The China Study

The following is an excerpt from Dr. Campbell's new book "Whole", which is set to be released by BenBella Books at the beginning of 2013.

When we live in a system, we absorb a system and think in a system.
--James W. Douglass, "JFK and The Unthinkable"
 
     "When I began my research career in nutritional science, I was naïve to a fault. My childhood environment of hay fields and milking barns did not prepare me for the dark side of science: the greed, the small-mindedness, and the outright dishonesty and cynicism of some of its practitioners. And the shocking examples of how public officials closed their eyes to important findings when they got in the way of their reelection.
     I entered the academy eager to participate in my idealized version of scientific inquiry. I couldn't imagine anything better: learning new things, choosing which questions to research, then sharing and debating ideas with students and colleagues. I loved the transparency and integrity of the scientific method - how personal opinions and biases faded away before the majesty of real evidence. How a well-conceived experiment was like setting the table beautifully and inviting Truth to dinner. How honest questioning could banish ignorance and create a better world.
     What I discovered is that science was and is and can be just like that - as long as the researcher is careful not to pursue politically incorrect ideas outside the boundaries of "normal" science. You can wonder and ask and research anything you like, until you cross the line defined by prejudice and reinforced by the moneyed interests that fund almost all science.
     Normal science? That's a strange phrase, isn't it? What's normal? I'll go into this concept in detail starting in the next chapter, when I talk about scientific paradigms (what I call "mental prisons"). For now, let's just say that a paradigm is simply a collection of ideas that constitutes an agreed-upon story, or narrative, about how the world is. This narrative defines what we are allowed to think, and think about, and is important as much for what it forbids as for what it describes. Normal science means anything that falls safely within those boundaries. "Normal" doesn't mean "good" or "better" in any way, just a concept that doesn't rock the boat of general agreement.
     For much of my career I've found myself bumping up against the invisible boundaries of that paradigm. In the last few decades I finally decided to blast through it altogether. That's how I know so much about those boundaries: you have to cross the line to find out where it is."


Among the important things that good rationalists must employ when looking at the world, are science literacy (including a working knowledge of statistics) and a healthy degree of skepticism. Skepticism at its root is asking questions.  Among the most important questions should always be “Where is the money?”  I use that one a lot and it means who paid you to do the research and what are you selling.  Another question is "Show us your data,” and this means raw data, but could mean, “What are you leaving out?”  Omissions and lies basically, but also skewing data to your own agenda.  Like when former Doctor Andrew Wakefield added a few already Autistic diagnosed children at the end of his tiny study which concluded that vaccinations cause Autism.  As such I would invite you to read this: 

http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/

Read it.  I read it.  I also read a brief synopsis of the China Study from a believer.  The critic had no axe to grind and looked at Campbell's own data and was favorably inclined toward the conclusions and her independent study of the raw data, also backed up some of the findings.

For those who do not want to spend the hour or so to read the short 9000 word synopsis of her research, I will paraphrase.

1.  He picked data that supported his conclusion, he added data that strengthened his claim but did not actually add to its validity.  
2.  He used people's lack of understanding of statistics to pull the wool over people's eyes; he used non significant numbers to show validation, when they mean almost nothing.
3.  He excluded data that detracted from his claim.
4.  He ignored previous studies, that HE had completed, because they did not agree with his current claims.
5.  He generalized the data from one product to include a category of foods.  Specifically he used one dairy food, a type of milk product, to represent all dairy foods, when data for other dairy foods showed opposite results.  Casein or milk protein was found to be mildly carcinogenic, but to apply it to all dairy products, indeed to all animal products is disingenuous at best, academically dishonest at worst.
6.  In the bid to make his claims valid, Dr. Campbell, ignores other important facts about the cancers he is claiming are caused by eating meat, like the association of schistosomiasis infection, industrial work hazards, increased hepatitis B infection, and other non-nutritional factors with these diseases.  When he makes a claim for the benefit of diet, he also fails to list other possible reasons, such as the latitude vs. cancer occurrence.  Latitude?  How is that important, more sunshine means more vitamin D, lower latitudes are warmer so people spend more time in the sun.  Lower latitudes people eat fish more often too.  There are many studies showing that vitamins D and omega3 fatty acids in fish reduce cancer.


Scientific journals are of two varieties, peer reviewed and non.  In peer reviewed, other people in similar pursuits pick at a researchers findings finding faults allowing the original researcher to tidy up their claims and not to overstate unproven facts.  That is why universities require all papers to be peer reviewed and why students are encouraged strongly to base their papers in only peer reviewed journals.  A good way to circumvent this process is to publish a book and get Oprah to read it and recommend it.  I have no idea if Oprah actually recommended this book by-the-way.

Please tell me what you think.  And note, I have been a vegetarian (ovo-lacto) for nearly 20 years and vegetarian (ovo-lacto-pisco) for exactly 21 years and do not plan on changing this based on one or two studies.  Although I understand that an omnivorous diet is the more healthy way to go, low starch with vegetables, raw over cooked, and fish.