Data for the Number-Crunchers (Updated 7/31… It’s Coming!)

Update #3 regarding upcoming response:

Yeah, yeah, yeah. It’s now Saturday. Gotta love being a multiple-offense deadline breaker. (I tend to value thoroughness over timeliness–so anyone out there who was thinking of hiring me for any time-sensitive job, you’ve been duly warned.) I’m currently adding a final section on wheat to Campbell response #2, and then this puppy WILL be ready to post. Pinky swear! Thanks for bearing with me.

–(end update/start of older post)–

I’m excited to see quite a few people take interest in the China Study data (huzzah, numbers!), and even more excited that some of you are already posting the results of your analyses. To quote reader and blogger Ned Kock:

I hope more people will do their own analyses on the original data, like we have been doing. Then the discussion will move away from X or Y are saying this, to something more like “the data” is saying this.

Right on.

While I’m finishing a fairly laborious (you’ll see what I mean later) response  to Mr. Campbell, I thought I’d post some of the data I already have typed up for those of you who are gettin’ antsy. I’ll be updating this entry frequently as I upload more files, but here’s the first batch.

I’ll also use this post to link to anyone who has posted their results somewhere on the ‘net. Those will be right after the links to the data.

Also feel free to request any variable(s) you’re interested in analyzing, and I’ll type them up when I have a spare moment.


Myocardial infarction/coronary heart disease:

(includes total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, green vegetable consumption, animal protein, plant protein, dairy variables, egg variables, meat variables, and fish variables)

(Note: included are the variables “amount of green vegetables consumed” and “frequency of green vegetables consumed” to illustrate the Green Veggie Paradox.)

Colorectal cancer:

(includes cholesterol, schistosomiasis, plant protein, and animal protein)

(A shout out to eds. Chen Junshi, T. Colin Campbell, Li Junyao, and Richard Peto for making this stuff available in book form.)

Reader links:

So far, we have two posts from Ned Kock:

  1. The China Study again: A multivariate analysis suggesting that schistosomiasis rules!
  2. The China Study one more time: Are raw plant foods giving people cancer? (This one’s particularly interesting: Ned used a nonlinear regression analysis on the data with no schistosomiasis infection, and uncovered a U-curve in the relationship between cholesterol and colorectal cancer. In other words, the counties with the lowest cholesterol and highest cholesterol had higher rates of colorectal cancer than the groups with more mid-range cholesterol, who appear the most protected. Ned offers a great hypothesis for this result in his post. Additionally, while animal protein consumption correlated strongly with total cholesterol, animal protein itself correlated inversely (beta = -0.31, p<0.10) with colorectal cancer, while plant protein correlated positively (beta = 0.47, p<0.01). Remember, of course, that correlation doesn’t equal causation, and this is just a sampling of the dizzying number of variables recorded in the China Study.)


  1. In addition to showing a possible correlation between plant protein and colorectal cancer, Ned also made some interesting comments concerning where one would find plant protein. It looks like wheat pops up again. Soy might be involved too. It would be interesting to see a comparison of different grains and legumes and their various correlations.

  2. Uh aren’t there thousands of variables in the data? Isn’t it predictable that in any subset of 8-10 variables there will be all sorts of correlations? Shouldn’t there be some test we use to establish whether the set of variables we are using seem like they contain sufficient range and a sufficient number of samples to be useful?

    I think this is a time when it’s very important for Denise to establish some guidelines for what sorts of conclusions one ought to draw from various data, lest she leave herself (and those using the data) open to criticism. It’s also OK to declare the correlations in the data to be statistically insignificant.

    It also might be useful to show some areas where Campbell might be right.

    1. “I think this is a time when it’s very important for Denise to establish some guidelines for what sorts of conclusions one ought to draw from various data”

      Here’s a guideline: let’s not draw conclusions, period. Even if we set up rigorous tests, the nature of the data makes it impossible to generate anything more than possibilities and leads for future research.

      Incidentally, this is also an area where Campbell is spot on the money, since he mentions epidemiological data is best used in conjunction with biological models and controlled studies.

      Personally, I’m only using the data right now to examine Campbell’s claims — not to create new hypotheses. What others do with the data is beyond my control, but I think most of the folks who are running their own analyses are smart enough to avoid abusing it.

    2. There are statistical tests available to evaluate the ‘power’ of this data set. However, Denise started all this by replying on Campbell’s own ‘rules’. No one is making any causative claims, we are just looking at the lack of evidence for Campbell’s own claims.

      All your criticisms about lack of rules etc should be directed against Campbell and what the original analyses he conducted. In fact, you could do us all a favour and send him an email. I’m curious as to whether he tested for power, and if so, what he found. I’m not very diplomatic though, so I hope you’ll send him an email.

