Whether or not too much animal protein promotes cancer I do not know. However, although at the present time I eat a totally no added animal fat or seed oil plant diet, I have to agree with H in that the first time I read Campbell's book I did think that his experiment proved something about casein and aflatoxin but wondered how he could extrapolate to include all animal protein.
Campbell also writes in the book about animal protein and there is a chart illustrating the relationship between ( I can't remember what) and down at the bottom there is an asterisk which says something about fish protein. Sorry I don't have the book with me as I write. And I wondered what this meant. Does it mean fish doesn't have the same effect or that fish wasn't included in the study?
He also says there is a greater correlation between certain illnesses and protein than there is with fat.
RE raw data. It is my understanding that when someone submits an article to a peer reviewed journal, it is not required that the raw data be submitted. Am I right? If this is true then Campbell went above and beyond what is usually reasonably required and one can only speculate about what was really found in the articles anyone makes reference to which propose a view opposite Campbell's if their raw data is not submitted as was Campbell's. Because, if, as in Campbell's work, the raw data shows, as some claim, that he does not interpret the data correctly, then the same might be said of any contradictory studies if only the raw data were presented. If you haven't seen the raw data for contradictory studies, how do you know they are accurate? Fair is fair. If you are analyzing Campbell's raw data then you should do so for the articles which you are citing. If that has been done then the playing field is even.
The debate on the McDougall board should have been switched over to the debate group. If you come to my church and find fault with its theology, please don't stand up during the service and voice corrections. Meet me in the church lobby after services and I would be happy to discuss these things with you.
But what do you say to those who need to have doubts removed by looking at contrary data and having it struck down.People need to be convinced to be fully behind a program.And that may take some debate....so is it not possible that support may take the form of debate for some people?I am a fully 100% compliant McDougall eater but I still keep an open mind and have serious doubts I need resolved.
I had a relative who did stand up in Church and voice opposition to what was being preached so It must be heredity.The sermon was one of the inate inferiority of blacks and women..... in a very conservative southern church in the 1930s.
Integrity has nothing to do with it. He came to a conclusion. Maybe he is right and maybe he is wrong. If he is right, good for him. If he is wrong that is no reason to cast aspersions on his integrity as I believe some web bloggers have done.
Re: "There is something about the integrity of Dr Campbell,Dr Essee,and Dr McDougall that leads me to give serious consideration they may be right about protein and cancer"
I am afraid you may have lost your way. It is not an integrity that determines which theory is right, but the experimental observations. It has nothing to do with the personal integrity. Even if McDougall were "Mother Theresa" I would still double check his theory against the data and would discard it no matter how noble his personality. If it works for you then do it, but don't follow the guy just because you think he is honest. Besides, honest people with a personal integrity don't censor their debating opponents because they don't have to, and also they have nothing to hide! If they do then perhaps they aren't as honest as you think? Perhaps they have another agenda? That alone should make you think...
Barry Groves diet was not high protein, it was high fat! Campbell's casein-protein-cancer theory is not only incorrect but also irrelevant.
Dolores,I disagree that integrity has nothing to with it.For him to be wrong it would have more than likely taken some deliberate manipulation of the data.A scientist of his level is unlikely to make a statistical mistake.
Although it is possible that he could just be wrong and not have deliberately messed with the data I find that very unlikely.
Heretic,I have not lost my way(I don't think).The level at which as scientist of his rank understands statistics its just not likley a mistake was made.It was not Dr Campbell that shut down debate of had kicked anyone off his board.I suspect that was not Dr McDougalls doing and I doubt that he even knew about it until it was already done.But he does know about it now and could correct it.He does on occasion read this message board.
And I could be dead wrong about the integrity of those mentioned but I dont think so.But could I be wrong that scientist of that level just fowled up the data and are just wrong?....well thats just not likely at all.Any sophomore majoring in stastical methods would not likley make those mistakes much less somone on his level.
I don't see why no one has tested the theory with breast and prostate cancer patients..
Outside of Dolores none of the others on the McDougall board seem comfortable with posting here....people just don't want to be around others who disagree with them and that s the bottom line why you were kicked off the McDougall board.If everyone felt the way you and Dolores do about disagreement war would be a thing of the past and Congress would get a lot more done.
Re: It was not Dr Campbell that shut down debate of had kicked anyone off his board.I suspect that was not Dr McDougalls doing and I doubt that he even knew about it until it was already done.But he does know about it now and could correct it.He does on occasion read this message board.
You are making an assumption of a "Good Emperor bad Advisors" type. I don't think so. It is much more likely that nothing happens there without the boss knowing and approving. It is his venue, if he made a mistake in his judgement then too bad. It is his problem.
JC - A different subject, how is your concentration and mental alertness? Do you find it more difficult to focus and concentrate?
"concentration".....probably about average decline due to aging....certainly not the sharpness I had as a young person.
But then I had years of very high blood pressure and blood glucose.This diet has ended that...my BP and BG is a good bit better than avg for my age.....does that mean my youthful mental sharpness will come back?
You are encouraged to report negative side effects of prescription drugs to the FDA. Visit the FDA MedWatch website or call 1-800-FDA-1088.
The opinions expressed in WebMD Communities are solely those of the User, who may or may not have medical or scientific training. These opinions do not represent the opinions of WebMD. Communities are not reviewed by a WebMD physician or any member of the WebMD editorial staff for accuracy, balance, objectivity, or any other reason except for compliance with our Terms and Conditions. Some of these opinions may contain information about treatments or uses of drug products that have not been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. WebMD does not endorse any specific product, service or treatment.
Do not consider Communities as medical advice. Never delay or disregard seeking professional medical advice from your doctor or other qualified healthcare provider because of something you have read on WebMD. You should always speak with your doctor before you start, stop, or change any prescribed part of your care plan or treatment. WebMD understands that reading individual, real-life experiences can be a helpful resource, but it is never a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment from a qualified health care provider. If you think you may have a medical emergency, call your doctor or dial 911 immediately.