Campbell used simple univariate correlations to justify his arguments while ignoring simple univariate correlations and more advanced analyses that disputed his arguments. In the past he claimed it was because he was using “corrected” or “adjusted” correlations while claiming that his critics did not. Campbell’s defenders claimed he used more advanced multivariate analyses than his critics. Denise went through and showed that his “corrected” correlations were the just the same simple univariate correlations.

It turns out of course, Campbell invented a whole new “holistic” science that enables him to cherry-pick the simple univariate correlations he likes and disregard the ones he doesn’t. He published these arguments in a book because he could not make these same arguments in a peer-reviewed science journal. He in fact has lamented the fact that modern “reductionist” science doesn’t appreciate his new holistic science.

This is from Campbell’s “Primer on Statistics” where he details how his new ‘holistic science’ works:

“In summary, I agree that using univariate correlations of population databases should not be used to infer causality, when one adheres to the reductionist philosophy of nutritional biology and/or when one ignores or does not have prior evidence of biological plausibility beforehand. In this case, these correlations can only be used to generate hypotheses for further investigation, that is, to establish biological plausibility. If in contrast, we start with explanatory models that represent the inherent complexity of nutrition and is accompanied by biological plausibility, then it is fair to look for supportive evidence among a collection of correlations…”

He is saying because “meat is bad” sounds like a groovy idea to his scientifically trained brain, then he is free to pick all the simple univariate correlations he likes as evidence while disregarding the ones he doesn’t like. Apparently even when the ones he doesn’t like include more advance multivariate analyses and confounder analysis.

This just doesn’t fly in real science journals. Does it fly with you, Anon?

So Campbell published a book, and Denise pointed out the flaws in this book. Then everybody in the world that has bug up their ass about meat all of a sudden starts talking about Campbell’s scientific credentials. Why don’t we talk about Campbell’s new holistic science instead?

“I also know that critics like her would like nothing better than to get me to spend all my time answering detailed questions, but I simply will not do this.”

Yet in your ‘response’ you still flamed him over being too vague or not taking the time to peruse over his journals just to provide you with additional data.

Additionally, you quoted what he had said about Tuoli, and criticized him for not including any data dairy on dairy consumption:

“I’m glad Campbell pointed this out (and I’ll be updating the Tuoli page to reflect it), but meat was not the component I found notable with the Tuoli diet: dairy was.”

When literally right above the Tuoli meat statement he addressed the dairy issue:

“She also makes big issues out of some matters that we had no intent to include because we knew well certain limitations with the data. For example, only 3 counties (of the 65) consumed dairy and the kind of dairy consumed (much of it very hard sun-dried cheese) was much different from dairy in the West. It makes no sense to do that kind of analysis and we did none,”

It’s dishonest and misleading to openly criticize someone for not addressing something that they clearly addressed literally a sentence before the quote you posted on Tuoli’s meat consumption and use that to suggest that he’s somehow being deceitful. You even take it further by implying that since the Tuoli consume dairy on a regular basis and are healthy that Campbell’s methods are questionable, when this is blatantly ignoring his response. The dairy consumption in Tuoli is drastically different than here in the states, and is therefore statistically irrelevant (and is why it wasn’t included).

I agree with Dr. Campbell that it is puzzling that someone with no formal education on the subject can somehow find enough “spare time” to collect, tabulate, and analyze over 20 years of research (yes, the China study was conducted over a span of 20 years) and tout that his research findings were false. Even for a self-proclaimed “super-nerd”, it’s a bit of a stretch that someone who “bounced around between science majors” so you could “feed your brain” (from your “about me” section) before settling on an English major could have taken enough upper-division science courses to challenge the research methods of a post-doc researcher with 40+ years under his belt. Especially considering you’re only 23. I live in AZ, and NAU programs aren’t that rigorous, if you had taken a significant amount of science courses or participated in scientific research then you would’ve at least walked away with a minor.

In your blog you discuss your thoughts on formal education as largely “unnecessary” for someone with the drive/initiative to learn on their own; unless they’re learning dentistry, or surgery since it’s more “hands on”. Scientific research falls into this category, in order to know what you’re doing you need to spend some time doing hands-on research. Simply taking honors math and majoring in English doesn’t mean you’re qualified to analyze and interpret scientific research findings.

Having a silver tongue and a proficiency in mathematics doesn’t equate to being a scientist. This is something I wish the general public understood, and explains why so many people jump on the bandwagon of “scientists are stupid hurr, they have no proof! Qualitative research is meaningless! blah blah blah”

Evolutionary evidence for example, isn’t just quantitative; it’s largely qualitative, and began as being ONLY qualitative. Yet this is one of the most fundamental truths of our existence. Like Dr. Campbell stated in his response, by focusing on nit-picking every little inconsistency to disprove a claim you miss over-arching themes and messages. This is the mark of the inexperienced, and it shows when you limit your criticism to being solely on mathematical inconsistencies.

ahem,

U MAD

Thank you for your work, Denise. I appreciate it.