Yet another independent debunking of "The China Study" book

[liamona]

Originally Posted by emeadow

A recent response to the debate again.....

The China Study vs the China study | The Blog of Michael R. Eades, M.D.

The commentary and excerpts near the end were probably the most entertaining.

Totally! Now I look for every opportunity to call Dr. Campbell Dr. Colon.

[liamona]

Originally Posted by OKgirl

Well, exactly, so the impact of animal protein on them shouldn't be negative, don't you agree? They should be completely accustomed to it as their main source of energy for millions of years. But they were not.

But don't forget, in the same experiment when the rats were given wheat protein, once lysine (the amino acid that wheat is low in) was added back to the rats' diet, it had the same effect as the casein.

And Dr. Colon conveniently left that part of the experiment out of his book.

If you read the response of Dr. Campbell, he explains basic practices and expectations accepted in biological science.

Yes, but he doesn't answer Minger's questions. At all.

I have to agree with Dr. Eades' assessment of Dr. Colon's non-responses:

In 1976 author Mary McCarthy famously said live on the Dick Cavett show of her rival Lillian Hellman:

Every word she writes is a lie, including ‘and’ and ‘the’.**

I feel much the same way about The China Study. Except it’s not really a lie, it’s an obfuscation.

In fact, in my studied opinion, The China Study is a masterpiece of obfuscation.

Also this:

And speaking of the so-called plant-based diet, when Dr. Campbell responded to Ms. Minger’s critique, he took her to task for mentioning the words ‘vegan’ and ‘vegetarian’ as it applied to his work.

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.

Just for grins, I turned to the index of The China Study to see if ‘vegan’ or ‘vegetarian’ were indexed. Here’s what I found on page 417:

vegetarianism or veganism. See plant-based diet

When I flipped over to ‘plant-based diet’ on page 414, I found a long grocery list of references.


Even in his online response to his opponents, Dr. Campbell apparently can’t resist obfuscating.

I disagree though with labels that are put on the honest scientist who feels it is unethical to hide the results of the research whether they are compliant with the party line or not.

Huh?

[liamona]

Oops. I posted that last response before I read RR's. I'll have to modify it.

[liamona]

Have you guys noticed that a lot of pro-Campbell posters on Minger's blog mostly use the flawed "appeal to authority" argument? Basically, "trust him, he's an expert."

Tom Naughton, the Fat Head movie guy, wrote a few posts about Minger's China study analyses and the uproar they've caused. Today he wrote a good one called "Experts and Education":

My beef is with people who seem to believe experts with degrees should never be challenged by what my brother referred to as “the non-anointed.” That’s utter hogwash. Science belongs to everyone. Math belongs to everyone. Logic belongs to everyone.

In previous posts, I’ve mentioned my college physics professor who told us, “Learn math. Math is how you know when they’re lying to you.” He said that as a guest lecturer in a humanities class.

[...]

And we should. If average citizens don’t question the experts, we’re all screwed. Just look where the expert advice to eat a lot of carbohydrates and avoid fat has gotten us. Look what happened when experts told us corn oil was good for our hearts.

If you tell me 5+5 =11, I don’t care if you have a PhD, I’m going to disagree. If you tell me people with gray hair have a disproportionate number of heart attacks and that gray hair must therefore cause heart disease, I’m going to point out that we’re probably looking at an association, not a cause. If you tell me a study proves that whole grains prevent diabetes and I discover while reading the study that whole grains replaced white flour in the subjects’ diets, I’m going to suggest that maybe it was removing white flour that made the difference.

It doesn’t take a genius IQ to find the flaws in a lot of nutrition “science.” It just requires mathematical literacy and perhaps some ability with Excel. The American Heart Association tells us our LDL should be below 130 to prevent heart disease. When I plugged their own data into Excel, I found that people with LDL below 130 account for more than their share of heart disease. When I plugged the World Health Organization’s worldwide population data about cholesterol levels and heart disease rates into Excel and ran the CORR function, I found nothing except a very slight negative association (meaning lower cholesterol was correlated with a slightly higher rate of heart disease). The math is what the math is. If you disagree with my conclusions, do it with math. Whether or not I have a medical degree is immaterial.

