misunderstanding in what is basically a book-length argument for a personal opinion masquerading as hard science. Reply 29 07 2010 moox (08:13:00) : mrfreddy, thanks for the link to Dr Eades reaction and a great big thank you to Dr. Eades for his excellent commentary! Yet another massive blow to Dr. Campbells shameful attempt to use his credentials not for the cause of scientific truth, but rather further his or rather PCRMs idealogical agenda. It is one thing to say that a whole foods plant based diet is the helthiest diet around (which it probably is, minus the grains, plus a little or moderate amount of animal protein) and quite another to demonize all animal protein and linking all modern degenerative dieseases to its consumption. What makes it worse was Dr. Campbells attempt to masquerade his desired outcome as credible science. Reply 27 07 2010 Zach (13:59:03) : Denise, I gave you a shout out via a link in an article I wrote that was published on a libertarian website, hopefully further widening your audience for this great piece. http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/shelton-z1.1.1.html Good job once again. Reply 27 07 2010 The China Study vs the China study | The Blog of Michael R. Eades, M.D. (15:15:47) : [...] been alive with commentary the past few weeks since Denise Minger lobbed her first cannonball of a critique across the bow of The China Study, the vessel T. Colin Campbell, Ph.D. rode to fame and [...] Reply 27 07 2010 land animal (15:36:34) : I am glad you wrote this post. Too many vegetarians and vegans hold up this book as scientific evidence to support their decisions. Campbells highlighting of nonexistent correlations in data while omitting actual correlations to propel his war on casein are evidence that this book is pure science fiction. I personally eat plant-based and actually habitually live vegan (except for rare occasions) and love it, but I do not hold up The China Study as a reason to live this way. Reply 28 07 2010 Ura Hack (16:29:54) : This post and the time you are wasting is what happens when any idiot gets a computer and internet access. enjoy your fat and yuor early debilitative disease. and your picture is ugly too, whats with the caterpillars crawled up and died over your eyes. Reply 28 07 2010 Martin Levac (18:46:57) : LOL! Look whos talking. Stay in school, kid. Reply 29 07 2010 Thursday, July 29th: Fad Diets, Bad Diets SouthBaltimore CrossFit (03:02:50) : [...] plant and grain dominated diets are BS (long version) (short [...] Reply 29 07 2010 krasmuss (03:04:59) : It is mind-blowing that so many people out there seem to think Denises few week/months of data reduction is equivalent or superior to the rigorous ongoing research done by a scientist of the highest calibre and his research team for several decades. These are the same people that read a health book based largely on the opinion of someone claiming to be a researcher and some scattered poorly designed studies that appear to back up their claims. These books are all too often completely lacking in references and statistically valid analyses for the claims that they expouse, unlike the China Study, which backs up every claim with a reference (frequently from a peer-reviewed publication) and displays only statistically relevant data. I think it is important to question what you read, but it is equally important to understand the context of the information youre reading, specifically how it was gathered, reduced, and interpreted. Id like to see Denise try to publish her study according to the same rigorous standards that academic researchers face todayI doubt anyone encouraging her to do so in this blog is qualified to judge the real implications of Denises work for the nutrition community. Reply 29 07 2010 Martin Levac (04:26:25) : Are you qualified? Do you have a degree? Wheres you back pass? Ticket please? This aint about qualification, its about validity. Is Denises critique of Campbells work valid?
7/26/12
Reply 29 07 2010 MA (13:29:58) : Id like to see Denise try to publish her study according to the same rigorous standards that academic researchers face today Denise did not write a study. It was a critique of Campbell. Your defense of Campbell is worthless talk when your own words prove your lack of reading and thinking fundamentals. You have to separate the scientist from the salesman shopping around his hypothesis. You have to separate his scietific papers from his claims of hearing the right symphony. You have to separate the science from the science abuse. It is science to discuss a study that shows feeding rodents sucrose, aflatoxin, and a complete protein causes a quicker spread of cancer than feeding them sucrose, aflatoxin, and an incomplete protein. It is science abuse though to say this one little study proves that animal protein causes cancer and plant protein does not. It is fair game to point out science abuse where ever it occurs. You dont have to publish your own paper. It is not like Campbells book is peer-reviewed anyway. Reply 20 10 2010 Bran (14:22:23) : I completely agree with MA. Your data is worthless. You did not conduct a 35-year study and are just a meat loving person who doesnt want to face the reality of the harmful effects of animal protein and milk products. I completely agree with Dr. Campbell, and all of the information that he discusses has been reiterated in numerous studies and documentaries. Thanks for the terrible critique Reply 20 10 2010 Richard Nikoley (15:05:39) : Wow, how uncommon. Yet another vegan True Believer with nothing to say but affirmations of blind faith and say-so. Underwhelmed. Reply 20 10 2010 kat (15:36:20) : hahahaha you didnt even read MAs post! seriously, please keep it coming! Reply 27 08 2010 Igor (12:07:08) : Dude, its not a study. Its a criticism on someones blog of a book published for a mass audience. Whats with you guys? Its like youre all sharing the same template (are you?). Reply 29 07 2010 Stuff You Should Read : The Home of BSP Training & Nutrition (14:50:12) : [...] The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? Denise Minger. Denise goes into great depth and detail, as she crunched the data of the massive China Study herself! Performing some actual statistics on the raw data, she came to some very different conclusions than our dear Dr. Campbell. This is one hell of a read, but if you are someone who has any interest in the China Study, it is well worth your time. [...] Reply 29 07 2010 Bobby Davis (19:51:18) : You may not like my comment but it is true. God created Adam/Eve to eat from the Garden of Eden (all plant based diet). They were strickly vegetarians and Adam lived to be 930 yrs old. After the flood, and during the time the Israelites were wandering in the wilderness, they petitioned God to allow them to eat meat. God granted their request and pointed out what animals and fowl/birds they could eat and which ones they should stay away from for the sake of their own health. After meat was introduced into the diet the life span drastically reduced. Moses only lived 130 yrs and at the beginning of the 20th century (6000 yrs since Adam), the lifespan of mankind was somewhere in the mid 30s. So, whether you believe in plant based or animal inclusion in your diet, perhaps we should consider and understand that Gods wisdom is higher than mans. Every element of the human body can be found in dirt not in meat. From a scientists point of view, my conclusion supports Dr Campbell and his research is right on. Denise makes some good points as well, but I can not accept that eating meat or fowl of any kind at any time is conducive to a healthy body. Everything the human body needs for nourishment is in a plant based diet especially a raw organic one and it is the most bioavailable source of nutrients known to promote healthy cell growth. When you take into consideration the bodys pH balance, meat and dairy are high on the acidic side and we know that an acidic body gets sick where as a more alkaline body stays well. Also note that raw plant based food comes with its own digestive enzymes which break down and provide fast nourishment whereas meat does not provide any type of nourishment that the body can use it pulls enzymes from the body putting more stress on the digestive system. Give me salad and a fruit bowl, please. My 2 cents for what its worth. Reply 29 07 2010 MA (20:16:03) : Bobby, It is possible that the Earth is only 7000 years old, but this has nothing to do with science. It may be true, but the scientific evidence says otherwise. By the same token it may be true that animals are bad for you, but this has nothing to do with science.
7/26/12
It is disturbing when a scientist comes out and says that this is scientific fact. He should know better. He is abusing science to advance his own agenda. It is fine to have an agenda, but he needs to leave out the science abuse and the hocus pocus. He keeps insisting though that he is using superior science and he keeps making claims such as that it is pure scientific fact that all animal protein causes cancer. What he is doing is not science. It is science abuse. Reply 30 07 2010 Martin Levac (00:51:49) : Hey Bobby, how come the Original Sin is the eating of the apple but not the fish, chicken or beef? How come God killed the guy who gave him fruits and vegetables but not the guy who gave him meat? Seems to me God wanted us to keep eating meat and stay away from the fruits and the vegetables. By the way, did you see the movie Religulous? Its quite interesting to learn that the Bible is just a copy of some other religion 1000 years older. In fact, many religions are just copies of each other. Makes me wonder if God wanted to spread his wisdom to as many people as possible or if this religion thing is just pure bullshit. Just imagine if it was all just bullshit. We couldnt truthfully rely on the Bible or any other religious book now could we? Wed really have to figure things out on our own wouldnt we? Just saying. Peace out. Reply 29 02 2012 Chad (06:24:51) : Actually in Genesis 9 shortly after the flood God says to Noah, Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the the green plants, I now give you the everything. Thats quite a bit before the part in Exodus where the Israelites were wandering the in the desert with nothing but mana to eat and started grumbling about having no meat. Based on your own statements that Gods wisdom is higher than mans it seems to me he has given you the animals to eat. There is a lot of question about why only after the flood did God tell Noah that he should eat animals as well as plants. The best rational I have heard what that it was easy before the flood to get enough nutrition from plant sources only but the flood so drastically altered the world that it now was necessary to eat some meat. Meat probably was eaten before this command as Abel, Adams son, was keeping flocks before he was murdered. I suppose it could have been for the wool but . . Ive been reading the comments and would like to say as many have said. Campbell need only show us his math and we can stop this debate one way or the other. I find all these comments about age and credentials very disappointing. Reply 29 02 2012 Darrel (06:57:12) : You believe in Noah and his boat? No wonder youre disappointed with talk of credentials. Did Noah take the 2,000 plus species of carpenter ants and termites aboard his wooden ark? That would be a neat trick. Reply 29 02 2012 gager (10:45:55) : Its amazing that in this age of reason that there is still belief in this fantasy. The whole garden of eden is a myth. Reply 30 07 2010 M Gibson (16:08:55) : 3 years ago, a friend who had been diagnosed with cancer, described to me a book, The China Study, which had changed his life. After reading it, and changing his diet, his cancer went into remission. His cancer is still in remission. Since then, after reading the China Study, and then other books by Esselstyn, McDougall, Furhman, N. Barnard, Ornish, and others, my husband and I changed our diets. I had suffered from Irritable Bowel Syndrome and multiple allergies. Today, my digestion works perfectly, and I no longer need medications for allergies. A recommendation to those interested in the debate about whether Dr. Campbells findings are valid: Try eating a plant-based diet for a couple of weeks, and see how you feel. Do your own experiment; its easy, and there is lots of great advice on how to get started: Try the web site of Dr. McDougalls Website http://www.drmcdougall.com/index.html. Reply 30 07 2010 mrfreddy (16:29:46) : So, Mel, your argument is never mind that Campbell completley botched the science, a whole plant food diet works, it cures cancer, it cures IBM, try it, youll like it! Thats what youre saying, isnt it? Well, the whole point of doing science properly is to get to the truth. And the truth may we be that a different diet, say, paleo, offers the same results. And there is plenty of evidence on that front, especially for IBM. And therefore you and everyone else listening to TCC may be avoiding meat for no good reason. And
7/26/12
doing damage to yourself in the process. There are lots of people doing good science in this arena. T. C. Campbell isnt one of them. And btw, I did try the Ornish diet many years ago. Lost lots of weight, but I was miserably hungry ALL of the time. Never again. Reply 30 07 2010 Martin Levac (18:02:32) : Gibson, a few years ago, I read Gary Taubes Good Calories Bad Calories and another book by Weston Price called Nutrition and Physical Degeneration. It changed my life. I cut out all carbs from my diet and selected only meat, or mostly meat and cheese. I still eat like that today. I lost at least 50lbs in one year and returned to good health even more quickly. But unlike you, I know what I needed to cut out from my diet to return to good health. You, you just cut out all meat, sugar and whatever refined and processed crap you used to eat. No wonder you got sick before and no wonder you returned to fair health when you cut all that out. However, you didnt need to cut out meat since thats not what made you sick in the first place. What made you sick is all the refined and easily digestible carbohydrates like white sugar, HFCS, starch and grains of all kinds. So whats the difference between you and me? Well, you cut out everything not knowing what made you sick. I cut out only what made me sick. We both returned to fair or good health but your health will continue to degrade since meat is the only thing that contains an essential nutrient for humans: Vitamin B12. And without this vitamin, we get sick, sometimes irreversibly so. But the worst thing about it is that we can keep going for a long time before we realize that were deficient in that vitamin. Reply 27 08 2010 Igor (12:37:19) : In all fairness, you dont need to eat meat to get B12 (you can get it from eggs or dairy, though apparently eggs contain a substance which blocks its absorption), and you dont need a lot of B12 to avoid a deficiency. What B12 does indicate though is that its utter nonsense to claim that veganism is the natural diet of our species since we wouldnt need a vitamin that can only be obtained through animal foods if that were the case. Reply 4 10 2010 foreverhealthyandyoung (04:35:27) : No foods naturally contain vitamin B12 neither animal or plant foods. Vitamin B12 is a microbe a bacteria it is produced by microorganisms. All of the Vitamin B12 in the world ultimately comes from bacteria. Neither plants nor animals can synthesize it. But plants can be contaminated with B12 when they come in contact with soil bacteria that produce it. Animal foods are rich in B12 only because animals eat foods that are contaminated with it or because bacteria living in an animals intestines make it. Human animals have the same capabalities. An ideal way for us to get B12 is where the animal obtained it: from the soil. Apparently it is supplying enough for the animal if the meat is rich in it. It makes sense it would be sufficient for us then too. B12 concerns are the result of overcleaning everything including our food. Everyone who has a their own garden knows that sometimes a little dirt will inevitably be ingested with the food. This is not the case for overcleaned produce from the grocery store. Just a heads up, refined foods and high protein diets deplete B12. Reply 4 10 2010 Martin Levac (05:24:16) : I dont know where you got your information on B12 but according to this, B12 comes from bacteria that lives inside the animals we eat, not from dirt: Ultimately, animals must obtain vitamin B12 directly or indirectly from bacteria, and these bacteria may inhabit a section of the gut which is posterior to the section where B12 is absorbed. Thus, herbivorous animals must either obtain B12 from bacteria in their rumens, or (if fermenting plant material in the hindgut) by reingestion of cecotrope fces. So, if you must get your B12 from dirt, its only because some animal crapped in the dirt youre eating. Why not just eat the animal outright and be done with it. Well, it seems weve been doing just that for the last couple million years anyway. Where did you get your information about B12 anyway? Reply 4 10 2010 Martin Levac (05:25:09) : Forgot the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_B12 Reply 4 10 2010 foreverhealthyandyoung (15:42:59) : Most people consume enough B12 through animal products or fortified foods in their diet. On the other hand, animals that do not eat other animal products acquire the nutrient from bacteria in their guts or from bacteria-infected dirt on their plant food. An estimated one-quarter of people older than 60 in this country have trouble absorbing B12. B12 deficiency can lead to nerve damage, anemia, and forgetfulness. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-02/hhmi-sce022106.php I think the logic that most people forget when they say, if a diet absent of meat is natural, B12 wouldnt only be in animal foods, is that the animals that dont
7/26/12
eat meat, that people eat which is so rich in B12, obtained their vitamin B12 from sources that were not animal. Humans, being animals oursevles, have the same exact capabilities. Therefore to say that meat from an herbivore is high in B12, is to say that B12 is easily obtained through non-animal means. Do you see what Im saying? B12 is found in dirt, feces, in the liver and intestines. Our body store it to use later. So, if you must get your B12 from dirt, its only because some animal crapped in the dirt youre eating.Im not sure that this is the only reason dirt is rich in B12. But this is exactly what manure, is which many plants are grown in. Bacteria can be good. I think living in modern times we forget the whole cycle of life and food etc. You said, B12 comes from bacteria that lives inside the animals we eat, not from dirt because of this quote, Ultimately, animals must obtain vitamin B12 directly or indirectly from bacteria, and these bacteria may inhabit a section of the gut which is posterior to the section where B12 is absorbed. Thus, herbivorous animals must either obtain B12 from bacteria in their rumens, or (if fermenting plant material in the hindgut) by reingestion of cecotrope fces. This quote is saying that herbivorous animals obtain the B12 (from outer bacteria sources) and then those bacteria/B12 inhabit and get stored in the gut, where the animal then obtains it to use it by the body. Please read it again. Sure, you can eat the animal to obtain the B12, but I think people must be aware that that animal obtained it by non-animal means. If they can, we can to. There are many reasons why people prefer to eat lower on the food chain so its not as simple as just eat the animal and be done with it. B12 is not present IN foods so much as ON them within the dirt or bacteria. Because animals eat plant forms complete with the dirt, they are able to store B12 in their tissues. Meat eaters are then able to obtain this nutrient in their food, whereas vegans must obtain it in a supplemental form unless, of course, they adhere to the old saying everyone must eat a peck of dirt in their lifetime. Still, it is advisable to take supplements in this case. When plant foods are cleaned, the bacteria and the B12 are removed. Modern farming techniques also deplete the soil of this nutrient unless organic methods are used http://www.innvista.com/health/nutrition/vitamins/b12.htm Reply 4 10 2010 Richard Nikoley (22:18:00) : I recently blogged on the B12 issue here, with refs: http://freetheanimal.com/2010/09/dr-seale-any-b12-present-in-animal-foods-is-only-because-of-bacterial-contamination.html In short, ruminants produce a lot of B12 in the rumen, well ahead of the small intestine where its absorbed, hits the portal vein and goes straight to the liver. Ruminant liver is natures b12 vitamin, as well as its natural muti vitamin. Ruminant liver is, ounce for ounce the most nutritionally dense food on the planet. The error is in conflating the human digestive tract with that of other animals and in particular, ruminants with a very complex stomach, just for the purpose of converting all that plant material into nutrients we cant, or do very poorly. They eat the plants, we eat them, just as evolution worked out through the logic of natural selection. Reply 4 10 2010 foreverhealthyandyoung (16:18:25) : You quoted Ultimately, animals must obtain vitamin B12 directly or indirectly from bacteria, and these bacteria may inhabit a section of the gut which is posterior to the section where B12 is absorbed. Thus, herbivorous animals must either obtain B12 from bacteria in their rumens, or (if fermenting plant material in the hindgut) by reingestion of cecotrope fces. Please read this again. Wki is stating that animals must obtain their B12 from bacteria (from outside sources or from another animal-direcly or indirecly) then the bacteria/B12 that they ingest inhabits and is stored in the gut and liver to be used when the body needs it. Most people consume enough B12 through animal products or fortified foods in their diet. On the other hand, animals that do not eat other animal products acquire the nutrient from bacteria in their guts or from bacteria-infected dirt on their plant food. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-02/hhmi-sce022106.php I think the logic that most people forget is that if the herbivorous animal was able to obtain enough B12, by not eating meat, to supply its meat-for you- with enough B12, then human animals naturally have the same exact capabalities of obtaining B12 through non-animal ways. When people state that meat (from a cow or such) is high in B12, they are then affirming, without even realizing it, that B12 can easily be obtained from nonanimal sources. Do you see the flaw now in the popular, B12 is only found in meat, that is why a non-meat diet is not natural? You talk about the animal crapping on the soil and us obtaining B12 that way. Soil is made up of a mixture of poop and other substances which we grow our crops in. Extremely beneficial bacteria. In addition, manure is used to grow many crops, manure is poop. I think the germophobic mentality of today is causing more harm than good. B12 is found in the bacteria in dirt, stored in the liver, intestines and present in high amounts in the feces. Probably the reason why many dogs eat poop! B12 is not present IN foods so much as ON them within the dirt or bacteria. Because animals eat plantforms complete with the dirt, they are able to store B12 in their tissues. Meat eaters are then able to obtain this nutrient in their food, whereas vegans must obtain it in a supplemental form unless, of course, they adhere to the old saying everyone must eat a peck of dirt in their lifetime. Still, it is advisable to take supplements in this case. When plant foods are cleaned, the bacteria and the B12 are removed. Modern farming techniques also deplete the soil of this nutrient unless organic methods are used. http://www.innvista.com/health/nutrition/vitamins/b12.htm It is not as easy as, Why not just eat the animal outright and be done with it. Many people believe that eating lower on the food chain is optimal. There are many reasons that someone would choose not to obtain their B12 from animals.
7/26/12
Reply 5 10 2010 Martin Levac (04:54:43) : Your logic is faulty because it does not take into account that humans who do not eat animal flesh, or some adequate substitute like dairy, will suffer the consequence, and do suffer the consequence. Your logic is faulty because its based on the assumption that the quantity and quality of the B12 that exists anywhere else but in the animal flesh humans eat is adequate for humans. If the B12 that exists elsewhere was adequate, then humans would not suffer the consequence of not eating meat or an adequate substitute like dairy. Dont let the facts get in the way of a good story though. PS. Dont confuse news with truth. Further, dont confuse sales pitch with news. Your two links are news and sales pitch respectively. None can be characterized as truth. Where did you get your information from B12? Reply 5 10 2010 foreverhealthyandyoung (13:13:56) : Martin-Did you even read what I wrote? or the quoted bits??? I and they agree that vegans most certainly can suffer from B12 deficiency-the consequences of not eating getting the bacteria through animal products, or other means. But that simpy doesnt negate the fact that B12 is found in bacteria in the dirt. Most people-vegans included-do not eat vegetables straight from the earth. The food at the grocery store is 100% sterile. Its triple washed with bleach to kill bacteria, among other invasive procedures. Root vegetables such as carrots, potatoes and beets that could have a glowing chance to supply B12 bacteria, get the same invasive procedures, and then add insult to injury, they are also routinely peeled, therefore even if one picks it straight from the garden, theyre taking away all traces of B12. Ultamitely, once food from the grocery store is finally eaten, all B12 is completely, 100% gone. I posted my sources already. Search and you will find that B12 is from bacteria, this bacteria exists on soil. I think my links are fine. You can always find others yourself that fit your criteria. Im not looking for vegan pushing sites that give vegans B12 hope with soil. The fact is that B12 is present in baceria rich dirt and noone can dispute that. Thats a good question though-can the B12 from dirt be adequatly absorbed into the body? Im not sure. I know we need much less the ruminant animals as Richard was talking about. Our requirements are very small and it does get stored in our bodies. Other good questions are is B12 destroyed by cooking? I do know that microwave cooking destroys much of it but what about other forms? Also, does the B12 from conventional meat get aborbed well into our bodies? What about from conventional milk? What makes someone absorb B12 well? I think people with stomach or intenstinal problems have trouble. This is interesting: A study that came out of Tufts University last year found that as many as 40 percent of healthy men and women have low levels of B-12 and those levels were deficient even though the people were eating diets tht has amuch as three times the recommended daily intake of this critical vitamin. This study shows clearly that B12 adequacy is more than just shoving the appropriate B12-rich things into your mouth. There is more that meets the eye. lastly, did someone say that eggs werent a good source for B12? Richard, Ill definitely read your article. Thank you. Reply 5 10 2010 Martin Levac (14:03:52) : I read what you wrote. However, I did not read only what you wrote. Relax, you are not the Holder of The Truth. The intarweb is hugelol. In fact, a vegan person wrote something here believeitornot: http://www.veganforum.com/forums/showthread.php?18297-The-myth-about-B12-dirt-and-stools I dont know whats worst, really, 480 billion bugs or 1 kg stools/soil mixture pr. day Its interesting that a vegan person would be smart in this matter. Yet the same vegan person would imply that you could still get enough adequate B12 from plant matter such as algae. You did post your sources. However, neither source you posted have any value. Because, if you didnt know already, news and sales pitch is not synonymous with truth. But if you want to believe in it, thats just fine by me. Eh waitaminute. Are you saying this discussion is just a matter of belief? That would just be sad. 5 10 2010 foreverhealthyandyoung (20:19:21) : Martin- please address the study I posted and the questions I asked. That would be great. This isnt a discussion about belief, but fact. The links I posted were not sites selling products. As for news sites, they can offer legitimate information and studies. According to this site, wikipedia is not an ideal source: http://library.williams.edu/citing/wikipedia.php
7/26/12
It is interesting to note that there are many cultures who practice geogphagy (such as iranian vegans, Africans..) to obtain nutrients, including B12. Also pregnant women and children crave dirt and may eat it for the nutrients. Also interesting to note that many farm animals, contained indoors, are fed a diet fortified with B12 to prevent common deficiency. Therefore, one could ask, why not just take the b12 vitamin, rather then eat the whole animal. Effect of soil ingestion on B12 in sheep: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16528394?dopt=Citation strict vegetarians who do not practice thorough hand washing or vegetable cleaning may be untroubled by vitamin B-12 deficiencies. http://www.victorherbert.com/cv576.pdf Pernicious anemia appears to arise not from shortage in the diet, but from impairment of the ability to absorb Vitamin B-12.[Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 71st Scientific Meeting, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, January 5, 1952, p. 295] this is of interest: B12 is present in water. http://www.aslo.org/lo/toc/vol_7/issue_2/0151.pdf If were going with wiki information, here is this interesting tidbit: The worlds largest group of professional dietitians says the form of vitamin B12 sourced from animal-products is protein-bound and not as easily digested, especially as people age, and therefore recommends B12 supplementation for everyone over the age of 50 Another bacterial source happens to be that plants and edible fungi (like mushrooms) on farms or in the wild may absorb vitamin B12 from bacteria in soil, but since modern pesticides kill most B12 in the soil (including on organic farms to some degree, as the pesticides spread, via hydrology, from non-organic farms to organic ones), the B12 in these plants is not considered a reliable dietary source,[32] whereas B12 supplements from bacteria grown under controlled conditions are considered reliable amounts of B12. There is a patent for a cultivating vitamin B12 from plants. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarian_nutrition#Vitamin_B12 This crop [comfrey] has been used as a salad green and potherb because it was considered a good source of protein and a rare plant-derived source of vitamin B12. Vitamin B12 is produced usually by soil bacteria and fungi or in the small intestines of some animals. http://www.appropedia.org/Comfrey Not about B12, but interesting nonetheless: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/66838.php 5 10 2010 Martin Levac (21:31:32) : Wait a minute, are you trying to convince me that humans dont suffer deficiency when they dont eat meat or dairy? But Id have to ignore a bunch of stuff about the subject. That just wont do. Heres a link to an actual scientific study which outlines the consequences of eating too little meat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Starvation_Experiment The result? Emaciation and neurosis. You tell me how good that is. Oh and thats an actual clinical trial where they fed humans foodstuff just to see what happens. Whaddyaknow, an actual science experiment. Believeitornot, a single experiment like that can refute a mountain of bullshit like the crap you posted. Dont believe me? Try the Biosphere 2 project for confirmation of the same evidence. Dont believe either paper? Well then I guess youre fucked. 5 10 2010 foreverhealthyandyoung (23:53:28) : I think I have some very useful, thought provoking links. You really should take the time to click into them and read them. Vegans most certainly can get B12 deficiency. Im not sure I said otherwise ? What is odd though is that heavy meat eaters also have the risk of being B-12 deficient. There is more to B12 than meets the eye. Much more. Its not so cut and dry. Regardless, I am a huge proponent of starting a garden and getting in the habit of eating those slightly dirty veggies, for omnivores and vegetarians alike! Regarding your study. I wouldnt view it as the consequences of eating too little meat. That is a hasty conclusion to come to, in my opinion. You could just as easily come to the conlusion that it was the consequences of not eating enough plant foods. The participants were eating cabbage, bread, and rutubaga (with small amounts of meat and dairy) two times a day and walking 22 miles in a week! The goal was to lose 25% of their weight, if they didnt lose weight fast enough their portions were cut back evenmoreso. I would view this as not getting adequate calories (especially) in relation to physical activitity. As well as not getting enough nutrients, and variety in the diet. If you starved yourself on a 100% meat diet, you would experience the same health detriments. Think of Christopher Johnson McCandless, as one example. That study proves nothing but the fact that adequate nutrition and calories-in other words FOOD is vital to the human body. This study is not anti-vegetarian or pro-meat. Im surprised that you would come to the conclusion you did. Dont believe me? Try the Biosphere 2 project for confirmation of the same evidence. What I found for this project was that the parcipiants were severely lacking in oxygen inside the facility (the equivalant to being at an elevation of 13,400 ft) which resulted in some health problems. but as for their diet, this website says this: http://biomedgerontology.oxfordjournals.org/content/57/6/B211.abstract We conclude that healthy nonobese humans on a low-calorie, nutrient-dense diet show physiologic, hematologic, hormonal, and biochemical changes resembling those of rodents and monkeys on such diets. With regard to the health of humans on such a diet, we observed that despite the selective restriction in
7/26/12
calories and marked weight loss, all crew members remained in excellent health and sustained a high level of physical and mental activity throughout the entire 2 years. 6 10 2010 Martin Levac (03:30:46) : If you are new to nutritional science, you must be made aware of a common fact regarding semi-starvation experiments, every single one of them reports continuous, persistent deep hunger in all participants. Why would the Biosphere 2 project be any different? The answer is that it isnt any different, they just scantly reported it in the multitude of papers written on it. Deep persistent hunger is one of the defining features of semi-starvation. In other words, if you dont eat enough, you will suffer deep persistent hunger. Not to be confused with starvation, which is entirely different from semi-starvation. In these studies, hunger is not characteristic. In fact, the opposite is true. Once we stop eating altogether, hunger increases for a short time, then after a few days, hunger just disappears completely. Again, why would the Biosphere 2 project not report such a characteristic aspect? Maybe they took it for granted. Maybe its because it was a capital venture and not a scientific experiment. Do you know what we dont tell you when we tell you that you must eat less to lose weight? We dont tell you that you will be continuously hungry. Thats what we dont tell you. But in the end, it doesnt matter. The effects of eating not enough meat and the effects of eating not enough food are the same. Thats because for humans, meat and food are synonymous. They are one and the same. The hasty conclusion I came to is obvious. Thats because its true. They did, in fact, eat very little meat, and they did, in fact, suffer emaciation and neurosis. Would you rather conclude that they suffered because they ate mostly plants? Thats fine by me too. Even then, this means we are not suited to eating a plant based diet. Ergo, eating too little meat will cause deficiency. Or maybe they suffered because they didnt eat enough food? Well, remember what I told you about outright starvation? Hunger disappears in those studies. What makes semi-starvation different? The intake of foodstuff that does not satisfy hunger. Rather, the intake of foodstuff that causes deep persistent hunger. One, not enough meat, and two, too much plant matter. Those are the facts no matter what you conclude from them. Further explanation. In order to understand the above, we must know what hunger is. Hunger is the physiological signal to eat food. But then we must also define food. What is food but that which satisfies and suppresses hunger. Ergo, if that which you eat does not satisfy hunger, then its not food. We must further examine what happens with a ketogenic diet. A ketogenic diet will induce the same physiological response as outright starvation which is to say suppressed hunger. We can therefore conclude that whatever is contained in such a diet is food. And about the Biosphere 2 project, why dont you go directly to their website, youll find a whole page full of papers written on it. Im sure its a much better source of information. Now if youll excuse me, there are other gurus on the internet who are just as wrong as you were a moment ago. 27 08 2010 Igor (12:17:50) : Try eating a plant-based diet for a couple of weeks, and see how you feel. I did. I feel better on a diet which includes both plant and animal foods. Your anecdotes are completely meaningless unless you tell us how you were eating before you switched to this diet. If you were eating the Standard American Diet (SAD), then its entirely possible that switching to a whole-food plant-based diet would be a temporary improvement. Have you tried the type of diet suggested by the Weston A. Price Foundation for a few weeks to see how it makes you feel? Reply 4 10 2010 foreverhealthyandyoung (04:38:20) : Thats great! I cant tell you how many stories Ive read of people who have cured their cancer with a plant diet. Reply 31 07 2010 Archie L. Tucker (14:34:38) : Personally, I think any reply to Denise Mingers blind leap to criticize Dr. Campbells work is a wasted effort and risks lending undue credence to her baseless claims. However, I do have this to say: How can she even consider that she possesses the credentials, academic or otherwise, to challenge the findings of a scientist with a PhD in biochemistry and several decades of experience in labs and fieldwork in the area of nutrition? I suppose such research facilities as Cornell and Oxford should reconsider their acceptance of his research findings in support of someone who has absolutely no academic credentials in this arena. In addition, does she think all peer reviews of his work should be reconsidered just because she likes to crunch numbers? Please! Give the readers some credit for intellect and common sense. Archie L. Tucker Certified in: Biology, anatomy, health, and astronomy Reply 31 07 2010 MA (15:32:27) : Archie, You have to separate when Campbell is talking about science (his peer-reviewed papers) and when he is abusing science with his weak hypothesis (his book
7/26/12