      1. @ Rational Reader: I read that guy’s comment when he first posted it. It still doesn’t detract from the most important point: That Campbell’s own data does NOT support his conclusions.

  3. Dear Denise, congratulations for the excelent research work you’re doing here. Regarding the file “Myocardial infarction variables for Excell 2007”, column O, after “MEAT INTAKE (g/day)”, has no description. Which variable is that? Best regards, O Primitivo.

  4. Watching the conversation unfold, and computing the statistics along the way myself to understand the claims made, I think it’s a bit disingenuous to say at this point that we are moving toward “the data said” rather than “he or she said”. The laxity of modeling techniques and reporting of methods, such as those by Dr. Kock who seems to have experience in some sophisticated methods but uses and interprets them very freely and does not include enough information to assess or replicate his results, makes it almost impossible to say we are simply listening to the data. When used in the way I’ve been seeing here is possible to make the data say a great many things that may or may not be true but not possible to do the kind of verification that Ms. Minger has attempted with Dr. Campbell’s work that started this whole conversation.

    It is not lost on me that this may be the claim that is being made about Campbell’s work, but the standard methods, professional review, and transparency allow his work to be objectively evaluated so that the reader can make an informed decision as to whether the results lead to the conclusions that he suggests.

    So far the lowering of the bar in blogosphere-reviewed analysis has me unable to conclude much from it or see value in doing the work to go from crunching the numbers to writing it up to contribute to it myself. I hope that at some point the shotgun blast of casual analysis gives way to a thorough job on some of the more compelling points I’ve seen come up here.

    1. Thanks for your thoughts, N.

      “but the standard methods, professional review, and transparency allow his work to be objectively evaluated so that the reader can make an informed decision”

      This is part of the problem: While the original data is transparent, Campbell’s methodology for linking animal products with disease is still an enigma. I’ve read 40+ of his publications in the past week and cannot find any convincing evidence for his animal food hypothesis — it’s always a matter of implicating a biomarker or isolated substance with disease (the same reductionism he rallies against), and then linking the biomarker via weak association (not by direct evidence) with animal products. He does not provide evidence for a cause-and-effect relationship between animal foods themselves and disease, which — if animal products are as deleterious as he says — should be pretty easy to do.

      Also, in his first response to my critique, Campbell noted he had already written up his methods in greater detail and was going to include them in “The China Study,” but had to omit that section due to length constraints. When I asked him to consider publishing that material for others to read (an act that could theoretically vindicate him completely), he said he didn’t have time to go fetch it. Yet he apparently did have time to write an 11-page response to my critique — a response that, despite its length, still didn’t explain his rationale for linking animal products directly with disease.

      I sincerely hope he’ll still consider making this unpublished work publicly available — it could save him time fending off critics and help us all learn quite a bit. I sincerely want to understand how he arrived at his conclusions, and I’d *much* rather reach some state of agreement/common ground than continue duking it out over cyberspace.

      Also, if you’re concerned about the statistics, my next post (hopefully up by tomorrow or Wednesday) will be much more comprehensive and feature less of my own statistical analyses, instead focusing directly on Campbell’s publications, the biological models he referenced, and his specific use of the data. All thoroughly referenced and end-noted. And probably another billion pages. 🙂

      1. “…should be pretty easy to do.”

        I certainly respect your decision not to accept Dr. Campbell’s conclusions based on the evidence he cites, I’m not convinced by all of his conclusions either, but I assure you that the patterns sought are not easy to find. The data set is small, noisy, and of ridiculously high dimensionality; the phenomena is complex; the effects are small. To cite a less controversial example, the variable Q130, percentage of males who currently smoke, does not have a significant linear correlation with any cancer or cardiovascular disease according to the online monograph. What do you conclude from that?

        Models add information to a data set, and this data set does not include enough information to answer these questions without what those models add. To shed light on this data Dr. Campbell tests his hypotheses using fairly uncontroversial models about biological mechanisms that will not be subject to all of the same sources of variation that diet and disease do. It’s fair to be suspect of those models, I am. But to simply say “show the association between the inputs and outputs without any variable in between,” for example, is not to make any kind of case against the evidence. It just shuts off the lights in that search for the answers.

      2. “The data set is small, noisy, and of ridiculously high dimensionality; the phenomena is complex; the effects are small.”


        “To cite a less controversial example, the variable Q130, percentage of males who currently smoke, does not have a significant linear correlation with any cancer or cardiovascular disease according to the online monograph. What do you conclude from that?”

        Campbell (et al) have actually published some work on this anomaly (although if you look at other variables related to smoking, some do have statistically significant associations with male lung cancer — check “current daily consumption of manufactured cigarettes”). Part of the explanation has to do with the types of cigarettes smoked in rural vs. more industrialized areas, coupled with more disease risk factors in the industrialized areas that more than compensate for the lower rates of smoking.

