3

votes

Validity of "Final Minger Critique" by T. Colin Campbell?

Answered on September 12, 2014
Created March 07, 2012 at 4:16 PM

I got curious about this after reading it here: Final Minger Critique.

It would be good to know how significant this criticism is.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on February 04, 2014
at 01:22 AM

You can't scientifically arrive at a conclusion because the scientific method was not applied, it was an epidimiological study and one can only derive hypotheses from said studies since they are not performed in a controlled environment where alterations in individual variables can be tested independently of other variables. Then again your indoctrination is probably wrapped around that weak little brain of yours so tightly that it hurts to think for yourself doesn't it? Sad little vegan, get some B12 in you, your puny brain desperately needs it.

6e6e197c493bda4e009a70130be88990

(0)

on February 03, 2014
at 11:13 PM

@August You obviously have not read the China Study. Campbell's research was not funded by the Meat and Dairy industry. Campbell's conclusions are far from supporting the justification for massive wheat, soy and corn subsidies but are exactly the opposite. Over 95% of our grain products in USA are going to feed animals for meat consumption and this is what is being subsidized by the government due to intensive lobbying by the Meat and Dairy industries.

75d65450b6ff0be7b969fb321f1200ac

(2506)

on January 02, 2013
at 10:14 PM

I think TCS does a most convincing job of explaining the evils of dairy. But I found his vegan zealotry to be tiresome, ... yet I do recommend his book (an interesting read).

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on January 02, 2013
at 09:50 PM

I'm not sure how many people are really against ideas like "dietary change can enable diabetic patients to go off their medication", but rather what that dietary change looks like that is debated. Though I would argue that the association between dairy and prostate cancer is pretty weak.

7bf306ada57db47547e9da39a415edf6

(11214)

on March 08, 2012
at 05:17 PM

For the level of investment, no. Spain put up massive, multi-lane highways during the credit-boom. The Spanish don't really have a use for them. It is possible someone will mine the data and come up with some ideas for real research later on, just as it is possible those Spanish infrastructure projects might get used before they crumble from lack of maintenance, but these possibilities don't take away from the colossal failure in judgement with regard to funding these things in the first place.

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on March 08, 2012
at 12:29 AM

I don't agree that his research is a waste of time and money. Maybe he uses the results to support conclusions and hypothesis that aren't there, but the data itself is surely valuable.

7d64d3988de1b0e493aacf37843c5596

(2861)

on March 07, 2012
at 04:56 PM

One of Minger's key points was that Campbell was bending over backwards to use simple univariate correlations as evidence that his hypothesis was correct while disregarding other simple univariate correlations that disagreed with his hypothesis because they were “uncorrected.” It turns out by “uncorrected” Campbell meant they did not support his hypothesis. Campbell in fact invented and even wrote an essay about his new form of “holistic” science where one gets to cherry-pick simple correlations and use them as evidence that one's hypothesis is correct.

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on March 07, 2012
at 04:43 PM

which were to show that he has absolutely no business using that data as an argument for his dogma. This becomes more obvious when reviewing one of her follow-up posts a year later (which I did read) clearly showing that many of the authors who analyzed the data come to completely different conclusions than Campbell http://rawfoodsos.com/2011/07/31/one-year-later-the-china-study-revisited-and-re-bashed/

Be1dbd31e4a3fccd4394494aa5db256d

(17969)

on March 07, 2012
at 04:40 PM

Reminds me for the first time today (there will probably be other times) how silly squabbling over correlational data is. I like Denise's blog but I actually haven't read the critique because it is epidemiology and amidst all of the squabbling there doesn't appear to be any way to say anything other than a majority of correlations were supporting X conclusion. So? There are dozens of confounding factors that no epidemiologist has ever taken into account and there is no way to verify the veracity of data. However I think he misrepresents her intentions (I don't think she misrepresents his..)

F2f559fe327007fd064a0f5bd79d6278

(156)

on March 07, 2012
at 04:22 PM

Not sure, but the HTTP Last-Modified header for that URL says Thu, 22 Jul 2010 14:03:30 GMT.

E12d01c41ed41315112c753c752bd7e2

(50)

on March 07, 2012
at 04:20 PM

No idea. I just stumbled on it while googling "denise minger"

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on March 07, 2012
at 04:17 PM

when was this published?

  • E12d01c41ed41315112c753c752bd7e2

    asked by

    (50)
  • Views
    3.9K
  • Last Activity
    1378D AGO
Frontpage book

Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!

6 Answers

4
4a7929c2aa05bf11349d9e55cb542d47

on March 07, 2012
at 05:19 PM

I don't know if it's in this rebuttal or another, but this is a direct quote in one of Campbell's rebuttal's that stuck with me:

"my interests in the China database was simply to see if there was evidence supporting the health benefits of a plant-based diet"

As far as I'm concerned, Campbell sought out confirmation of a certain diet, and based on his interpretation of the data, he found it. He has nothing of value to say outside of that single claim, and therefore has nothing negative or positive to say about any other diet.

3
22424c9eef944ade83d4e4ffda907056

(1402)

on March 07, 2012
at 04:48 PM

Funny. The response is more of a critique of Denise's critique than a defense of the original point.

"I have 20 years of experience in a peer review setting, you have none."

"I didn't have enough space in the book to explain all of my reasoning." (But I also don't mention any of it here, either)

"The studies you cite don't necessarily prove your hypothesis." (But mine prove my point)

Oh and you can't miss the "Why'd you delete this comment, huh? Because it was so good and ruins your argument!"

