There is now a GROUP specially designed to discuss critiques of "The China Study", join up and share!
Denise Minger of "rawfood sos" has made the following assessment of The China Study.
(It's important to note that as far as the following comment goes it's easy to assume that Denise is not vegan. This fact no doubt will affect the angle of which one takes in assessing a study concluding that a low fat vegan diet is the optimal diet).
"I think that as public interest grows in free-range animal products (which, from what I can tell, it slowly but surely is), we’ll see more opportunities for purchasing high-quality animal products at reasonable prices. It’s unfortunate that so many healthy foods are something reserved for the wealthy right now. Someone’s ability to thrive and enjoy great health shouldn’t have a lick to do with what’s in their bank account."
From Denise's blog...
"An exhaustive analysis of the raw data from the China Project by
educator and freelance writer Denise Minger [41] shows that Campbellfailed to take into account other disease-causing variables (increased
Hepatitis B and schistosomiasis infection and rates, industrial work
hazards, etc.) that tend to cluster in higher-cholesterol counties in
the China Study. Campbell also omitted data showing a higher
correlation between wheat flour intake and many diseases (notably
coronary heart disease, cervical cancer, hypertension and stroke) than
with animal protein intake."
Feel free to share the rest of Denise's assessment here..
Seeing we recommend this book as a brilliant resource, we would like to discuss these claims further.
Please read the following excerpt from the Rebuttal Colin T Campbell wrote in 2006. Obviously he has had similar dealings with people misinterpreting the raw data.
"For the monograph, we were somewhat uncertain whether to publish such raw data but decided to do so for two principle reasons. First, we wanted to make these data available to other researchers, while hoping that data misuse would not be a significant problem. Second, because these data were collected in rural China at a time when data reliability might have been questioned, we chose to be as transparent as possible. We discussed data use and misuse on pp. 54-82 of the China Project monograph that curiously was overlooked by Masterjohn and Jay'Y'."
Here is the full rebuttal from Dr Colin Campbell in response to similar assessment's of
The China Study..follow this link
Fortunately on 30BaD we have a Cancer Epidemiologist who can read statistics correctly, please read her findings on Denise's claims...
OH MY. By request of beautiful Freelea, I've taken a look at Denise's analysis. I'm an epidemiologist, and on top of that my research focuses on cancer (not that this makes me completely infallible, but at least I feel equipped to provide an informed critique of her statistical capability). Dr. Campbell was certainly gracious in his response to criticism, but I cannot be so kind. Denise is incredibly naive in her crude analysis of the raw data. She uses correlations and ecologic comparisons to draw conclusions about relationships between diet and outcome (cancer, cardiovascular disease, etc.). WRONG WRONG WRONG!!
A correlation does not an association make.
And, as epidemiologists, our studies are intended to determine associations between exposures and disease. (Yes, there are special methods to determine actual causes of disease, but for most of us, associations will do.) See point 1 below for more on this.
Denise, while meticulous, went through a series of exercises only to:
1) Provide a series of correlations, which honestly, is just the FIRST STEP of any good statistical analysis. Let me explain in a nutshell - a correlation is a linear (assumes a "straight-line" relationship - but not all things are related in this manner), unadjusted (does not account for multiple factors that could potentially confound the relationship between an exposure, like diet, and outcome, like cancer), and non-directional (it does not say if one caused the other or the other way around). An association, on the other hand, is generally adjusted for potential confounding factors and - if a study is properly conducted - gives us an idea of temporality or direction. While we certainly look at correlations between all factors (i.e. between the exposure, potential confounding factors, and the outcome), typically more complex modeling of the data ensues so that multiple factors can be accounted for when investigating the relationship between an exposure and the outcome.
2) Much of her conclusions are drawn from purely ecologic data - that is, data that is in aggregate - such as evaluating total cholesterol and colorectal cancer (as Denise does). Sure, it can be informative, but it doesn't tell us anything about some of the other factors that might be related to cholesterol and colorectal cancer. And while she does perform a stratified analysis (stratifying on schistomiasis), which is a form of "adjustment for confounding"), it still does not take into account other possible confounders and still only tells us about general patterns, but nothing of individual-level associations. Furthermore, she doesn't present results for regions with schistomiasis. What if there was also little correlation between cholesterol and colorectal cancer in these regions? There might be other factors unaccounted for.
