We need some volunteers to do concise summaries of the argument and content of these critiques.
We're looking for commonalities in subject matter (there are plenty as you'll see) so we can address them all (along with Denise's) in one comprehensive rebuttal.
Let me know if you find any others. Thanks folks.
**Format for summaries:
Title of critique:
Thesis:
Summary:
(summary should be done on a point-by-point basis for easy reference)
Chris Masterjohn
"The Truth about the China Study" (2005)
http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/China-Study.html
"Response to T. Colin Campbell" (2007)
http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Campbell-Masterjohn.html
"Denise Minger Refutes the China Study Once and For All" (2010)
http://www.westonaprice.org/blogs/denise-minger-refutes-the-china-study-once-and-for-all.html
(Masterjohn's fawning review of Denise's latest critique)
Anthony Colpo
(originally posted under pseudonym 'JayY')
"The China Study: More Vegan Nonsense!" (2006)
http://www.anthonycolpo.com/the_china_study.html
Dr. Mercola
"Why the China Study is Flawed"
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2006/02/23/why-the-china-study-is-flawed.aspx
(annoyingly you have to subscribe to his mailing list to read the article)
---
Common Themes/Topics
Thought I'd list these here too, I'll start with the ones I'm aware of:
-Idea that saturated fat/animal fat doesn't cause heart disease at all (skepticism of 'lipid hypothesis'), rather it's refined grains and sugars (compare to Denise's assertion based on the China Project data that wheat is more pathogenic/carcinogenic than meat). Also that high cholesterol is good and dietary cholesterol is a nutrient.
-"healthy animal protein" to counter Campbell's assertion that all animal protein is carcinogenic, whey protein isolate is the sole example.
-cultures that eat tons of animal products are healthy/disease free/long lived (e.g. Masai, inuit, Tuoli, etc.)
-vegan diets are inherently unsustainable and/or unhealthy
-raw/free-range/grass-fed animal products do not pose the same health problems as cooked/pasteurized/grain-fed/factory farmed varieties
You need to be a member of The Frugivore Diet to add comments!
Replies
of course, while veganism in its present form is modern, it has existed throughout the ages in various cultures for ethical reasons (though it was termed spiritual back then since 'ethics' as presented now is sort of a modern idea too).
i think one treads into dangerous waters if one tries to argue that one shouldn't eat corpse because our ancestors naturally didn't for biological reasons (because many did despite their biology). it is almost as absurd an argument as what the other side attempts when they say there were no successful vegan cultures in the past (because there were vegans and a culture encompasses a lot of leeway and successful could mean anything - besides, here are 2 problems:
1. since corpse-eating cultures fail like say the huns who are no more, it must mean corpse-eating cultures are failures :D
or
2. since there were always veg in every culture it means there is no such thing as a corpse-eating culture anymore than there is a veg culture :D).
in any case, far better, imho, to stick to keeping
1. physiological arguments physiological (ie human physiology handles veg much better than otherwise and here's why: comparative anatomy)
2. ethical arguments in their own realm (ie the imprisonment, exploitation, abuse and murder of sentient beings just ain't nice)
and let our ancestors lie in peace.
being a recluse, i've worked hard enough just getting rid of my relatives - don't need any ancestors gumming up the works. :D
in friendship,
prad
the parallels you draw and then substantiate really are there.
the appeal to nature is certainly one i've come across frequently:
http://www.30bananasaday.com/forum/topics/natural-good
i've heard the most bizarre rationalizations on the noble savage notion too - a remarkable one being how the prey knows when it is time and willingly (even happily) goes to meet its death. i don't know what some of these people have been smoking!
i think the point of your last sentence is really important. we often have arguments here about what ancestors ate and forget that they ate what was there whether it was 'natural' or not. then of course it spirals in to some variation of the is-ought fallacy at a dizzying pace (even here) :D
in friendship,
prad
creationist is apt terminology for this colpo diatribe ... after all, when one doesn't have science on one's side, there is little else to fall back on other than creative creations. :D
in friendship,
prad
what's colpo so mad about michael eades for?
you'd think he'd be buddies with him for that obfuscating post the guy wrote against campbell:
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/cancer/the-china-study-vs-the-ch...
geez! if it weren't for the veg contingent, these corpse eaters would be eating each other!
in friendship,
prad
he has good stuff to steal from his site, but his 'opinions' are pretty silly.
doug graham made mincemeat out of him here (at least from a debating perspective):
http://www.30bananasaday.com/forum/topics/debate-between-doug-graha...
in friendship,
prad
http://www.30bananasaday.com/forum/topics/news-on-the-china-study?g...
Click on above to link to the article. I hope it's OK that I added a few lines of commentary at the end...
Title: Why the China Study is Flawed
Thesis: Cooking animal protein is what makes it unhealthy, not the animal protein itself
Summary:
1. "[...] Dr. Campbell failed to appreciate the major dangers of meat and milk are related to cooking them. He makes the invalid assumption that raw and cooked (pasteurized) milk and meat are equally harmful. This is simply untrue and not at all addressed in his study or book."
--> Side note: I'm inclined to believe that the dairy people consumed in rural China at the time (and probably still do today) was primarily unpasteurized.
2. "Another valid point Dr. Campbell has is that there are major problems with most commercial meat sources. We were not designed to eat cattle that were raised on grain and fed hormones and antibiotics to maximize their growers' profits."
3. "Not a month goes by in our clinic where we don't see one or more new patients who have chosen to be a vegetarian and have suffered a loss of their health. Typically, they are able to rapidly recover their health after introducing animal protein back into their diet."
4. "That said, let's be quite clear I am a huge fan of eating vegetables. I believe that we should consume about 1 pound of vegetables a day for every 50 pounds of body weight. Ideally, these vegetables should be organic and eaten raw."
My comments: Mercola isn't attacking Campbell's methodology, per se. Rather, he's pointing out that Campbell should've made a distinction between raw animal proteins and cooked animal proteins. It's obvious from excerpt #3 that Mercola is biased against veg*n diets, and implies that they are actually harmful.
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next