and articles) that he is spouting as Truth. As I said in another comment, James D. Watson has a Nobel Prize and headed up the Human Genome Project. He has a buttload of genetics credentials. He also thinks blacks, women, and fat people are not as smart as skinny white males. If you cant back up hypotheses, then they are not science. If you really want to condemn all meat as carcinogenic because one rat study showed that feeding rats sucrose, aflatoxin, and a complete protein causes cancer to spread more quickly than feeding them sucrose, aflatoxin, and an incomplete protein, then what you are doing is not science. If you want to believe this because some guy with a PhD says this, then maybe you are the one lacking intellect and common sense. If you are still caught up on credentials, you might also consider the fact that Campbells hypothesis is not well accepted within his the scientific community or even among many of his colleagues. He wrote his book to appeal to the general public because nobody in the scientific community would believe it. There is too much contradictory evidence. (You know, he could use his money to fund a very definitive study instead of pointing at his one rat study.) He is abusing science, and he is persuading his followers to abuse science. It is a disgrace for someone who used to be a scientist to be doing this. The same people defending Campbell could be using the very same arguments to defend Creation Science. Campbell needs to take a step back and see what he has taught his minions about science by ignoring the process of science and instead insisting on his own Truth. Reply 31 07 2010 Martin Levac (20:32:23) : Whats up with the idiots on the Campbell camp? Theres so many of them. Why dont we have as many idiots? Oh right. Never mind. Reply 1 08 2010 Greg (02:41:36) : Wow, Archie, are you for real? Your reply had not one single substantive idea in itjust more ad hominem and appeal to authority. Why so much of that when discussing Denises posts? Nothing you wrote had anything to do with what Denise posted, not any little part of it. Cant we just stick to what she or Dr. Campbell SAY ABOUT THE DATA as the topic? (Also, what does certified in mean in relation to those fields? Since youre bringing it up presumably to speak to your own credentials) Reply 27 08 2010 Igor (12:39:58) : Hiding behind credentials shows that you guys dont have a leg to stand on. Reply 31 07 2010 Richard Nikoley (14:41:53) : Shorter Archie L. Tucker: What is of far less importance than who says it. Archie L. Tucker Certified in: ad hominem ~~~ Personally I love how all the Campbell sycophants are exposing themselves as total regurgitative fools. I think many of them might do well to read this. http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/072717-2010-07-26-valedictorian-speaks-out-against-schooling-in-graduation-speech.htm I am graduating. I should look at this as a positive experience, especially being at the top of my class. However, in retrospect, I cannot say that I am any more intelligent than my peers. I can attest that I am only the best at doing what I am told and working the system. Yet, here I stand, and I am supposed to be proud that I have completed this period of indoctrination. I will leave in the fall to go on to the next phase expected of me, in order to receive a paper document that certifies that I am capable of work. But I contest that I am a human being, a thinker, an adventurer not a worker. A worker is someone who is trapped within repetition a slave of the system set up before him. But now, I have successfully shown that I was the best slave. Reply 1 08 2010 Michael (03:27:49) : There is a lot of responding to spam going on here. Many of the defenders of Campbell are just doing a one off meaning they are posting the same piece at a number of blogs with no intention of seriously engaging the subject matter. A number of the last few comments here were posted at my blog as well. I dont even bother approving them anymore.
7/26/12
Reply 1 08 2010 Jon (04:14:56) : All that spam over more than 700 comments and maybe 1 or 2 Campbellites said anything substantive. Its the Campbell school of new science. Campbellism is the new Creationism. Reply 2 08 2010 Marco (02:20:39) : No offense- Creationism is a terrible analogy. If you can explain Baryongenesis, CP asymmetry, and simulate the creation of organic material under primordial conditions then you might have a case against creationism. Otherwise, its arrogant to claim that any creationist argument is invalid. From within the scope of studies via the scientific method, we cannot show, scientifically (which is neither absolute nor objective) or hypothetically, that there is no agency responsible for the ordered creation of our visible reality (note that Creationism is not limited to the God making the earth in 7 days rabble). The origin of existence debate is a proxy battle between Theists and Atheists, of which there are very strong and logical arguments on both sides. CC and his gang are simply contradictory and wrong by their own words. CC generates income from his misinformation, making it much more appropriate it to compare him to the Sophists of ancient Greece- who literally lectured BS for money. Reply 2 08 2010 Jon (03:30:33) : Not to get too far off-topic, but most biblical Creationists see the bible as literal truth. To them it is not a hypothesis, and like Campbellites no amount of evidence in the world will convince them otherwise. I am saying the majority of creationists are only science pretenders (most creationists dont know what a baryon is and only care if it supports their Truth.) Creationism is an artifact of separation of church and state in the United States. They are trying to dress-up it with science so that it can be taught in public schools, but it is ultimately just science abuse. They dont mind referencing various scientific studies when it suits them, but if any scientific study does not support the Truth then it must be flawed. For most creationists, the truth is that the world is not more than 10000 years old. In Kansas and Texas (at least) they tried to remove all mention of dinosaurs and radioactive dating from textbooks. For Campbellites the Truth is that animal food is bad and plant food is good. There are numerous studies that contradict this, but Campbells Truth means these all must be flawed. The process of science means nothing to these people. Creationists and Campbellites are just pretenders of science. Most of the pro-Campbellite comments here have had nothing to do with science (let alone common sense or reading comprehension), but they have insisted that their science is superior. Reply 2 08 2010 Marco (06:19:59) : Seems like a fun way to kill some time until the heavens begin dueling again . Late- excuse the galoompfingness. The most esteemed critical thinkers of both creationism and evolutionary theory are a minority that dont associate themselves with either side. The radical faction that you are referring to is also a minority that just happens to get the most attention. Even this minority, despite being insincere, has a valid point (Im just doing this for fun, mind you). Science is nothing more than a series of observable consistencies (or rather, things that we say are consistent because we believe to observe them as such particle-wave duality is the poster-child of this). The incompleteness theorem(s) require that we assume that every conclusion we make is NOT true (partially for the reason stated previously), even if it is applicable. Any law we discover is something that we define, and may be overturned in the future. The process of Science can become deceptively doctrinal and appear to be more right than some other idea, but thats the worst kind of science- the kind that leads you to reject possibilities. No possible truth can be proven to be more right than some other possible truth (doesnt that sound ridiculously tasty?)- so what value is there rationalizing one truth over the other? A truly scientifically minded person knows that they cannot claim anything that they discover with science to be truth- so why would they ever want to believe anything to be true? (Lets avoid this huge crux of a question for now and focus on the merit of radical creationists.) Is it bad science to use science to push some political agenda? Sure (look at global warming- what a mess). But its WORSE science to reject the possibility of something being true. If dissenting arguments are not taught, then we are guilty of indoctrination regardless of what IS taught. The creationist agenda (currently) doesnt want education to teach one idea exclusively even if they use bad science to show that some alternative idea is plausable, even if they are disingenuous and evil in their recommendation- their ultimate goal is better than a one-sided school system that shoves processed junk down your throat. A school should probably be a place where students can find inspiration to live full, peaceful, healthy, and productive lives- being exposed to many ideas isnt a bad way to promote the critical thinking skills that result in a full life. Just as catholic schools of the past were unwilling to teach novel ideas, schools of today are falling into the same trap with archaic ones. There is plenty of truth to be found in the creation myths of old- many of which could be true! To get supremely off-meta-topic, In regards to science, we ultimately cannot escape the fact that we humans have convictions- there are things that we believe that we dont really understand. If we follow the trail of our convictions back to the source, before we can believe anything to be true, we must first believe that we can believe things to be true. We can believe that we have free will, but then we do not have the free will to disbelieve in our free will Science is rittled with these types of metaphysical paradoxes that are neither true nor untrue nor can even be approached scientifically. You can, however, use theology and philosophy to construct a way of life that is rich and full of meaning, despite knowing that you know nothing. The crux isnt just a question of science, but of anything a person believes. Its definitively unnecessary to tie oneself down to ideas that are not important for you to live happily and to function healthfully, so why do people do it? One could say that evolutionary theory is an arbitrary conviction to have- it does very little to promote the explicit enrichment of ones life (which, in that sense, atheism would be even stupider but only in that sense). If creationists are pushing for a second perspective to be taught in schools, then, from a scientific point of view, thats fundamentally a good thing (so long as it isnt implemented by fundamentalists that could get scary).
7/26/12
*ahem* The end result of creationist policy would not win them money directly. Their indoctrination of others would not necessarily result in direct financial gain. Campbells church is explicitly a money-making machine driven by sophistry. Radical creationists ALSO use sophistry, but they are not sophists in the way that Campbell is. Of course- my original contention was only that it would be better to call Campbell a sophist than compare him to creationists because most creationists are not radical nor in it for the money nor intentionally misguiding others. Reply 2 08 2010 Jon (14:10:15) : Marco Im not sure about radical creationists being the minority, but for the most part the only creationists I care about are the ones that want to change textbooks to say or imply that the world is only 10000 years old. I think there are probably plenty of alternative views that can be discussed in high school, but if it is a science class or a science textbook it needs to remain relatively close to mainstream science. I think discussing historical paradigm shifts would be probably be more instructive to emphasize being open to other possibilities than debating evolution. I also think something like QM interpretation would be a better topic than evolution to discuss metaphysics. Monotheism can actually be a rather limited viewpoint at looking at the universe. I also dont know if high school students have enough of a background to debate the science behind evolution. I think it is important in a science class to emphasize that science is open for discussion and debate, but it does not mean that you can turn any science question into high school debate club without understanding some of the science about it. You have to stick to the science and your arguments have to be supported by science. You have to know what science is to do this. Reply 2 08 2010 Marco (18:00:36) : (Im soooo sorry denise!) I pwwwomise they are a minority- Most people on the planet are theists and thus also creationists. Only a small portion believe in the literal word and there are even fewer with an inferiority complex strong enough to stand up and say that it is more true than evolution in a political context. Making a textbook read as nonsense would be unfortunate- but the simple fact of the matter is that evolutionary theory is NOT science either. By extrapolating on our knowledge of basic rules, we can make sense of evolutionary ideas (and some creationist ideas) only up to the point of pseudoscience. Because you cant actually teach the scientific process of evolution, evolutionary theory more or less belongs in the historical portion of a science class (all science classes also teach history of science). There are plenty of modern well-composed alternatives that deserve exposure. You have to know what science is before you can debate it? Sounds an awful lot like CC . I was in HS 7 years ago, I remember having debates with fellow students over just about everything that was said in a class- if you design curriculum based upon the premise that kids wont understand, then youre robbing them- we must have faith in our future generations! *ahem* So If its truly scientific, then there isnt much room for debate. It follows that any conjecture should be proposed with a dissenting opinion otherwise it will appear to be scientific. Even if all the science that can be used to support either side is not available and understood, they deserve to be presented with two ideas. The teacher doesnt need to host a debate- s/he just needs to get the information out there in a way that will help keep their minds open to infinite possibilities. Reply 2 08 2010 Jon (18:48:19) : Marco If you are saying that everybody that believes in a higher power is a creationist, then you are using the term a lot more broadly than I am. I could comment more on some of the other points, but I think we have digressed too much already. Reply 2 08 2010 Marco (21:45:42) : Theists are almost definitively creationists. Most people use the term much more broadly than you are which is the only reason why I say its unfair to equate Creationists with a charlatan. All-in-all its a bunch of unnecessary nitpicking I mean, after all, its obvious that youre making a joke and obvious that youre talking about the literal biblical creationists- but that doesnt mean that it is imprudent of me to point out that Creationism has a much much larger context than the bible bashers. Reply 2 08 2010 Marco (21:48:35) : Err- correction. It is TOTALLY imprudent of me to have said anything. I apologize! Reply 8 09 2011 wayne (19:16:05) : Biggest load of nonsense Ive read in a long time. To many errors to correct each individually. Ill just give it a fail. Reply 4 08 2010 5 Good Reads, 8/4/10 Primal Bodybuilding (18:10:53) : [...] Raw Food SOS, a fellow data geek took the China Study to task. Re-Analyzing the data gives us a completely [...] Reply 6 08 2010 Final China Study Response (HTML Version) Raw Food SOS: Troubleshooting on the Raw Food Diet (20:56:17) : [...] The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? [...]
7/26/12
Reply 14 08 2010 Dave (19:14:19) : According to Dr. Campbells book, in rural China a 143 lb. person averages 64 grams of protein, of which about 5 grams comes from animal sources. When you adjust for completeness of protein and digestability, thats very close to the minimum recommended by the World Health Organization. That means a significant percentage of people are much lower than the minimum requirement and should benefit from additional protein, animal or otherwise. Reply 16 08 2010 Ben Greenfield (15:44:52) : Fantastic response. You elegantly phrased the thoughts twittering through my head as I read The China Study. I had doubts, and now I understand why after seeing your stats. Kudos. Reply 21 08 2010 Weekend Link Love | Pure Spontaneity (05:35:56) : [...] you ever thought about being a vegetarian you must meet two women: Denise and [...] Reply 22 08 2010 Tim (22:04:09) : Excellent analysis! Campbell is a vegan and, like many vegans, is motivated by political belief. His China Study is a textbook example of confirmation bias. The fact that a scientist like Campbell would choose to present such flawed data means he is more concerned with propaganda than science. If anyone is actually interested in the science of diet, read Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes. As Denise so painstakingly pointed out, its all about the variables. I have no doubt the variable we should be focusing on is refined carbohydrates, not meat and dairy. Reply 24 08 2010 Neil (21:00:07) : Very impressive research and analysis but, at the end of the day, we all only believe what we WANT to believe. For example, one person may read the bible and think its the greatest story ever told and also believe that its the truth. Another person may read the bible and conclude that its really just the greatest story ever told. So, whilst Debras work is impressive for the amount of time and effort shes put in, as a vegan I am, not surprisingly, very firmly sat in Dr Colin Campbells camp. I just believe Dr Campbell. Also, there have been a few comments on here from reformed vegans (including Debra) who are delighted that, in their eyes, Debra has debunked Dr Campbells research and they are now revelling in eating an omnivorous diet once again. If thats what they truly believe then thats fine. But what I really dont understand is just what was their motivation for becoming a vegan in the first place? Was it moral over concerns for the animals, or was it personal health concerns, or just concerns for the environment of the planet as a whole, or maybe all of these reasons? Why did they truly feel the need to start eating animals once again and appear to have become almost vitriolic in their attitude towards veganism? Was it really just to regain their lost health because a vegan diet made them ill? In my opinion, its more than likely theyve shifted their moral concerns for the animals, and for the planet, just so they can eat animals once again for personal pleasure and without any moral guilt because its for the sake of my health. I truly believe that anyone who has health issues AFTER commencing a vegan diet, then its completely their own fault and have only themselves to blame for eating a totally un-balanced and malnourished diet. A balanced, plant-based diet is TOTALLY nourishing to human health I should know, having eaten a plant-based diet for over 30 years and I feel terrific. Maybe Denise could do some further research and post the statistics highlighting the pro-rata ratio of sick meat-eaters and sick vegans who are currently inpatients of all the hospitals in the world. Ill wager that the pro-rata percentage of sick meat-eaters far outweighs the sick vegans. Reply 24 08 2010 Richard Nikoley (21:21:29) : Very impressive research and analysis but, at the end of the day, we all only believe what we WANT to believe. For example, one person may read the bible and think its the greatest story ever told and also believe that its the truth. Another person may read the bible and conclude that its really just the greatest story ever told. So, whilst Debras work is impressive for the amount of time and effort shes put in, as a vegan I am, not surprisingly, very firmly sat in Dr Colin Campbells camp. I just believe Dr Campbell. Thanks for that, Neil. I dumped religion about 20 years ago. Dammed if Ill ever take it up, again. And of course this is always how Ive viewed the vegan catechism anyway, so thanks for the confirmation. Reply 24 08 2010 Tom (23:04:51) : Also, there have been a few comments on here from reformed vegans (including Debra) who are delighted that, in their eyes, Debra has debunked Dr Campbells research The point isnt that she debunked his research, but that it was never bunked to begin with. 8,000 statistical data points can be used to prove anything that you want. Just leave out the ones that dont agree with you pre-formed conclusions and youre golden. I truly believe that anyone who has health issues AFTER commencing a vegan diet, then its completely their own fault and have only themselves to blame for eating a totally un-balanced and malnourished diet. I totally agree. A vegan diet is a totally un-balanced and malnourished diet. See what I did there? I took a datum (in this case, a quote, but it works with statistics, too) out of context and made it support a completely different conclusion than it means. Its so easy, a caveman never mind.
7/26/12
And thats what Denise points out. Data was taken out of context and made to support a conclusion. Science is making the conclusions fit the data. Bad science is having a conclusion and finding the data that fits. Denise pointed out bad science. Go, Denise! The world needs more Denises. Reply 25 08 2010 Neil (06:34:36) : Oops! Sincere apologies DENISE! Debra is my nagging omnivorous wife. Tom, yes I do see what youve done now. Much too clever for me. Must be all that animal protein that gives you far superior intelligence to plant eaters. Any stats on this too? Reply 25 08 2010 neisy (15:03:50) : No worries, Neil Ive been called worse things than Debra. But what I really dont understand is just what was their motivation for becoming a vegan in the first place? Was it moral over concerns for the animals, or was it personal health concerns, or just concerns for the environment of the planet as a whole, or maybe all of these reasons? Depending on the person answering this question, it could be any of the above or all or none. Some people become enamored with the idea of saving the planet and reducing suffering, and feel veganism is the best way to do that. Others read books like The China Study and grow convinced that veganism is the only healthy diet. Others are led to believe theyre spiritually unclean if they consume meat or animal products (especially folks who get deeply into yoga or embrace the Eastern concept of ahimsa). And Im sure theres the odd duck or two out there who, for whatever reason, just doesnt like the taste of meat or fish or eggs. Was it really just to regain their lost health because a vegan diet made them ill? Often, it really truly honestly is. I pried myself loose from vegan ideology about six or seven years ago, and in the time since then, I cant tell you how many struggling vegans Ive talked to who are losing their hair or facing a mouthful of dental decay or getting sick all the time or feeling lethargic or losing physical strength on and on and on. You dont hear about these things as much when youre a vegan yourself, since theres so much filtering and idealism and censorship of the dissenters but once you step out of the vegan haze and take your fingers out of your ears, you start really hearing what people have gone through, and often its pretty scary. I have no doubt that some people are feeling just peachy keen as vegans especially short-term but this is not a diet humans have ever eaten at any point in our existence, is not a diet we could logically be adapted to, and is not a diet that could justifiably be prescribed as best for everyone. In my opinion, its more than likely theyve shifted their moral concerns for the animals, and for the planet, just so they can eat animals once again for personal pleasure and without any moral guilt because its for the sake of my health. Nah. This is probably the case once in a while, but for the vast majority of vegans-turned-omnivores (especially the ones who were very committed to and vocal about the vegan mission), returning to a diet with animal foods is incredibly difficult and is not a decision that comes lightly. When I stopped being vegan, I was completely repulsed by the idea of putting anything animal-derived in my mouth both physically and ethically. But you know what? Biology won. I got healthier. When youre watching your body disintegrate and find a remedy that contradicts your current ideology, I dont think theres any shame in revising that ideology and finding something that allows you to truly be healthy. I truly believe that anyone who has health issues AFTER commencing a vegan diet, then its completely their own fault and have only themselves to blame for eating a totally un-balanced and malnourished diet. *Sigh* A balanced, plant-based diet is TOTALLY nourishing to human health I should know, having eaten a plant-based diet for over 30 years and I feel terrific. Im glad you found something that works for you, Neil. Awesome! Keep thrivin. But please realize that a single persons experience cant be extrapolated to the whole population. If one person lives to the age of 106 smoking a pack a day, does that mean everyone can do the same thing without any problems? Maybe Denise could do some further research and post the statistics highlighting the pro-rata ratio of sick meat-eaters and sick vegans who are currently in-patients of all the hospitals in the world. Ill wager that the pro-rata percentage of sick meat-eaters far outweighs the sick vegans. Part of the problem with comparing vegan or vegetarian groups against meat-eaters in general is that, almost always, the vegs are also adopting other lifestyle or diet habits like exercise, a reduction of processed foods, etc. Usually when someone cares enough to change their diet, they also care enough to make other positive changes for their health so itd be no surprise if vegans came out ahead when compared to folks eating a standard Western diet (the omnivorous component being of lesser importance). A more useful experiment would be to take all the junk food vegans out there (ie, those who cut out the meat but keep noshing on vegan potato chips and refined starches and Coke) and see how they fare in comparison to those on SAD. Or better yet, compare whole-food, health-conscious omnivores with the vegans. Then youd have a more valid study. Reply 8 03 2011 nk (16:59:06) : i have nothing against anybody. just stating an opinion on vegetarianism being a eastern thing which is used willy nilly (not u denise) on many occasions. india became predominantly vegetarian after a period of buddism. prior to that indians ate meat. Reply 27 08 2010 Tom (01:35:29) : Neil,
7/26/12
Must be all that animal protein that gives you far superior intelligence to plant eaters. Any stats on this too? Since you ask The recent debate over the importance of meat-eating in human evolution has focused closely on the means of acquirement but rather less on the quantities involved In considering the evolution of human carnivory it may be that a level of 10-20% of nutritional intake may be sufficient to have major evolutionary consequences Meat-eating, it may be argued, represents an expansion of resource breadth beyond that found in non-human primates Homo, with its associated encephalization, may have been the product of the selection for individuals capable of exploiting these energy- and protein-rich resources as the habitats expanded. - Foley RA, Lee PC (1991) Ecology and energetics of encephalization in hominid evolution. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B, vol. 334, pp. 223-232. Mammalian bodies are subject to Kleibers Law, which observes that the resting metabolic rate (RMR) of an animal scales to about 3/4 of its mass. So (to take an example from Wikipedia) a cat with a mass 100 times greater than a mouse will have a RMR about 31.5 times higher (100 ^ .75). But a 100 kg. human and a 100 kg. sheep will have roughly the same RMR. Now I think that you will grant that, with the rare exception, humans have larger brains than sheep. And that sheep have larger stomachs than people. I bring these two points up because the brain and the gut are the two most metabolically greedy organs in the body. And humans have a much larger brain and smaller gut than The theory raised by many anthropologists is that the inclusion of energy- and nutrient-dense meat in the diet of early man enabled our ancestors to develop a larger brain (although it may not be _why_ the brain developed). There is a very thorough article on this subject at http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-4a.shtml#part%204 Thats from an evolutionary perspective. From a here and now perspective? There was a study in England in the late 90s that showed that a vegan diet can lead to a shrinking of the brain over time. The cause was linked to a deficiency of vitamin B-12, for which there is no reliable vegan source (yeasts are living organisms, and thus not vegan). Reply 27 08 2010 Igor (12:44:21) : I would wager the opposite. Reply 25 08 2010 EduardoCorrochio (21:32:15) : Dont worry Denise Im sure Neil was just projecting his hatred of his nagging omnivorous wife onto you. Im sure hes thinking I have to eat all these damn plants and she gets to eat real food! Reply 26 08 2010 Neil (18:14:35) : EduardoCorrochio, Are you David Blaine in disguise? Amazing how you can read my mind so .inaccurately. Just for the record I do not hate my wife and neither do I hate Denise! How on earth you have deduced this from my comments, I will never know. Give me those fake plant foods anyday. Reply 26 08 2010 Neil (15:29:46) : Hi Denise Many thanks for taking the time to respond. I really had no intention of posting again but in light of your own response I felt obliged to respond, from a vegan perspective, to some of the points that youve raised: I pried myself loose from vegan ideology about six or seven years ago, and in the time since then, I cant tell you how many struggling vegans Ive talked to who are losing their hair or facing a mouthful of dental decay or getting sick all the time or feeling lethargic or losing physical strength on and on and on. Ive been a vegan much longer than youve been alive, Denise, and Id wager that Ive met FAR more vegans than you have in your lifetime (or ever will do) and Ive not met ONE, I repeat NOT ONE SOLITARY, vegan who has bemoaned the fact that they adopted a vegan lifestyle and that they became ill or weak by eating a vegan diet. Im really not sure what type of vegans you hang out with but I suspect it might be people with underlying eating disorder
7/26/12
issues. I understand from your About Me bio that you have a wheat allergy (and other food allergies?), which Im very sorry to hear about, but I think youve been circulating too much with people who were sick anyway and were just trying out a plant-based diet in search of a cure for their eating disorders. I still maintain that a well-balanced, plant-based diet is TOTALLY nourishing to the human body. You dont hear about these things as much when youre a vegan yourself, since theres so much filtering and idealism and censorship of the dissenters I dont wear a blindfold or ear-muffs Being vegan doesnt make me blind or deaf either. but once you step out of the vegan haze and take your fingers out of your ears, you start really hearing what people have gone through, and often its pretty scary. Im absolutely astonished with this statement and its just blatant scaremongering! WHAT PEOPLE HAVE GONE THROUGH, AND OFTEN ITS PRETTY SCARY ? Incredulous. Just what did you and your dissenter friends eat on a vegan diet? I dont eat any animal products but pretty much eat anything else that I feel is good for me, and Ive not gone through anything thats scary other than maybe an increase in ass-gas which can be quite scary for my wife and kids! I have no doubt that some people are feeling just peachy keen as vegans especially short-term but this is not a diet humans have ever eaten at any point in our existence, is not a diet we could logically be adapted to, and is not a diet that could justifiably be prescribed as best for everyone. This is a statement of absolute truth by you but I claim its an absolute falsehood! Just Google for information on the diet of early man and theres documented evidence for AND against early man being herbivores and that the human body is primarily designed to eat an herbivore diet (e.g. http://tinyurl.com/2wylt7a and http://tinyurl.com/39pdkma). Were back to what I stated in my earlier comment that we only really believe what we WANT to believe. We both have differing opinions on this, but you cant claim this as the absolute truth when we both just werent around in Paleolithic times to know the real truth of what early man ate. You may believe this to be true but we really dont know who is right or who is wrong. And as for your claim that this is not a diet humans have ever eaten at any point in our existence, is not a diet we could logically be adapted to this, again, is a falsehood! I would counter that I believe there are millions of healthy people on this planet who exist on a vegan diet, me included! After 30 years as a vegan, I think Ive very logically adapted to a plant-based diet! Eating a healthy plant-based diet really isnt rocket-science, Denise, its a very simple lifestyle to adhere to, and it just is not tortuous on the mind as you appear to suggest. And all the BS you read about us being hunter/gatherers when we were caveman move on PLEASE! We now live in the 21st century and killing animals for food is really just killing animals for human pleasure. There are alternatives that dont harm animals, or the planet or humans! ..the vast majority of vegans-turned-omnivores (especially the ones who were very committed to and vocal about the vegan mission), returning to a diet with animal foods is incredibly difficult and is not a decision that comes lightly. I beg to differ. I have no stats to back this up but I truly believe that anyone who adopts a vegan diet for ethical reasons will not revert back to an omnivore diet. If you truly, truly, believe that its WRONG to kill over 56 BILLION animals each and every year for human pleasure, then I dont see any way back whatsoever. If youve adopted a vegan diet for health reasons, as the dissenters will more than likely have done, then I believe they will fall into the above category that you suggest. When youre watching your body disintegrate and find a remedy that contradicts your current ideology, I dont think theres any shame in revising that ideology and finding something that allows you to truly be healthy. Amazement, yet again, when you state that you watched your body disintegrate! Ive already covered this above by questioning just exactly what you were eating that made you so ill Ive just repeated the statement because it truly astounds me. With regards to ideology surely it cant be wrong to kill animals for food one day and then right the next day? Thats not ideology thats just being whimsical. Im glad you found something that works for you, Neil. Awesome! Keep thrivin. But please realize that a single persons experience cant be extrapolated to the whole population. If one person lives to the age of 106 smoking a pack a day, does that mean everyone can do the same thing without any problems? Many thanks for the compliment but surely Im not the most unique vegan on the planet! Am I all alone? Part of the problem with comparing vegan or vegetarian groups against meat-eaters in general is that, almost always, the vegs are also adopting other lifestyle or diet habits like exercise, a reduction of processed foods, etc. Usually when someone cares enough to change their diet, they also care enough to make other positive changes for their health so itd be no surprise if vegans came out ahead when compared to folks eating a standard Western diet (the omnivorous component being of lesser importance). I dont see this as a problem this is just part of adopting a healthy vegan lifestyle as opposed to the SAD lifestyle and I rest my case on this point. A more useful experiment would be to take all the junk food vegans out there (ie, those who cut out the meat but keep noshing on vegan potato chips and refined starches and Coke) and see how they fare in comparison to those on SAD. Or better yet, compare whole-food, health-conscious omnivores with the vegans. Then youd have a more valid study. I dont agree throw everyone into the mix! Im still confident that, even including unhealthy vegans, the number of in-patient hospitalized vegans will still be far less than the number of in-patient hospitalized omnivores. Reply 26 08 2010 Martin Levac (21:56:53) : Neil, obviously theres nothing anybody can say to change your mind. I wonder what we call that kind of person. Stubborn? Maybe its due to a vitamin B12 deficiency. Reply 26 08 2010 Neil (23:12:33) : Martin, why do I need to change my mind and to what? To agree that its ok to slaughter 56 billion animals every year? If being compassionate to all creatures on this planet is being stubborn then thats EXACTLY what I am. BUT, I actually think the reverse is true of omnivores. Maybe all that animal cholesterol is
7/26/12
clogging the arteries to your brain and clouding your own thought processes. By the way, I got my annual blood test results 2 weeks ago and you may be pleased to know that my blood is absolutely NORMAL and in great health including B12 and cholesterol! Reply 27 08 2010 Martin Levac (04:00:31) : Somehow Neil, I have My doubts as to your NORMALCY considering the sheer number OF words you write IN all caps!!! Whassamater, cant you write in such a way that you dont need caps to make a point? See what I did? I put caps only where convention calls for them and still made my point as clear as day. IF your blood TESTS are indeed within normal RANGES, then there is only two possible reasons. You eat meat which provides you with the said vitamin B12, or you supplement with an adequate source of industrially produced form of the same vitamin. Either way, you admit de facto that animal flesh is essential to your health. Bitch and moan, Neil. Bitch and moan. Reply 27 08 2010 Neil (07:44:02) : Guilty as charged, Martin, I do take a B12 supplement maybe once a fortnight but please forgive me if Im wrong, I dont really think the multi-billion dollar supplement industry was created just to supply vegans with B12. Do the math which section of society is taking the most vitamin supplementation. Thanks for all the fun, guys. Reply 27 08 2010 Martin Levac (09:52:10) : And this is where the entire vegan argument is exposed as the sham it really is. You want to save the planet? Why not start with your own health then? So you take a B12 supplement? Why not just eat the meat and be done with it? Oh you dont accept yourself as you are? But thats just tough. Grow up kid. Theres a bunch of principles and ideals we grow out of as we mature into adult humans and acknowledge the facts of life and I guess veganism is just one of those things, huh. Take the blue pill, Neil. Reply 27 08 2010 Igor (13:01:40) : other than maybe an increase in ass-gas which can be quite scary for my wife and kids! Since you mention it Neil, an increase in ass-gas is a strong indication that theres something wrong with your diet. I havent had any gas at all since I started following the WAPF guidelines 7 or 8 years ago. People have come to accept having gas as normal but it really isnt. Reply 27 08 2010 Igor (13:08:30) : If you truly, truly, believe that its WRONG to kill over 56 BILLION animals each and every year for human pleasure, then I dont see any way back whatsoever. You sound like a religious fanatic, which, of course, you in a sense are. Animals arent killed for human pleasure, theyre killed for human consumption. If you have a problem with that, take it up with Mother Nature who put us on top of the food chain. Whats your excuse for mudering trillions of plants, Neil? Whats your excuse for disturbing the natural habitats of billions of animals to grow the plants that you eat? Reply 20 07 2012 McGaven (08:50:27) : Put yourself in a cage with a lion and I guarantee you that you will not be top of the food chain lol. Plants continue to grow :S I think if I had around 15 meters square of soil/backyard I would have year-round fruit and veg supply. Although that same space would still not provide enough grass for a cow to feed off, providing maybe a weeks worth of meat. In the wild animals have freedom before they are naturally selected by true carnivores like lions etc for food. Reply 20 10 2010 Auggiedoggy (04:57:28) : Neil, Your lack of knowledge about our Paleolithic ancestors is astounding! Like most vegans, you still cling to that warm and fuzzy belief that we are herbivores or frugivores (for you fruitarians out there). You really need to stick with your ethical argument and stop there! Reply 26 08 2010 Richard Nikoley (17:02:46) : Oh my. Im still laughing over the utter ignorance displayed in both of those links. I suppose the fangs on a gorilla mean hes supposed to be a meat eater.
7/26/12