I really wanted there to be something legitimate there and the preface is encouraging, but there really isn't anything there as far as I can tell.

2
7d64d3988de1b0e493aacf37843c5596

(2861)

on March 07, 2012
at 04:35 PM

This was posted on VegSource on 7/21/2010 ("China Study author Colin Campbell slaps down critic"). I don't remember the timeline that well, but I believe Minger included her response here: http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/08/06/final-china-study-response-html/

0
6e6e197c493bda4e009a70130be88990

on February 03, 2014
at 11:05 PM

Campbell based his hypothesis on previous peer reviewed research that also supported a plant-based diet. His work was even more aggressive in pursuing information to either support or refute "a plant-based diet as the optimal for health". The book "The China Study" is the most comprehensive research ever done on nutrition. Some are not taking into account that Campbell was raised on a dairy farm and went to Cornell initially to figure out how to improve a dairy farm...with all his education and research, he was smart enough to admit that a plant-based diet was the optimal for health and human/environmental sustainability.

Paleo Diet fad is just that...a fad. Not based on scientifically proven or peer-reviewed research. In addition, it is simply not sustainable from any perspective.

Denise Minger is an embarrassment to herself and has no credentials. She is a publicity seeker, not a valid researcher by any stretch of the imagination.

The China Study is heavy reading but well worth the effort. Once you read it, you too will come to the same conclusions. Whether you can implement it in your own life is another story...habits and learned behavior are difficult to change...even when the evidence is compelling that change is needed.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30

on February 04, 2014
at 01:22 AM

You can't scientifically arrive at a conclusion because the scientific method was not applied, it was an epidimiological study and one can only derive hypotheses from said studies since they are not performed in a controlled environment where alterations in individual variables can be tested independently of other variables. Then again your indoctrination is probably wrapped around that weak little brain of yours so tightly that it hurts to think for yourself doesn't it? Sad little vegan, get some B12 in you, your puny brain desperately needs it.

0
7bf306ada57db47547e9da39a415edf6

(11214)

on March 07, 2012
at 06:59 PM

He has no validity. His work represents a giant waste of time and money. Of course, there are many fields in 'science' which currently amount to little more than chicanery. Epidemiology and anything based on extensive computer modeling is suspect, especially since government grants tend to encourage results that justify government- in this case Campbell's conclusions can be used to justify the massive wheat, soy, and corn subsidies.

7bf306ada57db47547e9da39a415edf6

(11214)

on March 08, 2012
at 05:17 PM

For the level of investment, no. Spain put up massive, multi-lane highways during the credit-boom. The Spanish don't really have a use for them. It is possible someone will mine the data and come up with some ideas for real research later on, just as it is possible those Spanish infrastructure projects might get used before they crumble from lack of maintenance, but these possibilities don't take away from the colossal failure in judgement with regard to funding these things in the first place.

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on March 08, 2012
at 12:29 AM

I don't agree that his research is a waste of time and money. Maybe he uses the results to support conclusions and hypothesis that aren't there, but the data itself is surely valuable.

6e6e197c493bda4e009a70130be88990

(0)

on February 03, 2014
at 11:13 PM

@August You obviously have not read the China Study. Campbell's research was not funded by the Meat and Dairy industry. Campbell's conclusions are far from supporting the justification for massive wheat, soy and corn subsidies but are exactly the opposite. Over 95% of our grain products in USA are going to feed animals for meat consumption and this is what is being subsidized by the government due to intensive lobbying by the Meat and Dairy industries.

-2
6c3213fedfa002f1b94ac7f398e9f19c

on January 02, 2013
at 09:36 PM

It isn't good. It is refuted here: http://www.30bananasaday.com/forum/topics/has-denise-minger-read-the?commentId=2684079%3AComment%3A726167

Quote: This of course does not necessarily invalidate everything Minger has to say about TCS but it doesn???t do much to serve her cause. In addition to looking at the entire data set it may have been more helpful to spend her time addressing claims presented in TCS based on the entire body of research presented in the book (and not just TCP which is only covered in-depth for 1 out of 18 chapters) such as:

  • Dietary change can enable diabetic patients to go off their medication.
  • Heart disease can be reversed with diet alone.
  • Breast cancer is related to levels of female hormones in the blood, which are determined by the food we eat.
  • Consuming dairy foods can increase the risk of prostate cancer.
  • Antioxidants, found in fruits and vegetables, are linked to better mental performance in old age.
  • Kidney stones can be prevented by a healthy diet.
  • Type 1 diabetes, one of the most devastating diseases that can befall a child, is convincingly linked to infant feeding practices. [TCS p. 3]

All these claims are well supported in the book and would be difficult to argue against, though it would be enjoyable seeing critics of TCS try to do so.

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on January 02, 2013
at 09:50 PM

I'm not sure how many people are really against ideas like "dietary change can enable diabetic patients to go off their medication", but rather what that dietary change looks like that is debated. Though I would argue that the association between dairy and prostate cancer is pretty weak.

75d65450b6ff0be7b969fb321f1200ac

(2506)

on January 02, 2013
at 10:14 PM

I think TCS does a most convincing job of explaining the evils of dairy. But I found his vegan zealotry to be tiresome, ... yet I do recommend his book (an interesting read).

Answer Question


Get FREE instant access to our
Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!