        Here’s a relevant blurb from one of Campbell’s papers, discussing the role of a smoking marker (cotinine) in association with disease —

        “In the China study, the analysis of blood samples shows that plasma cotinine (a nicotine metabolite from tobacco smoking) is inversely associated with diseases of affluence including lung cancer but directly associated with diseases of poverty. At first glance, this finding might appear anomalous, since the smoking of manufactured cigarettes in China has been centered mostly around major metropolitan areas such as Shanghai where diseases of affluence are more common. However, high plasma cotinine levels in the rural areas where diseases of poverty predominate, are strongly associated with the use of homemade cigarettes which contain high levels of nicotine (R. Peto, personal communication). Thus the inverse association between plasma cotinine levels and diseases of affluence may be explained by the high consumption of homemade cigarettes in less affluent areas and the lower consumption of homemade cigarettes in more industrialized and more literate regions of the country.”

    2. If anything, I am being rather conservative in my analyzes and reporting.

      See, for example, my comment regarding interaction effects and colinearity in the comments section of this post:

      Also, see my comments regarding controlling for total cholesterol in the comments section of this post (in response to a very good issue raised by Chris):

      You or anybody else are more than welcome to do different analyzes on the data and report your results here as a comment, in my blog as a comment, or elsewhere.

      Getting to the truth is a lot more important for me than looking like I am smart.

      1. Note: You can do different analyses, or the same analyzes. Denise is making the data easily available to all. Replicating findings should not be a problem. There is a sea of software tools for data analysis out there. WarpPLS is one of them, and it is free for trial.

      2. As I re-read my comments I can even see something like this coming:

        Ned Kock’s “analyzes” cannot be trusted, because even he cannot decide whether they are “analyses” or “analyzes”.

        I need Denise’s writing skills, and a bit more time – life and work keep getting in the way of blogging.

      3. I was going to joke that it sounded like you were an advertisement for the software you are using, but low and behold it appears you wrote and are indeed selling it. You might make that more clear.

        Kudos for following at least some best practices, regarding your comments about interaction effects and colinearity. But the analysis as presented on your blog was unconventional enough that I had difficulty accepting the decisions and conclusions your came to. Yes, in general I can see the phenomena you describe in the data, but your inconsistent treatment of the worth of results that most would call “insignificant”, the conclusions you draw from dramatic and incomparable changes to structure in your model, and your penchant for including as known information in your model biological concepts that are far from uncontroversial add up to the ability to tell pretty much whatever story about the data you want. Add to that your exclusion of measures to assess your model or the specifics of its implementation so that the reader is unable to verify the story you tell, and then to discover that with all of these unconventional approaches to statistics you are using software that you wrote and are trying to sell, and it becomes laughable.

        You may well be getting at the truth, but the presentation is indistinguishable from statistical hacks.

      4. Bear in mind that most of the blog’s readers are non-technical. The comments sections of the posts are quickly getting filled with a lot more technical information, for those who are asking for it. Even some debate on methodology is going on. You are welcome to participate.

        Why not do your own analysis of the data, using any software you want (doing by hand is too hard), and describing your conclusions here, there, or anywhere? If they are significantly different from what has been presented so far, then you are productively adding to the discussion.

        You sound like you know what you are talking about. So, as they say, “just do it”!

        I see a soccer player looking at a football during a penalty kick, but holding back and saying things like: “I could easily score a goal, but this ball is so ridiculously far from official standards. So much that it is laughable. And the grass, not green enough.”

        Go ahead, N, kick the ball and score the goal.

  5. Typical conspiracy against Mr. Doctor Colin Campbell. A clear pattern of ad hominem attacks is emerging from the ones who are in desperate need to discredit and mentally abuse an old and respected man. You just cannot stand that he is right all the time and knows lots of stuff.

    This is so very typical. A 20-some year old young somebody with no training of any king, no experience, no education, no knowledge whatsoever goes and writes down a load of numbers that supposedly destroy Mr Campbell. Doctor Campbell is a good man, he knows what he says. Why did you have to set the goal to destroy this humble man? Why not be humble yourself and kind and loving. But no, you hurt him. This is lunacy.

    You say Campbells numbers are wrong, but Campbell wrote his conclusions based on the study that he did himself as if the numbers he based them off were right. That alone shoots down everything you have written so far. How can you argue with that? Denise, I am asking you, how can you do that with a straight face?

    Look, all I say is that Campbell knows what he is saying. He said in his book that plant based diet is best. I’m just saying that. Thats the way it is. You don’t always have to argue with him or be right, it is allright, you can be happy. May god have mercy.

