Farming Truth is now on Facebook! Go like my page for different, original content!
|
Who doesn't love free stuff? And this is only the beginning. In the works are exclusive blog posts, giveaways, and merchandise all free or discounted to subscribers only! To sign up, go to my home page.
|
The China Study Debunked
The China Study, a book released by Thomas M. Campbell, MD and T. Colin Campbell, PhD in 2005, attempts to radically simplify the world of nutrition by directing the blame of all human health issues onto animal products. This was unquestioningly embraced by the vegan movement, and swiftly made into a documentary-like film, Forks Over Knives. It’s hard to blame the widespread acceptance of the book, no questions asked, as Dr. T. Colin Campbell does have many academic achievements and presents the book as if it was the result of a very extensive review of Asian culture’s diets and resultant health outcomes. The cover of the book reads, “The most comprehensive study of nutrition ever conducted.” What an assertion!
However, many researchers that are equally as qualified as Dr. Campbell have brought to light multiple inconsistencies with the studies he references and his claims. The portions of the study Campbell mentions are cherry picked from a much broader compilation of data that actually tells a very different story. The truth is that the China Study, meaning the actual study which was certainly a very impressive, thorough, and lengthy evaluation of nutrition, realistically supported consuming animal products, making Campbell’s book nothing more than a work of fiction. |
TUOLI TRIBE
One tribe examined by T. Colin Campbell and his fellow researchers was the Tuoli in China. The people of the Tuoli filled out a questionnaire where they reported that their meals were mostly comprised of animal products with very little fruits and vegetables (they consumed an average of two pounds of dairy every day, but vegetables six times per year at most… yowzas!). When their cholesterol numbers were compared to the Taixing and Shanyang, who’re among the most-plant-based Chinese communities, their readings were practically the same. When comparing triglycerides (which have shown to have a directly proportional relationship with heart disease), the Tuoli’s counts were lower than all but two out of China’s 13 most plant-based cultures. Further comparing with those 13 other groups, the Tuoli had lower colon cancer and heart attack rates than 54% of them and was relatively comparable with another 23%. The Tuoli had lower rectal cancer rates than all 13 nearly-vegan communities. Overall mortality risks were higher in 11 of the 13 cultures, and the other two were right on par with the Tuoli. Keep in mind that all of this information comes straight from the China project that the Campbells claim to base their assertions off of, and these 13 groups of people were the closest subjects to a vegan model that Campbell has ever studied (Read more about the Tuoli in this awesome article from Denise Minger, who cites the original China Study documents here—note I only took data from the surveys, not the observations of the feast).
OTHER FINDINGS FROM THE STUDY
This group makes up only a small portion of all the people the China Study researchers looked into. Not all cultures were as lucky, though. Pollution in China caused a notable presence of lung cancer. An increase in breast cancer cases in India, Thailand, and China is believed to be caused by lifestyle changes and socio-cultural factors. Diet undoubtedly has a leading role in cancer risk, but the research conducted by Dr. Campbell and his team in no way supported the theory that animal proteins were to blame. The data actually revealed that, “Sugar, soluble carbohydrates, and fiber all have correlations with cancer mortality about seven times the magnitude of that with animal protein, and total fat and fat as a percentage of calories were both negatively correlated with cancer mortality” (quote from Chris Masterjohn, read more about that here).
One tribe examined by T. Colin Campbell and his fellow researchers was the Tuoli in China. The people of the Tuoli filled out a questionnaire where they reported that their meals were mostly comprised of animal products with very little fruits and vegetables (they consumed an average of two pounds of dairy every day, but vegetables six times per year at most… yowzas!). When their cholesterol numbers were compared to the Taixing and Shanyang, who’re among the most-plant-based Chinese communities, their readings were practically the same. When comparing triglycerides (which have shown to have a directly proportional relationship with heart disease), the Tuoli’s counts were lower than all but two out of China’s 13 most plant-based cultures. Further comparing with those 13 other groups, the Tuoli had lower colon cancer and heart attack rates than 54% of them and was relatively comparable with another 23%. The Tuoli had lower rectal cancer rates than all 13 nearly-vegan communities. Overall mortality risks were higher in 11 of the 13 cultures, and the other two were right on par with the Tuoli. Keep in mind that all of this information comes straight from the China project that the Campbells claim to base their assertions off of, and these 13 groups of people were the closest subjects to a vegan model that Campbell has ever studied (Read more about the Tuoli in this awesome article from Denise Minger, who cites the original China Study documents here—note I only took data from the surveys, not the observations of the feast).