Moreover, the chief weapon of humans is its enormous BRAIN, not claws & fangs. This all smacks of the creationist and intelligent design catechism. Just religion dressed up as science. Anyway, this simply isnt worth much effort. There is no legitimate question that we required the high nutritional density of animal fat and protein (initially scavenged) to evolve a large brain in combination with a small gut; which, means that a 200# ape and a 200# man have the very same metabolic rate (as do all mammals with the same mass). As to man and ape, all major organs use about the same amount of energy with the exception of two: the brain and gut. Heres a primer on the expensive tissue hypothesis and Kleibers Law: http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/low-carb-library/are-we-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-part-ii/ More here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128849908&sc=emaf Reply 26 08 2010 Rood vlees Modderbaard (20:48:35) : [...] wilt weten hoe de vork in de steel zit, zou ik zeker even het lijvige stuk (pdf) lezen. Of desnoods haar (kortere) blogbericht over de studie.Vorige week stuitte ik daarnaast op een meta-analyse waaruit wordt geconcludeerd [...] Reply 29 08 2010 rob (19:18:51) : holy cow ( ) thanks for that intelligent no brilliant deconstruction of yet another goal-oriented manipulation of difficult and complicated data so appreciate really competent critical analysis! Reply 8 09 2010 animal based protein increases mortality? (04:38:13) : [...] [...] Reply 8 09 2010 Dr. Mercola's perspective on The China Study (18:55:16) : [...] [...] Reply 8 09 2010 Has anyone read the book"The China Study" ? - Maltese Dogs Forum : Spoiled Maltese Forums (21:33:17) : [...] reading this book twice, I did some extensive research on the subject. Here's one recent link: The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? Raw Food SOS: Troubleshooting on the Raw Food Diet I learned that the China Study was simply flawed science. If you are looking for scientific [...] Reply 9 09 2010 Moby (02:20:54) : Denise I love you Reply 9 09 2010 Tim Lundeen (17:18:34) : I wonder if Campbells results from feeding rats casein is from giving them the A1 variant of casein, which results in a peptide named BCM-7 that targets opioid receptors and is highly correlated with heart attacks, cancers, diabetes, strokes, with numerous studies supporting this effect. If he had fed them A2 casein instead, they might have been fine. There is a good book on this by Woodford, Devil in the Milk, highly recommended. Reply 22 01 2012 Neil E (18:48:06) : From what Ive read, A2 is well tolerated by humans and is the type found in breast milk/ goats milk, which would answer the paradigm about how nature could eff up breast feeding. Reply 17 09 2010 SupremePundit (08:03:00) : One of the great things about blogs is someone like Denise can make a complete fool of herself and just delete it. I am sure we will be hearing a lot more from someone so willing to display their ignorance. Reply 19 09 2010 Richard Nikoley (15:58:36) : @ Rusel Talis Maybe youre unaware that you have about 10 times the number of microbes in your body, primarily in your gut, as cells in your body. Better get out the scrub brush.
7/26/12
The fact is, nothing has ever been clean. http://www.npr.org/tablet/#story/?storyId=129862107 Reply 22 09 2010 Quora (03:08:30) : Why is veganism so controversial but eating meat and dairy not? I can see how you would say that it sounds like snake oil, but its not. If you actually read any of those books, you would see that. The science is sound. Even your blessed China Study, when you look at the actual data, shows what paleo would predic Reply 25 09 2010 What Does Research Say About Eating Meat? | Acupuncture and Herbs (17:57:38) : [...] Study purported to show that vegetarians were healthier but totally misrepresented the data. See Denise Mingers articles, cited below where she ran data (available online) and removed confounding variables, getting [...] Reply 28 09 2010 Chris Masterjohn (18:04:13) : For anyone who might be interested, I have a new post on The China Study, showing that what Campbell tells us about his animal experiments is highly misleading. The low-protein diets that protected his rats from aflatoxin-induced cancer also dramatically protected against the acute toxicity of aflatoxin, and the high-protein diets actually provided dramatic protection against cancer when fed before or during the aflatoxin dosing. These and other omissions are discussed here: The Curious Case of Campbells Rats Does Protein Deficiency Prevent Cancer? http://westonaprice.org/blogs/the-curious-case-of-campbells-rats-does-protein-deficiency-prevent-cancer.html Enjoy, Chris Reply 1 10 2010 Friday, Oct 1st: Its Science SouthBaltimore CrossFit (03:08:02) : [...] of individual studies. The China Study appeared to implicate meat as the cause of cancer, and a more stringent analysis of the data revealed that it actually did nothing of the sort. Similarly, just because something has not been [...] Reply 4 10 2010 foreverhealthyandyoung (03:54:17) : About 60% of breast milk is whey 40% is casein (sometimes less) Approximately 60-80% of all protein in human milk is whey protein. Cows milk is 80% casein. That is quite a leap there. Apparently casein is not something we are supposed to get in enormous amounts, the way a calf is. Its all about balance. As babies we need the proper balance of whey and casein for optimal health. Cows milk doesnt give us this. There is a good reason why all species wean off of milk when we are a certain age. We dont need casein after a certain age, especially in HIGH amounts that you will find in cows milk. Just look at the breast milk vs cows milk data, to find out how harmful cows milk is to humans. Casein has a molecular structure that is quite similar to that of gluten. Thus, some gluten-free diets are combined with casein-free diets and referred to as a gluten-free, casein-free diet. This is interesting. Meaning if wheat is not health promoting, its safe to say that casein probably isnt either. Reply 4 10 2010 foreverhealthyandyoung (14:55:25) : Btw, my above comment was in response to this: Also, it seems Campbell never mentions an obvious implication of a casein-cancer connection in humans: breast milk, which contains high levels of casein. Should women stop breastfeeding to reduce their childrens exposure to casein? Did nature really muck it up that much? Are children who are weaned later in life at increased risk for cancer, due to a longer exposure time the casein in their mothers milk? It does seem strange that casein, a substance universally consumed by young mammals, is so hazardous for healthespecially since its designed for a time in life when the immune system is still fragile and developing. high levels of casein? Im surprised that you left out the fact that breastmilk is considerably low in casein, comparatively speaking. Reply 5 10 2010
7/26/12
JL (07:24:49) : Thankyou so, so much for all this neisy, you have asked all the questions that I asked myself but didnt know where to start to look for the answers. I cant tell you how great what youve done is!! Thanks so much again JL Reply 6 10 2010 China Study Problems of Interpretation | Kealthy (11:12:14) : [...] The China Study: Fact or Fallacy [...] Reply 7 10 2010 Larry Jr. (08:54:17) : Hitler once said People will swallow lies.provided they are big enough. Very few things in this crazy, complex world arrange themselves into clear concise patterns which perfectly fit one type of belief / ideal / agenda. When such a perfect fit IS presented.its not just LIKELY to be a fake, I promise you, it IS a fake. Cambpells book is a literary protempkin village. Now, to be sure people who consume LESS animal products and MORE fruits, nuts and veggies WILL have certain healrh benifits, but those who completely ELIMINATE all animal products will suffer various drawbacks, such as a weaker immune system. I was thrilled to find this article. Supurbly written and oh SO needed! Reply 7 10 2010 Martin Levac (10:32:06) : Larry, Denise precisely showed us that consuming less meat and more fruit-nuts-veggies will not give us health benefits. Reply 7 10 2010 Alex (13:54:37) : Denise keeps saying that shes not making any health claims at all, so I dont think shed agree with that. She would probably say that the CS data dont support a correlation between eating less meat, more fruits/veggies and health benefits. Reply 7 10 2010 Martin Levac (14:13:38) : Actually, what Denise showed was a lack of correlation between less meat-more plants and health. If there was a health benefit to eating less meat and more plants, it would show up as a correlation. It didnt. In fact, the opposite is true. Ergo, there is no benefit to eating less meat and more plants. We could analyze this further. For example, if we claim that eating no meat is bad but eating less meat is good, it implies that eating lots of meat is bad. This further implies that a correlation would have to be positive at one end, negative in the middle, then positive again at the other end. How does that work exactly? Well, meat would have to have a very special quality whereby without it meat is bad, with a little of it its good, and with a lot of it its bad again. Which quality would that be exactly? Lets say its B12 because it would fit the lack of it being a bad thing. So, a little meat gives us a little B12 which is good. But is it better than a lot of B12? Wed have to define the toxic dose for B12 wouldnt we. What about EFAs, that would fit too. None is bad, some is good, but is more truly bad? Well again, wed have to define the toxic dose for EFAs. And wed have to define this dose within the context of a normal diet, not of refined B12 or EFAs. In other words, how much meat would it take for it to give us a toxic dose of either B12 or EFAs? I bet nobody here has actually ever eaten so much meat. Reply 7 10 2010 CPM (14:34:44) : Hi Martin, I didnt make it past your first paragraph. I think you are reading too much into this than what you should. Also, a lack of correlation can be result of too many or too strong of confounders and might not mean anything. Reply 29 09 2011 Erica (21:25:22) : That was actually Goebbels Reply 7 10 2010 Martin Levac (15:00:39) : Never mind that you didnt make it past the first paragraph. I dont understand how I could read too much into this than what I should. I could read more than, I could read less than, but how could I read too much than? I have to wonder at your reading comprehension capacity. Shit (slaps forehead) now I know why you couldnt make it past the first paragraph. But I digress. A lack of correlation means it just isnt there. Denise did a pretty good job of taking care of all the confounders so your argument there is bogus. You understand the word bogus dont you? But I digress some more. If something makes us sick, then it shows up in epidemiological studies. If something doesnt make us sick, then it doesnt show up in epidemiological studies. What epidemiological studies can do is refute an idea. They cant confirm it. If the idea says something is bad for us, and if the study shows no correlation or a
7/26/12
negative correlation, then the idea is refuted. Denise showed us that there was no correlation or a negative correlation. Ergo, the idea that meat is bad is refuted. However, if the study shows a positive correlation, we cant confirm the idea yet, we have to test the hypothesis in a clinical setting before we can do that. And wouldnt you know it, there are such studies and do you know what they show? Eating less meat and more plants is bad for us. So as you see, neither the China study nor the clinical studies show that meat is bad for us at any time whatever. Reply 7 10 2010 Chris Masterjohn (15:09:24) : I agree with Alex and CPM. There are a number of reasons why a true cause-and-effect relationship would not show up as a correlation, and these include insufficient range within the data set or lack of a linear dose-response relationship. Moreover, this particular data set is ecological, which means that the individual data points are the incidence of mortality from a disease or estimated incidence of a disease within geographical regions. There could be correlations among individuals within geographical areas despite the lack of correlation at the geographical level. Chris Reply 7 10 2010 Martin Levac (15:21:24) : So youre saying the data is useless? Then I agree. LOL! Reply 7 10 2010 CPM (15:54:09) : Hi Martin The data can point us in the right direction, but does not definitely answer questions. You said If there was a health benefit to eating less meat and more plants, it would show up as a correlation. This is not necessarily true. The analysis may be lacking. It does not mean the data is useless, but the correct analysis of the data may be elusive. You have to take this in consideration. You can maybe feel pretty confident, but you cannot claim a definitive answer from correlations or lack of correlations. You said Ergo, there is no benefit to eating less meat and more plants. Correlations or lack of correlation cannot definitely answer this question. They just point us in a direction. You said Denise precisely showed us that consuming less meat and more fruit-nuts-veggies will not give us health benefits. Correlations or lack of correlation cannot answer this question definitely. It just points us in a direction. I think you are also putting a broader spin on this than what the correlations she utilized would entail. The data is a useful tool, but it is just a tool; you have to understand how to use it appropriately. Reply 7 10 2010 CPM (16:15:14) : Hi Martin, I also wanted to add that Denises motivation was not really to determine if less meat was beneficial or not, she was mainly looking at Campbells claims concerning the matter. Showing that Campbells claims are not supported might be suggestive of the opposite, but maybe he wasnt using the strongest arguments to begin with. Reply 7 10 2010 Martin Levac (16:20:40) : How pretentious of you to imply that I need Denises posts explained. You who said you didnt make it past the first paragraph. Sigh, alright the next time I need something explained to me, Ill call you. But you gotta promise me youll get past the first paragraph kthksby. Reply 9 10 2010 Chris Masterjohn (17:09:55) : Hi Martin, Not completely useless, but it cant be used to definitively rule in or rule out a cause-and-effect pathway between a food and a disease. Chris Reply 7 10 2010 T. Colin Campbell: Scientist or Propagandist? | Free The Animal (16:51:29) : [...] deserves their devotion. In conclusion I'll quote a comment from Denise's original entry on TCS that came in just this [...] Reply 7 10 2010 Crap for The Cure NightLife (17:01:59) : [...] What about it? [...] Reply
7/26/12
9 10 2010 Heart Disease and the China Study, Post #1.5 Raw Food SOS: Troubleshooting on the Raw Food Diet (07:42:58) : [...] really relevant to the upcoming wheat post, so Im plopping them here instead. In my first China Study critique, I looked at some mortality differences between the five counties that ate the most animal foods [...] Reply 12 10 2010 cda (19:49:37) : I located this in some research today. Anyone want to crunch the numbers in these sources? http://www.cancerproject.org/diet_cancer/facts/meat.php Thanks! Reply 12 10 2010 neisy (20:02:24) : Since its a PCRM site, Id first take anything you read there with a VERY big grain of salt I only glanced at one of the references so far, for this: In the United States, researchers studied Seventh-day Adventists, a religious group that is remarkable because, although nearly all members avoid tobacco and alcohol and follow generally healthful lifestyles, about half of the Adventist population is vegetarian, while the other half consumes modest amounts of meat. This fact allowed scientists to separate the effects of eating meat from other factors. Overall, these studies showed significant reductions in cancer risk among those who avoided meat.4 This references a paper by Neal Barnard, a PCRM physician himself, titled The medical costs attributable to meat consumption. The abstract says nothing about Adventists, so Im guessing somewhere in the full text Barnard summarizes the Adventist studies, and the PCRM is referring to his summary rather than the actual studies themselves. Ill try looking at the other references at some point; others are welcome to chime in too. Reply 20 10 2010 Auggiedoggy (05:12:21) : Denise, What??? You mistrust the information from the fine folks at the Physicians Committee for Revisionist Medicine? Reply 19 10 2010 Matt Garofolo, DC (10:32:57) : Thanks for the great article and lucid thoughts! I always pass research through my common sense test first. Weston Price noted that folks who ate traditional diets (that humans had become genetically adapted to over the last 10s of thousands of years) had perfect teeth, no cavities, no diseases and what he called an expression of optimum human genetic potential. Common sense says that maybe I should eat that way too! My family and I eat PROPERLY raised (ie. old world) meat products and are thriving. I am all for valid, unbiased science though.too bad thats as hard to find as raw milk these days. Reply 21 10 2010 Seant (19:58:11) : wasnt Weston A. Price a dentist? so if he is not advising on cavities, but rather a very speculative diet, so why would a sane person listen to any of that pablum? their website is rife with puzzling if not totally outrageous and laughable claims, and that is the science used to back up this animal protein ideology? wow, just wow. I guess we should all stop eating tomatoes, start smoking tobacco, and start using leeches again. Reply 21 10 2010 Seant (19:59:22) : and interesting how circular this all is http://www.westonaprice.org/blogs/denise-minger-refutes-the-china-study-once-and-for-all.html Reply 27 10 2010 What Happened to Dose and Context? | Abundant Brain (22:58:44) : [...] is why anyone who posts a reasoned, evidence-based article pointing out the flaws in The China Study will likely be marked as an enemy by vegetarians and flocked with attacks. It is also [...] Reply 7 11 2010
7/26/12
Antony Guglielmone (03:39:08) : I am sorry, but your sins of omission section, is a more fitting header than I first thought. Why doesnt he mention the astronomical correlations wheat flour has with various diseases? What kind of flour are we talking here? Hard? Soft? Graham? You completely omit the fact that most wheat flour in these correlation studies is refined. Of course if I take a perfectly good grain and strip it of all of its dignity, it is going to lash back. I do not have the time now, but there are many flaws and fallacies in your statistical thinking. Reply 15 11 2010 Pls suggest me a diet chart for health and fitness and for slim body.? (20:16:49) : [...] Dr. Campbell Won't Tell You About the China Study on The China Study? EDIT: Actually read this: The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? Raw Food SOS: Troubleshooting on the Raw Food Diet It's more thorough and her style fits me better. Perhaps it suits you better too [...] Reply 21 11 2010 Val (10:50:47) : Masterpiece critique. Reply 25 11 2010 Colin Campbell, author of "china study", responds to Minger's critique (06:17:04) : [...] exact comment that was supposedly deleted. It was posted July 11th and has been there ever since. The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? Raw Food SOS: Troubleshooting on the Raw Food Diet In fact, shortly after the Rayna wrote that her comment wasn't on my site (on 30 Bananas a Day), [...] Reply 10 12 2010 Not Buying Into It. (15:40:56) : Statistical methods are vast and varied. A set of studies of this type can be interpreted in many ways. The professionals that collected the information and arrived at the conclusions contained in the book hail from the highest levels of academia. Their conclusions are peer reviewed (checked by other professionals). Ms Mingers analysis is not only impossible to understand, it has not been peer reviewed. I am not doubting her intention or motivation but her methods were of her own invention. She is a blogger with something to say. She uses a lot of words and picks around the edges of the data but does not attempt to evaluate it as a whole and reach an informed conclusion. She is looking at the data to find what she considers points of contention that she inflates to bring the datas conclusions into doubt. My understanding of her motivation involves her having been a strict raw foodist that felt ill as a result then switched to a meat based diet and felt better. This screed of hers is her way to justify her own personal switch and is an excellent example of justification. Reply 10 12 2010 Alex (22:00:48) : Campbells book was written for the general public and is not peer reviewed, so its ridiculous to criticize Denises analysis on the basis that it wasnt peer reviewed. And, judging from some of the responses from the scientific community, http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=385 http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=6092 Campbells new-age hippy pseudo-science would not likely have passed peer review, hence the need to release it to the general public. Reply 10 12 2010 Not Buying Into It. (22:06:44) : For one, I never criticized. Secondly, The China Study was, in fact, peer reviewed by many different doctors, nutritional scholars and educators. Reply 10 12 2010 Alex (22:21:26) : You are mistaken. The book Denise is reviewing is not an article in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Its a mainstream book published for the general public. Reply 10 12 2010 Not Buying Into It. (22:24:43) : A book of which, each individual study was meticulously peer-reviewed, yes. Im not here to argue. I never criticized, but merely made an observation. I work directly with a Doctor who reviewed multiple studies in the China Study, so yes, I know for a fact that each study was in fact peer-reviewed. Reply 10 12 2010 Agree with "Not Buying Into It" (21:32:43) : Well I am all for the democratization of information that the Web has provided, the reality is that anyone in the blogosphere can now run analysis without having an academic foundation, which is what all modern science is based on. I totally agree with the previous comment. Anyone with an agenda can pick-out specific statistics in a study as large as the China Study to prove their point. That is why we have a peer review system for evaluating scientific conclusions. One person and a bunch of glowing comments from people with an OBVIOUS
7/26/12
AGENDA AND CONFIRMATION BIAS, badly intending to prove that their way is THE way does not make good science. Quite frankly, I put a little more trust in Dr. Ornishs rigorous studies on humans conducted over a period of 20 years at one of the most prestigious medical schools in the country, UCSF, peer reviewed in highly-regarded publications like the Journal of the American Medical Assocation, and now supported by the Federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid as a legitimate medical intervention for the treatment of heart disease, cancer, etc. which they are willing to reimburse for than I an article written on a personal blog with the title Rawfoodos (gee I wonder what her beliefs are about diet). I mean come-on its not even close. Reply 10 12 2010 Emily Deans MD (21:38:29) : As a Harvard educated medical doctor, I would warn you against taking the advice of Drs. Ornish and Campbell without your own careful analysis. Reply 10 12 2010 Richard Nikoley (21:38:49) : Whoa! How shocking. Ad hominem and appeal to authority? That has to be the very fist time weve seen that. Im so used to having Denises detractors take apart her analysis piece by piece Reply 10 12 2010 whistleblower (22:24:12) : Looks like the people above are coming from here. http://www.thekindlife.com/forum/thread/critiques-of-the-china-study Reply 10 12 2010 Not Buying Into It. (22:28:22) : Bravo. Bet you feel like a regular old genius now, dont you? Reply 10 12 2010 Is the Hallelujah Diet really bibical? A Life Well Nourished (22:44:32) : [...] study as the basis for many of their claims. This study has HUGE errors in it, and has been debunked many times. They also continue to spread lies by claiming that Dr. Atkins died of a heart attack. He [...] Reply 10 12 2010 Is the Hallelujah Diet biblical? Liberation Wellness (22:55:39) : [...] study as the basis for many of their claims. This study has HUGE errors in it, and has been debunked many times. They also continue to spread lies by claiming that Dr. Atkins died of a heart attack. He [...] Reply 2 01 2011 sex (08:45:23) : I cant believe LeBron is going to the Bulls, he should really just stay where he is. Reply 4 01 2011 The Case with Casein | Geekbeast Blog (21:34:40) : [...] been reading through Denise Mingers critique of the China fallacy, when I ran across an interesting tidbit of information relating to Dr. [...] Reply 8 01 2011 Why 1/3 of the Population Gets Sick by Restricting This Vital Food Group : Infowars Ireland (17:04:00) : [...] China Study in the spring of 2005. In the wake of the internet buzz surrounding raw food blogger Denise Mingers recent critique, Chris revisited the topic in a series of articles that culminated in The Curious Case of [...] Reply 8 01 2011 Morgan (19:19:56) : Theres a very simple way to find the truth, for instance, to determine water is wet simply make contact with said element. I know we love the intellectual process, sort of a, Can you top this! or, my credentials are vast, my journey long, my observations unique, my experience multi-faceted, etc., etc. Here is a way to move on and forget any hope what you say might sway the world in your corner, and when it comes to what to eat or not eat, drink or do, fast forward to this: If you feel good, really good, look good, really good, that is, have energy, desire for the mate of choice and so forth, no psychological problems, or obsessions over food, be it Vegan, Vegetarian, Omnivore, etc., then, at least for now, youre on the right track. Of course we dont drink Coke or Pepsi who once used the line, Drink Pepsi for people who think young, or something like that, but in truth drinking such a concoction is for people who dont think about the harm of such a drink, and we cant be too critical since Warren Buffett drank a six pack of Pepsi for years, and Warren has proven to be a bright guy, after all you dont make billions of dollars using only your intelligence and be classified as a non-thinker because you drink Pepsi, however he did quit drinking the stuff. Meanwhile, if we eat organic, drink toxin free water (fluoride and chlorine and if one goggles the water drunk in Washington DC that might tell us why we have politicians who dont have ethics or commonsense), drink raw milk from Jersey pastured cows if we thrive on milk, or not if we dont, have a good relationship with our mate of choice, eat a ton of meat if that works or not if it doesnt, eat pure Vegan and vegetarian if that works, too, and of course cut out the bad stuff like sugar, HFCS, agave, etc., and wheat is not exactly the stuff our bodies are designed to consume, but try telling that to pasta lovers. We cant change the world, only our world and if youre healthy, happy (and the two usually go hand in hand), and drink beer or wine, or carrot cake, or a quarter
7/26/12
pound of butter in a day (raw butter from Jersey pastured cows), or whatever works, go for it. None of us are stupid, we all want more or less the same thing but the answer is not this way or that way, but certainly not the way someone with an agenda wants us to go, like Big Pharma, industrial farm products, toxic municipal water, the crap processed food manufacturers put out (Is there one, just one, really healthy food product they produce) the FDA, or USDA food pyramid, which is surely ridiculous, or the health food huckster claiming shark calcium supplements will solve all your arthritis and osteoporosis problems. We need sun, pure water, organic food, fun, a tribe that we resonate with and few of us have that, but maybe in our disagreement we are also passionate about the same thing only with different selections, our individual health and longevity, for its hell to think of dying, but dying is easy when were tired of living, but we are far from that point or we wouldnt be writing with such passion on basically the same subject, living well, what really works and what doesnt. Again, what works is, If you feel good and look good, youre on the right track. If not, youre a searcher and probably tried vegetarian, meat, fasting, exercise, high protein, and so forth. Read Weston A. Prices book, Nutrition and Physical Degeneration or Sally Fallons Nourishing Traditions, or, Natasha Campbell McBrides, Gut and Psychology Syndrome, that is, for meat eaters mainly, and for vegetarian and Vegans I dont have any suggestion, youre on your own and since Chimps and Bonobos are our closest animal connection and both are Omnivores with even more capacity to handle vegetable foods than humans, maybe, just maybe our first priority should be, What are humans designed to eat according to their gut configuration, if configuration is acceptable in this case. Personally I suffered eating vegetarian, I lost strength, I felt old and afraid and my age was 27 years old. That was my experience, and it happened in less than thirty days, back on meat, back to normal. But that was me, others may do wonderfully on plant foods, but whether meat eaters or plant eaters or a combination of both, the question must be, What are homo sapiens designed to eat and does it change as we age or when were very young, after all, babies do well nursing if their mother or source of breast milk is healthy, none do well or as well as they can if given a formula. Go to our greatest source of life and information, Mother Nature, theres no lab on earth to compare. Regarding credentials, the least knowledgeable or biased people I personally contacted on diet was dieticians in hospitals, little wonder peoples health disintegrates so often in such places, the most knowledgeable by far are persons who lost their health and regained in though nutritional and lifestyle changes. And that, girls and boys, is my contribution, have fun, it really matters and eat well according to what you body tells you, not what Dr. Campbell, or anyone else claims, for your body is much, much wiser than any doctor, or expert. Reply 10 01 2011 shwankie (02:28:58) : All the other arguments aside, the detractors here seem to forget that peer reviewed and published in peer-reviewed journals doesnt always mean good science. The study linking autism to vaccines is now known to be a complete fraud, but upon its initial release was peer-reviewed and published in the Lancet, one of the most respected medical journals in the world. The Lancet has retracted it, proving that they understand their own fallibility. Peer review and being published does not necessarily make someones science credible. Many things are peer-reviewed and later shown to be incomplete, wrong, fraudulent, unable to be replicated, etc. Not being published or peer reviewed does not make you an ignorant moron, naive, or unable to use a basic stats program or calculator. If the blogger were trying to draw conclusions about wheat and its relationship to disease or some such thing, I would agree she was overreaching. But, she didnt. In fact, she doesnt draw any conclusions other than 1) the published book by Campbell doesnt show what he claims it does using the statistics he gives in that work and 2) his given numbers and some of his sources have contradictions that indicate his hypothesis is either faulty or theres some information left out that the reader should have been given. Reply 29 01 2011 Steve (20:48:36) : The study linking autism to vaccines is now known to be a complete fraud, Not anymore. As of 1-25-11 the tables have turned. The usual suspects have been caught with their pants down. Google it. The mainstream media will not touch this as usual. The BIG Lie Wakefield Lancet Paper Alleged Fraud Was Not Possible For Anyone To Commit January 25, 2011 The accussed hadnt been given an opportunity to defend themselves until now. Lancet, one of the most respected medical journals in the worldLOL. Reply 24 06 2011 Darrel (00:35:31) : Shwankie said: peer reviewed and published in peer-reviewed journals doesnt always mean good science.>> DAR Your comment boils down to showing that peer review is a necessary but not sufficient threshold for accepting scientific claims. If Ms. Minger wishes to have her claims taken seriously, she needs to submit them for peer review in order to reach a minimal threshold of credibility. Its unlikely this will happen since she clearly has no training in the topic she is simply blogging about. This happens over and over in countless other fields where non-experts passing along their denialism about acid rain, climate change, smoking/disease, ozone hole etc.,. We get non experts going on about something they dont know much about, and for the usual agenda driven reasons. And it fools massive numbers of people who latch onto the material because: a) it coincides with their own prejudices b) they lack the expertise necessary to, on a complex topic, separate deep truths from deep nonsense. The link between meat and cancer is extremely well established. Ive posted excerpts and links to eight rather large and recent studies here: http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=24127#p24127 D. Reply 12 01 2011 ethan (09:07:45) :
7/26/12
Denise, inasmuch as the book prompted your analysis and response, i am glad the book was published. thank you for your contribution to the discourse. you are brilliant, driven and dedicated. and a numbers nerd. awesome! Reply 14 01 2011 Supersized Starlinks (07:39:07) : [...] seems to have suffered from poor and biased interpretation from the vegetarian leading the study. Denise Minger is a blogger who likes to crunch numbers and checked out if the claims made about the . Im not calling her awesome for reaching a conclusion that supports my current diet, but [...] Reply 16 01 2011 The China Study vs the China study jeopardy (08:13:22) : [...] been alive with commentary the past few weeks since Denise Minger lobbed her first cannonball of a critique across the bow of The China Study, the vessel T. Colin Campbell, Ph.D. rode to fame and [...] Reply 16 01 2011 The China Study Coach Tran's Fitness (14:54:45) : [...] 1. http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/ [...] Reply 18 01 2011 joe (21:02:12) : I think Campbell is an old man who uses Orthorexia to cope with his anxiety about aging and certain death. Now he is using poor science to justify his Orthorexia. You can see it in his NYT interview where he says he has no evidence that a 100% vegetarian diet is better than say a 95% vegetable diet, he can just feel how much healthier he is when he eats all vegetables and his whole family can feel it too. The man threw scientific inquiry right out the window if you ask me and is relying on his feelings. Sad, really. Hes a charlatan and a huckster, but he believes his own shtick and is getting rich too. Whos the one with his pocket book on the line here Professor Campbell? Or do you give the book away out of the goodness of your heart? Reply 19 01 2011 phil anderson (16:25:51) : Im not sure how this is helpful. I suspect the author has conflicting interests that are not being disclosed. Tell us who you work for and what truly motivates you to criticize this research so thoroughly. Do you think humans should eat more meat? Do you think the American Diet is the best diet for human health? Are you interested in helping people be healthier? Do you have anything helpful to contribute to this discussion? A month and a half of critical points versus decades of high dollar research. It seems presumptuous to assume this veteran scientist is being sloppy. What are his motives? Selling a book? It is not a very popular book to sell. If it were promoting the consumption of meat, there would be mass marketing from the special interests. A book about not eating the American way does not seem like the best way to make money. And then why would he and his family choose to avoid animal protein? What better testimony is there to his confidence in his research? There are, of course, many details to a healthy human. It has always been healthier to eat whole foods. It is also less beneficial for big businesses. Your motives are hidden. Surely, you cant dismiss these findings based on your own flimsy observations. When you can tell me what to eat for best health and why, then you should be helpful to all of humanity and publish your information. Your message is irresponsible and deconstructive. And to people who think the man is making money from this book and should give it away for free, that is impractical. It would take tens of thousands of dollars. No publisher will print a book for free. Reply 28 01 2011 Kerrio Brown (06:36:01) : Seriously, stop with the character attacks. You mention the observations here are flimsy. Can you please explain why? Im seriously curious. Campbell does seem to be up for an ongoing debate, understandably so given he need find time to do more research. So it would be great if some skeptics of the skeptics stepped in to his aid with more facts. BTW, Im a vegetarian for ethical reasons. And I dont think anyone is concluding that being a vegetarian is bad for health. Perhaps its the comments from others here that may be angering the blood. And there does seem to be a lot of reports out there beyond Campbells work that red blood is associated with some higher cancer rates. But the consensus so far as I can tell has been that the results presented here are serious and not flimsy, so Id like to understand why you think so. Reply 28 01 2011 Kerrio Brown (06:39:31) : Wow, awful typing on my part. Wheres an edit button when you need it? Corrections: -Campbell doesnt seem to be up -Its no Its -Red MEAT, not red blood Very sorry Reply
7/26/12
11 02 2011 Paul C (22:23:37) : Dr. Campbells motives seem clear to me, as stated by Dr. Campbell himself in the Amazon weight loss community thread. He believes meat killed his father at an early age, and he has spent his career seeking revenge on meat, whether consciously or subconsciously. Some may agree that was a noble pursuit, but in the end it is not a terribly good foundation for science, although it is a perfectly good foundation for agendas and politics. Reply 20 01 2011 Does a Diet High in Animal Protein Cause Cancer? The Blog of Kanata Chiropractor Dr. Michael Gibson (20:29:19) : [...] To learn more read this extremely well written critique by Denise Minger. [...] Reply 26 01 2011 In the Newshigh fat and cholesterol cause Breast Cancer? Old Fat Broads Lose Weight (01:10:58) : [...] bad for you (heart disease, cancer). Mr Campbell has been roundly criticized by Denise Minger here (very long and involved) and others here just for starters. Gary Taubes book, Good Calories, [...] Reply 26 01 2011 New guy on board (16:59:29) : [...] easily. Finding it by searching her name should be really easy, but here's one to get you started: China Study Debunked Salim Morgan, T2 57 Years DX: 9/2009 A1C=10.7 A1C 2/2010: 6.7 (DX + 4 months) A1C 5/2010: 6.0 [...] Reply 28 01 2011 Kerrio Brown (06:24:55) : This work here could qualify for a scientific manuscript, perhaps a commentary or opinion piece in Nature. I suggest you find a well-accredited researcher (or they find you), to formally write up your corrective stats. I know some of the anti-establishment types may not like this idea, but it would do at least 2 things: 1. You and any co-authors would have to disclose all potential conflicts of interest under legal requirements; and 2. If written in a high impact journal like Nature, Campbell would likely feel more inclined to respond in turn and in a more comprehensive manner. I understand Campbells hesistancies since he likely deals w/ many naysayers and has a job to do (see Lord Monckton and his attacks on global warming. Quite successful cherry picking that scientists simply cant devote a career to debunking informally. Sorry for the analogy I do not mean to compare you or your science to him). Science has carefully constructed avenues for dealing with informative arguments and good points that unfortunately slip through the handful of peers in the initial review process. My only concern is that an all out critique of Campbells entire body of work may feel somewhat spiteful and less likely to be published than focusing on particular papers, but we all know what extraordinary claims require and the debate needs to be had. Taking it to his turf I think is a fair thing for him to ask with its built in safeguards. I know he hasnt asked, but as a scientist I hope he would appreciate any publishable constructive debate. This isnt my field but I hope that if any publishing scientists out there are listening and interested (and Denise is too), that theyll take the charge from here or else explain why its a bad idea. Reply 30 01 2011 Amy (18:49:10) : Denise, You rock! This is a thoughtful & intelligent counter to Campbells book. At first, I was impressed with all the data in TCS, it seemed so scientific, but for me, some things just didnt add up. As for humans & cholesterolbreast milk, the 1st food that EVERYONE is designed to eat, is full of cholesterol. Cholesterol is required for proper brain development & our brain is largely comprised of cholesterol, so there is no way that were programmed against it! Eating lots of good lean meats (like we were intended to) & whole foods versus eating grain-fed, hormone & antibiotic laced, high-fat meat along with a good dose trans fats & refined sugars & grains are 2 totally different scenarios & arent comparable at all. Vegans & vegetarians (Im a former vegetarian myself) get so much flack for their food choices, no wonder they want a book that gives them some cred. Too bad this book is so flawed. Honestly, I just want Vegans to stop telling me that I, along with everyone else on the planet, should be Vegan! Its a personal choice, not a mandate. Reply 6 02 2011 shwankie (16:25:25) : For all those Oh, you dont have a degree and Dr. Campbell does, so clearly he he must be right and all about good health with no agenda, have any of you bothered to check to see how many people with nutrition degrees work at places that develop and produce packaged food like Kraft dinner? Or, who promote HFCS as the same as sugar, despite hard science to the contrary? Or who have spent years studying nutrition and found that a paleo, Atkins, or other (nonvegan/vegetarian) diet is more beneficial than a plant- or grain-based one? Their is science out there to support any diet you want, some of it good, some of it total trip. A degree in nutrition (or anything else) does not mean that someone is immune to having an agenda, that they cant do bad science, that the cant draw erroneous conclusions. I have no idea why people assume just because someone has letters behind their name that they must be 100% correct and everyone else must be full of crap, including other people with equal credentials. The author of the post is NOT SAYING that Dr. Campbell is totally wrong about anything, just that his science doesnt hold up. You dont need a degree in nutrition to do basic statistics, or to know that correlation does not equal causation. Both are basic principals. Dr. Campbells study provides some interesting starting points for further study, but because it relies on correlation, it is not hard science. As someone else said, using this same kind of science, you can prove that human urination happens due to clothing. He may be 100% right, but without double-blind data studies that include a managed diet, socioeconomic factors, other lifestyle factors, geography, etc. its just a place to start, not a fact. Reply 9 02 2011 Idle Fun at the Expense of Vegan Morons | Free The Animal (17:47:06) : [...] Update: OK, here's one I found in my Trash folder from a few days ago at Denise Minger's place. [...] Reply 9 02 2011 tracker (21:23:03) : Correlation is not causation, as Im sure you well know. Cholesterol is a vital part of life, no one would be alive without it. It repairs damage on a cellular level