Ecologic studies are considered to be at the bottom of the "epidemiologic study totem pole." And we can NOT draw individual-level conclusions from them, i.e. we cannot say that an individual who consumes less fat will, on average, be protected from breast cancer (even if that's true, we cannot draw this conclusion from an ecologic study - there's even a term for it: "ecologic fallacy").
OK, my disclaimer: I'm an epidemiologist, and yes, scientists are NOT objective (I'll say it: I'm an ardent veggie with a happy veggie family). Hell, science is not objective. I mean, you could be given a blob of numbers that mean nothing. It takes some context, interpretation, and data processing to make anything meaningful out of those numbers. Yes, scientists can be biased, and so can the studies they conduct, and the analysis of those studies. But good scientists do the best they can, are open about their methods, and fair when discussing their results. I applaud Dr. Campbell for making his raw data available - very few scientists do this. I will be totally honest and say I have not read "The China Study" (I guess I feel it'd just be preaching to the choir, but I think I will read it now...). But I know enough to know that Denise's analysis was crude at best and completely wrong at worst. No card-carrying epidemiologist would EVER be able to publish her results and draw the conclusions that she does.
I've posted the following comment on Denise's blog (which, was there for a few minutes, and now when I go back to the site, it is mysteriously not there anymore...):
Your analysis is completely OVER-SIMPLIFIED. Every good epidemiologist/statistician will tell you that a correlation does NOT equal an association. By running a series of correlations, you’ve merely pointed out linear, non-directional, and unadjusted relationships between two factors. I suggest you pick up a basic biostatistics book, download a free copy of “R” (an open-source statistical software program), and learn how to analyze data properly. I’m a PhD cancer epidemiologist, and would be happy to help you do this properly. While I’m impressed by your crude, and – at best – preliminary analyses, it is quite irresponsible of you to draw conclusions based on these results alone. At the very least, you need to model the data using regression analyses so that you can account for multiple factors at one time.
** Updated to include an example from Denise's analysis rather than my original example of fat consumption and breast cancer.
A correlation does not an association make.
And, as epidemiologists, our studies are intended to determine associations between exposures and disease. (Yes, there are special methods to determine actual causes of disease, but for most of us, associations will do.) See point 1 below for more on this.
Denise, while meticulous, went through a series of exercises only to:
1) Provide a series of correlations, which honestly, is just the FIRST STEP of any good statistical analysis. Let me explain in a nutshell - a correlation is a linear (assumes a "straight-line" relationship - but not all things are related in this manner), unadjusted (does not account for multiple factors that could potentially confound the relationship between an exposure, like diet, and outcome, like cancer), and non-directional (it does not say if one caused the other or the other way around). An association, on the other hand, is generally adjusted for potential confounding factors and - if a study is properly conducted - gives us an idea of temporality or direction. While we certainly look at correlations between all factors (i.e. between the exposure, potential confounding factors, and the outcome), typically more complex modeling of the data ensues so that multiple factors can be accounted for when investigating the relationship between an exposure and the outcome.
2) Much of her conclusions are drawn from purely ecologic data - that is, data that is in aggregate - such as evaluating total cholesterol and colorectal cancer (as Denise does). Sure, it can be informative, but it doesn't tell us anything about some of the other factors that might be related to cholesterol and colorectal cancer. And while she does perform a stratified analysis (stratifying on schistomiasis), which is a form of "adjustment for confounding"), it still does not take into account other possible confounders and still only tells us about general patterns, but nothing of individual-level associations. Furthermore, she doesn't present results for regions with schistomiasis. What if there was also little correlation between cholesterol and colorectal cancer in these regions? There might be other factors unaccounted for.
Ecologic studies are considered to be at the bottom of the "epidemiologic study totem pole." And we can NOT draw individual-level conclusions from them, i.e. we cannot say that an individual who consumes less fat will, on average, be protected from breast cancer (even if that's true, we cannot draw this conclusion from an ecologic study - there's even a term for it: "ecologic fallacy").
