denise minger 'apologizes'
well sort of anyway.this was sent by bryne carruthers who did theHas Denise Minger Read 'The China Study'?here is the text, an apology from Denise to the “Plant-Based Diet Doctor Squad” (Caldwell Esselstyn, John McDougall, Dean Ornish, Neal Barnard, and by some definitions Joel Fuhrman): For the past few years (five? six? seven ate nine?), I’ve asserted that the success of plant-based diets is due to their whole-foodsness (eliminating processed junk, refined sugar, and refined flour), their low…
Read more…
Comments
Hey quick question is there a video transcript of the video above, 8:38-8:39. Campbell mentions a word then mercury and that we can get omega 3's from plant food. What word did I miss? Thanks
I decided that I have nothing better to do than to understand Colin T. Campbell's work. I looked at the casein rat experiment, rebuttal, rebuttal of the rebuttal, and so forth, until I couldn't take anymore.
At some point, you realize that the Weston Price foundation is just stalling and some of the other critics. Oh, they will respond a lot, but they never seem to provide satisfactory answers. As I see it, they lost, but they lack the common decency to admit defeat. Instead, providing endless weak responses. As some point, you realize they are just a distraction.
Plenty of peer reviewed journals back up Campbell's work. Including some that the critics have missed. For example Campbell, lists six peer reviewed articles.
http://www.vegsource.com/news/2010/07/china-study-author-colin-camp...
Perhaps more importantly, look at the sheer number of peer reviewed sources Campbell has play a part of in pubmed:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Campbell%20TC[Author]&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=1389494
163, that's impressive. In short, for someone with average intelligence, education, and knowledge like me, I think its better to stick to reading peer reviewed journals. Here's some of the articles Campbell mentioned:
"Although the result is consistent with a positive association between lipid intake and breast cancer risk, the observed association is weaker than the association previously observed. This finding provides only modest support for the possibility of a diet-breast cancer link." European Journal of Cancer Volume 28, Issue 10, 1992, Pages 1720-1727
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/095980499290077F
"The difference in testosterone concentrations between the two countries appeared to be due largely to the lower average body weight in the Chinese women." Br J Cancer. 1990 Oct; 62(4): 631–636.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1971493/
Is the truth irrelevant? I've been thinking about a cost versus benefit analysis and if it would be worth it to debunk the China Study Critics. I'm starting to think that it may not be worth it and here's why:
I. Whether or not the critics are correct, Campbell's reputation is damaged. Think of a court case, even if the defendant is acquitted. People will still believe he/she is guilty. Just the act of being accused of a crime will damage one's reputation.
II. In the movie the Castle of Cagliostro, my favorite quote is "the truth is irrelevant people believe what they want to believe." Meaning we could stand on our heads and wiggle our ears, but ultimately people believe what they want anyways.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Castle_of_Cagliostro
I've read through a lot of the posts now. Still going to take some fact checking. I've noticed two things from arguing with people.
1. They link to Denise Minger and act like that's the end of it not acknowledging B's response.
2. I've noticed people copying Minger's style. For example the animal protein -> cholesterol -> cancer. Doesn't mean animal protein -> cancer. I don't if that is good logic or not. Instead I see reference to the TCP-1 and TCP-2.
I'll give another example that doesn't deal with the China Study. Milk -> IGF-1 -> cancer. Doesn't mean milk -> cancer. Thanks in advance.
wesley, the china study has indeed been debunked, but only by a select group of bloggers. :D
the sensible part of the internet understands and appreciates its legitimacy.
if some of the items are difficult to understand, you may want to look at this:
b-d debate for dummies
we take a simplified approach to the excellent response by B:
Has Denise Minger Read 'The China Study'? -- A Collective Rebuttal
there are many other critiques of critics of the china study, but the overwhelming legitimate research you'll find, supports colin campbell's superb work!
in friendship,
prad
watch the extended interviews!
Hey, new to the group and 30bananasaday. I've noticed that whenever I mention the China Study people immediately respond "its been debunked." Some people link to various sites which go way over my head. I have no clue who's right and who's wrong. I tried reading some of the posts here. Yet, they go right over my head too any advice? Do you want me to link the critics of the China Study here?
Looking for information on low fat, whole food vegan diets and the effect it has on hormonal levels, notable for woman, (testing for pregnancy).
Does anyone have any information they could link? :)
Colin Campbell on how The China Study demonstrates cause and effect.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsoDOVfASsI
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
of 9 Next