7/26/12
and is responsible for the stability of cell membranes. To say that its very important is an understatement of immense proportions. The fact that its present in heart disease and other illness, could be because its trying to repair cell damage. Thats an oversimplification, but to look at cholesterol is a waste of time. It can mean theres something wrong (but maybe not if were talking familial hypocholesterolemia), but the cholesterol isnt the cause of it, since cholesterol levels are largely genetic. Back when I was much younger, I used to eat the standard American diet, and I worked at McDonalds at the time, and got free food because of it. I went for a check-up, and the doctor told me I had the lowest cholesterol hed ever seen. And now I know thats probably not so good, as higher cholesterol is associated with living longer. Also, Im always skeptical someone who sets out to prove something. I have a feeling that the author of the China Study, being vegetarian, set out to prove that way of life was best, consciously or unconsciously. Good science is the attempt to prove your hypothesis wrong, not the other way around. Speaking of Schistosomiasis and colorectal cancer, there are doctors and researchers who believe that infection, of one type or another, is the cause of nearly all cancers. Some think that most cancer may have to do with mycoplasmas, a type of bacteria that have no cell wall, do not respond to anti-biotics and can mimic your own cells to fool your immune system. As for milk casein. Ive found that vegans and vegetarians (and others) 1.) think that nature is something it isnt and 2.) think that mother nature is an idiot. Evolution selects for things that protect us, if they occur before maturity. Otherwise, there would be no offspring if things we are exposed to before puberty kill us. Why would milk be selected for (something that we are exposed to before puberty) if it is dangerous to our health. Cancer strikes children after all. If casein increased cancer risk, it would be selected against and mothers would not have it in their milk. Reply 10 02 2011 Roms (04:56:30) : Well , i would always trust a study done by a qualified doctor over years than a month and half of reading done by some novice. If all these studies were so simple, and if we as individuals had good common sense with respect to diet etc, this world would not have so many obese people with all the lifestyle diseases. My thoughts on the artcile. Reply 10 05 2011 Kaem (00:11:27) : Well Roms, it depends on who the doctor is and who the novice is, doesnt it? Here is what the doctor writes in his China Study: Eating foods that contain any cholesterol above 0 mg is unhealthy. T. Colin Campbell, The China Study This flies in the face of what other qualified health professionals say. Here is one example from among many sources, re: how to boost HDL (good cholesterol) if yours are too low, and it is on the website of the Mayo Clinic: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/hdl-cholesterol/CL00030/NSECTIONGROUP=2 How do you decide whom to believe? I guess that would be a difficult problem for you since in your opinion both would be qualified to make recommendations. Me, I choose based on credibility of which Campbell has little, given his misinterpretation of his own research statistics. And I have a novice to thank for exposing this. For me, its Mayo and Minger, all the way! Reply 11 02 2011 Larry Walker Jr. (04:48:27) : Ahbut a doctor qualified in WHAT?? THats the question. The China Stu(pi)dy dosent use any sort of avdanced medicinal-science or bio-chemisrty babble to show its points.it uses STATISTICTS. Cambpell isnt a statician, so its actually Campbell whos speaking outside his field. Reply 11 02 2011 Timothy McMillen (22:04:33) : I will try to make this simple I remember the cigarette industry discrediting anyone who said smoking is bad for you. They always focused on the data that was faulty or found it to be so by their standards. No person in their right mind would say smoking is good for you or say it will not ham you (unless the person smokes). I do not need anyone telling me that fast food is bad for me; I know that it is and I dont eat it. The way I see this whole debate is based on two questions: 1) Is a whole food plant based diet better for your body? 2) Or is the typical American diet consisting of greasy hamburgers, french-fries, cheese curls, nachos, processed white breads, doughnuts, beagles with cream cheese, hotdogs (full of who knows what); lots of processed sugar, etc. Let me rephrase: If there is smoke coming out of a barrel, no one need tell me not to inhale the smoke because it is bad for me. Just like no one need tell me if a food is healthy and nutritious or that it should not be consumed; I know it innately and so do you just like we know we should inhale noxious fumes. You just know. Oh, I do have a lot of letters behind my name, but I had my commonsense long before any added letters. T.I.M. Reply 15 02 2011 neisy (03:52:19) : Hi Tim, You wrote: The way I see this whole debate is based on two questions: 1) Is a whole food plant based diet better for your body? 2) Or is the typical American diet consisting of greasy hamburgers, french-fries, cheese curls, nachos, processed white breads, doughnuts, beagles with cream cheese, hotdogs (full of who knows what); lots of processed sugar, etc.
7/26/12
These two questions might be driving a lot of the debate, but I think theyre the wrong ones to be asking. We know the typical American diet sucks. We know a whole-foods, plant-based diet generally has better health outcomes than a steady cuisine of McDonalds. What we need to focus on now is whether the wholefoods, plant-based diet is better because of the plant-based part or because of the whole-foods part. Meat and processed foods are often so heavily correlated that its very, very hard to distinguish their separate effects. Reply 9 12 2011 Jeffrey of Troy (03:52:07) : I hope no-ones eating beagles! With or w/o cream chez. Our family dog when I was a child was a beagle mix; great pet. Reply 12 02 2011 Richard Nikoley (00:18:57) : I will try to make this simple Mr. McMillen [insert lottsa letters]: That is easily among the most non-sequitur of comments yet posted among the 400+ or so. If you actually read Denises work, it has nothing to do with defending the Standard American Diet in any respect whatsoever. Moreover, neither does her work seek to undermine the potential healthfulness of a plant based diet. Quite simply, she shows in black and white, using the very same data as Campbell, in the same way, that you cant honestly draw the conclusions he has drawn from the data. And even worse, Campbell ignored many stronger correlations than protein (such as wheat), arrived at using the same statistical methods for which he implicates meat. The reason cigarettes are probably bad (actually, hand rolled cigs had one of the stronger correlations as protective, and much stronger than protein in the CS data) is because they are a neolithic agent, especially with all the chemical additives. In the same way, modern processed foods, concentrated sugar, junk food et al is likely the problem, when it contains meat or not. Reply 18 02 2011 Denise Mingers Refutation of Campbells "China Study" Generates Continued Debate | Mother Nature Obeyed (19:53:52) : [...] Mingers recent critical review of Dr. T. Colin Campbells The China Study has elicited a response from Dr. Campbell [...] Reply 20 02 2011 Total Body Health Studio Blog Archive China Study How Not to do Science (00:09:15) : [...] picking Dr. Cambell apart here, here, and here. Denise Minger does an even more convincing job here, here and here. Cambell responds here to Masterjohn; here and here to Minger. I highly [...] Reply 21 02 2011 22 Feb 2011, But What About Healthy Whole Grains? Landstuhl CrossFit & Combatives Facility in Landstuhl, Germany (21:39:50) : [...] to the essence of a study. Denise is one of those rare people. I became a loyal fan the day Denise soundly debunked Dr. T. Colin Campbells famous China Study (which every vegetarian in the world used to reference as proof of the perils of meat consumption). [...] Reply 26 02 2011 Healthy Eating Controversies Healthy Eating (18:24:59) : [...] The China Study Refuted [...] Reply 1 03 2011 rat removal (06:55:45) : It is important to stop up and seal any place in which rats can enter the home. Rats may be able to access your home through the plumbing or duct work. This is where a professional is very useful s they know exactly where and what to look for. Reply 6 03 2011 Julio (16:28:28) : The funny thing is that aflatoxin is a vegetable product. People ingests it with vegetables. Reply 7 03 2011 Bolkonsky (15:17:36) : Just wanted to post my thanks to Denise for this very interesting critique. Reading through the comments has been extremely frustrating for me as someone who simply wants to find out what I can do to improve my health. I read the China Study a few years ago, at the prompting of a good friend and very knowledgeable vegan. After a year of veganism, I began suffering from depression and weight gain until I cut out carbohydrates and reintroduced fatty meats into my diet. My friend is still a vegan in great health, and I am extremely glad for it. My wish is for everyone to enjoy good health a common goal which ought to unite us in a quest for truth rather than devolve into bitter feuding between factions.
7/26/12
After all, anyone advocating veganism or the paleo diet are still radicals in the world of mainstream western food. Why not focus on what both groups agree on: we have a food system dominated by large, wealthy and politically-connected industries who use public policy and junk science to perpetuate an unhealthy culture of processed foods. Lets work out the meat vs. no meat question later, rather than spend all of our energy accusing each other of being close-minded fanatics, paid off by special interests. Like I said, I just want to know what I can do to improve and preserve my health. As for the other arguments RE: veganism (ethical, environmental, political), I am very sympathetic. But even if veganism is the most ethical, environmentally-sustainable, and politically progressive diet/lifestyle, we shouldnt be afraid to objectively examine its health benefits or drawbacks. There are so many lies, distortions, and agendas (both financial and ideological) out there that it really gets frustrating to try to sort to the bottom of this. Uhhhh. Reply 5 05 2011 Innocent Bystander (09:06:51) : >Healthy vegan My experience of vegans is that there are two groups of healthy vegans 1. Those who only recently became vegans. 2. Closet consumers of animal products. Bill Clinton is now supposedly a vegan but according to one of the restaurants he frequents, last time he was there he had Fillet Mignon. Look at the efforts that native peoples make to get meat. The whole economy of the New Guinea is based on pig meat. The bride price is no many pigs. This does not happen because meat is useless nutritionally. My own experiences with a very low-meat diet (30grams/week) bear this out also. Eventually I had to give it away. Reply 13 06 2011 Gary (14:30:44) : I have good friends who are healthy and have been vegan for decades. Also, indeed, people/cultures may kill/trade/eat animals for reasons other than health, Reply 8 03 2011 PJ (09:20:12) : I have found the comments a whole sociology and psychology review on their own. In a larger vision, though, the part I find most odd (or concerning) is that apparently, a) nobody expects someone who is 23 to have a serious brain though much of the world and its history has been made by people far younger than that; by that age throughout history most people have already fought wars, had several children, or been working in industry for many years (not to compare to the interesting extention of childhood in current culture, ref John Taylor Gattos works); b) nobody expects self-education to even exist let alone be worth considering, as if it is incomprehensible that a person who is genuinely interested in something, and has the internet, library and bookstores at hand, could apply intelligent inquiry toward it. Why anybody should think when statistics are in play that the Ivory Tower of credential means more than a few stats calculators or spreadsheets. So only the priests could read Latin, and only the PhDs can read numbers, if I have that right. Campbell made very clear and unequivocal statements. He used a dataset which as pointed out was used raw and univariate that is about as straightforward as you can get (and in some respects as useless, as Mingers adding even a few other factors in makes obvious). He put something in the public with these and he is giving advice that has profound effects on the health/disease state of a huge number of people. There is nothing that should be scrutinized more than something like this. Had he been more clear from the start on some things, this blog post couldnt have existed. At worst, hes some of the things some folks think of him; at best, this young womans tire-kicking review isnt a shred of the critique he should already have faced and merely highlights an opportunity for him to clarify and expand on a few things. Instead he comes in here to comment and removes what existing respect I had for him until then. It takes a good brain and interest and time to go through basic stats in the similar manner he didas noted, he was clearly using the raw databut it is not particle physics, and the repeated attempts to imply that Minger didnt really write the review herself (because of her gender? youth? lack of official pedigree? Im not sure which is the factor which is supposed to bring on the idiocy implied) are humorous but kind of sad. I love this kind of thing. Kick the tires. It isnt personal. Anybody with a serious interest in nutrition finds this stuff interesting. Anybody with an interest in the process of science finds reviews of existing science and even reviews of books about the science, interesting. The mysterious disappearance of the overwhelming number attached to wheat, combined with the insinuation that nobody should dare question Campbell, let alone some young upstart so to speak, sounds a lot like that fairy tale of the emperors new clothes. PJ Reply 11 03 2011 gallier2 (08:19:25) : PJ, thank you. You win the thread! Reply 10 05 2011
7/26/12
Kaem (00:31:43) : Great response! Thanks PJ! Reply 29 09 2011 Noah Greenberg (20:15:22) : I agree PJ you win some one get this kid an ice cream Reply 8 03 2011 nk (16:20:18) : just a casual reader following a very interesting dialouge over various sites. on conclusion i found a remark on another website to summarise my whole experience humans are the only animals that need experts to tell them what to eat going to pack up reading dr google and go back to sensible balanced diet meat/veg/fruits naturally sourced and stay away from anything that comes in a wrapper Reply 16 03 2011 A Japanese paradox? | Mark's Daily Apple Health and Fitness Forum page (14:13:54) : [...] [...] Reply 26 03 2011 Looking for Video; HELLLP! | Mark's Daily Apple Health and Fitness Forum page (23:35:32) : [...] [...] Reply 3 04 2011 Sammy (04:02:16) : When I first started analyzing the original China Study data, I had no intention of writing up an actual critique of Campbells much-lauded book. Im a data junkie. Numbers, along with strawberries and Audrey Hepburn films, make me a very happy girl. I mainly wanted to see for myself how closely Campbells claims aligned with the data he drew fromif only to satisfy my own curiosity. This is the first paragraph of your critique, which is invalid. I would say that this is the basis of your critique which makes the entire critique invalid. Campbell did not draw on the data in the China study. That is false, he just used that data to show that his prior studies were in fact valid. The book might be titled The China Study but it is not at all based on the that one study, in fact there is just one of the 18 chapters that goes into detail of the study. Why not just prove that the sun rises in the west and there will be many readers who will believe you. I am not one of them. Reply 12 04 2011 Wayne (19:09:34) : This is the first paragraph of your critique, which is invalid. I would say that this is the basis of your critique which makes the entire critique invalid. Falied logic did you. Reply 24 06 2011 Darrel (00:43:40) : Note: Campbell didnt choose the title of the book, the publisher did. Reply 3 04 2011 KV (13:34:52) : Thanks for keeping perspective while you plowed through all your research. Amazing article! It has brought me back to the basic start point of eating and living as healthy as possible and/but not jumping the gun at the next newest trend. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGn21Ck4t28 Reply 22 04 2011 Nutrition! Programming Awesomeness (16:29:04) : [...] That is the first one. It is a summary of a longer article, that is basically a review of Campbells Raw data..Which is right here: http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/ [...] Reply 27 04 2011 Dr. Berg (23:44:44) : Of all the wild wacky diets promoted out there you have dedicated enormous effort on being a critic of a book based on an actual scientific study. It is easy to be a critic and find a different conclusion from another. I find your argument partly right but by no means can you write off many of the conclusions in The China Study. Those who read you article carefully will see a cynicism behind your questions rather than a brilliant critique. Seems strange you embrace the Price Foundation groupies. If only they knew what you eat. Reply 28 04 2011 Wayne (12:04:11) : I dont find the holding your breath and stomping your feet of Dr. Berg enlightening. Dr. Berg is not capable of critical thinking. Dr. Berg, Dr. of what? Reply
7/26/12
5 05 2011 Innocent Bystander (08:56:58) : One word: awesome. Thank you for this article. Ive added you to my RSS reader. Reply 11 05 2011 John Furr (13:29:06) : I just want to say that Im amazed at the comments here. Almost all of you are picking the data that you want to believe. There are so many statements being made that pretty much prove that many of you like Denises blog because you agree with it and not because you understand it. BTW I think Denise did some good work, but I also think she did exactly what most of you are lamenting about.she started with a a hypothesis: The Book Was Wrongand then cherry picked data to show that it was indeed wrong. Im a computational chemist and modeling data is what I do for a living. Denise is very correct about statistics being used to say anything. Its very hard to draw perfect conclusions on almost any set of biological data simple because biological systems are so complex. My advise to the vast majority of you is this: Admit that you dont understand the book or Deniss work and then go live a life of moderation. Eat less red meat, eat more green vegetables, eat more fruit, quit smoking, quit drinking or drink in moderation. Personally though. I went vegetarian for 30 days as a new years resolution to see what I though about this hippy diet. At the end of the 30 days I decided that i felt and looked much better. I stayed with it. Im not a vegan..I eat fish on occasion and on a rare occasion I will also eat turkey or chicken.Im in much better health today that I was 1.5 years ago when I started. Really the only way non scientists can make up their own minds is to try a veg*n diet for a while and see how it makes you feel. You are certainly not going to be less healthy if you cut meat out of your diet for a period. However if you drop meat and and dont eat a balanced vegetarian diet then your health is going to suffer after awhile. Balance and Moderation.whether your a vegetarian or not seems to be the best path for most of us..but hey if you all want to ignore the vast amounts of nutrition data that suggests a lower meat diet is favorable to health then thats your prerogative. Cheers Reply 11 05 2011 Sarah (16:28:22) : I think your post makes the most sense out of just about everyones here! Yes, just try the diet! Thats what elite athlete, Brendan Frazier did when he was trying to decipher which diet would help him out most as an elite athlete. In the end, he chose a high-nutrient, whole, plant-based diet. It gives him faster recovery time and allows him to train harder and more often. When at elite athlete switches to a plant-based diet, the results are pretty amazing. Studies or no studies, sometimes you just have to go by what works. I personally believe in a plant-based diet, however, I do believe that some people need a small portion of animal products, as not everyone converts plant-proteins as well, particularly older people. I will always eat at least some (less than 12 oz. a week) animal products, just in case, but I believe a high-nutrient, plant-based diet is the way to go for sure. Reply 12 05 2011 Wayne (15:29:59) : @Furr, I wonder if you even read Denises blog. In her very first paragraph Denise said that she is a data junkie and that she had no intention of writing an actual critique. She is not declaring a hypothesis, she is pointing out the glaring errors of Campbell by his either ignoring of falsifying data. And it was Denise who points out that the only person picking the data that supports a hypothesis is Colin Campbell. Most of us understand Denises work and we congratulate her on her high standards and her search for truth. After reading your response I conclude that you are not the person whose advise we should listen to. When you say eat less red meat makes me think you are just parroting what you have been told over the years. And declaring that you are in much better health today than 1.5 years ago says nothing about your current heath. What the heck does moderation mean? Reply 24 06 2011 Darrel (00:47:28) : I completely agree and your experience is very similar to mine. I became a moderate vegetarian in 1990 (with dairy and fish), and about five years later drifted back to chicken. Red meat does not agree with me, so I dont eat it. The link between cancer and meat is now well established and robust. See eight articles and excerpts I reference here: http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=24127#p24127 Reply 1 09 2011 Dave (18:56:25) : How many times are you going to repeat-post this ? For one, a pizza, dough and all, is not red meat. Unless sugar/carbohydrate intake was controlled (and in observational (meta) studies this is never the case) almost every correlation (nothing causal in these studies) can also be shown to exist for sugar intake. Its just about what youre trying to prove. It does not matter how often you repeat it, there is NO well established robust link between cancer and meat (which cancer? and what the hell is meat
7/26/12
anyway? fish? chicken? specific proteins? pork? beef? the saturated fat? the cholesterol? what particular ingredient is implied? meat causes cancer is just sensationalist booboo). Incidentally, there IS the well established robust fact that most all cancer cells require glucose for their metabolism and can not use ketones/fat. That specifically means: not the meat. (also not the vegetables, it would have to be refined carbs and/or wheat products, so vegans are not curing their cancer (assuming this is true) by not eating meat, but by cutting out processed carbs) Reply 6 09 2011 Darrel (13:55:38) : DAV: there is NO well established robust link between cancer and meat.>> Youre right. There are dozens. Ive compiled a few of them here: http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=24127#p24127 DAV: and what the hell is meat anyway?>> I am sorry you dont know what meat is. Perhaps start with that. (Hint: its defined in the studies referred to above). Reply 12 05 2011 Civil Eats Blog Archive The Antidote To Our Health Crisis Is Spinach (18:08:35) : [...] animal protein and chronic illnesses. Denise Minger posted a thorough review of The China Study on her blog, as well as a more formal analysis and exchange with Campbell. Marion Nestle reports that [...] Reply 13 05 2011 The China Study | Meddling Kids (21:38:14) : [...] study, ranging from data exclusion to flawed interpretation. I found an article by Denise Minger (The China Study: Fact Or Fallacy?) which I think is extremely effective at pointing out these flaws, and Minger is not some [...] Reply 14 05 2011 Silvia (15:52:13) : It would be very interesting to find out who is sponsoring you to do this type of work? I wish you the best in the future b/c I am really sure you are going to have cancer in the next few years. Reply 15 05 2011 Forks Over Knives Review | Ready State Fitness (22:42:57) : [...] The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? (My lengthy critique of The China Study by T. Colin Campbell.) [...] Reply 19 05 2011 Paleo Pepper Blog Archive Whats on the web? Peppers paleo archive: 120 relevant and awesome posts (16:35:43) : [...] The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? [...] Reply 19 05 2011 Misadventures in Travel China Edition | Nerd Fitness (17:55:28) : [...] China Study, as well as The Vegetarian Myth, along with substantial critical reviews of both (like this bloggers fascinating analysis of The China Study, the authors rebuttal, and then bloggers rebuttalalong with [...] Reply 22 05 2011 Blue (21:06:33) : This is an interesting link showing why the analysis presented here could be quite limited. http://www.vegsource.com/news/2010/07/china-study-author-colin-campbell-slaps-down-critic-denise-minger.html Reply 27 05 2011 Addicted to Canning! Weekly links (16:58:22) : [...] but also shaped by the preconceptions of the host site. The article referred to in there is available here and is also worth reading. Please, engage your intelligence and education before jumping on the [...] Reply 28 05 2011 3 Idiotic Nutrition Myths That Wont Die | The Blog of J.D. Moyer (23:55:29) : [...] designed and haphazardly analyzed studies like The China Study reinforce the conventional thinking that has led to a national obesity epidemic. Food alone [...] Reply 2 06 2011 Yan (07:58:01) : Ms. Minger, it seems that you really dont have any agenda to promote, except proving to your own conscious that its OK to be back abusing animals, even
7/26/12
though you once had already become totally aware of all that is done to them. Reply 3 06 2011 Seraphimia (08:09:00) : While I have yet to read The China Study I cant help but feel is your data crunching and output not also youre own interpretation of the data? Ive grown up eating meat and consuming dairy, I was unhealthy, always sick with something and generally tired. I went vegan a few years ago and the difference has been quite remarkable. I lost two stone in weight (much needed weight loss). I ceased to get regular headaches, I no longer feel fatigued or weighed down by my food. I dont get sick. My skin is much better. I heal faster. My monthly cycling doesnt leave me bed bound for over a week, its finally regular and of little pain. All the data in the world doesnt replace the fact that consuming dairy is in contradiction to our human design and when you go against nature (see BSE for details) there are always consequences. You can data crunch till the cows come home (pun intended), but the fact of the matter is we dont have the enzyme beyond infancy to consume dairy let alone from another species. Again, we need about 1 mg of B12 a day. You overload your body with more protein than your body can process and there are consequences. Too much protein inhibits iron absorption for example. Fatigue being an obvious symptom of that from iron deficiency. My brother is always unwell, has had kidney stones more than once, irregular heart beats, is always tired, sleeps randomly and often. He eats little beyond meat and dairy; almost no veg unless I cook for him. Hes had to cut back on dairy because the impact to his health has been so great and he is regularly tested for protein levels and keeps coming up too high. I dont remember the last time he was well and hes always taking sick leave. Hes only 34. When Ive been tested I am the picture of health. Yes I need to loose weight, but thats from my days of office work and high dairy consumption, but overall I am the healthiest Ive ever been and I feel it. You cant number crunch that. The reason people who choose a plant based diet become so passionate about others considering the same path is because you know as a vegan your choice of food is not solely about what you put in your body but the impact you have to the planet. Thats why began vegan is referred to as a lifestyle not simply a diet. Its about taking responsibility. Once the planet has run out of resources and its dead in space will we then still berate the passionate vegan who tried to warn us of the damage were doing with our choice of food, to ourselves and the planet? Its a shame it always has to be too late for humans to see the truth beyond numbers. Reply 3 06 2011 Tim Lundeen (19:29:59) : Seraphimia says Ive grown up eating meat and consuming dairy, I was unhealthy, always sick with something and generally tired. and I went vegan a few years ago and the difference has been quite remarkable. I lost two stone in weight (much needed weight loss). I ceased to get regular headaches, I no longer feel fatigued or weighed down by my food. I dont get sick. This is a perfect illustration that no one diet is right for everyone. The people pushing a particular diet plan always start this way: I was sick, and then I switched to such-and-such a diet and healed, therefore, everyone should switch to such-and-such a diet and they will be healthy. The reality is that some people need a high-purine, high-fat diet, some people need a low-purine, low-fat diet, and some people are in the middle. The best book in terms of figuring this out for what you need is Rudolph Wileys Biobalance2. People who say the Eskimos eat 80% fat and are very healthy, so everyone can eat 80% fat and be healthy forget that the Eskimos had hundreds of generations of selection for people who did well on a very high fat diet. But when Eskimos eat a high-carbohydrate diet, they have very poor health. People who say that the Okinowans eat a very low fat, primarily plant-based diet and are some of the longest-lived people on the planet forget that they had hundreds of generations of selection for people who did well on this diet. In the US, we have a large genetic mixture, and you cant recommend a single diet as working for everyone, just because it works for you. Reply 5 06 2011 Wayne (12:44:58) : I find Seraphimias report incomplete. Describing growing up eating meat and dairy would not make a person gain weight on its own. She reported losing 2 stone when she changed diets but this just raise a question of what else was she consuming besides meat and dairy. Also if she was consuming only meat and dairy this opens another question about the quantity of fat to protein in the meat. Consuming only lean protein would cause symptoms that she reported. Check rabbit starvation. I dont see how a plant based diet is more responsible or how a plant based diet can support human life to a healthful degree. Reply 11 06 2011 How I Invented The Paleo Diet... Sort of. | SuperHero (02:48:50) : [...] low-carb. In truth I didnt know much about it at all, and was still sure that years of scientific research supporting a low-fat and high-carb diet was the way to [...] Reply 11 06 2011 Helen (16:07:18) : Super great article Denise! Well done! Its so great you looked so deep into this set of data and re-did the analysis. Its sad that Campbell distorted the facts so
7/26/12
much in order to fit his own assumptions and expectations. I am really happy though that you discredited this book and exposed the lies in it. I really think you should send a sample of your material as a book proposal. People have started to wake up and shake off these old fashioned indoctrinations from so called experts and this material will be valuable. Congratulations and keep up the good work! Reply 13 06 2011 Gary (14:59:14) : Studies such as Oxford-EPIC at the very least suggest that a decently-planned vegan diet is healthy. My own experience with a vegan diet has been very positive as well. In the developed world, we are now technologically advanced enough so that we need not treat animals as disposable commodities. Commercial dairy and eggs are inherently cruel, especially since we dont need to consume those products: Female animals are bred to overproduce milk or eggs, and/or in the case of dairy, the milk produced by the mothers is basically stolen from their calves who, unlike us, need it to thrve. In practice, at hen hatcheries, all the male chicks are killed by being suffocated, gassed, or ground up alive. Dairy cows are forced to be pregnant and lactating their entire abbreviated adult lives and are killed when they dont produce enough milk to be profitable. Male calves and excess female calves at dairy fams are raised as low-grade beef and killed at a year-and-a-half old, or sentenced to horrid veal pens, or are killed right way, as babies. These practices are standard at all types of farms, including organic and small farms. Some of the worst cruelty every documented has occured at family farms (a rather meaningless term as huge factory farms may be owned by families). At the animal sanctuary where I volunteer, we have taken in hundreds of animals who were abused, neglected, starved, abandoned, etc. at local farms. We have several cows from dairy farms who fell off transport trucks on their way to auction and were found on the side of the road, still wet from birth and their umbilical cords attached. (These animals are sold for so little money that losing some in this manner is apparently part of the business model.) Veganism is a way to apply the golden rule to species other humans. It doesnt erase all problems associated with agriculture and it doesnt address all foodrelated issues in the world. But together with other dedicated efforts to lessen our impact on the earth and its creatures, it can help us reduce the amount of suffering and cruelty that we cause in our lives. A previous comment said that veganism is an ideology but meat-eating is a baseline activity. But in this day and age, meat-eating is also an ideology; and empathy and respect for sentient living beings are or should be baseline compnents of our better natures. Transitioning to a vegan diet as much as possible is a way to put those compassionate qualities into practice. At least give it an earnest try. Reply 13 06 2011 Sarah (17:11:57) : Excellent comments Gary. Many dont realize the abuse that animals endure. People can read more about these very real and sad truths at http://www.goveg.com Many also dont realize how livestock is affecting our environment. Id like to add as well that for hundreds of years, most cultures ate very little meat. They simply didnt have the abundance of animals that we do today (no factory farming and injecting animals with hormones!). For those that feel they need a high protein/high fat diet, this can also be obtained through plant foods. Reply 24 06 2011 Darrel (01:06:40) : Twenty years ago I read John Robbins Diet for a New America. It put forward the claim that eating meat, especially quite a bit of it, was associated with increased cancer risk. But there wasnt a lot of good data backing that up at that point. I hadnt looked at the issue in quite a while but now see that much work has been done on this issue in the last two decades. The line of evidence is now clear, meat eating is clearly associated with increased cancer. Ive posted links to eight extensive studies with excerpts here: http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=24127#p24127 Perhaps of interest. Reply 25 06 2011 Sarah (18:45:03) : Experience is the best teacher. Instead of looking at all of these studies, why not talk to actual people in the health field and look to their experiences? I spoke with a man last week whos been in the health field for years and years, and while he believes some need a high fat/high protein diet and others need a low/fat/low protein diet, he nonetheless believes in a mostly vegan diet in which both of these options can be obtained. He acknowledges that too many animal foods lead to disease, and hes been in the field for a long time. learn from others actual experiences. And I love science, but theres a lot of helpful health advice out there that science has yet to prove. Reply 1 07 2011 How to not eat like a retard II The Crusade against Fat People (19:07:30) : [...] plants do. Other lol shit is when retards say red meat causes cancer. They often cite the debunked China study. That shit has been proven wrong multiple times, idiots. Also they claim it causes [...] Reply 2 07 2011 tony (01:56:36) : too bad that someone is trying to come up with an answer to the problems that face most of the worlds advanced societies ie obesity diabetes etc etc etc
7/26/12
