The China Study: More Vegan Nonsense!
Anthony Colpo | Sunday, July 11th, 2010 | Comments Off
Anthony Colpo,
September 2, 2007.
I have read a lot of truly awful health and diet books in my time, but without question, one of the very worst was The China Study by T. Colin Campbell. Never have I read a book so audaciously misleading, one whose author pontificates so vigorously about the importance of the scientific method but then unabashedly proceeds to write page after page of scientifically untenable garbage [Anthony's note, July 11, 2010: since penning this in 2007, Dr. Michael Eades, co-author of Protein Power, has emerged as a strong contender against Campbell for the title of biggest BSer in the diet industry. Like Campbell, Eades' ability to spout misleading, self contradictory nonsense is boundless].
I read Campbell’s The China Study in early 2006. Given my extremely low tolerance for BS, it was a painful endeavor, but I soldiered through, shaking my head in both amazement and disgust the whole time. After I finished the book, I proceeded to place a lengthy critique of it on May 17, 2006 at my old web site, TheOmnivore.com.
This critique was extremely well received by readers. In fact, one reader was so enamored with it he decided to reprint the entire article in the reviews section on Amazon’s listing page for Campbell’s book. This reader posted the review under the nickname’JayY’; there was no mention of myself as the author of the article (more about this in a minute).
I was not the first writer to lambast Campbell’s book. Several others had already done so, including a Weston A. Price Foundation member by the name of Chris Masterjohn.
Recently, I was alerted to a ‘rebuttal‘ by T. Colin Campbell at a web site called VegSource.com, in which he attacked the reviews of both Masterjohn and ‘JayY’. Of course, when attacking the latter, he was actually attacking yours truly.
Campbell devotes most of his rebuttal to what essentially amounts to an ad hominem attack on Masterjohn, deriding both Masterjohn and the Weston A. Price Foundation to which he belongs. As for my review, incorrectly attributed to JayY, here’s what Campbell had to say:
“Then there is the anonymous and enigmatic ‘JayY’ who is vigorously submitting a Masterjohn/Fallon look-alike commentary to counter many of the positive reviews on Amazon.com. He says, “I’ve never sat on a government advisory panel, never attended even a single university lecture, and cannot yet boast of having the same volume of published literature as Campbell, but I’m smart enough to know most of the claims made in his book are utter rubbish.” Oh, that all of us might be so fortunate! I can’t help but wonder whether he is advocating the abolition of universities for, in his case, he became unusually intelligent without such training! Further on, he adds, “Within minutes of beginning his book, even the dullest reader will quickly realize that Campbell is on a zealous mission against animal protein, which he believes to be public health enemy number one.” No, this is not my choice for public enemy number one. Rather, I am now wondering whether overzealous, arrogant but untrained critics are a more serious threat.”
In response to Campbell’s rantings, Masterjohn has written a 3,500 word counter-response. I say good luck to Masterjohn, but personally, I won’t be wasting my time crafting such a lengthy rebuttal, and here’s why:
Campbell has not refuted a single point I made in my article. Not one.
Instead, he makes some lame cheap shot about my review being a Masterjohn/Fallon “look-alike commentary”. If Campbell had actually read the various reviews he would have noticed that my review is anything but a rehash of what had already been written – I raised several points that others hadn’t. Of course, given the extremely questionable research skills already displayed by Campbell, his comment comes as little surprise.
He then proceeds with some rather impotent remarks that also do nothing whatsoever to explain why he wrote the misleading rot that comprises so much of The China Study.
- Why did Campbell repeatedly claim in his book that The China Study demonstrates the value of a low-protein, low-animal fat diet when the actual data from the study show absolutely no such thing?Campbell evidently wishes to re-write history, as much of his rebuttal is dedicated to backing away from his earlier overriding claims. However, the claims he makes for the China Study are there for all to see in his own book. For example, on page 7, he writes that data from the China Study showed that:
“People who ate the most animal-based foods got the most chronic disease. . . . People who ate the most plant-based foods were the healthiest and tended to avoid chronic disease.”
Again, Campbell wrote that – not me. If he is now upset that people are citing something he himself said, then he shouldn’t have said it in the first place.
- Why does Campbell dump on protein incessantly but fail to mention the research demonstrating the great potential value of whey protein? If he is the protein expert he repeatedly portrays himself to be, he should be well aware of this research.
- Why did Campbell claim that Dr Lester Morrison’s successful heart disease trial showed the value of a low-protein diet, when the participants did not eat a low-protein diet? Morrison himself described it as a high-protein diet!
