Skip to content


    Exciting News for WebMD Members!

    We've been busy behind the scenes building new message boards for you. You'll have new and easier ways to find messages, connect with others, and share your stories.

    And, this will all be available on your smartphone or other mobile device!

    What Do You Need to Do?

    The message board you're used to will be closing in the coming weeks. While many of your boards will be making the move to our new home, your posts will not. Want to keep a discussion going? Save posts you want to continue (this includes your member profile story), so that you can re-post them in the new message boards.

    Keep an eye here and on your email inbox, we'll be back in touch soon to give you all the information you need!

    Yours in health,
    WebMD Message Boards Management

    jc3737 posted:
    This is from my debate with others on another site.I'm debating that The China study is valid and my many opponents disagree.

    One of my biggest problems with Campbell's claims comes from his own statement in his response:
    "First and foremost, our extensive work on the biochemical fundamentals of the casein effect on experimental cancer in laboratory animals (only partly described in our book) was prominent because these findings led to my suggestion of fundamental principles and concepts that apply to the broader effects of nutrition on cancer development."
    As I pointed out before just because something occurs in another animal this DOES NOT mean it will happen in a human. Again, chocolate or grapes can kill a dog. Does this mean these are also lethal to humans? Sheep can eat arsenic in levels that can kill a human. So should we apply these levels to humans since sheep can eat them?
    I have two major problems when it comes to animal studies. First of all animals are specifically chosen for these tests to acheive the desired effects. You can even buy various strains of mice with different properties to make sure you get whatever desired outcome you want. Secondly, animal studies are also frequently manipualted in another manner. Animals are often give isolated compounds in massive doses, which again do not correlate to humans. Look at the study on chromium picolinate that claimed it was carcinogenic because when they gave the mice 6,000 times the equivalent dose recommended for humans the mice got cancer. The researchers set out to prove chromium picolinate caused cancer so the test was designed to make sure that there woudl be genetic mutations to cause the cancer. And as I pointed out they will often use isolated compounds. Isolates do not have the same properties as whole compounds. Separate the coumarins from alfalafa and you will get a different effect than the alfalafa that also has vitamin K to counter the coumarins. Another way animal tests get manipulated is by administering the compounds in a different manner than normal. For example, I have seen sites claiming it is dangerous to consume saponins because they hemolyze the red blood cells. This is true if injected, but not when taken orally since saponins are never absorbed in to the bloodstream. But again some researchers wanted to "prove" plant saponins were dangerous so they designed the study to where it would abnormally destroy the red blood cells. And there are the studies where researchers claimed that a substance was dangerous based on the feeding of large amounts of the substance to animals that it is not part of their normal diet. A great example is how they came up with the myth that high cholesterol caused heart disease. Then did this by feeding excesive amounts of cholesteol to rabbits, which cholesterol is not a normal part of their diet. The rabbits developed artheriosclerotic lesions and thus the myth of high cholesterol causing heart disease was born.
    Point of all this is I don't trust animal studies. They are frequently manipualted to acheive desired results, and even if done properly the results DO NOT automatically correlate to humans.
    jc3737 responded:
    From your response it does not sound like you have read the book.The China Study is one of the most scientifically sound studies ever conducted in the field of nutrition.Dr Campbell,and the other vegan doctors, recommend B-12 supplementation so that had not been a problem for the kids of the "famous" vegan doctors DR Essee,Dr Mcdougall,Dr Joel Fuhrman,etc.The kids raised this way are strong,trim,and unusually healthy.

    In certain ares of China where they live live long active healthy lives their cholesterol averages around 120 so very low cholesterol can't be too unhealthy.Also Dr Campbell and the othet vegan doctors and others who follow their diet have similar low levels (below 150.)Dr Campbell is around 80 yrs old and still very healthy and unusually active for one of any age.

    I think your opinions and ideas may change a great deal after you read the book.
    jc3737 replied to jc3737's response:
    The China Study is biased vegan propaganda.

    The cherry picked data proves the biased position of the hard core vegans.

    It is as it is and it paints a very distorted picture to say the least.
    jc3737 replied to jc3737's response:
    Mr Grassman,Thre is always a possibility you are right but it seems very unlikely to me.Read the entire book and see what you think.Its not the type of book or study anyone would consider propaganda in the way something from the Weston A Price foundation would be.I think it paints an accurate picture of the way in which the various diets in different parts of China have varying health consequences.It also points out the correlation of animal protein with cancer not only in the various regions of China but also in laboratory animal studies.

    Just saying that animals and people are different begs the question and does not really address the issues involved with the connections between animal protein and cancer.