you can quibble with statistics tamper with the numbers cook the books but at the end of the day he is on to something which no amount of hair splitting can argue with ie we eat too much processed meat and food in general. our society is resistant to any critique on it eating habits because we are all brainwashed by the propoganda fed to us by the media and the govt. As an adult i would like to make an informed choice. campbells book is part of that information that i can take or leave. The more information out there the better for the health of everyone. Reply 10 07 2011 Mac (14:55:42) : Professors, Doctors.. Where are all the patent clerks when you need one? Reply 16 07 2011 checkin' it out (22:54:18) : its cool reading all the comments. the first responses at the top of the page were predominantly avid supporters. then halfway down the page a few campbellesque comments start to pop up now and then. then moving on another stonghold of accolades and support. and finally nearing the end a gradual increase in the proportion of campbell-lites if you will. also from maybe the middle onward some nice banter between a few repeat posters duking it out in the trenches. so it started out all kill! kill! kill! yaaaaay meat! and towards the end it turned into my body is my temple hare krishna dude meat is murder Reply 2 08 2011 OETJOENG HANDAJANTO (13:12:13) : when I was a student in Germany, I love to eat meat, like Duesseldorfer Spanferkel, Argentinian Maredo spareribs, Wuppertaler and enjoy all good food ! in 1980 when I finish my study as a young doctor, I often have got already backache ! after all, I continue to live my life, which was I thought the healthiest : morning Quacker oat, Bread with cheese, 1 egg and 1 glass of milk, for lunch and dinner one peace of meat, some fruits, Saturday and Sunday fish with potatoes chips. with this lifestyle, I gain weight, I have often itchy skin, migraine attack, runny nose, last but not least, at my 48th birthday, heart trouble ! after minimize cook food, meat product, avoiding milk product, lot of fruit and veggies, antioxidant and other food supplement, I regain my health and can really enjoy my real life, climbed the great wall in china and mountain in Korea! what the so call health experts are saying, are often contradictory ! it is only a reference, not a rule ! = your healthyour choice! = so make the choice and do the best for your own body ! Reply 7 08 2011 mayalibre (18:15:36) : I was recommended to this page by a Facebook friend called Food Renegade. Her reference to it is under the title China Study Discredited, which I think is a little harsh as if the whole study should be relegated to the wastebin, never read or considered. I see you also have commenters here who call him a liar as if it was a black vs white issue. I just finished reading the China Study, and I have to say that as simply a layperson it seems like a very valuable piece of work not perfect, but Campbell does not claim that its perfect. He goes out of his way in the first third of the book to say that he exists (existed) in a scientific community, which would CERTAINLY review his data and criticize it. I believe he would welcome a careful, well researched criticism like this original post. Denise, you say early in this post that So is it higher cholesterol (by way of animal products) that causes these cancers, or is it a misleading association because areas with high cholesterol are riddled with other cancer risk factors? We cant know for sure, but it does seem odd that Campbell never points out the latter scenario as a possibility. I dont think this is true. Again, I just finished reading the book and while it was clear that he was excited (and maybe too excited) by what were to him revolutionary conclusions, he REPEATEDLY said that there could be other factors that were not being tested and so he couldnt know for sure whether those other factors were, or were not, at play. That said, I appreciate good critiques and good criticism. I always look for it because theres always somebody wanting to hawk some kind of magic solution. I do remember wondering as I read the book where the problems that have been discovered in soy might fit in, or how yogurt or kefir could be seen as universally bad. But again, he clearly said that he didnt know everything, and perhaps it is *we* who take a reductionist view, seeking to reduce his valuable data and work down to a vote for either *all valid* or *all trash*. I propose that we need to start looking at the way our own thinking feeds the systemic monsters we create. The more we seek magic pills, the more others will try to provide them. If we completely reject work like Campbells, then what we are saying is that its not the magic pill we are still looking for. But it was never meant to be that, and both the first third of the book, and the last third, say it repeatedly. So Denise, thank you for ADDING to our understanding by pointing out the limitations of Campbells work. I do not consider it discredited as much as I consider it now to be very well critiqued. Reply 7 08 2011 Wayne Gage (18:27:15) : mayalibre as if the whole study should be relegated to the wastebin, never read or considered. It is not the study that is in question, it is the conclusion that is in question. Reply 8 08 2011 China Study Problems of Interpretation | Health is a Gift! | Health, Medicine, Disaseas, Cures, Fitness, Women Health, Men Health (20:12:23) : [...] The China Study: Fact or Fallacy [...] Reply 9 08 2011 Humanity+ interview: Steve Omohundro on the Global Brain, Existential Risks and the Future of AGI | Self-Aware Systems (21:55:14) : [...] the data in the study and found that they did not support the original conclusions. She wrote about her discoveries on her blog and sparked an enormous discussion all over the health and diet blogosphere that [...]
7/26/12
Reply 11 08 2011 CJ (21:38:48) : It is really amazing that she leaves this information on here despite having been proven to know nothing about science or nutrition. Dr. Campbell explains how complete inaccurate Denises information is. http://www.vegsource.com/news/2010/07/china-study-author-colin-campbell-slaps-down-critic-denise-minger.html Reply 6 09 2011 malcolm (07:52:48) : Its really amazing that VegSource.com leaves that embarrassing response by Dr. Campbell on there that fails to address her criticisms and largely focuses on straw men and irrelevant tangents, especially after she already shredded it with an earlier reply. Reply 12 08 2011 Ancestral Health Symposium | Paleo Plan (18:27:12) : [...] so-called scientific studies, all while keeping you fascinated by statistics. Read her careful examination of the China Study, which is what catapulted her to infamy in the Paleo world. Her talk was How to Win an [...] Reply 20 08 2011 Bill (12:37:04) : Campbell & Minger make your points from the parts of the data you emphsize & neglect and then rather than cooperate to determine whats true from the mass of data argue from your divided viewpoints. What might be done together. Reply 20 08 2011 MG (13:05:28) : These posts and comments are positively hilarious, especially the ones that say credentials, experience and education mean nothing! Oh, really? Remember that when you schedule your next surgery, or have your accountant prepare your taxes, or even get your hair cut or colored, LOL. Because experience and credentials mean nothing, right? Those initials behind a name mean nada? LOL. Ill stick with appreciating experience, education and those silly initials behind a name when searching for opinions, ha. Best of luck to the rest of you. Reply 20 08 2011 Alex (16:11:51) : Its not that they mean nothing. Its just that they dont necessarily ensure robust science. Just look at all the credentialed people behind the multi-billion dollar statin drug industry, yet double blind, placebo controlled studies show statin drugs do not decrease all cause mortality for the overwhelmingly vast majority of people who take them. As it happens, Denise has an innate talent for numbers and statistics that far exceeds T. Colin Campbells, and because the Campbellites cant actually refute Denises analysis, they resort to arguing credentials. The thing is, Campbell justifies his erroneous statistics in the name of holistic woo, so by his own admission, hes not engaging in legitimate science. In Campbells case, his credentials actually dont mean anything, because despite his education and degrees, he is a flaky, new-age, hippy woo-meister and not a real scientist. But the arguments about credentials persist, so she wrote her latest post to show what other credentialed researchers have to say about the same data set: http://rawfoodsos.com/2011/07/31/one-year-later-the-china-study-revisited-and-re-bashed/ Reply 22 08 2011 Dan (02:20:57) : Are you saying that, thoughout human history, the highest credentialed expert always has been right? Or, are you saying non-experts have never contributed anything to any field, ever? Oh, the counterexamples I could give in each instance. While experts usually far outperform non-experts, lets just say the correction is imperfect. I will judge Dr. Campbell and Ms. Minger the same way, by their analysis and their analysis only. Could you be so kind as to do the same? Reply 22 08 2011 Dan (02:11:29) : Will a critic of Denises analysis point out where she concludes that a plant based diet is unhealthy or that we should all add meat to our diet? There is a difference between saying: (i) plant-only diet is superior, (ii) meat eating is superior, (iii) plant-only and plant+meat are equally healthy, and (iv) we dont have proof that plant-only is superior. None of these four items are the same. As I read it, Denises only draws conclusions item (iv). She states no other grand conclusion. Reply 22 08 2011
7/26/12
Will Ditching Meat Save You From Disease? Be Healthy Now! (16:14:29) : [...] big names like Mark Sisson, Robb Wolf, Stephen Guyenet, Tom Naughton, and others. Denise Minger, famed slayer of The China Study (not the book, but the actual China-Oxford Cornell study), hosted a lecture entitled How to [...] Reply 27 08 2011 Fat, Diabetes, and Sinister Involvement in Wikipedia Raw Food SOS: Troubleshooting on the Raw Food Diet (00:06:24) : [...] there whenever I see blog traffic c0ming from Wikipedia.com, since it usually means someone added my critique and the vegan moderators havent yanked it out [...] Reply 27 08 2011 Fady (00:23:22) : i am new to this debate. Actually I just read about the China Study today (ordered it and due to receive it in two days), and was looking for a critique of the book and I found this. I stopped reading after Denis was trying to refute Claim #1. I am amazed but the amount of attention this single critique has raised. I think the author and her advocates need to study some maths. Lesson #1: univariate correlation can prove causality if there is logic behind it e.g. eating animals correlating positively with cholesterol can be the basis to say that eating animals causes your cholesterol to increase; however, lack of univariate correlation cannot refute causality e.g. eating animals not correlating unilaterally with cancer cannot be used to refute a causality between the two. To make it simple to understand, I will illustrate with a simple model. Say: Cholesterol = Animal Protein + Factor X Cancer = Cholesterol + Factor Y = Animal Protein + Factor X + Factor Y Factor X and Factor Y represent all other factors besides Animal Protein affecting Cholesterol and Cancer. Factor X would include things like physical activity, stress level, etc. Factor Y would include exposure to radiation, consumption of green tea etc.. This is a linear model, so there should be a perfect correlation between Cancer and Animal Protein. However, if you select random numbers for the three variables (Animal Protein: 0 to 100, Factor X: 0 to 200 and Factor Y:0 to 200) and make your calculations in a quick excel worksheet, you will find that the correlation between Cancer and Animal Protein is much lower than the correlation between Cholesterol and and Animal Protein. Simply because as you add more factors, the impact of a univariate gets diluted. Lack of univariate correlation does not proves (or disproves) much. The morale of all this is that the approach adopted in the book is to have a hypothesis (eating animals is bad for your health) and then try to prove it statistically and this seems to be sound and if thats the worst critique for the book so far than I look forward to reading it Reply 6 09 2011 malcolm (07:13:31) : Fady, Lack of univariate correlation between animal protein and cancer or heart disease doesnt disprove the notion that the former causes the others, but it certainly doesnt support this hypothesis. Moreover, if you read a bit further in Denises critique, youd note that the China Study didnt show a significant association between total cholesterol and cancer or heart disease either (after adjusting for confounding variables in the case of colorectal and liver cancer). So all youre left with, from this study at least, is the notion that eating animal protein raises cholesterol levels, a non-controversial assertion, but not what Campell is claiming in his book (and only in his book, rather than his real papers). And even with logic, a univariate correlation is never going to prove causality. Reply 29 08 2011 elwoode (09:34:11) : I think somone should also debunk Caldwell B. Esselstyn, Jr. and his book Prevent and reverse heart disease He is totally against eating any meat or fish or dairy. He cites how healthy the highlanders of Papua Newguinea are but doesnt mention they like to eat pig and whatever animals they manage to hunt! I have also hear him on a radio interview citing other communities who are NOT vegetarian. He doesnt mention that and the interviewer didnt take him to task on it. Reply 29 08 2011 Alex (12:47:43) : Denise talks about Esselstyn, Ornish, et al here: http://rawfoodsos.com/2011/08/13/ancestral-health-symposium/ Reply 1 09 2011 #1: Biohacking 101 With Andrew Clark | The Bulletproof Executive (21:16:47) : [...] The China Study: Fact Or Fallacy? by Denise Minger [...] Reply 3 09 2011 Doctor said not to go Vegan?? (02:21:15) : [...] what the actual data points to and ignoring that the data points hugely to wheat as a big problem. The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? Raw Food SOS: Troubleshooting on the Raw Food Diet [...] Reply
7/26/12
3 09 2011 Paolo Augello (16:14:22) : All I know is, before I was vegan, I was fat, had issues with high cholesterol, taking Lipitor, was not regular, and felt very lethargic. As soon as I switched, I instantly dropped 15 pounds, stopped taking Lipitor, had more energy that I knew what to do with it, and, Ill tell you, I am so regular now that you can set your watches to my daily schedule! You have to Kill to Eat Meat Kills! Reply 23 10 2011 yes (23:43:16) : same thing when i took the meat out too. now like clockwork every morning it happens : ) the most noticeable thing for me was, removing the meat immediately and permanently removed even the slightest sense of digestive discomfort which i had grown to accept as natural throughout my whole life. although i didnt notice any major changes in my energy after going (mostly) vegetarian, i did notice my energy levels stabilize and were more.the engine was idling better ill put it that way lol Reply 4 09 2011 elwoode (06:47:00) : @ Paolo I stopped eating meat and drinking milk 5 days ago. So far I have had the opposite experience I have little energy! I have a routine of Jogging every other day after 10mins jogging it is hard for me to carry on!! Reply 7 09 2011 Tiereiweifrei tiereiweiarm Nicht nur Vollwertskandale (15:32:39) : [...] von Kse verweisen. Jetzt macht neuerdings eine Kritik der China Study die Runde (D. Mingers hier), und alle fllen sich jetzt beflissen zu sagen ich habs ja immer geahnt. [...] Reply 7 09 2011 Jeff (18:41:47) : Have any of the Campbell bashers here actually read The China Study? It doesnt appear so. @Paeolo: When you dropped eating meat and milk did what else did you eat? Maybe you werent eating well in other areas, maybe not getting enough calories. Im not a vegan, but 99% of the time I eat a whole foods, plant based diet and exercise regularly and have never felt better in my life! Reply 7 09 2011 Jeff (18:46:36) : Sorry, I mean to address my last comment to elwoode, not Paolo. Reply 12 09 2011 milesstandish (20:17:27) : What an interesting article. I have had food sensitivities and allergies all of my life and was vegetarian for about 17 years. Due to this I have always watched what I ate and tried to eat mainly organic foods. I wanted to switch to a strictly raw vegan diet for many years but was hesitant because I had a bad allergy to nuts. Once I realized that soaking nuts does not cause me to have an allergic reaction I decided to try a raw vegan organic diet for an extended period. After about four to six weeks into this diet I developed a growth on my cheek. I thought that maybe this was just part of the detoxification process and it would go away after a few months. After six months the growth became bigger and I developed all kinds of other skin conditions. After going to the doctor I discovered the growth on my face was cancerous and had to have it surgically removed. Two years later I am still struggling with skin issues but they have almost disappeared after eating more meats and raw fermented dairy products and less carbohydrates (especially fruit!). Raw plants are a good compliment to my current diet but I am now very skeptical of strictly plant-based diets. I tried to seek information about skin cancer on a raw food diet on various raw food forums in a hope to connect with others who may have had this experience (or at least to inform people who may have that experience in the future). I received some of the most resentful and angriest responses I have ever encountered in a forum. There was definitely little compassion and loads of insecurity, so it is expected that devotees will not react well to this information. I even had my post deleted from a forum run by a well-known cookbook author and raw food expert. Its easy to get lost in the religious-like fervor of being dedicated to spiritual or moral ideals but information like this provides a good opportunity to step-back and reflect. Thank you for posting this. Reply 6 01 2012 Dominik (10:33:25) : After 6 weeks you think you developed cancer because of your vegan diet? Sorry, but its just ridiculous to think that your diet was the origin, as even when receiving high doses of radiation I suppose it would take longer to develop a cancer Reply 14 09 2011 CarrieL (04:49:29) : So many people seem to expect a yes or no answer with nutrition. Yet everyones body is different, and our genes actually respond to various nutrients differently (ie. for one person, an increase in selenium may turn off their prostrate cancer gene, while for another it may do nothing to decrease their risk of prostrate cancer, or even increase it). Also, many people dont realize that many aspects of nutrition is not a hard core science. For example, the USAs FDA looked at the studies done on the artifical sweetener saccarin and Okd it for use in America. Canada looked at the same data and did NOT approve it for use in Candian products. More like a congress than a scientific convention.
7/26/12
Having majored in nutritional science, I appreciate the science behind both Dr. Campbells book and Denises criticism of it. I have no doubt the China Study is NOT nutrition gospel, but neither is it worthless. Too many people read the book and take it as hard core truth. Its important to remember there is data. Then there is interpretation of that data. Two completely different things, which two different people (even two equally respected scientists) may interpret differently. To each his or her own! Reply 18 09 2011 prion (01:21:39) : I have a question all your data junkiness, does it allow for connectivity as far as one part connects and relates to another part ? Such as what you have written in Campbell Claim #1. Do you think that here is a chain reaction to things in life? From what you have written it seems not, which is strange as you can see there is a chain reaction in a nuclear bomb when it is set off. Reply 18 09 2011 Philip Terry (16:42:24) : I want to know the truth! Can I eat meat or not?!! Reply 20 09 2011 Jonas (10:39:48) : it is not advised or necessary many are better of who have never had it all their life so i would say no. Reply 20 09 2011 Julie Loveless (15:54:54) : I only read as far as your debunking of Claim #1: the positive correlation between the consumption of animal protein and cancer. Of course Campbell had to employ a third factor (cholesterol). It is precisely this characteristic, this constituent, of animal protein that increases disease risk. Plants dont contain cholesterol, and therefore cannot contribute to blood cholesterol levels. Thats first. Second, plants, in and of themselves, dont help to prevent (or decrease the risk) of cancer, a plant-based diet does. In other words, one cannot counter the effects of meat in the body, simply by increasing the consumption of plants. But what has been shown is that, by eliminating animal products and increasing plant foods, not only is your risk inherently reduced, but if you are genetically predisposed to disease, the presence of plant-based foods in your diet can (and will) suppress the genes. I speak to you from my own nutrition background of 17 years (not nearly the 40 that Campbell has invested). There are several other reputable scientists and doctors touting the same claim, who are not associated with The China Study (Caldwell Essylsten, Joel Furman, McDougall, Neal Barnard, and Dean Ornish, for starters). There is reason for this and that is simply that the evidence is overwhelming and statistically significant. Lastly, in addition to being a plant-based nutrition professional myself, I am also a breast cancer survivor, who was genetically predisposed AND environmentally exposed (TCE in my well water). My cancer was rare and aggressive. My oncologists insisted on mastectomy, chemotherapy, and radiation, followed by 5 years of tamoxifen. I opted out of all treatment, eliminated dairy from my already-vegetarian diet, and I have been cancer-free since April of 2008. Reply 21 09 2011 milesstandish (01:26:22) : Everyone has a different experience, as I had an aggressive cancer after going on a strict raw vegan diet. The cancer only went away after eating raw yoghurt and more meat (grass-fed or organic) than I usually ate in my adult life. So nothing is absolute no matter how many scientists or nutritionists say its so. Only believe your own body. Dont listen to any of us. Reply 22 09 2011 What the heck am I supposed to eat?????? | Mark's Daily Apple Health and Fitness Forum page 2 (20:27:54) : [...] Denise Minger also did a couple really good critiques of The China Study. Reply With Quote + Reply to [...] Reply 22 09 2011 Forks Over Knives: Is the Science Legit? (A Review and Critique) Raw Food SOS: Troubleshooting on the Raw Food Diet (21:38:10) : [...] but not all animal proteins are casein. This movie falls into the same trap I mentioned in my China Study critique last year, and that many other people (Dr. Harriet Hall, Chris Masterjohn, and Anthony Colpo, to [...] Reply 23 09 2011 Slakt av veganpropagandafilm Paleofriend (16:46:50) : [...] till evidens som stdjer filmens veganbudskap. Det r en ren slakt, precis som henns tidigare kritik av den bermda veganbibeln, The China Study. I kritiken av filmen Forks over Knives finns mycket [...] Reply 26 09 2011 South Baltimore CrossFit Friday, Oct 1st: Its Science (14:53:44) : [...] of individual studies. The China Study appeared to implicate meat as the cause of cancer, and a more stringent analysis of the data revealed that it actually did nothing of the sort. Similarly, just because something has not been [...] Reply 30 09 2011 Philip (21:06:08) : Why is egg intake -28 on the CVD? Any ideas?
7/26/12
Reply 4 10 2011 Forks Over Knives: The Latest Vegan Nonsense Dissected, Debunked and Destroyed | AnthonyColpo (02:45:04) : [...] last year took T. Colin Campbells atrocious and terribly misleading The China Study book and debunked the living daylights out of it. As with my (and Chris Masterjohns) critique of The China [...] Reply 7 10 2011 Joe (09:22:08) : A little learning is a dangerous thing. Reply 8 10 2011 New vegan by doctor's order (23:15:28) : [...] jeez, biased much? You are telling US to google? This is THEE debunked of the China Study The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? Raw Food SOS: Troubleshooting on the Raw Food Diet the one that set the trend. The one that got Campbell all riled up and running for the hills. [...] Reply 10 10 2011 Breast Cancer awareness Mania - Page 3 - Stormfront (04:25:50) : [...] [...] Reply 16 10 2011 Is there evidence to suggest a link between cancer and meat consumption? - Mind And Muscle Forum (22:30:16) : [...] [...] Reply 18 10 2011 Why You Dont Need to Worry About that Women and Vitamins Study (19:19:28) : [...] T.C. Campbell picked just those that supported his pro-vegan hypothesis and put them in his book, The China Study, conveniently omitting all the many associations that refuted his theory. But dont get me [...] Reply 24 10 2011 PJ (00:09:22) : Most people eat like crap, by default. Thats our cultural default. Suddenly switching to an intentional eating plan, whether it is low-carb or vegan or almost anything else, after a couple weeks of adjustment, usually makes people feel massively better. That mostly means they quit eating so much crap. After that, though, its a matter of how whatever theyre finally eating affects them over the long term and often, now that they arent eating so much harmful stuff of other sorts, they have a more clear response to whats left. Some people are actually reactive to arachidonic acid in red meat and peppers for example, theyre going to have issues if they eat it ongoing. That doesnt mean they wouldnt thrive on a diet of seafood for example, but most people do one spectrum or the other, and dont experiment a lot. Years ago, in 10 days of suddenly eating nothing but meat (when I went low-carb) I cured years of horrible, horrible acid reflux, severe asthma, severe allergies, rashes, brain-fog, exhaustion, acne, and more, it was like a freaking miracle. But while I was crediting it to meat and low carb, it turns out I was extremely intolerant to gluten grains, so the real reason for improvement was getting those out of my diet. The meat did help, as I was also chronically malnourished it turns out, but what youre missing is kind of a separate topic from eating toxic things that hurt you (kind of, not entirely). In the end, extended nearly-zero-carb didnt help my thyroid any, although others have had no issue with it, I think thats just one of those existing conditions that if you have, has to be taken into account. (Long before that, the massive weight loss LC brought on, actually stopped, despite that my eating hadnt changed. Google Jeffrey Friedman, molecular biologist head of Rockefeller genetics lab and discoverer of the hormone Leptin, for very interesting comments related to super obese people and weight loss.) I think that todays world has such intense corporate commercial and political pressures related to every food, marketing, agrichem, pharmachem, and more doesnt help any of us. Getting real info without a dozen distorting factors is pretty difficult. In the end it comes down to the individual. You need to eat, and you need to feel healthy and strong and clear-headed, without constant reactive issues, Genetics (not just by birth set but by what has been triggered in them by life experience) are going to determine some of it I imagine. Make an iconic enemy out of any food group (much as Id be happy to do that with gluten grains!) is probably not too reasonable. What makes you feel healthy is what matters. Bad science that becomes politics and media doesnt help. Taking a hard look at things claimed for studies or data that are at best biased and at worst so wrong it questions ethics, is important, so Im glad this blog delved into that. Reply 31 10 2011 Ted (14:27:58) : What strikes me about this comment as it pertains to strident statistical analysis is the valid power of testimonial over math. I love the strength of stats, but every single one of us receives that information and tries to reconcile it with our own personal experience. We do this mentally and physically. I know what the precepts of a Paleo diet are, but I have also tested them on myself to see what sticks. Some does, some doesnt. We all test this stuff on ourselves. Every Paleo blogger Ive seen out there has their own individual anecdote about what worked for them. One of them can apparently eat French bread with no problem. She is extremely bright and I wonder why, after going Paleo or raw or whatever, she would ever think about putting a hunk of French bread in her mouth. Yet, she did. So while I really appreciate the predicitve value of a large statistical anaylsis, some of it falls by the wayside when n=1 and 1 is me. Reply 25 10 2011 David (21:43:37) :
7/26/12
I wish I were a bowl of strawberries or a Hepburn movie.. I also wish I would have happened upon this critique when I was still being accosted by militant vegans! Reply 26 10 2011 John (00:42:27) : So we are to eat hamburgers and tacos and be healthy? Reply 28 10 2011 Pork Chop Throw Down! | beef and whiskey (14:41:41) : [...] really bad about it they make you walk by an obnoxious stand promoting ridiculous books like the China Study and insane quack Dr. Joel Furhmans Eat to [...] Reply 28 10 2011 Ted (23:39:07) : Denise, in case you ever wonder if all of your work matters and actually has an impact, I offer my testimonial: I found your site thru some contorted paleo web hopping and was immediately impressed with the content. Your command of the subject matter is thorough, your methods inscrutable, and your unflappable responses are to be admired. I have read your offerings, absorbed the data, projected and personalized the implications, and I want you to know, that because of you and your diligence, I now say neener, neener! like, all the time. Thank you so much. Seriously, neener-neeners aside, nothing is so intimidating as a statistician dispassionately presenting incendiary data. Im glad Im on your side. Reply 30 10 2011 Gryphon (02:34:30) : This is excellent work. Thank you very much for your effort. Reply 1 11 2011 Omnivores and Vegetarians The Pharmacy Brute (04:47:09) : [...] The China Study, conducted over years by Ph.D T. Colin Campbell in China, showed that meat consumption raised the incidence of certain cancers in different provinces in China. It is one of the biggest, if not the king, diet studies ever conducted. However the quality of the reporting that was done was shoddy at best. For a full review I recommend Denise Mingers post at http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/ [...] Reply 3 11 2011 China Study T. Colin Campbell | Achtung, Pflanzenfresser! (16:01:23) : [...] da keinerlei Hinweise auf mgliche positive Effekte tierischer Nahrung behandelt werden. (The China Study Fact or Fallacy Denise Minger, frher Veganerin, jetzt Rohkstlerin). Campbell selbst hat wiederholt zu [...] Reply 11 11 2011 Elisabeth M (03:54:08) : Just read Mr. Campbells reply, and your response. I am incredibly annoyed by the dismissive subtext in his referring to you more than once as a young girl while casting doubt on the quality of your analysis. You responded to young in your reply, but so far Ive seen no response to girl. Tynan did it, too. Is a 20-something person (especially one so formidably adept as yourself) really a juvenile? But its easier to dismiss a girl than a woman, so Mr. C opted for ad hominem. p.s. In your reply to Campbell, you spelled it pouring. But you meant poring. Reply 12 11 2011 Mens Sana (14:30:24) : The reason these unqualified critiques of China Study are so popular on Internet is that people DONT WANT to believe what that study says, so they jump to believe anything they found against. Its not only about logic and common sense. Knowledge and experience is needed to interpret correctly the data. Otherwise, with Google only, we could be all medics. Reply 12 11 2011 Shane England (20:54:11) : Denise, What a fabulous work youve done with helping debunk bad science and opening peoples eyes to tradition foods and good nutrition. I very much enjoyed your upbeat presentation at the WAPF conference in Dallas TX. Keep up the good work and I look forward to your book. Reply 23 11 2011 Terry (14:29:34) : All this energy spent on debunking one book. I can appreciate the dedication it takes to do this analysis, but wow. Why? Do the same analysis on The Adkins Diet, South Beach Diet, et al.
7/26/12
One thing Ive learned from research is ANY STUDY CAN BE DEBUNKED, no matter how good the data and how appropriate the statistical analysis. Perfect studies dont exist in science. Period. Seems like we all need to take a step back, recognize our own biases (which are IMPOSSIBLE to remove), and eat what we want. I just read The China Study. I liked what I read, and no doubt a diet with less meat and more vegetables is healthier (we know that from YEARS of data). I love steak, chicken, fish, eggs, cheese and all the other foods mentioned in the book as harmful. Will I get rid of all, no. Will I modify my diet a bit without compromising my enjoyment of life, you bet! Everything in moderation, folks. Reply 26 11 2011 mic (13:55:02) : Read through the lines and her stastical saviness, dont you see it, Denise ego is bigger than the China study itself. Reply 27 11 2011 Young Scientist! (09:23:24) : Hey all! After a few weeks of hard work, I have finally completed a Youtube video debunking the myth that HIV causes AIDS! I know what you are thinking; Im just a young 21-year old Film Studies major with a passion for health and a knack for number-crunching. But its true! Subscribe to my account today! Oh, and did I mention, I am blonde with dreamy blue eyes, so that should be a plus for the internet geeks who love to gawk at girls avatars. Tip: taking the time to use flattering poses for my avatar pics does wonders for traffic! Anyway, back to the issue at hand people. You must remember to question everything! Dont believe what the doctors tell you. Instead, you should google it. How do you think I get my information? Now dig thismy next Youtube post will examine the prediction that doctors will be obsolete by 2020 and universities will be toast by 2025. Thats right! All information on earth will be accessed through Google. I mean Wikipedia & Yahoo Answers will still be around but youll have to reach them via Google. Ill end with a quote from a respected academic colleague of mine, Ms. South Carolina; lets help the Iraq! . That quote may initially appear irrelevant, but a seasoned academic will quickly figure out that I googled it.food for thought. Reply 28 11 2011 The China Study and Forks over Knives, links to critiques | Julianne's Paleo & Zone Nutrition Blog (02:41:25) : [...] The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? (My original critique of The China Study by T. Colin Campbell.) [...] Reply 9 12 2011 Ut i solen igen Allt om vitamin D (00:31:16) : [...] andra har redan skrivit om slakten av The China Study skriven av en lekman och fre detta vegan; Denise Minger, och djuret Richard Nikoley har [...] Reply 15 12 2011 Exposing the Latest Vegan Fraudster: Plant Positive | AnthonyColpo (04:04:07) : [...] http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/ [...] Reply 23 12 2011 The Third Day of Caveman Christmas | The Downtown Caveman (21:53:24) : [...] critique of the China Study (at least it came up first on Google), is Denise Mingers The China Study: Fact or Fallacy. If you click that link, buckle up for a long (though fascinating) ride. The takeaway is [...] Reply 27 12 2011 Mark Spencer (19:33:11) : An ongoing study crossing decades and making connections and correlations based upon observation and life changing realities shown in the glowing health of those who choose a vegan lifestyle. This is more than enough for me. Science has proven narrow minded in its approach far too often, and as a result nothing conclusive will EVER be found in its all hallowed halls. Dr..Campbell explained why his research came down to a comparison of the most probable factors and he knew there would be line-up of nay-sayers demanding statistical proof. How could he possibly reveal an all pleasing, all encompassing laymans version of eye-opening research that would be totally accepted by scientists who are mired in the past and refuse to believe the earth is indeed round!? Who are we to understand the complexities of nature by studying the component parts of a piece of fruit under an electron microscope? The simple truth is we will never be able to explain in scientific terms how that apple gives us glowing health. Not fully, nor based on anything other than how we feel when we eat living foods. Two of Einsteins quotes come to mind hereMy religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind. and Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts.
7/26/12
Einstein knew that all the number crunching in the world will never actually prove anything. Energy and glowing health speak for themselves. The statistics of death and the undermined health of our first world populace should be our first clue that the SAD diet simply does not work. If you Dr.s and scientists cant see the irony, mockery, and hippocracy you make of Hippocrates messages, the father of modern medicine, which you mangle on a daily basis then why should I listen to you? Reply 27 12 2011 gager (23:11:50) : blah, blah, blah.. then why should I listen to you? Actually why should anyone listen to an meaningless rant? Reply 28 12 2011 Mark Spencer (16:27:40) : Nice intelligent well thought out reply. Einstein and Hippocratesmeaningless? I wouldnt expect a person with that calibre of a reply to understand the workings of a toilet let alone much else Reply 28 12 2011 gager (18:16:55) : You attempt to bolster and add impact to your stupid comment by quoting some famous mathematician and scientist. Didnt work. Try reading Miss Mingers blog before commenting. Reply 29 12 2011 Mark Spencer (21:45:23) : Ive read Miss Mingers comments very thoroughly, as well as Dr. Campbells reply to her comments. What hasnt been explained is why you insist on being an ass rather than explaining yourself. Ill break it down for you. I dont think number crunching alone will satisfy any research information. Comparative analysis has to take into account observable information as well. Its virtually impossible to graph glowing health or changes for the better by simply examining the component parts of any food (like an apple) and saying that its better than say, a piece of pork. Dr. Campbell indicated that plant based food works in miraculous ways that cant be graphed, charted, or analyzed. The above Einstein quotes indicate that Einstein felt pretty much the same way about the scientific method and the miracle of nature. The Hippocrates reference is even simpler. He is purported to be the father of medicine. Every doctor takes the Hippocratic oath to do no harm yet thats exactly what they do everyday with their poisons and prescriptions that do not cure the causal factor of disease. Hippocrates also said let food be thy medicine and let medicine be thy food yet nutrition is virtually ignored in the halls of medical schools, even though it is obviously the most probable factor of personal health. So isnt it hypocritical to call him the father of medicine and then patently ignore his teachings which are spot on and over 2 thousand years old! As far as bolstering and adding impact to my statement by quoting some mathemetician and scientist I used their impact on history which is selfexplanatory, to point out the ridiculousness and futility of going down roads we should avoid, that brilliant minds have already figured out ahead of us. Refutation usually follows a format. I say something, you disagree and state your case, we have a discussion. Unfortunately, you only seem capable of insulting without supportable reason. Exactly what are you bolstering and adding impact to? it didnt work For you. You assume that everyone else is as addled as you appear to be. Its just like a jokeits never funny when you have to explain it to someone. Reply 30 12 2011 Erick (18:01:58) : Dear Dennis, its amazing how far most of your readers are of the scientific method and statistical analysis. I will use same of your examples with my students: Here in Bolivia, in our egg producing company, we do research on avian nutrition. Despite very well controlled experiments, with no more than one or two variables, many times, may students tend to extract conclusions not supported by the data. I guess its a human tendency to seek for confirmation of our creed instead of disproval. I had truly enjoyed your post. Reply 3 01 2012 Going Primal The Unexpected Story (19:29:51) : [...] the China Study. But then I took a Research Methodology course in my grad program and read this blog by Denise Minger. She should seriously consider being a researcher. Both helped me determine that [...] Reply 4 01 2012 Slimming Foods (13:44:04) : Im extremely inspired along with your writing talents as smartly as with the layout on your weblog. Is that this a paid theme or did you modify it yourself? Either way keep up the nice quality writing, it is uncommon to see a nice weblog like this one these days.. Reply 4 01 2012 joanne (19:50:16) : Thank you for doing this critique/review very useful/helpful. I saw the movie last night and was somewhat dissappointed. Reply 5 01 2012
7/26/12
