I haven't come across one. Did you?
The only professional who have been kind enough to answer her have questioned her methodology, right?
Did Denise recognize the flaws in her work?
You need to be a member of The Frugivore Diet to add comments!
I haven't come across one. Did you?
The only professional who have been kind enough to answer her have questioned her methodology, right?
Did Denise recognize the flaws in her work?
This reply was deleted.
Replies
I agree with her that critical thinking is for all, but where does her critical thinking end, and her critical analysis begins?
and this is a brilliantly put question!!
in friendship,
prad
from what i recall going through the blog comments, she had veganmama and what seemed like teacher of stats, both questioning her methods, both giving detailed posts and both offering some form of encouragement (in veganmama's case, even assistance which she has done). there was also, someone else who suggested denise get a book on stats and even made a recommendation.
this was when i was looking some days ago, so i don't know what's new there.
in friendship,
prad
I got email from her, and I asked her if she had her piece/work reviewed by a third party before posting, or if she planned on getting it peer reviewed. She said no in both cases, and actually she told me that since it was a blog post, she intentionally didn't clarify her methodology there, in order to keep her readers on her track. I think she could have done a separate post with her methodology that people could read if they want...
I asked her the following:"Do you feel confident sending your analysis to a minimum of three professionals in the field of epidemiology for peer reviewing? If yes, when do you plan on doing it, and can you make public the comments with the titles of the reviewers? If no, can you explain why?"
But she didn't answer this, she just said she didn't thought about sending it for peer review because it was just a blog.
I had more questions for her, and I'm still waiting for her to answer.
as for your question about whether she recognized the flaws in her work, she seems convinced that Campbell committed the same errors that veganmama18 pointed out, and the purpose of her critique is to point these out to him. I guess imitation is the sincerest form of flattery(!?!). That woman has me quite confused I'll tell ya.
She wants to point mistakes to Campbell, and in her reply to me, she used one reference to justify it. Here it is, "A survey of 65 counties in rural China, however, did not find a clear association between animal product consumption and risk of heart disease or major cancers." (from http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/71/3/849.pdf) on page 850. The problem is that this reference comes from a letter to the editor of a journal, not an article. And the letter is a response to a critic from Campbell. And the author of this statement is justifying himself from using data from the nurse study, showing in his article no significant association of animal products and various diseases.
So Denise is criticizing Campbell, and to support her criticism she uses a study that is known for being highly flawed (no sufficient difference in the study cohort).
This is very confusing and confuse.
Here is a fairly recent comment, I can seem much acknowledgement of flaws but I'm not all that suprised!
"Once again — a gigantic “thank you!” for the feedback, questions, and other comments that keep pouring in. I’m up to my nose in a sea of emails (anyone have a snorkel handy?), and if you’ve written to me, I do promise a response is on the way! Maybe not very soon. But it’ll 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. I’ll 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 I’ve received from readers.
It seems the main criticisms against my review so far are that I’m using raw data and univariate correlations. This misses the point completely, as I’m trying to point out that it’s Campbell whose claims, in every single instance, align perfectly with the raw data but become erroneous once major confounders have been adjusted for. I’ll try to explain this point better in my reply, as perhaps I didn’t make it clear enough in the critique.
In addition, as I’ll explain in my reply, univariate correlations weren’t the only ones I used in my analysis — they’re just the only ones I chose to include in this post. I felt they’d be effective for getting my message across to a standard audience who may not be too interested in stats jargon, since they’re a simple way to illustrate the effects of confounding variables and they’re 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, I’ll 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 I’ve done.
Again, I can’t 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."