    At any rate I would like to know your opinion(and James's) once you have read the book.
    DoloresTeresa replied to jc3737's response:
    Actually, Dr. Campbell drew conclusions, not from animal studies, but because of what he observed among children in the Philipines. The children from more affluent families developed liver cancer while children from poor families had a much lower rate (if any). He attributed this to eating aflatoxin contaminated peanut butter and dairy.

    jc3737 replied to DoloresTeresa's response:
    He says his conclusions are partly from animal studies,partly from the comparison of various areas of China and other studies such as the observations in the Philipines.He uses a varied combination approach involving many factors.

    However all of that does not matter to us.All we want to know is will it help us fight cancer,prevent it, or have some moderating effect.Unfortunately Steve Jobbs, a long time vegan and personal friend and follower of Dean Ornish, found that diet is not the major factor we think it is.

    Or did he make some dietary mistake we don't know about?

    Personally I think the non-physical factors are the real name of the game.
    DoloresTeresa responded:
    I agree that animal experiments do not necessarily correlate to humans even if done properly. Campbell often says that he does not like reductionism in which you use one nutrient or even one food and draw conclusions from that. Yet he uses casein, much in the way researchers used isolated beta carotene which showed to increase not decrease cancer in smokers, yet food with beta carotene does the opposite. If he had fed the rats milk or skim milk rather than the casein there might have been different results. And I believe I read somewhere that the whey protein in milk is actually preventive in certain experiments.

    On the other hand people do eat isolated casein such as in milk powder and casein is even in canned tuna so he was using something that people would actually eat. I do not see how he draws the conclusion that all animal protein is harmful from his casein experiments.

    Some people have disputed the idea that saturated fat causes heart disease. Campbell seems to agree with this in The China Study since he has a graph showing that there is not a straight line correlation between fat and heart disease but another graph shows a definite correlation between animal protein and heart disease.

    One does have to ask why the wealthier filipino children have much more liver cancer than the poorer children.

    Vegsource has Campbell's reply to Denise Minger. He disputes her methods and quotes an epidemiologist who also disputes her methods.

    DoloresTeresa replied to jc3737's response:
    jc, I think the most we can do is increase the odds. No one lives forever. Everyone is going to die of something. Who knows? Maybe Mr. Jobs lived longer than he would have if he had not eaten whatever diet he was on.

    If diet were not a major factor then people would not be growing fatter and fatter, developing degenerative diseases and causing the healthcare system to become bankrupt. Of course to say it is a major factor is not to say there are not other factors (like cigarette smoke, industrial pollution of the earth a waters etc.) that are just as deadly.

    We do not like to think about it, but nature cares that we live long enough to reproduce and raise our children to a point where they can reproduce. Everything else is gravy. We live a lot longer now than our ancestors. But at what cost? There are few people that I know personally who have reached their 60's and 70's or older who are not on at least one type of med. My mom lived to 91--in a nursing home with dementia from by pass surgery she had when she was 77--it got worse each year from the time she had her surgery. When she had the surgery, I prayed that God would give her many more years. The last few years of her life (after my dad died) I prayed that she would go too. I could not stand to see her suffer so much. Dad took such good care of her that we had no idea of the extent of the dementia and other illnesses.


    jc3737 replied to DoloresTeresa's response:
    Its just that diet is no miracle cure even though it is a factor.Almost everyone I know eats the SAD and their health varies to such an extent that it would seem diet is not relevent.

    A great philosopher once said that what you eat is not nearly as important as what you think about what you eat,,,,,which is back to the old philosophical idea that beliefs create reality.

    Your dad sounds like he was a great guy.He reminds me of my dad.
    engineerguy replied to jc3737's response:
    Hi jc,

    Re: "A great philosopher once said that what you eat is not nearly as important as what you think about what you eat,,,,,which is back to the old philosophical idea that beliefs create reality."

    With all due and considerable respect, this statement frightens me. This sounds like BearCub, just before his heart attack.

    Please note that Pritikin, Esselstyn, McDougall, Ornish and all have noted that the patients who did best were the strictest.

    Clearly we all vary in heredity, which determines how strictly we have to follow the program to be healthy.

    How are we each doing, individually? We cannot peer into our arteries. For those reading, the solution I like best is to have an IMT test every couple of years, to track how my arteries are doing, both by photographing any blockages in the carotid arteries, as well as tracking the average thickness of the artery wall. This test is harmless, like a baby ultrasound, except of the carotid arteries. If they are improving, we can be confident that all the arteries of the body are improving.

    With individual variation, some people need adjustments to their program. For those reading, if you do not feel great while strictly following your chosen program, work with your doctor to find out why. In my opinion, Dr Fuhrman has made the most progress understanding individual variation.