OK, my disclaimer: I'm an epidemiologist, and yes, scientists are NOT objective (I'll say it: I'm an ardent veggie with a happy veggie family). Hell, science is not objective. I mean, you could be given a blob of numbers that mean nothing. It takes some context, interpretation, and data processing to make anything meaningful out of those numbers. Yes, scientists can be biased, and so can the studies they conduct, and the analysis of those studies. But good scientists do the best they can, are open about their methods, and fair when discussing their results. I applaud Dr. Campbell for making his raw data available - very few scientists do this. I will be totally honest and say I have not read "The China Study" (I guess I feel it'd just be preaching to the choir, but I think I will read it now...). But I know enough to know that Denise's analysis was crude at best and completely wrong at worst. No card-carrying epidemiologist would EVER be able to publish her results and draw the conclusions that she does.
I've posted the following comment on Denise's blog (which, was there for a few minutes, and now when I go back to the site, it is mysteriously not there anymore...):
Your analysis is completely OVER-SIMPLIFIED. Every good epidemiologist/statistician will tell you that a correlation does NOT equal an association. By running a series of correlations, you’ve merely pointed out linear, non-directional, and unadjusted relationships between two factors. I suggest you pick up a basic biostatistics book, download a free copy of “R” (an open-source statistical software program), and learn how to analyze data properly. I’m a PhD cancer epidemiologist, and would be happy to help you do this properly. While I’m impressed by your crude, and – at best – preliminary analyses, it is quite irresponsible of you to draw conclusions based on these results alone. At the very least, you need to model the data using regression analyses so that you can account for multiple factors at one time.
** Updated to include an example from Denise's analysis rather than my original example of fat consumption and breast cancer.
I just realized that there's still some trail left about "fat consumption and breast cancer". I should clarify. Denise looked at cholesterol level in each Chinese county and the corresponding incidence rates of colorectal cancer in that region (this is what makes it "ecologic" - each dot represents a county). But the statement still stands - we can't make individual-level conclusions about cholesterol, colorectal cancer, and schistomiasis.
I also just want to add that when she refers to "statistical significance", all that's being tested is the "null hypothesis" that there is no correlation (i.e. correlation = 0). it is not testing whether an exposure is or is not arisk factor for the outcome, even though Denise uses this term loosely.
I also just want to add that when she refers to "statistical significance", all that's being tested is the "null hypothesis" that there is no correlation (i.e. correlation = 0). it is not testing whether an exposure is or is not arisk factor for the outcome, even though Denise uses this term loosely.
From forum member B...
A brief perusal through these two China Study critiques below (Colpo's and Masterjohn's) shows that they have already gone over much of the data in the China Project monograph which Denise covers. Campbell already addressed these inFreelee's post, saying they're taking uncorrected raw data out of context and making their own conclusions. It makes me wonder if Denise might have saved herself some time by reading them first.
Here's Colpo's:
http://www.anthonycolpo.com/the_china_study.html
Here's Chris Masterjohn, the WAPF golden boy.
http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/China-Study.html
To put into context this is what this guy is about (note the images of fried egg and sausages at the top of his website):
Cholesterol is a health-promoting substance…Some of the most nutritious foods like egg yolks and liver are also the foods richest in cholesterol. The anti-fat, anti-cholesterol campaign has demonized these foods for decades without any evidence they cause disease. To the contrary, they promote health.
um yeah.
Here's Colpo's:
http://www.anthonycolpo.com/the_china_study.html
Here's Chris Masterjohn, the WAPF golden boy.
http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/China-Study.html
To put into context this is what this guy is about (note the images of fried egg and sausages at the top of his website):
Cholesterol is a health-promoting substance…Some of the most nutritious foods like egg yolks and liver are also the foods richest in cholesterol. The anti-fat, anti-cholesterol campaign has demonized these foods for decades without any evidence they cause disease. To the contrary, they promote health.
um yeah.
Replies
Youve just came in and shared your view and thats fine but there is more to the story than you know.
Please deal with your issues with DR privately, email him if you REALLY want to hear his views on the matter or if you must, start another thread. You seem to be taking his posts personally, leave what you don't like and take the rest, remember you are on HIS forum so you are likely to come across his opinions on things quite often. Even I don't always agree with DR's opinion on things but I choose not to take it personally.
This thread is dealing with serious implications in relation to The China Study.