And that’s what some of the experts with degrees (and their awe-struck followers) can’t stand, especially in today’s digital age: we can call them out publicly. We can find and call attention to the errors in their data or logic. Knowledge and publishing have been democratized. When they react to criticism by hiding behind their degrees instead of defending their conclusions, you should be very, very suspicious.

That’s exactly what happened when Denise Minger ran the numbers on T. Colin Campbell’s data to show his conclusions don’t hold up. She didn’t even claim that plant-based diets aren’t superior — in fact, she said specifically that her numbers didn’t prove anything conclusive about diets and health. She merely pointed out that Campbell’s data doesn’t prove anything either. Toss in a variable here and there that Campbell left out, and some of his ballyhooed correlations disappear or start going in the other direction.

Campbell reacted by saying he sincerely doubted a young woman working in her spare time could have performed such a sophisticated analysis (then who did, Dr. Campbell, and what does that have to do with anything?), that she probably doesn’t fully comprehend the research, and that he’s too busy to answer her anyway. Boil it down, and you get this: I’m a researcher with a PhD and she’s 23-year-old, so don’t listen to her.

And of course Campbell’s True Believers have been jumping all over every blog that praised Minger’s analyses, acting like Taliban members who heard someone diss Allah, and all saying pretty much the same thing: Do Not Question The Master. Here’s an excerpt from one I received today:

So for those of you who choose to discredit the science and want to believe your bologny, it is for one reason and one reason only because you like to eat dead parts of animals, because you do not want to believe the truth, because you want to keep eating animal products. Go ahead and do what you want. I am so sick and tired of people like you trying to discredit the truth and having the large corporations obviously coining the billions of dollars from you, go ahead! You can all spend your lives taking medications being owned by the pharmaceutical industry. Keep making the cruel corporations rich, keep supporting the pharmaceutical industry. But, leave the truth alone!!!

So the only reason to question Campbell’s math would be a desire to eat dead parts of animals and support big pharma. Can’t argue with that logic. Here’s another:

It is not appropriate for a critic like Ms Minger to publish a technical critique of a scientific work without first subjecting it to evaluation by her peers through a peer-reviewed study because the public is not as equipped to analyze it as well as trained professionals. It is not appropriate to scribe equal credibility to her statements and those of the author either. If and when she does that I will be happy to read her critique and compare it to the original work and the peer review.

Ah yes, I’m sure Ms. Minger would have no problem convening a scientific committee to peer-review a blog post, so please don’t strain your brain reading her analysis until that happens. And why exactly is it “inappropriate” for her publish a critique? Once again, the math is what the math is. A blessing by The Council of Elders doesn’t morph it from blasphemy into truth.

Minger ran the same statistical calculations that Campbell ran, using his down data. She merely pointed out correlations within his data that he chose to ignore. Rather than thinking, the commenter is sticking his head in the sand … after hiding behind Campbell’s degree and some nonsense about how “the public” isn’t equipped to evaluate her work. (Hey, that’s weird … she’s a mere member of the public, and she did quite an analysis of The Master’s work.) In fact, despite all the comments posted on this blog by Campbell True Believers, I have yet to read one that disputes her math.

Perhaps it’s because math is how you know when they’re lying to you. And math belongs to all of us … brilliant 23-year-old bloggers and PhDs alike.

[OKgirl]

She's been extremely gracious towards him! Way more than he deserves. After reading his lame responses to her posts, I've lost what little respect I had for him.

Just trying to understand here, why do you consider his responses lame?

And to russainrocket, why are you saying she is more of an adult that Campbell will ever be? I cannot see the basis for this?

