Part 1: “Meat and Disease”:
http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/06/01/a-closer-look-at-the-china-study-meat-and-disease/ (includes introduction + main points of criticism against Campbell)
http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/06/09/a-closer-look-at-the-china-study-fish-and-disease/
http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/06/18/a-closer-look-at-the-china-study-eggs-and-diseas/
Part 4: “Dairy and Disease”
http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/06/20/a-closer-look-at-the-china-study-dairy-and-disease/Part 5: “Tuoli – China’s Mysterious Milk Drinkers”
http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/06/23/tuoli-chinas-mysterious-milk-drinkers/
Part 6:: “The China Study: Fact or Fallacy”
http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/
Includes point by point rebuttal of Campbell’s summary of the China Study findings (found here http://www.news.cornell.edu/chronicle/01/6.28.01/china_study_ii.html) based on her interpretation of the China Project data. Also includes Denise’s concluding remarks.
Replies
To bring everyone up to speed - Here is the latest from Denise posted on gitmr:
Hey people, I'm SO sorry I haven't gotten back to this thread. The critique went viral and had 20,000 hits within 24 hours, and so far has been featured on 39 other blogs! My blog usually averages about 80 hits a day, usually from people searching for stuff unrelated to raw food, so this was pretty crazy. Totally not expecting that, and while I'm not terribly comfortable in the spotlight, it's been great getting contacted by a diverse audience (including doctors and statisticians) who've shared their thoughts on the analysis.
Excitingly, Campbell has written a response, and the blogger Tynan of http://tynan.net/ will be posting it tomorrow, so keep your eyes peeled. I was surprised at how tame it was compared to his rebuttals of previous critics and I'm enormously grateful that he took the time to reply. I'll be posting a reply to his reply (oy!) later in the week to clear up some issues he pointed out.
Apparently, I'll also need to confirm my identity with a video, as a few people (including Campbell) have expressed concern that I may not be 'real' (?). Guess I'll take that as a compliment!
Thanks for the support, the criticisms, and everything in between. I know my analysis upset some people, but it was never intended to dissuade or persuade anyone of a particular diet; only analyze Campbell's own conclusions from the data. I apologize for any hard feelings this caused, but hopefully whatever becomes of this will contribute positively in some way to the health movement.
Much gratitude to you all.
:)
Denise
http://tynan.net/chinastudyresponse
"He’s absolutely right that I only posted univariate correlations — in fact, an epidemiologist pointed this out as well as a flaw in my analysis — but what I posted was nowhere near the full extent of my data-crunching. [...] I ran multiple variable regressions on the data and it not only confirmed what I demonstrated through simpler graphs, but actually revealed more pronounced inverse relationships between animal foods and diseases (especially heart disease). I’ll be compiling the results of the MRAs I ran, since it seems to be a sore point and perceived weakness in my critique, and posting them in a future blog entry.
1. Campbell projects the effects of casein onto all forms of animal protein, while ignoring research to the contrary (such as the potential anti-cancer properties of whey).
2. The correlation between all animal protein and disease isn’t supported by the original China Study data.
3. The book focuses myopically on the effects of animal foods, while not even mentioning the (incredibly strong) associations certain vegan foods have with disease.
From then on until the final part she compares the claims in the china study on the various categories of animal products and their connection to chronic disease to that which her interpretation of the raw data from the China Project monograph apparently shows. The 5th part discusses the outliers of the study the Tuoli who consumed the most animal products particularly dairy and had comparably low levels of cholesterol and chronic disease to the other counties that consumed the fewest animal products.
In the final part after her rebuttal of Campbell's summary she brings up the topic of wheat protein and it's apparent connection to disease according to the china project data (she criticizes Campbell for not bringing this up). Then she critiques Campbell's notion that casein and animal protein in general does cause cancer in all cases, raising the idea that whey protein according to some studies may help prevent cancer.
Also at the very end she criticizes him for emphasizing the connection between cholesterol and disease in light of the China project raw data and also questions the connection between animal product consumption and cholesterol, citing the Tuoli.