OTHER FINDINGS FROM THE STUDY
This group makes up only a small portion of all the people the China Study researchers looked into. Not all cultures were as lucky, though. Pollution in China caused a notable presence of lung cancer. An increase in breast cancer cases in India, Thailand, and China is believed to be caused by lifestyle changes and socio-cultural factors. Diet undoubtedly has a leading role in cancer risk, but the research conducted by Dr. Campbell and his team in no way supported the theory that animal proteins were to blame. The data actually revealed that, “Sugar, soluble carbohydrates, and fiber all have correlations with cancer mortality about seven times the magnitude of that with animal protein, and total fat and fat as a percentage of calories were both negatively correlated with cancer mortality” (quote from Chris Masterjohn, read more about that here).
CASEIN IN MILK
One particular victim of Campbell’s scrutiny was casein, a protein he claims is only found in dairy that can be blamed for milk’s supposed cancer risk, and there is some evidence to support this in his studies done on rats. From this point, he makes the jump that, if it’s true in rats, it must be true in humans, and if it’s true in casein, it must be true in all animal proteins. That is simply not the case! Furthermore, looking at research beyond just that conducted in the China Study, there is surmounting evidence suggesting milk has no role in increasing cancer risk, and there is even some that suggests it may reduce cancer risk. Here are some examples:
Visioli." Advances in Nutrition: An International Review Journal. Advances in Nutrition, 01 Mar. 2014. Web. 16 May 2017. |
Photo from http://all4desktop.com/4242898-milk.html
|
- “Higher consumption of milk and calcium is associated with a lower risk of colorectal cancer.”
Colditz, Aaron R. Folsom, Gary E. Fraser, Jo L. Freudenheim, Edward Giovannucci, R. Alexandra Goldbohm, Saxon Graham,
Anthony B. Miller, Pirjo Pietinen, John D. Potter, Thomas E. Rohan, Paul Terry, Paolo Toniolo, Mikko J. Virtanen, Walter C.
Willett, Alicja Wolk, Kana Wu, Shiaw-Shyuan Yaun, Anne Zeleniuch-Jacquotte, and David J. Hunter. "Dairy Foods, Calcium,
and Colorectal Cancer: A Pooled Analysis of 10 Cohort Studies." Journal of the National Cancer Institute 96.13 (n.d.): n.
pag. Maastricht University. Oxford University, 7 July 2004. Web. 16 May 2017.
- “Total dairy products intake have no significant impact on increased all cancer mortality risk, while low total dairy intake even reduced relative risk based on the non-linear model.”
A Meta-analysis of 11 Population-based Cohort Studies." Nutrition Journal. BioMed Central, 21 Oct. 2016. Web. 16 May 2017.
- “The available epidemiologic evidence does not support a strong association between the consumption of milk or other dairy products and breast cancer risk.”
Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 01 July 2004. Web. 16 May 2017.
A previous blog post of mine, Does Meat Cause Cancer, takes a critical surveillance of that question, and concludes that meat is not to blame for malignant tumors, regardless of protein type, with many more studies to support it. In fact, the American Institute for Cancer Research actually got so many inquiries about The China Study that they posted an article that [very politely] delegitimizes The China Study. Here’s a quote: “AICR’s ongoing review of the evidence does not support eliminating animal foods as a necessary step for health improvement.”
ANIMAL PROTEINS PARADOX
I’ve touched on the Campbells’ misrepresentative novel before in one of the first articles of this Nutrition Series, The Real Issue With Protein in Vegans. I relayed this quote from him that was published on a Question and Answer forum on Oregon State University’s website: “Animal based proteins, of course, are much more similar to our proteins, thus are used more readily and rapidly than plant proteins. That is, 'substrate' amino acids derived from animal based proteins are more readily available for our own protein synthesizing reactions which allows them to operate at full tilt. Plant proteins are somewhat compromised by their limitation of one or more amino acids.” This is supported both by logic and evidence from many other researchers. The issue comes when you compare it with The China Study’s thesis that says that animal proteins promote cancer. If that was the case, then wouldn’t the amino acids naturally present in our body inherently grow tumors? If the compounds found in meat, milk, and eggs are carcinogenic (cancer causing), then how would any human being who possesses those same chemicals escape childhood?