    Best regards, EngineerGuy
    jc3737 replied to engineerguy's response:
    The statement should not alarm you because it goes far beyond the world of diet.It means that the unlimate reality is not to be found in the physical world but in the non physical... such as beliefs.

    Its a concept embrased by all the worlds major religions.

    I think we had this debate once before.Scientifically it boils down to Newtonian mechanics vs some sci theories like quantum mechanics or the multiverse concepts of Brian Green.
    jc3737 replied to jc3737's response:
    In a physical world described by Newton(newtonian mechanics)the laws of linear time gives rise to a physical cause and effect world....take away absolute time and cause and effect break down.

    With Newton everything has a cause which is found in the physical world.For one thing to cause another it has to happen first which under Newton is possible but under Einstein it breaks down because time is not absolute or linear.

    Here is a look at physisist Brian Greene:
    jc3737 replied to jc3737's response:
    Heretic,Since physics is your game,I thought you might have some comment.
    heretk replied to jc3737's response:
    I agree with your take on Seth, quote:

    Its just that diet is no miracle cure even though it is a factor.Almost everyone I know eats the SAD and their health varies to such an extent that it would seem diet is not relevent.[br>[br>A great philosopher once said that what you eat is not nearly as important as what you think about what you eat,,,,,which is back to the old philosophical idea that beliefs create reality.

    However, I also noticed that the oversimplificated conclusion stating that therefore physical world does not matter - does not work (Bearcub!) , neither does the opposite - the materialistic view!

    If one takes Seth too far one would conclude that somebody of a mind strong enough can live off sugar, soy protein, water and some vitamins. 8- That is not the way I interpret Seth: to me, the primacy of Mind over Body means a mind capable of making choices that work. Choosing the nourishing food while rejecting the toxic one. To me the weak mind is the mind incapable of questioning, of noticing some harmfull effects of the bad diets on their own body, while accepting other people's opinions.
    Stan (Heretic)
    heretk replied to heretk's response:
    Re: "In a physical world described by Newton(newtonian mechanics)the laws of linear time gives rise to a physical cause and effect world....take away absolute time and cause and effect break down."

    It is a very complicated and new topic (even for a physicist). I risk being poorly understood. Basically the modern quantum physics arrived at the parallel world interpretation of Hugh Everett (as opposed to Copenhagen with the linear time) as the latest logical conclusion, after dealing with the decades of paradoxes. The last straw that broke Copenhagen interpretation was Alain Aspect experiments in the 1970-ties demonstrating that the Einstein model involving the linear time t and one space plane x,y,z cannot be reconciled with the experimental results, no matter what kind of hidden mechanisms we may attribute to the physical particles involved.

    Yes, such a linear time model (Einstein's) must invoke the cause-and-effect. Yes, abandonment of such model must involve revising though not necessary rejecting the "cause-and-effect".

    In particular, a quantum 'object' such as a pair of electrons, represented by wave function model does indeed exist in a multitude of parallel realities simultabeously (how many, or is it a discrete finite number, or infinite countable or continuum - we don't know!). The cause and effect does not apply in this model BUT - there is a certain dynamics going on. The ensamble of 2 electrons in this example, represented by the wave functioin exhibits some kind of evolution or expansion through the multiverse of space-times of alternative 'parallel' histories, (in physics called 'parallel timelines'). An act of conscious observation is equivalent of focusing one's mind attention upon one particular timeline. This particular timeline would then appear to contain a series of sequential events involving the electrons moving from point A to B etc. That brings the cause and effect point of view quite naturally - but only within that one timeline!

    I would recommend reading David Deutsch recent book. I listened to his radio interview. It contains some interesting insights into Everett's multiverse QM interpretation and also brings up some fascinating stories of the group of unemployed renegade "hippie" physicists (California, 1980-ties) pioneering and further developing the whole concept, culminating in the current work on quantuum parallel (*) computing and quantum cryptography, in spite of the objections from the mainstream academics.

    Stan (Heretic)


    *) Now you know why it is called "parallel" - the computation process is carried out simultaneously in multiple realities!

    Spotlight: Member Stories

    Long-time fan of the Diet Debate-though infrequent contributor to the discussion.

    Helpful Tips

    Zeal for Life
    I couldn't find my old post so I'm not sure what happened to it. I have back problems, panic issues and anxiety disorder since childhood. ... More
    Was this Helpful?
    5 of 5 found this helpful

    Report Problems With Your Medications to the FDA

    FDAYou are encouraged to report negative side effects of prescription drugs to the FDA. Visit the FDA MedWatch website or call 1-800-FDA-1088.