[OKgirl]

Originally Posted by liamona

Perhaps it’s because math is how you know when they’re lying to you. And math belongs to all of us … brilliant 23-year-old bloggers and PhDs alike.
[/INDENT]

Liamona, yes math is how they are lying to you. Any of "them" could do it and many do it. And we should question results and know basic statistics to comprehend what we see in front of us. But there is a reason why people hate statistics: there is much more to it than just running CORR function. To truly critique an experiment, you should have knowledge of design of experiment plus understanding of the area this experiment is conducted in. Even then you may run into the danger of not considering all the confounded effects and not understanding this experiment fully.

I have my Masters in Math, yet when I started designing statistical experiments where people are involved, I've made my fair share of mistakes. There are too many variables in the behavior of free individuals with complex biology. Much more than in behavior of confined rats fed the controlled feed. That's why Campbell uses epidemiological study model. How familiar are you, my friend, with this area of math, are you familiar enough to judge a peer-reviewed study that challenges many accepted notions, and that was diligently reviewed by the opponents in the scientific community?
"Have you guys noticed that a lot of pro-Campbell posters on Minger's blog mostly use the flawed "appeal to authority" argument? Basically, "trust him, he's an expert." - You are free to trust his opponents who are of equal or lesser experience in the same area.

My point is, educate yourself, and continue to question, just realize that statistics, esp without practice, esp in the area of biology, is a highly complicated area of science, and that your own understanding is likely to be further from the truth than that of a trained researcher. Just keep this in mind when you take on statistical analysis. I certainly do.

Now, may I suggest that most of us are jumping in this statistical analysis not because we are really interested in stats, but because we want to justify our own food choices and feel good about them? Perhaps, tired of vegans around us preaching the message in a militant way? Or perhaps our own experience with plant based diet was not as healthy as we thought? There are many reasons why people reject the message of Dr. Campbell, but look at the root - are they political, first of all, and then are they statistical or anecdotal? I consider whatever happened to me as an anecdotal experience, the same as one visitor on popular anti-Campbell blogs, who wrote " I met a Chinese person, and he fed me a traditional meal made of pork. So much for your plant-based diet, Dr. Campbell." I mean, people, of course pure plant-based diet won't be right for everyone, of course there are Chinese who eat pork, this is not how we look at it from the point of view of statistical science.

About being an honest scientist:
Campbell writes:
"I suggest that those people who are so hostile to this message take another look at their reasoning. There is far more to this story than the interpretation of the scientific data alone. There are major issues of health care and health care costs, there are serious environmental issues that have not been adequately communicated to the public, and there are political, social and ethical issues that must be considered. Of most importance, there are people who deserve to hear this message—namely, the taxpayers who funded this work. For me to do anything less than to report on these findings is both immoral and unethical. In the current discussions about this issue, I
would urge that it is vitally important that all of us keep these ideas in mind, while being very careful not to promote ideas simply for the sake of defending one’s own personal preferences. I strongly believe that discussion of these issues focus outwardly for the sake of all of us, not just inwardly for the satisfaction of personal ego."
Don't forget also, that he did publish raw data from this experiment. Researchers just don't do it. especially industry funded ones who repeatedly find that more milk is good for your kids. Publishing that data was to me a sign of an honest scientist who invited further research and scientific debate. It's a sign of a grown up adult with courage, russianrocket.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by OKgirl

Just trying to understand here, why do you consider his responses lame?

And to russainrocket, why are you saying she is more of an adult that Campbell will ever be? I cannot see the basis for this?

Did you read his whole response, as well as her response to his response?

I'll mention one aspect of it tho. He essentially dismisses her information as wrong, because he considers her to young to have any clue of how to actually evaluate his information. Claims she is biased and that the dairy industry is funding her, and that because of her age, someone else must have done all the work for her. He also is essentially calling her a liar, saying that someone her age didn't just sit down in their "spare time" and it

Campbell: 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.

