For those of you who’ve arrived here on a quest for China Study information, welcome! Although the main focus of this site is raw foods, I realize that some visitors may be solely interested in China Study posts and not want to wade through other entries in search of them.
To make it easier to find what you’re looking for, here are the links to all the China Study posts I have on Raw Food SOS:
The China Study: Fact or Fallacy? (My lengthy critique of “The China Study” by T. Colin Campbell.)
The China Study: My Response to Campbell (My lengthy response to Campbell’s less-lengthy response to my aforementioned lengthy critique.)
The China Study: A Formal Analysis and Response (A referenced, uber-long, and cleaned-up collection of all my criticisms pertaining to “The China Study”—more academic and less colloquial, for anyone who prefers the former.)
Tuoli: China’s Mysterious Milk Drinkers (Information on the health of a Chinese county that eats nearly two pounds of dairy, ample fat, and 134 grams of animal protein per day.)
A Closer Look at the China Study: Meat and Disease (Associations the “meat” variable has with various diseases in China.)
A Closer Look at the China Study: Fish and Disease (Associations the “fish” variable has with various diseases in China.)
A Closer Look at the China Study: Eggs and Disease (Associations the “eggs” variable has with various diseases in China.)
A Closer Look at the China Study: Dairy and Disease (Associations the “dairy” variable has with various diseases in China.)
[...] her 9000+ word summary conclusion. And if you want even more detailed analysis, take a look at the complete series of articles she’s posted over the past month as she’s dissected both the raw data and the famed [...]
[...] Meta link: The China Study [...]
[...] Meta link: The China Study [...]
[...] word summary conclusion. And if you want even more detailed analysis, take a look at the complete series of articles she’s posted over the past month as she’s dissected both the raw data and the famed [...]
This is curious to me. I keep thinking why would someone write a book that could be discredited so easily and tarnish their own credibility?
cda, I’m also curious. What about this analysis by Ms. Minger makes you think it was easy?
LynneC, not that it was ‘easy’, wrong word, but that it ‘could be’ discredited.
I know someone that is meeting with Mr. Campbell in a few weeks and will be discussing this with him.
something interesting, maybe ..
http://www.jaqm.ro/issues/volume-3,issue-1/pdfs/herteliu.pdf
[...] I would leave it to others to comment on the study design and the statistical analysis, and now someone has done just that. Denise Minger devoted a month and a half to examining the raw data to see how closely [...]
This goes out to all of you who think China Study is wrong in any way.Prove it to your self.All you have to do is eliminate MEAT and DAIRY from your diet for a month and see what happens.You can not injure your self with this in any way,but the benefit may be what you are looking for.I dare you.If you don’t than shut up as you have no clue what you are talking about.
My self.Vegan for a year now and counting.After a life of feeling like crap and being overweight most of my adult years even on Weston Price diet I am feeling and looking better than ever.Results speak for them selves.Denise you may even cure your allergy.
I DARE YOU TO TRY IT.
Hmm, I wonder if Branko cured some long standing allergies by eliminating some foods. Cause and effect. Correlation mistaken for cause? I don’t know. Who does?
@Branko Personal anecdotes are just that, anecdotes. Just because you feel better by following a Vegan diet proves nothing about its suitability to everyone.
Have you ever considered what you might be experiencing could be a placebo effect, since Veganism is not just a diet, it’s an ideology to which its adherents commit a lot of personal expectations?
[...] Medicine The China Study Revisited: New Analysis of Raw Data Doesn?t Support Vegetarian Ideology The China Study Raw Food SOS: Troubleshooting on the Raw Food Diet [...]
After reading the China Study book I found it to make sense, you can do a small graph (leaving out crucial data) but Dr Campbell’s study went for years! Just look around at all the diseases…far out even an idiot can work out that our diet is making us sick. I stopped eating meat 6 months ago (not because of book) but for a healthier option. Let people make up their own minds. The worst effect of people reading the “China Study” is they would become healthier and therefore probably live longer!
Basic biochemistry from early in the evolutionary milieu – carbohydrates drive insulin, insulin drives fat storage. Recent past 40 years of history, USA, diabetes type 2 increases 400% along with accompanying overweight and obesity. Same period, USA, carbohydrate consumption rises from 40% of total calories to 60% on the advice of experts and government officials. I see a correlation here, don’t you? Too bad the big money has steered far away from running the studies needed to settle as to a cause and effect. But, over a billion was spent to prove that fat causes the non-infectious diseases. Bring out the lead bell please. A billion wasted – no correlation even! Right on Denise.
interesting site, you are a beautiful girl, but I wonder how you got to slice up the data on the China study without the credentials? I’ll keep checking your blog (it’s very interesting) but not sure why i should trust you more than campbell…
What has being a beautiful girl got to do with having the ability to take raw data and put meaningful analysis to it? Just because you have a few letters after your name doesn’t give you credentials. It proves you are able to pass many years worth of rote learning and indoctrination. Do these “credentials” give you the ability to think critically? Invariably, no.
If you bothered to read Denise’s paper with a critical eye, you will notice the real point of what she has uncovered and that is that Campbell has been cooking the books so to speak. Denise has pointed out to the rest of us who wouldn’t be bothered reading all the numbers, that Campbell has made assumptions and statements as truth that aren’t supported by the raw data. He also appears to have made statements on data that isn’t even in the China Study!
To me Denise has the credentials simply because she loves numbers, obviously highly intelligent. She has demonstrated that she is wiling to be corrected and can take constructive criticism without resorting to “play the man, not the ball” tactics.
There are many experts in the world, how many of them are doing it for the love of the result, rather then notoriety or power?
gawd help us if we leave the analysis of these things to the “properly educated, properly credentialed” school-trained of our modern world (anyone heard of the medical prof at harvard teaching students while on the take from no less than 10 big pharma companies?…)
kudos and double kudos to you Denise for using your abundant curiosity and intelligence for this – you have served your fellow humans well!