what are the most common diets for Irritable Bowel Syndrome (07:10:11) : must say you clearly explored the subject in savvy style. I love it|I commend your blogging style. You put much effort on it. Keep up the good work.|Some valuable information here. Thanks for sharing.|I Reply 5 01 2012 isalean shake (07:24:11) : I will right away seize your rss feed as I can not to find your e-mail subscription link or e-newsletter service. Do youve any? Kindly let me understand so that I may subscribe. Thanks. Reply 5 01 2012 Tina (13:48:53) : Come on Denise where is your 35 years of evidence???? Where are you pulling all this so called data from? Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet. ~ Albert Einstein, physicist and philosopher I am gunna take his word for it! Reply 5 01 2012 gager (14:01:07) : Where are you pulling all this so called data from? You must have missed the blog, its the large amount of writing right after the heading. Give it a try. Reply 5 01 2012 gager (17:25:27) : The following quotes are completely unverified, information about the sources of any of them would also be useful: Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet. (this looks like a bad translation from German of the one above, we can find no other source for it) http://www.ivu.org/history/northam20a/einstein.html Reply 8 01 2012 Vegan Ireland have challenged Joe Duffy and Matt Cooper to go vegan for two weeks. - Page 39 (22:28:01) : [...] [...] Reply 11 01 2012 Reader Mail: Durianrider, Gary Taubes vs Anthony Colpo Imposters, & More Vegan Bollocks! | AnthonyColpo (00:50:58) : [...] http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/China-Study.html http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/ [...] Reply 11 01 2012 Mark (20:32:44) : Has anyone EVER stopped to think of why cholesterol is only found in animal products? Or that, saturated fat is mainly found in animal products? Because, they are a part of animals, a part of what is needed to function. We are animals. Damn, it really doesnt need to be this complicated. BTW- how about some studies where all meat isnt lumped together? A grass-fed burger not flame broiled is a bit different than excessive grilling of cornfed beef. that is all Reply 12 01 2012 R.S. Rice (05:00:51) : Not at all surprised that your book will be published by someone with known bias toward meat eating. Mr. Sisson has his detractors, too. Your science and statistics may be very interesting to those with the education to understand them. How about putting it all in plain English for those most at risk under educated Americans? Seeing a bunch of dots on a graph wont impress those most at risk. I look forward to seeing your ability to relate this to those folks. Reply 15 01 2012 Find Out the secret of the Nuratrim Diet Pill. Made Using Natural Ingredients, discover the Kim Kardashian Diet Today. (06:11:29) : Find Out the secret of the Nuratrim Diet Pill. Made Using Natural Ingredients, discover the Kim Kardashian Diet Today. [...]The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? Raw Food SOS: Troubleshooting on the Raw Food Diet[...] Reply 16 01 2012 John (00:06:27) : The most important take-away is what we each will eat in the majority. We do not have time to guess or go with our personal reactions or biases. To quote: Can any other diet match the findings of Drs. Esslestyn, Ornish and McDougall, who were interviewed for our book (and now an increasing of other
7/26/12
physicians have done with their patients)? No diet or any other medical strategy comes close to the benefits that can be achieved with a whole foods, plant based diet. I have found this myself to be true over the past two years of really eating this way, recapturing my health and appropriate weight. That doesnt mean I eat the occasional salmon, egg, oyster, even chicken or beef, but these are almost garnish only or occasional. By making the salad the main dish (thanks Dr. Furhman!), dark leafy greens, my personal experience is incredible health, the right weight, etc. Cholesterol down from mid 200s to 157, LDL low and HDL rising every checkup. Compare this to the typical western diettruly scary what the average person actually eats by following the crowds. Thanks and be well! Reply 16 01 2012 Tim Lundeen (01:03:27) : It is not clear that TC of 157 is optimal, see Paul Jaminets articles starting with http://perfecthealthdiet.com/?p=3836 he argues that the optimal range is 200240. Reply 16 01 2012 John (00:07:53) : Oops, I meant: that doesnt mean I DONT eat the occasional. thanks. Reply 16 01 2012 vegan15 (20:10:45) : Here is a great article about the dangers of dairy consumption. http://www.rense.com/general26/milk.htm and some facts about cancer associated with meat consumption published by the Cancer Project org.http://www.cancerproject.org/survival/cancer_facts/meat.php Nothing good comes from meat and dairy. Reply 16 01 2012 gager (20:20:50) : Rense is one of the least credible websites ever, and the rest is nonsense. Believing anything from Rense would require a person to suspend all reason and logic. Reply 17 01 2012 Darrel (02:28:10) : GAGER: Rense is one of the least credible websites ever,rest is nonsense.>> Genetic fallacy. Truth is independent of its source. It doesnt follow (non sequiter) that because something is posted on a certain location on the internet, that it is false. GAGER: Believing anything from Rense would require a person to suspend all reason and logic.>> If you knew anything about reason or logic, you would know better than to so blatantly engage in the genetic fallacy. Smearing the source is never a sufficient rebuttal, to anything. The rense article references the CDC and other standard sources. The connection between meat and cancer is well established and unequivocal. I have posted summaries and references to several large mainstream scientific studies showing this, here: http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=24127#p24127 D. Reply 17 01 2012 gager (09:38:12) : Truth is independent of its source. True enough, just dont go to Rense for any truth unless you want to know how the moon landing was faked or 911 was an inside job or a host of other nonsense. Rense is the National Enquirer of the internet. Made up stories are their mainstay. Also dont go to Rense for referenced material, go to the source. I dont like Rense, they prey on those people with one working brain cell and my bottom line summary of Rense is not a logical fallacy. The fact that you defend Rense makes you suspect. Reply 17 01 2012 Darrel (16:16:16) : You admit Truth is independent of its source, is True enough and then go on to beat on the genetic fallacy drum for the rest of your post. Rense could be a bathroom wall (and indeed it is) and it does not follow that a claim made there is false (which in this case it isnt). Do notice that the article at Rense (which you fail to address with anything other than with the genetic fallacy) was not her only source. GAGER: my bottom line summary of Rense is not a logical fallacy.>> Yes it is. Any dismissal of a claim because of its source is the genetic fallacy. And thats the entirety of your response, which is really a non-response. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy
7/26/12
Reply 17 01 2012 Darrel (16:17:27) : See also here Vegan15: http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=24127#p24127 Reply 22 01 2012 4 Reasons Why Becoming A Vegetarian Is A Fucking Stupid Idea | FitMole | Fat Loss, Muscle Gain, Everything In Between (01:59:27) : [...] flaws in the China Study is beyond the scope of this article, so let me turn you over to a great article written by Denise Minger of Raw Food SOS. She did an amazing job in analyzing the China Study and [...] Reply 23 01 2012 Wheat and Disease | Sam Snyder (15:02:35) : [...] The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? [...] Reply 28 01 2012 Author (14:56:26) : I just came across this post while looking up The China Study. I plan on studying this particular study and wanted to see what people think. It is interesting to say the least. To me diet is a Science and you cannot argue with Science because it is factual. If you do not approach diet as a Science then it is strictly opinion based and becomes a he said she said game. Nothing scares me more than a diet of dead animals and animal by products. If you need any evidence as to how awful it is for us just take a look at the average American. Reply 28 01 2012 Alex (16:48:25) : The average American has always eaten a diet containing meat, so clearly the poor health of modern average Americans is not due to meat being in the diet. The nutritional quality of todays factory farmed meat is certainly lower than natural pastured meats, but a much bigger change in the American diet is the refined plant products, like sugar, industrial seed oils, processed packaged foods, etc. On average, Americans also consume too many calories and get insufficient exercise. Reply 22 02 2012 Ang (01:09:47) : Americans eat poorly, they have for many decades. The advancement in medicine is what is keeping Americans alive longer. The chronically ill wouldnt need those medications if they thought differently about what they put in their mouth and as a result would probably live longer. Factory farmed, hormone and antibiotic injected animals are only the icing on the cake. The data from the book was taken before injecting animals for profit was the standard. No one can argue that eating an apple is more beneficial than eating a bag of candy. Trying to prove that eating lentils is more beneficial than eating a steak is more complicated. Our government has infiltrated our lives promoting food THEY think is right for consumption based on their money padded pockets. There is not much money in lentils! Reply 28 01 2012 gager (23:37:46) : For some reason your stupid post reminded me of one of my favorite you tubes.
Reply 30 01 2012 Philip Gillibrand (00:59:19) : Denise, I admire your dedication and enthusiasm. But seriously it would have taken Colin Campbell and a TEAM of researchers years to work up the data from the
7/26/12
China Study. But apparently you can re-analyse all the data, all by yourself, in a month and a half !! Its ludicrous. Putting the numbers into Excel or R, and pressing the Regression button does not constitute a proper scientific analysis. I am not suggesting that that is literally what you have done, but to suggest that you can do a thorough analysis in such a short period of time is ridiculous. I speak as a professional scientist (though in a very different discipline) with some understanding of data analysis. It is an unfortunate trait these days, in many disiplines (bit particularly climate change) that non-professional scientists think they can do a better job than the experts. I suggest that, rather than posting this as a blog, that you write up your methods carefully, as any scientist would do, an present your methods as well as your results. You could even submit them, with your results and conclusions, to a scientific journal, where your methods would be thoroughly scrutinized. However, I doubt you are game for that, but I think you should at least describe your methods on this blog. Reply 30 01 2012 T. Colin Campbell | who-they-are (03:53:16) : [...] A detailed critique of The China Study by blogger Denise Minger. [...] Reply 31 01 2012 CarlaA (15:55:01) : Hi Denise, I would be really interested to hear what you have to say about the science behind the GAPS (Gut and Psychology Syndrome) diet. It seems to me that they both (GAPS and China Study) talk about some of the same physical malfunctions and how they arrive in the body, but are almost opposite in how one can heal those malfunctions. Im sure you have other things to do, but I thought Id put a bug in your ear about it in case you were interested:) Really interesting critique of The China Study I am always grateful for people who encourage others to think for themselves and have the courage to add their perspective on important issues. Thank you, Denise. Reply 2 02 2012 Dorothy Dumbra (03:11:31) : I am a clinical Nutritionist and Specialized Nutritionist in private practice for over 30 years. Clients with whom i work, even when elderly have no health conditions whatsoever, and are on no meds, in their 80;s. I disagree with the China Study on a number of issues. Too much scientific and emphasizing what the author believes. firstly one must take into consideration, geographic location, genetic makeups, nationality, body types. Dr. Bernard Jensen had to give up a vegan diet as he broke down protein in his system,, and brain, which can be hard to rebuild. And what matters greatly is the type of vegetables, eggs, fish, meat. In my practice I recommend as much as pocketbook allows, all natural, organic flesh protein,poultry, fish. Free range eggs, raw butter. That is, nothing with any hormones, antibiotic, additives and preservatives. Teach people how recognize and select the above. And it does take some background, and good reading. Know about food combining, not starches with flesh protein, the acids and pancreatic enzymes cancel each other out and nothing is well digested. Fruits an hour before or 2 hours after a meal, as they digest more quiclky and hold up digestion of other foods. No fluids but herb tea with meals, One low glycemic fruit a day,or much less if individual has glycemic dysregulation. Best oils, coconut to cook, grape seed, olive oil, virgin after cooking. The seed and nut oils we have heretofore been told to use are manipulated and become saturated. Coconut is naturally saturated. Refrigerate all seeds, nuts and oils, use nuts raw and unsalted; fleturized, ground or as a nut milk Regular cleanses to detox important, as cannot have immaculate health without this. I muscle test for the different types which I may use. Kiinesiology gives me a perfect blue print for the body any of its difficiencies, organ imbalances, structural misalignments, allergies, and what productt and how much for how long. There are only 2 companies with whom I work, and do not send client to health stores, and I cannot test those products for them. I recommend xylitol, pure maple syrup, agave, or honey in modest amounts. Xylitol fights infection, supports immune and dental. Try for half of the diet raw, and use organic, fresh pressed vegetable juices, carrot, beet, greens, like parsley, or other greens. Juicing and detoxing can be adjusted to the persons particular needs, or illnesses. Half fresh lemon, dash of cayenne and maple syrup , the Master cleanse, in filtered water every 2 hours There are simple,inexpensive methods for ridding heavy metals, radiation, from scans and x rays, etc.cancer. Important supplements coming out; D3, curcumin, transresveratrol, powerful anti inflamatories, products to protect against memory loss and Alzheimers, Purified water, Celtic grey or French salt, not iodized, no sea salt, very commercialized. Raw cheeses in moderation, fermented products important. AND digestive enzymes, as they help to digest unwanted cells and toxins in the body in addition to digesting food. Quality of food is the thing, and avoiding sugars, heated fats, over cooked proteins, limit red meat or cut out, and opt for non shell fish, quality poultry, or just fish. There is much, much more. The emotional is greatly connected with the physical, and the spiritual, all interconnected, so important to clear out these blocs, which I use several technics for depending upon the situation. Blood sugar, thyroid, fatigue, chronic fatigue, digestive problems, etc.I adjust diet and balancing accordingly. Dorothy Dumbra, e mail ddumbra4cats@yahoo.com Reply 5 02 2012 Philip Gillibrand (23:14:01) : Hi Dorothy, Interesting comments, and I imagine very sensible advice. But, I think you miss the point of the China Study. In the book, Colin Campbell states several times that he is trying to avoid over-prescription in terms of what people can and cant eat. So he is deliberately trying to avoid generating a long list of rules, like you have just given above. He is arguing that by simply avoiding animal proteins (and eating a whole foods, plant-based diet), you will be giving your body the best possible chance of avoiding chronic illness. And IT IS SIMPLE to understand and follow. There is no dont eat this with that or any of those types of rule. Of course you can fine-tune that diet to suit yourself with as many additional rules as you choose to add, but the basic diet is very easy to follow. Thats his point. Reply 6 02 2012 Planning to lose weight and build up 6 packs - Page 3 - www.hardwarezone.com.sg (07:33:04) : [...] [...]
7/26/12
Reply 7 02 2012 Denny Snow (17:48:11) : Superb guide and guidelines. Looking ahead to burn a few pounds. Ill give some feed back right after i try this. Thanks a bunch! Reply 7 02 2012 Marissa (19:31:07) : Lies, damn lies and statistics Thats what I learned in grad school. Great job of pointing out the inconsistencies and fallacies in this book. I am an advocate of individualized metabolic typing I am personally a paleo-diet consumer. My understanding of whats best for me was wholly supported by your deconstruction. Worry Im sure is correlated with death rates from all these Western diseases thanks for alleviating the worry. And the insight about the climatic/geographic issues was awesome! Once again Vitamin D has been terribly overlooked. Reply 8 02 2012 Bruce Caward (06:12:21) : Good article, interesting comments. Im not a scientist, but I am a mammal, and I do eat. If too much animal protein causes so many problems as the China Study claims how come lions and cheetahs dont all develop cancer? They must have a ton of cholesterol in their blood all the time why arent they all just plain falling over with heart disease? I dont think they eat ANY vegetables, do they? Arent our systems extremely similar? Reply 8 02 2012 Bruce Caward (06:28:31) : (Btw, I understand that there are differences, obviously digestive tracks, teeth, etc. Im mostly talking about blood chemistry, circulation systems, cholesterol impact, cell activity. If cholesterol we eat collects on our artery walls as is shown in the animation in Forks Over Knives why doesnt it happen in all mammals who eat meat?) Reply 12 02 2012 gary (15:50:09) : because cheetahs dont sit around at a desk all day clicking a mouse and getting other cheetahs to put food in front of them Reply 15 02 2012 Philip Gillibrand (04:42:10) : Not to mention that lions and cheetahs probably only eat once every few days. Try that, and you might lose a few pounds and clear up any cholesterol problems as well. Reply 15 02 2012 Rick Osborn (14:10:07) : Denise, I could kiss you for so meticulously and assiduously writing this stellar critique of The China Study. I have well intentioned friends who promote the book and teach others to eat accordingly. As a wellness guru and nutrition coach of sorts myself, this whole concept of villifying animal products has not set well with me. As of late, Ive been reading The China Study to get a better handle on what Campbell states as gospel regarding nutrition. Smelling a bit of a rat (pardon the pun), I decided to investigate his findings further, only to stumble across your fantastic critique above. Although I had not done any empirical research on my own, in my spirit I suspected that Campbell was not presenting his findings accurately and was biased regarding animal proteins. Your findings only confirmed what I already knew in my heart. Thank you, thank you, thank you for doing the hard work of analyzing all of this and writing about it. Not only that, but thank you for writing so correctly, effectively and eloquently. You truly deserve a commendation for your fine work. God bless! Rick Osborn Reply 18 02 2012 Bruce Caward (14:17:16) : Thanks Gary and Philip. But I wasnt asking about weight loss, I was thinking about blood chemistry. The China Study concludes that eating meat is the cause of heart disease, cholesterol buildup in your arteries, etc. Since our blood chemistry (and cell construction, transfer of nutrients in and out, etc.) and circulation systems have to be at least extremely similar, why isnt there a high incidence of heart disease in the rest of the carnivores on the planet? I know that digestive systems are different cows have six stomachs in order to digest the plants they eat, for instance (dont know about other herbavores, like rabbits). I dont know why a herbavore IS a herbavore, or what would happen if one ate meat, but Im guessing the difference is mainly in the digestive system. Once the nutrients are in the blood stream, well, chemistry is chemistry, right? Or maybe the chemistry IS different. Maybe herbavores produce quite different amounts of hormones and stuff that makes the nutrients they get from plants work out for them just fine. If this is true then fine, the world works as its supposed to, and animals are as healthy as they should be, eating what they are drawn to. But WE are carnivores (omnivores, at least). We are drawn to meat, and always have been. We CAN digest it, and with no problem, and assimilate it into our cells for fuel and nutrition. This is indisputable. Therefore we must have the same features in our blood chemistry that lions and cheetahs have. Again the question: if now suddenly, here at the eleventh hour, after tens of thousands of years of eating animals, Dr. Campbell concludes that meat is the culprit in heart disease, etc., what is protecting all the rest of the carnivores? Why arent they all full of cancer? Im not saying there isnt an answer, I just wonder what it is. Like I said, Im not a scientist, just a sceptical layman.
7/26/12
Thanks, Bruce Reply 20 02 2012 Diet,The China Study By Dr.Campbell, Is he Right? Ramani's blog (04:40:37) : [...] Dr. Campbells response to this review and my response to Dr. Campbell. See also Denise Mingers excellent critique of The China Study and my my critical review of Dr. Campbells animal [...] Reply 23 02 2012 A Newbies Guide To Nerd Fitness | Nerd Fitness (20:03:11) : [...] the China Study, and after doing my research, I still stand in the Paleo camp. heres the best critique of the China Study Ive found warning: it is extensive.)I cant tell you what diet is best for you [...] Reply 3 03 2012 Summer (21:12:44) : I was going to read on but really you got me with your beginning numbers and cancer. You have (+) and (-), but on each part animal and plant proteins you dont offer the same data in each. I think people are reading what they want to on both sides of the issue. I did stop reading your data in point #2 only because I couldnt get over your point #1 so sorry for not finishing, but I did read you conclusion. Thanks for speaking out. Reply 3 03 2012 gager (21:58:19) : The plus and the minus relates to the strength of the relation to relevance. A plus number means there is a higher correlation and a minus number means there is less than a neutral correlation. But please understand that correlation does not mean causation. The source of the data is Campbell. Reply 4 03 2012 Brad M (01:58:52) : great post! Interestingly, I have at least as much of a problem with Campbells general assertions like apo-b particles or what he refers to as cholesterol ( I guess hes talking about total cholesterol, which doesnt mean much) is being caused by consumption of animal protein, in the first place its pretty clear now that LDL ( which most people refer to as bad cholesterol, but are actually proteins that carry cholesterol) numbers increase directly when carbohydrates (particularly sugar and other processed carbs) are consumed; not animal protein! the best explanation of this Ive heard is by Dr. Thomas dayspring, you can look him up on YouTube or find him herehttp://www.best-clickz.com/althealth/the-best-explanation-why-ldl-cholesterol-number-doesnt-tell-whole-story Reply 4 03 2012 Brad M (02:34:39) : Sorry, wrong post try this; http://www.best-clickz.com/althealth/how-ldl-particles-not-totally-ldl-cause-heart-disease Reply 7 03 2012 UVA (14:23:34) : Campbell responde a algunas criticas: http://www.vegsource.com/news/2010/07/china-study-author-colin-campbell-slaps-down-critic-denise-minger.html Reply 8 03 2012 Roger (02:44:31) : Ive been pursuing a healthy lifestyle for 35+ years, Ive tried most of the diets/life styles out there macrobiotic, vegetarian, whole food non vegan, vegan, for the past 5 years Ive been 100% raw vegan. All diets can be done wrong, plenty of sick junk food vegetarians out there giving healthy living a bad name. In my many walks through life Ive talked to many people that that have cured severe forms of cancer and even simple forms of cancer like me melanoma. I call melanoma simple because it can usually be cured in 6-8 weeks with the proper diet change (raw vegan). Breast cancers usually cured in 6-10 months. I spoke with one guy at our last raw vegan pot luck that was in his 50s he had stage IV cancer, the highest possible level. The cancer was throughout his entire body, in all his bones. He had an egg sized tumor growing out of his cheekbone. The doctors could not cut the cancer out so they only gave him the option of chemo and radiation and even with treatment they said he only had 6 months to live. Luckily a friend told him about the Hallelujah Diet (www.hacres.com), its a 80% raw vegan diet. He went on the diet and followed the Hallelujah Diet book verbatim. After about 6 months on the diet he started feeling really good and noticed the tumor on his face was completely gone. He went back to the doctors and had another PET scan, he was 100% cancer free according to the doctors, no cancer to be found anywhere. Thousands of testimonies like his out there, do your research, Ive done mine for 35 years. All the health books Ive ever read I cant remember one of them saying eat more meat or animal products to increase health and reverse disease. Health is increased by taking in enzyme rich foods and consuming foods that increase alkalinity in the body; animal products, grains and sugar do the opposite..
7/26/12
There has to be something right about a diet that reverses cancer, heart disease, diabetes, MS and just about every other disease. Cant remember in 35 years anyone telling me that they ate more meat and or animal products and cured there cancer? Reply 9 03 2012 Tony Isaacs (18:10:37) : Red meat studies flaws lead to potentially unhealthy advice by Tony Isaacs (The Best Years in Life) A number of studies in recent years about red meat consumption have led to widely publicized conclusions and advice that eating red meat is unhealthy. However, such studies have often been plagued by serious flaws and generalizations and as a result, many people have been mislead into believing that red meat is bad in and of itself and may be missing out on vital nutrients found in healthy forms of red meat. First of all, the studies have not fully taken into account the differences in diet and lifestyles of red meat eaters versus those who eat little or no red meat and secondly, the studies also have largely failed to distinguish between the different kinds of red meat products consumed. Thus far, there have been virtually no studies which compared people who ate little or no red meat and lived healthily overall with those who ate moderate amounts of healthy forms of red meat and otherwise lived equally as healthily. If such studies were conducted, they might well lead to conclusions that eating at least some healthy red meat is most often beneficial. Not all meat or vegetable eaters are the same Too often, the red meat studies group people into red meat eaters and vegetable eaters without fully looking at the differences in dietary and health habits between the two groups other than just red meat consumption. Specifically, the studies have failed to consider the healthier overall habits of many of those who consume more vegetables or the bad health habits of many of the people who consume more red meat. People who are mostly or fully vegetarians tend to be more active and health conscious. In addition to eating plenty of healthy vegetables and fruits, they also tend to eat fewer unhealthy items such as junk and fast foods. They also tend to be more physically active and have fewer bad health habits such as smoking. On the other hand, those who eat lots of red meat include the people who eat the very worst forms of red meat. Such people also have a greater tendency to eat other unhealthy foods such as junk foods, fast foods, sugar-laden foods and processed foods. The group also includes more people with overall unhealthy and sedentary lifestyles. Not all red meat products are the same In studies where only overall red meat consumption is considered, six ounces of beef franks or beef salami or processed beef product are considered to be equal to a lean six ounce cut of organic free range beef and there is a world of difference between them. Processed meat products contain a number of unhealthy items, which may include such items as carcinogenic nitrite, fillers and artificial additives for color, taste, texture and shelf life and less healthy forms of beef from feedlots. Typical feedlot beef contains unhealthy growth hormones and antibiotics and the cattle may have fed on pastures where herbicides and pesticides were applied. By contrast, organic free range beef contains no growth hormones or antibiotics and has been raised entirely in open range. Such free range beef also usually has a higher mineral content due to feeding on natural grasses and other plants. Essential nutrients found in red meat Beef is a wonderful source of protein and contains over 80 nutrients including abundant vitamin B-12 which is found only in animal products and is essential for cells found in muscles, the brain and the nervous system. Other essential nutrients found in beef include zinc, phosphorous, iron, pantothenate, vitamin B6, thiamin, selenium, niacin, riboflavin and magnesium. Conclusion Instead of warning about all red meat consumption, the message that should be spread is that the key to avoiding illness and live longer and healthier is to eat and live more healthily in many ways. http://www.tbyil.com/Red_Meat_Studies.htm Reply 20 03 2012 Sprite (10:58:29) : Consider this, no one in their right mind would kiss the anus of an animal, but many people are quite happy to eat them! Reply 20 03 2012 robert (20:47:15) : Hello Denise, Id like to commend you on a compelling analysis. I have one simple observation, and a suggestion. Obserervation: In science, the canon is the peer-reviewed literature. Analyses such as this are all well and good, a part of the process. But if you really want to have an impact, if you want to participate in bona fide scientific debate, the next step is publication in the literature. The mere process of getting published flushes out foibles of your own, and gives the rest of the interested community assureance that the work has passed at least a modicum of review by others knowledgeable in the field. In this way, such thoughtful analysis as yours enters the canon and better propels the science forward. Suggestion:
7/26/12
Take the next step. Reply 20 03 2012 Videti rdee oziroma Kako izgubiti prijatelje z medicinske fakultete in se odtujiti od ljudi Lovec Nabiralec (22:09:03) : [...] priporoam analizo Zo Harcombe in statistine genialke Denise Minger (ki je odlino in lastorono razmontirala tudi Kitajsko tudijo Colina T. Cambela), ki se v znanost spustita veliko veliko bolj podrobno, kot se sam. Dobro povzame [...] Reply 25 03 2012 peter (03:59:16) : I am 60 and have only eaten animal products for 20 years No carbs I am so healthy my doctor hats me Reply 31 03 2012 Sarah (22:53:19) : Are these Campbells related to the Campbell in Campbells soup? It would be interesting to see a family tree done. Reply 12 04 2012 Dr. Menz (14:03:48) : What a bunch of BS! Where are your citations? A bunch of mumbo-jumbo may fool the average reader but as a scientist, your work is silly. I guess this is why you publish it in a BLOG rather than write an actual book or editorial. Yes campbell does draw a few conclusions but his science is strong overall. Your work on the other hand is just misguided math! Reply 12 04 2012 gager (14:29:04) : Campbells work does not show strong science, it shows strong bias. The French paradox is laughable because it destroys Campbells claim. In science there is no paradox, the French paradox is just evidence to refute claims. Mingers work is excellent in the math. Reply 12 04 2012 Darrel (14:33:48) : Mingers work is excellent in the math.>> Then why doesnt she publish it for peer review and demonstrate that her claims mean something by opinion? There is a good reason why. Reply 12 04 2012 M. (15:12:57) : You do realize that the reason Campbell wrote the book is because none of the scientific journals would allow him to use his new holistic science that many of his China Study claims rested on. He was stuck using real science in the journals and therefore most of his journal articles dont support his China Study claims, so he came up with a new holistic science not bound by the tenets of real science or peer-review to support his China Study claims and published in a book because it would never be accepted by peer review. Much of The China Study is like Young Earth Creationism you choose a premise that you like and all evidence is judged against the premise itself. If a correlation is consistent with the premise, then it is evidence. If a correlation is inconsistent with the premise, then it is non-plausible. Dinosaurs are nonplausible because the Earth is only 6000 years old. All the simple univariate correlations in the China data that disputes the idea that meat is bad are deemed non-plausible and rejected while all the simple univariate correlations that support that mead is bad is deemed as proof according to Campbells new holistic science. Often when Campbell laments reductionist science, he is in many cases lamenting the fact that his new holistic science would never pass peer-review and so his journal articles in the end do little to support his meat is bad premise. Mainly what Denise is doing is critiquing his faulty reasoning and science used in his book, not producing her own research. Reply 12 04 2012 Darrel (15:48:12) : The connection between meat and cancer is well established in peer reviewed scientific literature. If you werent aware of this, observe the several examples I have posted, with reference, here: http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=24127#p24127 Do your homework. Reply 12 04 2012 M. (18:02:46) : There are associations and interpretations that go both ways (you cant just pick the ones you like that is Creationism Science), but what does that have to do with Campbells new holistic science not being able to withstand peer review? Are you now jumping from Creationism Science to UFO Science saying that Campbells new holistic science that cannot withstand peer-review must still be legit anyways because anybody that says meat is bad must be legit?
7/26/12
Do you not see the irony of using the tenets of Creationism Science and UFO Science to defend Campbells new holistic science inability to withstand peerreview while at the same time whining that someone who simply pointed this all out did not undergo peer-review herself? You should stick with Zombie Science just keep mumbling meat..is..badmeat..is..bad Reply 12 04 2012 Darrel (18:15:04) : irony of using the tenets of Creationism Science and UFO Science to defend Campbells>> As co-founder of the largest skeptic society in our state (see link provided), your charge is rather humorous. Ive said nothing about Campbell. As noted repeatedly in this thread, if Ms. Minger wants her claims on this to be considered in serious circles, she should properly publish them to be reviewed by people with the expertise to judge their merit. Details about how to do this have been provided in this thread. Perhaps you should read them. Reply 12 04 2012 Darrel (18:17:02) : Incidentally, just yesterday we formally offered a reward of a house to anyone that can bring in Bigfoot. http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=6696 Please dont pretend to lecture me on how to deal with the creationists and UFO crowd. Thats my particular area of specialty. Reply 12 04 2012 M. (18:26:12) : Please dont pretend to lecture me on how to deal with the creationists and UFO crowd. Thats my particular area of specialty. Sweet. Lets see a list of all the UFO sightings you have debunked in peer-reviewed scientific journals. I still have a feeling though that you should stick with the Zombie Science. Reply 13 04 2012 Darrel (14:34:26) : Your red herring mutterings about UFOs have no relevance to your problem at hand. Which is, for Ms Mingers material to rise to the level of interesting she would need to have gone to the trouble of acquiring the education and expertise to speak with some authority on this complex issue (she hasnt), and then her material could be considered for its merit by trained peers with the expertise to judge it. At that point, it wouldnt necessarily be right, but it would at least be worth considering. Reply 14 04 2012 gager (14:26:19) : By your own standards you are not qualified to pass judgement on the excellent math of miss minger. 12 04 2012 M. (18:31:16) : And you do realize that Denises work was featured by one of the bigger skeptics in the country, right? http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/the-china-study-revisited/ Reply 13 04 2012 Darrel (14:51:48) : Of course. Read the comment thread. Harriet has stepped in it a bit here. This is nice: Im interested to know if Harriet Hall has seen or acknowledged the rebuttals that Colin Campbell has posted. Is she willing to concede the many errors in Denise Mingers huge critique? including the observations from the cancer epidemiologist showing the basic amateur mistakes in Denises work. It seems just bizarre that she is taking her cues from a 24 yr old journalism student who loves numbers against the internationally respected Campbell with literally hundreds of peer-reviewed articles to his name and decades of research behind him. The misrepresentations of Campbells points are all over the internet. Zombie arguments that have already been dealt with keep popping back up is Harriet Hall unable to distinguish an internet propaganda campaign from serious science? The vitriol against Campbell and his conclusions is enormous (and almost always from non-scientists) Reply 13 04 2012 M. (15:23:38) : Your red herring mutterings about UFOs have no relevance to your problem at hand You brought up your UFO expertise. Why demand peer-review from Denise but not from your own little skeptic society? (Offering a house to anyone who can bring you bigfoot might not be up to Nature caliber though). All she did was debunk a popular diet book filled with pseudoscience and inaccuracies. Just because you are severely lacking in reading comprehension skills, basic science knowledge, and general brightness, dont assume everybody else is in the same boat (and I wont assume that your little skeptic society maybe isnt as totally retarded as you seem to represent, though they should probably get a brighter guy to be their public face.) Anybody with basic reading comprehension should have been able to see that she was just debunking some of Campbells key points in a pop diet book using just basic logic and basic statistics. Anybody with a basic understanding of high school statistics should have been able to follow along and see the fallacy in the
7/26/12