Campbell: 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.

time and time again, he belittles her. Having to bring up the cutesy way that she speaks ON HER BLOG, in order to discredit her.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by OKgirl

Liamona, yes math is how they are lying to you. And we should question results and know basic statistics to comprehend what we see in front of us. But there is a reason why people hate statistics: there is much more to it than just running CORR function. To truly critique an experiment, you should have knowledge of design of experiment plus understanding of the area this experiment is conducted in. Even then you may run into the danger of not considering all the confounded effects and not understanding this experiment fully.

I have my Masters in Math, yet when I started designing statistical experiments where people are involved, I've made my fair share of mistakes. There are too many variables in the behavior of free individuals with complex biology. Much more than in behavior of confined rats fed the controlled feed. That's why Campbell uses epidemiological study model. How familiar are you, my friend, with this area of math, are you familiar enough to judge a peer-reviewed study that challenges many accepted notions, and that was diligently reviewed by the opponents in the scientific community?

My point is, educate yourself, and continue to question, just realize that statistics, esp without practice, esp in the area of biology, is a highly complicated area of science, and that your own understanding is likely to be further from the truth than that of a trained researcher. Just keep this in mind when you take on statistical analysis. I certainly do.

Now, may I suggest that most of us are jumping in this statistical analysis because we want to justify our own food choices and feel good about them? perhaps, tired of vegans around us preaching the message in a militant way? Or perhaps our own experience with plant based diet was not as healthy as we thought? There are many reasons why people reject the message of Dr. Campbell, but look at the root - are they political, first of all, and then are they statistical or anecdotal? I consider whatever happened to me as an anecdotal experience, the same as one visitor on popular anti-Campbell blogs, who wrote " I met a Chinese person, and he fed me a traditional meal made of pork. So much for your plant-based diet, Dr. Campbell." I mean, people, of course pure plant-based diet won't be right for everyone, of course there are Chinese who eat pork, this is not how we look at it from the point of view of statistical science.

About being an honest scientist:
Campbell writes:
"I suggest that those people who are so hostile to this message take another look at their reasoning. There is far more to this story than the interpretation of the scientific data alone. There are major issues of health care and health care costs, there are serious environmental issues that have not been adequately communicated to the public, and there are political, social and ethical issues that must be considered. Of most importance, there are people who deserve to hear this message—namely, the taxpayers who funded this work. For me to do anything less than to report on these findings is both immoral and unethical. In the current discussions about this issue, I
would urge that it is vitally important that all of us keep these ideas in mind, while being very careful not to promote ideas simply for the sake of defending one’s own personal preferences. I strongly believe that discussion of these issues focus outwardly for the sake of all of us, not just inwardly for the satisfaction of personal ego."
Don't forget also, that he did publish raw data from this experiment. Researchers just don't do it. especially industry funded ones who repeatedly find that more milk is good for your kids. Publishing that data was to me a sign of an honest scientist who invited further research and scientific debate. It's a sign of a grown up adult with courage, russianrocket.

Ok, I'm beginning to really really think that you did not read ANYTHING that was posted in response to the good Dr.
because almost everything you've brought up has been mentioned in one form or another.
Read.
The China Study vs the China study | The Blog of Michael R. Eades, M.D.

There is A LOT of information that he did not publish. He did not publish the majority of the raw data from his experiment. She asked him why he did not put up the information, and even said he should make another book with just that information. His response? He didn't have the time to even get the info and send it to her. Yet he had PLENTY of time to make a loooong response to her on the internet. I guess you also are agreeing with him that she was funded by the dairy industry, seeing how you mentioned something he said as well, huh

A sign of a grown up adult is for YOU to do your research on everything that has been posted, on AT LEAST this thread. That way we can have an actual debate.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by OKgirl

"Have you guys noticed that a lot of pro-Campbell posters on Minger's blog mostly use the flawed "appeal to authority" argument? Basically, "trust him, he's an expert." - You are free to trust his opponents who are of equal or lesser experience in the same area.