- Why did Campbell claim that “There are virtually no nutrients in animal-based foods that are not better provided by plants.”? As my article clearly explains, this claim is so absurd as to be laughable.
Campbell’s response to these claims is…no response. He appears to be lost for words; except of course, when it comes to personally belittling the qualifications of Masterjohn and myself.
You know, I’m all for a good scorch when the person truly deserves it, and have been known to let loose with a bit of unbridled flaming myself on occasion. But when people cannot justify their venom with actual scientific facts, then what they are really telling the world is that they have no answer for the criticisms. If all you can do is attempt to shoot the messenger, instead of explaining in a clear and concise manner just why his message is wrong, then your game is truly transparent, at least to those with any meaningful degree of intelligence and perceptiveness.
For Campbell’s edification, I am in possession of the most important qualification of all: A fully functioning, objective, reasoning brain. It is this qualification, not years of struggling to stay awake during university lectures filled with questionable content, that allows me to see straight through the writings of folks like Campbell.
I will make some quick comments, then reprint my original critique. I wholeheartedly urge readers to read my review, then read Campbell’s attempted rebuttal. Readers can then decide for themselves who is basing their argument on solid science, and who is relying on fantasy-based dogma.
Campbell’s Latest Claims
Campbell writes: “I can’t help but wonder whether he is advocating the abolition of universities for, in his case, he became unusually intelligent without such training!”
No, I’m not calling for the abolishment of universities, and never have. However, I would dearly love to see our current farce of an education system overhauled so that there is a much greater emphasis on developing the essential cognitive skills of reason, logic, and objective analysis. If this were to happen, then people would be far less likely to be duped in the first instance by the kind of scientifically untenable bollocks found in books like The China Study.
Despite sledging protein at every possible opportunity in his book, Campbell now complains that:
“[protein] is not my choice for public enemy number one. Rather, I am now wondering whether overzealous, arrogant but untrained critics are a more serious threat.”
In other words, Campbell doesn’t really consider protein as public enemy number one – that status is now reserved for people who are capable of highlighting just how misleading his writings really are!
Campbell further claims that Masterjohn and I demonstrated “a serious lack of understanding not only of the fundamentals of scientific research but also of the principles of statistics, epidemiology and nutrition,” by “superficially citing uncorrected crude correlations” in order “to reflect an alternative agenda or bias that has nothing to do with objective science.”
This, coming from a guy who has totally misrepresented the data from the original China Study monograph to make erroneous claim after claim in his popular book version.
Campbell whines that Masterjohn and I used “uncorrected crude correlations”, but he was more than happy to cite these correlations in his own book. I guess the use of these uncorrected correlations becomes unacceptable only when others use them to destroy his untenable claims.
By the way, if Campbell had corrected correlations available, then where the heck were they? If they were publicly available I would have been more than happy to use them. However, neither Campbell’s book, the original China Study monograph, nor his rebuttal contain any such ‘corrected’ correlations.
As for casting aspersions on my motives, Campbell might be able to dubiously use the Weston A. Price Foundation angle against Masterjohn, but it won’t work against me. After all, I am not and never have been a member of the Weston A. Price Foundation, nor any other ‘foundation’, ‘institute’, or ‘organization’. Being a staunchly independent individual, I have a strong aversion to joining such organizations – in my observation, they tend to encourage the phenomenon of groupthink. In order to fit in and be accepted by the group, individuals start thinking, talking and acting like the group. Explicitly or implicitly, any behavior or expression of ideas that runs contrary to the cherished dogma of the group is often frowned upon.
For a few years I was involved with a group called THINCS, which is not an official organization (non-profit, business or otherwise) but simply a loosely affiliated network of researchers, medical practitioners, and science writers who share a common skepticism of the reigning cholesterol paradigm of heart disease. However, earlier this year I wrote to the network’s founder Uffe Ravnskov and asked for any indication of me as a member to be removed from the THINCS web site. I have the utmost respect for Uffe Ravnskov, but simply do not wish to be a ‘member’ of any group or organization that could be perceived as pushing a certain ideology.
The bottom line is that I think for myself, do my own research, and come to my own conclusions. Period.
And try as they might, despite my lack of formal education qualifications, no-one has ever provided anything resembling an effective, scientifically-based refutation of my contentions regarding the cholesterol/saturated fat paradigm or weight loss.
Anyway, I’ve said enough. I’ll now let my original review of The China Study and Campbell’s attempted rebuttal speak for themselves.
Thank you.