way Campbell attempted to portray the statistics. No expertise required. For anybody with a couple of college science classes that included a little bit of statistics, it should have been a piece of cake to follow her lead. Apparently for skeptics in Arkansas, reading comprehension and sophomore science is not part of the toolset. Send that shit to an expert. So, seeing that you were mildly retarded and all this talk of the tenets of bad science was going way over your head, I pointed you to an expert to help you figure it out. Dr. Harriet Hall is a nationally know skeptic and expert on debunking shit. She has published debunkings in peer-reviewed journals. Not only did her expertise find no problems with Denises methodology, Dr. Hall actually featured Denises analysis in her own debunking of the China Study. Maybe you should learn how to read, go back to school and take a few math and science classes, become less retarded, see that this stuff isnt nearly as complicated as you used to think, contemplate the nature of scientific enquiry, and realize you have been a total dick head embracing the tenets of bad science. 13 04 2012 M. (15:44:18) : Of course. Read the comment thread. Harriet has stepped in it a bit here. Dude, make up your retarded mind. You said you wanted experts, so I gave you an expert. Then you say nah, I would rather put more weight behind anonymous, insubstantial comments (hey, everybody is picking on Campbell!) just because you like what they say? Bad science, dude. Go read a book. (Also, if you have read all the comments there, you do notice that one of Campbells ardent supporters actually changes his tune as the discussion goes along and decides that Campbell is in fact a pseudoscientist.) 12 04 2012 gallier2 (16:49:23) : Why should she? The China Study isnt peer reviewed either. As for Campbells research papers on poisoned rats from the seventies, Chris Masterjohn showed conclusively that they are as fraudulent as the whole person. Reply 12 04 2012 Darrel (17:12:43) : fraudulent>> The word fraud has a specific meaning. Do know what it is? Perhaps you should learn that and then try again. Reply 12 04 2012 gallier2 (20:01:02) : I know exactly what that words mean and it is my opinion that Campbells work borders on fraud. The data collection of the China Study itself is not, but the bestseller book he wrote is. He misrepresents the conclusions of his own clinical studies, which showed a lot of things but what he claims they show. Confronted with his contradictions (there are several fora and blogs where he took position) he only ever responds with ad hominems and appeals to authority. The cognitive dissonance is huge. To give an example of the dishonesty of the guy, there was a thread on follow the thread on amazon (http://www.amazon.com/forum/weight%20loss/TxD811DYWQ7U21/59? _encoding=UTF8&cdForum=FxUY10W22E27M9&cdMsgNo=1464&ref_=cm_cd_et_md_pl&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=Mx2JZRPXB0LP04A#Mx2JZRPXB0LP04A which was quite telling. Campbell stated that one can have an opinion only when one had tried a vegan diet. Several people (around 20) answered that they had tried and that they failed, they fealt like shit and were much better when they re-introduced animal products. When after this overwhelmingly negative feedback one contributor gave a positive answer, Campbell only noticed this one. All the negative feedback was ignored, even after several people pointed it out to him. Truely remarkable blinders. So to make it short, either he is gaga or he a fraud. Reply 13 04 2012 Darrel (14:56:17) : GALL: my opinion that Campbells work borders on fraud.>> I havent the slightest interest in your mere opinion. I am interested in what you can show. And you cant show fraud. GAL: [Campbell] only ever responds with ad hominems>> I have read all of the exchanges published so far, and you are entirely wrong. And Mingers comments were often petty and amateur as Campbell pointed out. You dont know what you are talking about. GALL: Several people (around 20) answered>> If you think people giving anecdotes about diet on an Amazon comment thread means anything, at all, then you are beyond help. Reply 13 04 2012 gallier2 (15:36:42) : Its not my job to show his fraudulent work and Im as entitled to state my opinion as youre yours. As for the ad hominems, theyve been shown over and over by him and by people like you. Saying that Denise is not qualified to refute Campbells claims because shes an english major is ad hominem and appel to authority.
7/26/12
As for the anecdotes on the Amazon thread they show exactly the problem with Campbell. It was not 20 anecdotes per se that were the point, it was the fact that he ignored the more than 20 anecdotes but claimed victory with the lone anecdote that went the way he liked. It was to show his hypoctitical cherry picking that I linked to that forum thread, but that is probably to complicated for you to understand. Reply 13 04 2012 Darrel (16:22:07) : GAL: Its not my job to show his fraudulent>> Dont make claims you back up. Considering what you are shoveling, this will also help make your posts much shorter. GAL: As for the ad hominems,>> Yes, and if you remove those, your posts will even be shorter still. GAL: Saying that Denise is not qualified to refute Campbells claims>> Is true. GAL: As for the anecdotes on the Amazon thread they show>> That you dont know your bum from you elbow. Reply 15 04 2012 apanz (01:59:15) : The China Study seems to have stricken a chord with many people. For those with such strong opinions and arguments, why dont you time, come up with your own scientific findings and argue them? In the meantime, why dont the vegans/vegetarians enjoy their lifestyle and the non-vegetarians enjoy theirs? I, personally am thus far enjoying The China Study but that is not to say that I would be so closed minded as to not read a book touting the benefits of animal fat. Reply 15 04 2012 apanz (02:00:31) : Sorry, I noticed that in deleting some of the words I missed *time, Reply 16 04 2012 Giskard (06:45:01) : Great article, though I feel you did something bad with the following sentance breast milk, which contains high levels of casein though this is true, but the amount that cow milk has vs. human is quite different. Sorry to site Wikipedia, but cow milk is 80% while human is 25-45%. Was this an error of omision? Reply 18 04 2012 Kenneth (17:24:46) : Check out : http://www.vegsource.com/news/2010/07/china-study-author-colin-campbell-slaps-down-critic-denise-minger.html Reply 18 04 2012 gager (22:56:44) : Nothings changed since is was first checked almost two years ago. Campbell has a mindless cult following. Thanks. Reply 18 04 2012 Kenneth (17:26:42) : http://www.vegsource.com/news/2010/07/china-study-author-colin-campbell-slaps-down-critic-denise-minger.html Reply 24 04 2012 Roger (02:17:09) : Would love to hear of people that reversed cancer or heart disease on an animal based diet. There are thousands of testimonies of people reversing these diseases on a raw/plant based diet, Isnt this all the proof we need. Who cares what the scientists say, bottom line is if a plant based diet has cured/reversed these diseases in thousands that have tried it what other proof do we need? Ton of testimonies here: http://www.hacres.com/library/testimonies Reply 24 04 2012 gsmullennix (11:39:54) : True! And tons of testimonies on the matter of earth being created 6,000 years ago. Then there are many personal testimonies on interactions with space aliens, people rising from the dead and intelligent design. I must point out that your posting refutes the latter claim. Reply 1 05 2012 Roland Hulme (14:26:35) :
7/26/12
This seems like 9,000 words of intricately assembled data that focuses on the micro statistics rather than the macro statistics which means that youve lost sight of the woods for the trees. I wont go through all of it, but the first two points you raise about cholesterol and greens consumption ignore the big picture to try and debunk it in the details. To rebut your first point animal product consumption is linked to higher cholesterol rates. You admit yourself that higher cholesterol rates are linked to cancer. Where your figures go wonky is because you fail to look at the big picture (if America ate fewer animal products, more people would lower their cholesterol and cancer rates would be lower) and focus on the spanner in the works, which is that there are some people who can eat animal products and still have low cholesterol which means they are not at higher risk for cancer. The three figures are all connected; you cant remove them and have a viable statistic. Woods for the trees. As for veggies you highlight that its not quantity, but frequency of veggie consumption that has the positive health benefits and then try to shoehorn in the argument that this proves some other factor is at work. Really? Why cant it just be what the data points to that FREQUENTLY eating veggies has significant health benefits that occasional heavy consumption of veggies doesnt. Its like how going to the gym for 20 minutes every day is more effective than going for four hours once a month. I will have to spend more time going through the rest of your analysis, but from the first two points its clear you are every bit as guilty of reductionism as you accuse Campbell of being. Reply 2 05 2012 gsmullennix (00:28:12) : It appears you spent no significant time actually reading her response to the China Study nor many moments looking through the many entries which already cover your two points. Unless you have something to add to the discussion, please dont waste the others time in coming back to a blog where no new thought has been advanced. Reply 2 05 2012 Darrel (00:30:08) : A non-answer if there ever was one. Reply 2 05 2012 HJ (18:12:47) : As a Chinese, I strongly doubt the effectiveness of the china study for the time issue. 1. The Chinese modernization begins at 1980s. The working pressure of 1983 is larger than 1973. 2. In 1970s, I doubt if there are enough skilled doctors in hospital. Reply 8 05 2012 hudsong (12:20:25) : Something funny: I know next to nothing about nutrition and I had the exact same response to the casein claim you did, point for point. Thanks for the article! Reply 9 05 2012 Kitta (21:51:59) : No, no, no! I will not allow you to debunk years upon years of study from experts (with decades of experience in the field) in a single, well written, seemingly convincing internet article. I realize months of work was put into thisbut THAT against DECADES? No maam! Im not convinced. Continue your education, enlist the help of experts, get published, come back in 20, 30 years. Maybe you will discover the truthor just build up overwhelming evidence to support your side without finding the real truthbut, hey! progress is progress. No really, there is no doubt you are fully capable, but you need the time, experience, and qualifications on your back. Not to mention you are a beautiful girl that glows with every sign of healthso you obviously have the knowledge and know how of taking care of the human body! In the meantime Im going to continue my 40% protein (poultry, fish, eggs, dairy, wheypowder), 40% carbs (whole grains, fruits, veg), 20% fats (nuts, cod liver oil, EVOO, coconut oil) and heavy weight lifting to maintain my ultra-lean bodybuilder figure and not worry so much about these nit-picky dietary concerns over cancer and heart disease. Reply 10 05 2012 gsmullennix (01:51:56) : Kittain 30 years youll be dead because you dont think for yourself. It is not about your build, lean or otherwiseits about your health. Unless you KNOW the segmentation between your triglycerides, those above and those below .025 nanometers and the trend they are taking, you can lift until your body is perfect and fits nicely into the burial box. Heart diseasegone at 52 and never a clue. Reply 9 05 2012 5 Surprising Reasons To Eat Your Veggies Holistic Kid (23:18:00) : [...] ideal for their health and the future of our earth. Based on so much that I have read and studied*, this doesnt seem quite right to me. And the rest of the modern world is still stuffing themselves sick with toxic, industrial food [...] Reply 10 05 2012 Jason Barnes (21:52:31) : The idea that heavy animal protein consumption is deadly simply doesnt correlate with well-documented facts. The Masai eat plenty of milk and bleed their cattle for blood; theyre healthy and studly. The Mongol hordes drank huge quantities of mares milk, and they were hardly feeble. Innuits, some Polynesians, and others eat plenty of fish protein and until they were introduced to Western-style junk food, were wonderfully healthy.;
7/26/12
All of this has been observed and documented. Not just from travelers and explorers, but scientists even before the groundbreaking work by Dr. Westin Price. Reply 17 05 2012 kUrTy (01:29:37) : If you have read ALL of these comments to get down to this one, would you just reply with a yep. Im wondering how effective 825 comments are Reply 17 05 2012 em (06:22:52) : The problem with all modern scientific research and analysis is that it deals only with the gross observable/recordable data. It ignores the subtle, unmeasurable details about each individual. Different types of body, due to different mentalities, due to different goals and conditioning means a different reaction to any given diet. Treating all human beings as the same akin to lab-rats overlooks an important factor in each persons susceptibility to any given disease or general malfunction of the body. While diet is highly significant, so is body type. Ayurveda has a very sophisticated assessment of body type based on the bile, mucus and air ingredients of any given individual. With that data included we would really have a report worth studying. Reply 2 06 2012 The China Study | Mark's Daily Apple Health and Fitness Forum page (18:30:46) : [...] [...] Reply 5 06 2012 francescodondi (08:26:49) : Reblogged this on Non al Denaro. Non all'Amore. N al Cielo. and commented: Consigliato a tutti quelli che lha detto un professore, guarda, questi dati sono inoppugnabili!. Ogni dato pu dire tutto e il contrario di tutto per questo prima di credere a qualcosa necessaria la revisione della comunit scientifica, e non di quella di YouTube! Reply 7 06 2012 Denise (09:05:17) : Where do you get your protein from? Reply 7 06 2012 dragonrides (11:56:40) : I feel overwhelmed by reading this post, and my math apparently is not good enough to make judgement who is making the first year undergrad errors. It must be really difficult to PRECISELY build a model to prove the links between diet and cancersAs a financial analyst, I cant even do it in financial modeling which is 10 times easier because a whole lot more parameters can be quantified. If we assume that either party has the correct analysis, that will be fooling ourselves. In any presentation, an analyst can pick and assemble the data that tell his/her story, on wall street or campus. Both Denise and Campbell spent a lot of time, but even we prove the math, it doesnt prove the point. Although in a general sense, the cancer epidemic and certain diseases in countries with high consumption of animal products has to come from, at least partially, something culturally related to diet. And it is evidence that the typical American diet brings the Chinese (China is my home country) up to speed with huge increase in these diseases in just a few short years. In China, only a decade ago, cancer was very rare, which in a sense, the data was most valuable for diet analysis than any other country, it will be impossible to do another China Study these days because of the increasing concerns of food safety (addictive, chemical or worse) and pollution as a result of economic model shift from socialism to capitalism. If I look at the health status of people who have very different diet, instead of the data collected in the 1970s, I would go with less processed food, less dairy and meats and more vegetables which is not the typical western diet. The environmental factors will be even harder to analyse not to mention they increase the complexity by 10 folds. So I dont know if we can ever model something like dietat least IMO its impossible at the moment based on the lack of understanding, technologies, and most importantly willingness, both from the consumer and industry point of view. We live in a world where everything is influenced by money so we never know who is unbiased, of course this is not to say either Denise or Campbell is doing their work for money. I dont even know being vegetarian is a good idea, but if you throw in many other factors including ethical issues, I am comfortable with my own decision. Theres a danger when unreliable analytical modeling gets scrutinized, debated and over analyzed, maybe we should step back and see where Denise agrees with Campbell, because in the end, it is the choice we make as to what/when/how we eat, which is extremely complex. I wonder what Denise thinks on if there IS a link between diet and health, whether consuming a lot of animal products (purely from health aspect) may have something to do with the cancer epidemic. I think we can only draw some conclusions at the macro level, honestly my answer to the title is neither. Reply 7 06 2012 gager (13:06:20) : Although in a general sense, the cancer epidemic and certain diseases in countries with high consumption of animal products has to come from, at least partially, something culturally related to diet. After all this, people still make the same mistake Campbell made, ignoring the countries that consume high animal protein and fat yet do not have the health issues. Reply 7 06 2012 dragonrides (13:42:03) : And what countries are theywhere people consume high animal protein and fat yet do not have the health issues? Im not ignoringI dont know. Reply
7/26/12
7 06 2012 Tony Isaacs (14:43:31) : Countries which consume high amounts of animal protein and fat and yet have good health profiles, including lack of cancer and good cardiovascular health, typically do not consume meat/meat products which have been subjected to feedlot practices, given growth hormones and antibiotics, exposed to pesticides and herbicides and adulterated with additives and preservatives. They also tend to be much more physically active than meat eaters in the US. Failing to take all of that into account is a major flaw in almost all meat studies which warn about the health dangers of eating meat. See: Red meat studies flaws lead to potentially unhealthy advice http://www.tbyil.com/Red_Meat_Studies.htm Reply 7 06 2012 dragonrides (18:57:38) : This just makes everything more confusingin other words, we dont really know what causes cancer and cardiovascular diseases, there are millions of ways people eat, everyone is different, the quality of food is different, different ethnic groups evolved differently geneticallywe will never know unless we do a study only selecting people who are the same to scientifically prove a point. I mean, if you dont trust what you see, why dont we just do a health study comparing vegetarians and meat eaters whose diet are only different in meat and dairy? Ideally I think to consume small amount of meat is good even though I dont because of ethical reason, which is why most vegetarians stay vegetarian. But really I am interested in knowing what countries you guys are talking about, to understand if and why they stay healthy eating lot of animal products. Reply 7 06 2012 Tony Isaacs (23:34:45) : Actually, I think that the causes of cancer are pretty clear its just that the culprits endeavor to divert attention away from the main cause of cancer, which is toxins. Going back to the late great Antoine Bechamp, disease is all about cellular terrain (as opposed to the flawed germ theory of his contemporay Pasteur). When you have cells which have not been properly nourished, hydrated and cleansed then you have an environment that is ripe for the introduction of disease, especially so when the immune system is underperforming. Add toxins, radiation or in some instance pathogens and you end up with inflammation which the body fails to clear. In time, prolonged inflammation/irritation results in a cellular defense mechanism where the cells mutate to ones which revert to a more primitive form of respiration and which refuse to die normal programmed cellular death via apoptosis or autophagy and instead not only continue to live but also begin to replicate and spread. See: Louis Pasteur, Antoine Bechamp and the True Causes of Disease http://www.tbyil.com/Pasteur_Bechamp_Disease_Causes.htm Reply 8 06 2012 dragonrides (19:54:24) : It IS very clear that toxins cause cancer, but that doesnt mean toxins are the only thing that causes cancer. The subject China Study deals with is dietary factors, TCC didnt claim anywhere in the book that toxins are not the causes. We are not comparing whats more damaging here, we are discussing what diet does to our body. Reply 7 06 2012 dragonrides (19:31:35) : Thats exactly why the China Study is so much more superior than any other healthy studies out there, even though it may not be perfect. None of these factors you mentioned feedlot practices, growth hormones, antibiotics, pesticides, herbicides, additives and preservatives existed in 1970s China, after all your reasoning based on practices that you are accustomed in the US is not relevant in this particular matter. Reply 7 06 2012 gager (21:15:55) : Hello, Please read the critique regarding the China Study. The China Study is flawed. Thats the point of this entire blog. Reply 8 06 2012 gallier2 (12:55:48) : No gager, the China study itself (I mean the data collection) is one of the best that is out there. The interpretation by T.C.C and the book called after the study are flawed beyond belief. The clinical studies TCC did in the 70s are also flawed (see Chris Masterjohn). Reply 8 06 2012 dragonrides (19:50:12) : Agreed, if we really want to examine the data here, I cant think of anything thats superior, in terms of consistency of diet, least amount of misc environmental factors and the scale of sample size. Reply 8 06 2012 gager (20:03:16) : Dragonrides, its the data collected that may have value, not the conclusions put forward by Campbell. Thats why I said the the China study is flawed. Reply 8 06 2012
7/26/12
dragonrides (20:16:25) : Well I dont think the China Study is all about the data, what you focus on is a selection of the data as a reference, and the conclusions are not drawn purely based on the data.The book is publicized enough so until theres another published study thats widely accepted by the scientific community (not some leading scientists by the way since there are plenty who work for the meat, dairy and egg industry just as many bloggers, journalist and USDA directors) with compelling analysis that challenges Campbells conclusions, I will accept that its flawed. I find it hard to believe its true just because you repeated wrote the China Study is flawed to the audience of this post, without presenting much meaningful argument. Reply 7 06 2012 Tony Isaacs (23:45:02) : You have a much higher opinion of the China Study than I do. I agree with the original post here the China Study is seriously flawed and often deliberately so in order to fit the results to agree with the bias of the author of the study. You wanted to know what countries have good health profiles along with meat consumption look at the Mediterranean countries. Reply 8 06 2012 dragonrides (19:59:43) : Tony, I just looked on wikipedia for what Mediterranean Diet is, here is a quote: The most commonly understood version of the Mediterranean diet was presented, amongst others, by Dr Walter Willett of Harvard Universitys School of Public Health from the mid-1990s on,[6][7][8][9][10] including a book for the general public.[11] Based on food patterns typical of Crete, much of the rest of Greece, and southern Italy in the early 1960s, this diet, in addition to regular physical activity, emphasizes abundant plant foods, fresh fruit as the typical daily dessert, olive oil as the principal source of fat, dairy products (principally cheese and yogurt), and fish and poultry consumed in low to moderate amounts, zero to four eggs consumed weekly, red meat consumed in low amounts, and wine consumed in low to moderate amounts. Total fat in this diet is 25% to 35% of calories, with saturated fat at 8% or less of calories.[12] Looks to me its considered the healthiest diet out there because its mainly based on plant foods and olive oil, not meat or animal fat. Reply 10 06 2012 Stephen (14:13:13) : This is an excellent critique, good job. Reply 14 06 2012 The China Study (1.0) meme Log (22:03:16) : [...] before publication. Obviously that wasnt the case. It took an intelligent English major, Denise Minger, to demolish the more controversial claims in the book. It took almost 5 years for someone to [...] Reply 15 06 2012 Adarondax (00:05:37) : Lets see if I understand this. Preferred sources of protein are fish, eggs, and whey. Dont eat Elmers Glue. Get some sun each day. Get tested regularly for schistosomiasis. Does that sum it up in a nutshell? Reply 15 06 2012 Adarondax (02:09:38) : A 2000 study of Seventh Day Adventists, many of whom are vegetarians, shows they live longer. However not all diseases are reduced by a vegetarian diet. Heres a quote The subjects of this California study enjoying the longest lives were the vegetarians. Other studies have shown health benefits from vegetarian diets, so one conclusion is that it is better for ones heart to eat less meat. A UK study found, for example, in comparison with regular meat eaters, mortality from coronary heart disease was 20% lower in occasional meat eaters, 34% lower in people who ate fish but not meat, 34% lower in lacto-ovo-vegetarians, and 26% lower in vegans. There were no significant differences between vegetarians and non-vegetarians in mortality from cerebrovascular disease, stomach cancer, colorectal cancer, lung cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer, or all other causes combined. Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/022599.html#ixzz1xp802bjc Reply 16 06 2012 Another Damn Compassionate Vegan (10:04:37) : Reading over the comments here, this just looks like a big vegan-hate carnivore congregation. The funny thing is, youre all posting statistics and debating numbers when really the answer is so incredibly simple and staring point blank in your ignorant, brainwashed faces. Look at Americans. You dont need a statistic to do that, just go to Walmart once in awhile. Watch the people rolling around on motorized carts, so pathetically fat that they cant lift themselves to reach their favorite chocolate milk drink. This nation is full of people just like this, and unless youve never stepped foot outside of the country (fortunately, I have) you probably think this is normal. Wrong. It only takes a foreigner or an occasional traveler to see the massive, embarrassing health problem we have in the United States, and it only takes a few years for that foreigner to develop some of the same health issues after switching to an American diet. If you went into a mall and threw a rock, theres a very high chance youd hit an overweight children with diabetes, or a middle-aged adult riddled with cancer. Disease is everywhere, and dying naturally from old age is a rare occurrence. The next time you want to bash vegans, take a look at your local health food store and see just how many obese, diabetes-stricken vegans there are. Youll probably find a grand total of none. And do you know whats even better about being vegan? The lack of guilt from eating products from animals that are tortured in ways that not even our worst nightmares could portray. If youre a male and eat industrialized beef, you agree that itd be alright to have your penis and testicles cut off without an anesthetic, your body branded with a searing hot iron, and being hung upside down, kicking and screaming helplessly as
7/26/12
someone slashes your throat and lets your blood pour out onto a cold factory floor, swirling around and emptying into a drain so it doesnt get on anybodys shoes. You agree to having your body cut up into pieces that will then be wrapped neatly in little packages that some dumb hick at Walmart will serve to his redneck family for dinner. If youre female and eat industrialized dairy products, you agree that itd be alright if your child was taken from you directly after birth, never to be seen again as the rest of your life is spent stationary on a concrete floor with no room for movement, your artificially inseminated, broken body pumped full of antibiotics and hormones so you produce more milk which is sucked painfully out of your breasts by machines for years until youre no longer of use to the dairy industry, at which point you can look forward to suffering the same fate as the male cows. It doesnt take a brain surgeon to deduce that milk from cows is intended for calves, not humans, just as milk from humans is intended for human babies. We have enslaved and endlessly tortured these innocent, gentle, and voiceless creatures to selfishly satisfy our tastebuds and false need for animal protein. The Earth is and always has been our provider; everything we need to survive grows out of its soil and replenishes itself. We, like cows and other animals, are its inhabitants. Cows were not designed for our consumption. If that were the case, theyd be legless, eyeless, earless, brainless, inanimate sacks of meat. They certainly wouldnt feel pain, or losswhich they do. Open your eyes. The cruelty we have dealt to cows, chickens, pigs, and other creatures of Earth, and to the planet itself is immeasurable. Do the right thing: go vegan and contribute to ending this needless madness. In a nation where, at nearly any location, we have immediate, convenient access to a wealth of nutritious plant-based foods, making the transition is incredibly easyand its the very least we can do. Reply 16 06 2012 cyberpigue (12:39:57) : To: Another Damn Compassionate Vegan Imagine the impact your ideas could have if they werent wrapped in hate. Instead of joining the bashers, you could have made all of the same points in a drawing manner, instead you chose to push. EXACTLY the reason more people are NOT making the switch. Reply 16 06 2012 Alex (13:51:32) : As it happens, there are two strict vegans in my family, and they are both obese. While vegans are wont to point at fat people eating SAD and blame the ill health effects on the meat, the reality is that obesity is driven by vegan ingredients: refined white flour, refined sugars, and industrial polyunsaturated seed oils. Reply 16 06 2012 gager (17:29:37) : It isnt just sugar thats refined but all sugar. When I was young, fruit was only available during the fall harvest so that we were limited to the amount of fruit to eat. And sugar was not added to everything under the sun. I have written complaint e-mails to Campbells soup when I discovered that sugar was an added ingredient in their French Onion soup. They kindly thanked me for my input and then sent a discount coupon for my next purchase of French Onion soup. I dont think they listen. Sugar for some reason is suddenly appearing in soups of all kings and other canned vegetables. Imagine my surprise when my vegetable beef and won ton soup both had a sweet taste. Can you imagine fried eggs with added sugar. When watching old movies from the 50s of street scenes where you can get a good look at the non actors it is really impressive the lack of obesity. Reply 17 06 2012 malcolm (01:40:36) : I live in Japan, where typical traditional dishes include lots of added sugar (think teriyaki sauce), and yet obesity is very rare. Reply 18 06 2012 gager (10:41:32) : A comparison shows a significant difference in sugar consumption. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=sugar%20consumption%20per%20capita%20in%20USA%20and%20Japan The per person consumption of sugar in Japan is about 66 lbs and the US is about 152 lbs and rising. Reply 17 06 2012 dragonrides (05:56:40) : vegan ingredients? you will find all these items in the majority of American kitchens! Being vegan doest mean you are going to be healthy, some can eat fries, cookies and drink soda all day long but its safe to say that your family members diet is NOT a good representation of vegan diet. Reply 16 06 2012 Charlie (14:22:41) : Some plant food being good doesnt mean that the all plant diet is optimal, we are omnivorous. The fallacy about the superior ethical moral of veganism is just nonsense unless you are a breatharian, just not that many of those around. Reply 20 06 2012 Stefan (13:03:58) : Two points I read in Dr. Matthias Raths book, Why animals dont get heart attacks but people do that almost all animals produce their own Vitamin C, sometimes at very high levels, while humans dont produce Vit.C a high cholesterol level in humans is, by the way, a kind of repair mechanism, and a symptom for arteriosclerosis, lack of vitamins, especially Vit. C, which leads to instable arteries, due to not sufficient production of connective tissue or collagen -> arteriosclerosis pre-form of scorbut -> heart attack, stroke rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/ 134/137
7/26/12
than I read somewhere, that meat eating animals have a special digestive system a shorter gut for example the teeth are other than humanand that the human digestive system is more targeted to starch (but i myself must more inform me about this) at the time I change my nutrition into much more vegetables, salat, and so on, fruit, thus, fresh and raw food and eat the famous fresh grain mash (Docs Bruker, Schnitzer, Kollath (I prefer bio spelt and oat), but you need a little home because it is important that the grain is crushed fresh and I make good experience with that (I just feel better, lost some pounds ) here an info, Im sorry, its only german: http://www.gesundheitlicheaufklaerung.de/schweinefleisch-und-gesundheit one should obviously avoid pig meat (!) (pls google Reckeweg Schweinefleisch, may be you find it in english regards from Essen-Kettwig by the way, if you read the Bible, its interesting to learn that in the beginning Adam was created to eat herbals, vegetables, fruit . (1Mo1,1-2) Reply 20 06 2012 Stefan (13:07:29) : correction: a little home MILL of course Reply 23 06 2012 Joseph Fleischman (17:57:19) : What better capsulizes better the two points made by better Drs Campbell and Esselystyn findings, if not the following: A) Western Diseases or Diseases of Affluence are strongly associated with diets rich in animal foods, and B) Reducing the consumption of those foods strongly associates with significant reductions of those diseases. If you dont disagree with the two points above, then you agree with these two mountains in science and medicine. Reply 24 06 2012 incredulous (07:40:53) : I am a postgraduate ecology researcher and a veterinarian, giving me a pretty damn strong scientific background, not just as far as research, scientific methodology and statistical modelling goes, but also in regards to intensive livestock farming, physiology, nutrition, biochemistry, toxicology, pathology, oncology.. the list goes on as to how relevant my credentials are for commenting on this blog. As that stands I will probably be deleted in the same vein as previous scientific experts. I 100% agree that we do not have to hold degrees to be allowed to discuss issues in a public forum, but come on! Are you guys seriously devoid of SHAME?! Unlike Campbell I will not withold my absolute DISGUST at the absolute shamelessness of this entire blog. IF YOU CARE SO FRIGGIN MUCH ABOUT NUTRITION (there is so much garbage out there, yet you decide to take on the China Study??!?!?!??! o_O)THEN WHY NOT ATTEMPT TO LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD. I suggest this in one of 2 simple ways: 1. Get some basic knowledge in the way peer-reviewed scientific research has been carried out since the formation of the royal philosophers in the 1600s, get a PhD in nutritional science, biomedical science or oncology and fight his work in the peer-reviewed published arena like everyone else. 2. Accept that you dont want to go down path 1, become a PR rep for Weston, and sprout propoganda in a more dignified manner via advertising, becoming a celb, getting on Opra, getting into politics, starting up your own food movement, or writing fiction (as with this blog) and accept that you are simply stating opinion. DO NOT RUN RIDICULOUS STATISTICS for the entire scientific community to laugh at. It is just embarrassing for everyone involved. I would love it if you had grabbed this raw data and written your equivalent of the china study using your univariate linear statistics. Actually will these be in your new book?! Research supervisors worldwide can use it to scare research underlings into performing robust data analysis Reply 24 06 2012 Darrel (20:49:51) : Well said. I dont think your comment will be deleted. It seems they are pretty good about not censoring here. Reply 24 06 2012 gager (21:41:37) : As that stands I will probably be deleted in the same vein as previous scientific experts. No one has been deleted for posting opinion unless it was a personal attack. Campbell did not get a peer review and yet you ask Denise to get peer review but she is not offering a scientific paper, she is posting a critique of bad science. The scientific community is not laughing at her interpretation of the statistics. Your rant is worthless. Denises critique is very valuable. Reply 25 06 2012 incredulous (03:07:07) : Sorry the book, the China study, was an amalgamation of all of the peer reviewed published research over years that Campbell had done. This is what people do. After years of journal publishing that is able to be scrutinised by the entire scientific community, they write a book these often end up as cornerstone works or undergraduate reference books. This paper to book link is exactly how the scientific community allows the work to reach the layman so yes it is not in itself peer reviewed, this is also why it is written like a FRIGGIN BOOK FOR LAYMANS not like a scientific journal article.
7/26/12
So Campbell has infact been peer reviewed many times, and I agree this is not infallable but having all the experts in the world offered the opportunity to debunk something you say is exactly what publishing in journals is about. Someone with extremely bad science, attempting to debunk an amalgamation of one of the most robust and in depth studies into a hugely complex science, with statistical models performed and checked by an entire cohort of statisticians, she posts up some extremely bad correlation data using totally inappropriate models, with non-adjusted data in a FRIGGIN blog. THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY LAUGHS. Reply 26 06 2012 dragonrides (19:24:56) : Looks like Minger did remove some posts. http://www.vegsource.com/news/2010/07/china-study-author-colin-campbell-slaps-down-critic-denise-minger.html Reply 26 06 2012 gager (19:36:19) : The whole truth please. and did not deny that the epidemeologists critical comments had been yanked. After complaining on VegSource about the post disappearing, the epidemiologists post apparently reappeared on Mingers blog. (Minger subsquently said something about a spam filter being at fault.) Minger has all the rights to delete posts but the only posts I know that have been removed came from absolute trolls. (or at least the very offensive person was banned) The rants and dishonesty of vegans have never been deleted that I know. Reply 26 06 2012 dragonrides (20:16:01) : I am not sure about anyone who stereotypes people with rants and dishonesty in a debate on this topic should be considered credible. Clearly, not all the vegan diet is healthy, and we have never really conducted any extensive research on what is the optimal diet for humans? We never invested enough resources or cared enough about it. Veganism is not what Dr. Campbell promotes in the China Study anyway. Remember, for the China Study to be acknowledged in our current world where meat, dairy and egg industries run the show, is extremely difficult, he doesnt only need to fight the bloggers, he needs to fight the big corporations, and the media they control. He didnt just write a blog to earn it and I dont know any FDA policy maker who has special interest in veganism or giving money to Dr. Campbell to conduct the China Study. On the other hand, there are plenty of profit-driven, corrupted scientists, politicians, journalists, bloggers out there to make or promote the policy, influence the media, confuse the public, for the single purpose of putting money in their own pocket, and they do NOT care about you, your diet, your health, as a matter of fact, if we are all eating a well-balanced diet from organic and toxin-free sources of foods, we will have a much better chance of being healthy and dying from old age rather than diseases, but hey thats bad for business. Reply 10 07 2012 Beaulah Cushard (16:40:37) : Dead written written content, thank you for selective information. You can do very little with faith, but you can do nothing without it. by Samuel Butler. Reply 10 07 2012 gager (18:13:20) : Whats the point of your post. I do everything without faith, faith is not a part of my existence Reply 13 07 2012 Doctor FAIL: Garth Davis, Bariatric Surgeon (and China Study Balderdash) | Free The Animal (19:49:36) : [...] sort. Then someone cites Denise Minger's great work tearing apart The China Study limb from limbwhere that original critique post sits at 875 comments, many from researchers and statisticians who confirm the soundness of Denise's work (in-between the [...] Reply 14 07 2012 China Study Exposed meme Log (23:11:51) : [...] Minger concludes [...] Reply 20 07 2012 Sandy (21:29:34) : The fact that you are not a scientist or a certified researcher with more than 35 years of research says enough Reply 20 07 2012 gager (21:39:37) : What is a certified researcher? This is a new one. Have you ever heard of Marilyn Savant? Reply 20 07 2012 Gary Mullennix (23:06:26) : Sandysays enough what exactly does it say? That if you read anything posted by a certified researcher with more than 35 years of research, you wont have to think? Youll just accept it at face value? As I recall, Einstein was not certified nor in his early 20s working in a Swiss Patent office, did he have 35 years of experience. Yours is a doltish comment at best. Reply
7/26/12
21 07 2012 Charlie (12:06:49) : 35 years pushing an agenda, going even against what his own science finds Yeah that make him certifiableNut Reply
Blog at WordPress.com. Theme: Freshy by Jide.
137/137