You wanna know what the big difference is? NON of the pro-Campbell posters have come and said WHY she is wrong. Yet, plenty of people are showing why Campbell is wrong. That's where my trust comes into play.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by OKgirl

Now, may I suggest that most of us are jumping in this statistical analysis not because we are really interested in stats, but because we want to justify our own food choices and feel good about them? Perhaps, tired of vegans around us preaching the message in a militant way? Or perhaps our own experience with plant based diet was not as healthy as we thought? There are many reasons why people reject the message of Dr. Campbell, but look at the root - are they political, first of all, and then are they statistical or anecdotal? I consider whatever happened to me as an anecdotal experience, the same as one visitor on popular anti-Campbell blogs, who wrote " I met a Chinese person, and he fed me a traditional meal made of pork. So much for your plant-based diet, Dr. Campbell." I mean, people, of course pure plant-based diet won't be right for everyone, of course there are Chinese who eat pork, this is not how we look at it from the point of view of statistical science.

You can say EXACTLY the same things towards every single pro Dr.Campbell people.
Just because you point out one stupid ( or funny) anti Campbell person, doesn't mean that we all feel that way. Or would you like me to point out all the idiot pro Campbell people, because some how that will make my argument better?

All Campbells research is, is an observational study. And all that the rebuttal to his research is, is MATH proving that HIS OWN NUMBERS are wrong.

[OKgirl]

Originally Posted by liamona

But don't forget, in the same experiment when the rats were given wheat protein, once lysine (the amino acid that wheat is low in) was added back to the rats' diet, it had the same effect as the casein.

And Dr. Colon conveniently left that part of the experiment out of his book.

Explain to me what's wrong with this result?
Abstract
The effect of the quality of dietary protein on the post-initiation development of aflatoxin B1-initiated putatively preneoplastic foci in Fischer 344 rat liver was compared with the effect of the quantity of dietary protein. Feeding wheat gluten, a low-quality protein, during the postinitiation period (between the end of aflatoxin B1 dosing and the death of the rats) inhibited the development of gamma-glutamyltransferase-positive foci when compared with that in animals fed high-quality protein (casein) diets during the same period. Lysine supplementation of wheat gluten during the postinitiation period enhanced the gamma-glutamyltransferase-positive response to a level comparable with that of the high-quality protein. These results suggest that one can inhibit the development of foci either by decreasing the quantity of protein intake and holding the quality of the protein constant or by decreasing the quality and holding the quantity constant.

My understanding is : Both reduction of amount of consumed animal protein, and keeping amount the same but replacing it with lower-quality protein (wheat gluten) suppressed the development (spread) of the cancer cells.

[russianrocket]

seriously. Read The China Study vs the China Study.

[OKgirl]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

You can say EXACTLY the same things towards every single pro Dr.Campbell people.
Just because you point out one stupid ( or funny) anti Campbell person, doesn't mean that we all feel that way. Or would you like me to point out all the idiot pro Campbell people, because some how that will make my argument better?

I do not compare every opponent of Dr. Campbell with the one I cited, this was purely an example of anecdotal experience, and there are as many in the camp of people who blindly follow Dr. Campbell. I would like everyone in this debate to realize the influence of their own anecdotal experience ( including my own as I stated) on their conclusion regarding the scientific work.

Whatever has confirmation in our personal experience or feels good to us because it justifies our own choice will be more readily accepted, this is a function of brain proven by the experiments.

What I am saying, is let's not substitute deep understanding of the major scientific research ( whoever research that is) with anecdotal evidence. Let's try to be objective even though it is hard by definition.

[OKgirl]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

seriously. Read The China Study vs the China Study.

I actually read part of it already.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by OKgirl

I actually read part of it already.

Gotta finish it all. It goes over many things being discussed here.

[OKgirl]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

Did you read his whole response, as well as her response to his response?

I'll mention one aspect of it tho. He essentially dismisses her information as wrong, because he considers her to young to have any clue of how to actually evaluate his information. Claims she is biased and that the dairy industry is funding her, and that because of her age, someone else must have done all the work for her. He also is essentially calling her a liar, saying that someone her age didn't just sit down in their "spare time" and it



time and time again, he belittles her. Having to bring up the cutesy way that she speaks ON HER BLOG, in order to discredit her.