Denise is a public persona in the raw food online world. Her website is rawfoodsos.com which implies that she helps others when they cannot make the raw food diet work. She clearly believes in raw food because even as she eats animal products, she's still raw or that's what it seems like. She's too invested already in raw food to abandon it even though the way she eats raw may not be satisfying her.
She also seems to like Audrey Hepburn - who was a very thin beautiful woman who does not seem very athletic. I like Audrey Hepburn too, but I wonder if for Denise the idea of downing 1 watermelon just for lunch may not fit in her world view of how (a dainty woman) she wants to live her life. The pregnant belly after meals may not be the image that she wants for herself. I'm just guessing here, so it's unfortunate that Denise likely will not reply for herself. If this is what she believes then she won't be the first woman to feel this way about eating a ton of fruit per day. Probably every woman on this site was shocked at the thought of eating an entire watermelon at first because it does not agree with how we're socialized and brought up to think.
Even though I've been mostly 811rv for almost 2 years (except for the days I fell off the wagon ... ouch ;) ...), I didn't really understand DR and Feelee's message about the importance of eating 3000 calories because I thought I had to be athletic first before I could eat that much. It finally sunk in that eating 3000 calories first will lead to being fit regardless of one's athletic ability.
I'm just starting on this high fruit eating path and I hope to see the results that others have seen. But I think I stopped caring about what people think of my pregnant fruit filled belly and maybe Denise hasn't? Eating animal products allows her to eat calorie dense foods that take up less volume in the stomach. She may have found out about the Tuoli who ate mostly dairy and meat, but are still healthy ( However, I wonder if their meat was raw? ) and wanted to justify her raw animal product consumption using this contradiction to the China study.
When she started to look into the data further she may have made some premature conclusions (based on veganmama's analysis of her findings) on other problems with the China Study without first verifying her findings with an expert on statistics or on scientific studies. To me it sounds like an attempt to justify her own dietary changes and keep up with her online persona.
I respect Dr Graham when he says that he tried to work out the details of his diet for 20 years before he went public with it. I know 811rvs who are on year 2 or 3 of the diet and still working out some kinks. We're all learning together here and we'll make mistakes along the way. And it seems like making this diet work involves abandoning some of our past beliefs. One common belief that we all shared in the beginning is eating a high quantity (size/volume) of food = gluttony. We may not be anorexic in the traditional sense where we're trying to starve ourselves until we look like a skeleton, but we are willing to give up getting the necessary nutrients that our body needs because we're more concerned with food quantity and calories than we are with sound nutrition. We are also trained to be concerned with appearances and what others think of our diet. I've said this before, and not to repeat myself, but Morgan Spurlock in Supersize Me shows us that you can eat as many empty calories of junk food as your stomach can handle, but your body will still be hungry for the necessary nutrients that it needs to thrive and survive.
I hope everyone here continues to thrive. I appreciate what I've learned from this forum and I'm looking forward to continued learning and sharing. My knowledge on this diet and lifestyle changes with time. I may look back at my old posts and disagree with some of the things I wrote, but I believe that I am willing to apologize and admit I was wrong. I feel bad for Denise if she's just trying to find a way to justify her current diet to her blog audience. It's tough being a self-proclaimed expert. It's a lot easier to be a student because then it's okay to make mistakes.
imho, you show both insight and kindness in your post.
may such be recognized beyond the realm of 30bad as well.
in friendship,
prad
I agree I got the same feeling from Denise. I am still yet to be convinced why someone who thinks of meat and eggs as "health food" would want to be active on a vegan forum. (comment in posted in discussion header above) Ulterior motives? Highly probable, doesn't mean she isn't a nice person (which she appears to be). Just like Suha said above it's possible Denise is just trying to find a way to justify her current diet to her blog audience.
I actually did a search on google and this conversation and the new group is gaining a lot of attention.
Go to bed like Buddha, wake up like Ghandi. :)
Go to bed like Buddha, wake up like Ghandi.
whom do you prefer to be?
I only know of Denise through this website, so you have a lot more context than I do, but she has seemed to me to be unhappy here for some time, just a sense that I got.
So her leaving 30BAD hasn't been a surprise to me. In any case, leaving under the umbrella of her controversial "rebuttal" of the China Study certainly has given Denise a lot of attention and a 30BAD "afterlife", lol. Which may have been the point.
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
of 16 Next