The China Study - Fact or Fallacy - Raw Food SOS

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The China Study - Fact or Fallacy - Raw Food SOS

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

7/26/12

The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? Raw Food SOS

Raw Food SOS

The China Study: Fact or Fallacy?

The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? Raw Food SOS

The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? Raw Food SOS

The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? Raw Food SOS

The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? Raw Food SOS

The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? Raw Food SOS

The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? Raw Food SOS

The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? Raw Food SOS

The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? Raw Food SOS

The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? Raw Food SOS

(http://rawfoodsos.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/animal_protein_intake.jpg) For reference, some other diet variables:

The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? Raw Food SOS

The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? Raw Food SOS

The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? Raw Food SOS

The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? Raw Food SOS

The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? Raw Food SOS

The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? Raw Food SOS

The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? Raw Food SOS

The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? Raw Food SOS

The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? Raw Food SOS

The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? Raw Food SOS

The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? Raw Food SOS

The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? Raw Food SOS

The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? Raw Food SOS

The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? Raw Food SOS

The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? Raw Food SOS

The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? Raw Food SOS

The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? Raw Food SOS

The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? Raw Food SOS

The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? Raw Food SOS

The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? Raw Food SOS

The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? Raw Food SOS

The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? Raw Food SOS

The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? Raw Food SOS

The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? Raw Food SOS

The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? Raw Food SOS

The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? Raw Food SOS

The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? Raw Food SOS

The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? Raw Food SOS

The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? Raw Food SOS

The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? Raw Food SOS

The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? Raw Food SOS

The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? Raw Food SOS

The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? Raw Food SOS

The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? Raw Food SOS

The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? Raw Food SOS

The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? Raw Food SOS

The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? Raw Food SOS

The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? Raw Food SOS

The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? Raw Food SOS

The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? Raw Food SOS

The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? Raw Food SOS

The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? Raw Food SOS

The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? Raw Food SOS

The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? Raw Food SOS

The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? Raw Food SOS

The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? Raw Food SOS

The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? Raw Food SOS

The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? Raw Food SOS