CAMPBELL'S ACADEMIC BACKGROUND
Many other researchers have gotten ahold of the actual data from the studies, and have noticed an absence of any correlation between quotes in the book and the original findings. However, every time he has been questioned, his response has equated to not much more than, “I’m a doctor, I think I know what I’m talking about.” Surprisingly, those three letters behind his name would not have been achieved if it wasn’t for livestock: he conducted research during his PhD coursework that was actually looking for methods to enhance growth in cattle and sheep being raised for slaughter. Furthermore, young Colin was raised on a dairy farm (learning these things prompted me to try and figure out what type of PhD Campbell had earned, but, despite the far-reaching hand of my good friend, Google, I couldn’t find the answer. Curious…). Could this background explain why, out of all the experiments carried out by the researchers in Asia, it was one of the tests conducted on animals that he clung to so tightly that it alone drafted his book that ignored all the other evidence? |
Photo from http://blueelephantcatering.com/dr-colin-campbell-at-the-blue-elephant/
|
THE CRITICS
My question is, what about all those other doctors that conducted The China Study alongside him yielding contradicting results, or the thousands of doctors that have overseen other studies, producing data that directly go against his claims? Here’s a list of some of the people who have taken the time to review the evidence from the actual China Studies, and see right through Dr. Campbell:
All of this raises the question: Why would Dr. T Colin Campbell jeopardize his reputation by publishing claims that so blatantly disregard findings he was a part of? Hold onto your seats because this is where it gets good! Campbell is on the advisory board for the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, which has received funding directly from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, or PETA (who also prompted inaccurate publishing of cancer findings from the WHO, read about that here). This causes your good friend here at Farming Truth to let out an obnoxious chuckle! I can’t count the number of times that angry vegans come to my page and wave away the [multiple and scholarly] studies I send them that prove their claims wrong, with the explanation of it being funded by the “meat and dairy industry.” And, every single time, I respond with, “Please give me the exact name of the corporation that funded each study, and details about the transaction where money or favors exchanged hands. If you’re going to discount science, have details for your reasoning.”
I have yet to receive an answer.
Even beyond ties with PETA, you have to give the Campbells props for their method to obtaining so much success. They surely realized that no one’s going to buy a nutrition novel that preaches the same old song of a balanced diet. But making radical claims, especially those that are the heart and soul of a progressive movement thirsting for evidence to ride on, is the recipe for the type of bestseller that The China Study became.
My question is, what about all those other doctors that conducted The China Study alongside him yielding contradicting results, or the thousands of doctors that have overseen other studies, producing data that directly go against his claims? Here’s a list of some of the people who have taken the time to review the evidence from the actual China Studies, and see right through Dr. Campbell:
- Denise Minger (an ex-vegan!) has released many critiques of The China Study, but perhaps the most straightforward article is One Year Later, The China Study Revisited and Re-Bashed. In it, she examines papers straight from the study (all of which are authored by Campbell in conjunction with other researchers). Not only do these reveal the inconsistencies between Campbell’s claims and the data, but she also provides many more examples of how The China Study’s findings are evidence against a vegan diet.
- Chris Masterjohn, who earned a PhD in Nutritional Sciences (well I’ll-be-gone-darn, isn’t that what T Colin Campbell has?) wrote an article called The Truth About the China Study, which is another lengthy debunk where he, too, excavated through the medical journals to unearth the data that Campbell claims to have cited yet doesn’t support him at all.
- Chris Kresser, a Berkley graduate of Acupuncture and Integrative Medicine who currently runs a blog that promotes natural approaches to health (basically, he’s the poster child for the type of person who becomes vegan… except he didn’t), commends both the aforementioned writers’ invalidations, and repeatedly exploits the numerous health risks of a strictly plant based diet with no shortage of evidence-citing.
- Dr. Sara Gottfried MD published an article by Brian Rigby MS CISSN (qualifications for a sports nutritionist), that brought in some outside research to disprove the Campbells’ claims.
- Harriet Hall, MD wrote that, when reviewing the Campbells’ book, she “found evidence of sloppy citations, cherry-picked references, omission of data that contradicted the thesis, and recommendations that went beyond the data.”
- There’s certainly others, but I think you get the idea.
All of this raises the question: Why would Dr. T Colin Campbell jeopardize his reputation by publishing claims that so blatantly disregard findings he was a part of? Hold onto your seats because this is where it gets good! Campbell is on the advisory board for the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, which has received funding directly from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, or PETA (who also prompted inaccurate publishing of cancer findings from the WHO, read about that here). This causes your good friend here at Farming Truth to let out an obnoxious chuckle! I can’t count the number of times that angry vegans come to my page and wave away the [multiple and scholarly] studies I send them that prove their claims wrong, with the explanation of it being funded by the “meat and dairy industry.” And, every single time, I respond with, “Please give me the exact name of the corporation that funded each study, and details about the transaction where money or favors exchanged hands. If you’re going to discount science, have details for your reasoning.”
I have yet to receive an answer.
Even beyond ties with PETA, you have to give the Campbells props for their method to obtaining so much success. They surely realized that no one’s going to buy a nutrition novel that preaches the same old song of a balanced diet. But making radical claims, especially those that are the heart and soul of a progressive movement thirsting for evidence to ride on, is the recipe for the type of bestseller that The China Study became.
Long story short, the only data from The China Study that supports Thomas and Colin Campbell’s book is that conducted on rats. However, much of the findings actually disprove him. The book is completely made up so that he could line his pockets with PETA’s handouts. The fact that he had to so blatantly misrepresent his own research supports my argument that no study ever conducted suggests a vegan diet is preferential for health.
Share this:
|
Photo from http://lifestylecleaningservices.com.au/2016/09/cleaning-myths-debunked/
|