Interesting, this is totally not how I perceived his response and not the basis of his major argument.

Kudos to Ms. Minger for having the interest, and taking the time, to do considerable analysis, and for describing her findings in readily accessible language. And kudos to her for being clear and admitting, right up front, that she is neither a statistician nor an epidemiologist, but an English major with a love for writing and an interest in nutrition.
We need more people with this kind of interest.I am the first to admit that background and academic credentials are certainly not everything, and many interesting discoveries and contributions have been made by "outsiders" or newcomers in various fields.

Then he speaks about biological plausibility as a cornerstone of understanding of data.

Unfortunately, this issue of biological plausibility too often escapes the attention of statisticians and epidemiologists, who are more familiar with 'number crunching' than with biological phenomena....

Then he goes about Denise giving too much importance to 1 piece of data and not the other 17:

Most importantly, I cannot emphasize enough that the findings from the China project,standing alone, do not solely determine my final views expressed in the book. That’s why only one chapter of 18 was devoted to the China survey project, which is only one link in a chain of experimental approaches. I was simply asking the question whether there were biologically plausible data in the China database to support the findings gained in our laboratory, among others.....

It was the combination of these various lines of inquiry that made so compelling the larger story told in the book, at least for me. Denise mostly ignores these fundamental but highly consistent parts of my story. In that vein, I strongly believe that the findings of no single study in biology or even a group of similar studies should be taken too seriously until context is established. Biology is not for engineers and number crunchers, as important as they may be, because, compared to their systems, biological
response is much more complex and dynamic.

I re-read his response again, and did not find anything that could belittle Denise's work. I found a respectful, detailed response by a major scientist to a person questioning his data. Pointing out flaws and their possible reasons such as not looking at the experiment with the idea of bio plausibility is fair in my eyes.

[Brutha]

They should be completely accustomed to it as their main source of energy for millions of years.

I would think that they main source would rather be plants, do you have a quote for the claim that it's meat?

Besides, it is a standard practice to experiment on rats for their short lifecycle and similar biological response, otherwise just like there would be no results of Dr. Campbell's research, there would be no drugs and treatments of many human health conditions.

The fact that it's convinced or standard practice doesn't in any way suggest that the practice produces a truthful conclusions.
Reasoning isn't about "being fair" it's about "being right".

However when you want to release a new medicament you do animal studies as a first test of validity. Once they are successful you try the medicament at humans. Most of the time it doesn't really work on human but when it does you hit gold.

If you read the response of Dr. Campbell, he explains basic practices and expectations accepted in biological science.

He doesn't, at least not the kind of stuff they taught me in university about medical statistics and about biological science. I'm studying bioinformatics, so it's kind of my subject to understand the statistics that the average biologist or doctor doesn't understand and to understand the biology that the average statistician doesn't understand.

[liamona]

It's a humongous 36-page PDF file that unfortunately I'll have to read in small chunks when I get the time to, since I have relatives visiting from out-of-town! But y'all go on ahead and enjoy it:

“The China Study”: A Formal Analysis and Response

In her post, Minger says:

And before anyone gets their knickers in a knot, listen up: Every time I employed a univariate correlation, it was because Campbell had done so first, under the same circumstances. Every. Time.

So far no one has any evidence that she didn't do so. I've been waiting for the 30 Bananas crew to come up with something in favor of Dr. Colon besides appeals to his "authority," but I think I'll be waiting a long time since they're just now learning how to set up all the data in Excel...lol.

[Brutha]

So far no one has any evidence that she didn't do so. I've been waiting for the 30 Bananas crew to come up with something in favor of Dr. Colon besides appeals to his "authority," but I think I'll be waiting a long time since they're just now learning how to set up all the data in Excel...lol.

They still hand pick their correlations but at least it will raise the standard of the debate when they actually *gasp* deal with numbers.
In their favor they at least try to get the people to use R instead of Excel.

Throwing R scripts at each other could be great for those natural health blogs. I can only dream