    Campbell book say that casein is in animals. Animal protein. The thing you love to sinnfully protect with ad hominem attacks at all cost. You eat the animal protein, you get cancer, you dont eat you dont get cancer. Campbell saw it himself with his own eyes, and I dont have a sick desire to constantly pick on him no matter what. This is proven with science. You cannot argue with that, you can only hide your head. Much like Masterjohn. Animals are not stupid, they don’t like you. They want to kill you. If you were an animal protein, would you let yourself be eaten or cause cancer to the guy eating you? Of course animal protein wants to cause cancer, it is all logical. Bukld

    Who does a sincere and loving man trust? Is it the abusive and self-righteous cocky lil girl with a face like a crabby old witch, or is it the charming scientist who is the best in the business for 65 years?

    1. @Johnson – replace “Campbell” with “Hitler” and “plant based diet” with “anti-semitism” then repeat your argument to yourself.

  6. Johnson: “Who does a sincere and loving man trust? Is it the abusive and self-righteous cocky lil girl with a face like a crabby old witch, or is it the charming scientist who is the best in the business for 65 years”

    Your post can be resumed as an Appeal to Authority logical fallacy and Ad Hominem logical fallacy. You did not bring anything new to this debate (science-wise at least). Do you realized this?

    Also, are you aware that you are guilty of psychological projection in most of your accusations here?


  7. Johnson: “Who does a sincere and loving man trust? Is it the abusive and self-righteous cocky lil girl with a face like a crabby old witch, or is it the charming scientist who is the best in the business for 65 years”

    I think you have it wrong – with a face like a crabby old witch – does not describe Denise at all – more Campbell as he is in his 70s. I wonder if he would have aged less on a different diet?

  8. Since somebody brought up logic…

    CC’s casein studies are totally sketch. I have NOT read them, but based upon his 11-page reply some relatively clear conclusions can be made.

    He says that- If “experimental” cancer is a pre-existing condition, then the consumption of casein promotes cancer growth.

    It’s pretty easy not to screw up your controls- one group of rats gets casein, the other does not, everything else between them is the same. So if casein rats grow cancer faster, then casein must be responsible.

    This is bunk.

    To specifically test casein, it must be administered in the form of a protein isolate. The tertiary structure of a protein isolate denatures very quickly in low Ph environments. Denatured proteins do not actively interact in biochemical environments.

    In other words, if you dissociate casein from a hunk of meat and serve it up as a goop, the second it hits your stomach it gets nuked into nothing but a bunch of amino acids that your body uses as food.

    Parboiled viral blood pumped straight into the bloodstream is the basic premise for vaccination. What happens if you FULLY boil this viral blood? What happens if you isolate the virus itself, boil it, and then run it through a digestive tract? NOTHING.

    CC suggesting that the consumption of a protein isolate promotes cancer growth is a contradiction to our knowledge of how proteins work- So then why did he see higher growth rates of cancer in rats?

    If the cancerous rats were not meeting their nutritional/behavioral requirements for optimal health, then they would technically be malnourished. The casein rats would, then, be MORE nourished than the control group.

    If cancer is a tumorous outgrowth from the body and it’s nutrients come from that body, then a malnourished body would result in malnourished cancer.

    Occam’s razor and biological plausability suggest that CC was working with malnourished rats OR that the chemicals used to stabilize the casein were carcinogenic or otherwise unhealthy (IE- thimerosal).

    (If he used chunks of meat instead– then his experiment would’ve been more on the right track).
    It would also be imprudent of CC to do studies ONLY on cancerous rats. If he could engineer an experimental environment such that casein could be isolated as being significantly responsible for cancer initiation, then he probably would’ve included a reference to it in his 11-page reply. He doesn’t provide one, so I assume that he absolutely cannot or has been incapable of showing that casein rats have a higher rate of cancer initiation (this would his holy grail- btw, so he would show it if he could).

    Most of CC’s 11-page response doesn’t make logical sense (IDK if it’s appropriate to explicitly point them all out; I really want to…) within the context of itself. His entire supporting argument consists of a predicate defined with an existential quantifier that is used in an implication. Existential quantifiers in implications are MORONIC! (You’d think so two if you heard one in plain English).

    If the theme is ad hominem, then I think there are plenty of cases that would serve as supporting evidence for the claim that CC doesn’t think very (apropos) holistically.

    1. Dr Eades chimes in and hits your point to :

      “meaning that the protein along with starch did not have nearly the same effect as protein with the sugar. Who knows whether or not it’s even the protein that has the effect and not the sugar? It can’t be shown from this study. That caveat certainly didn’t make in into The China Study.

      See what I mean about a masterpiece of obfuscation?”

  9. Hi Denise.

    I did several mv analyses on the chd dataset (the second spreadsheet), and the results are pretty much what one would expect. A hidden variable confounds everything, and we have a pretty good idea of what that variable could be – schisto infection.

    If the counties are the same, and in the same order, perhaps the two spreadsheets could be merged.

    One would then be able to remove the schisto cases and run an analyses on the reduced dataset. Unfortunately the sample will shrink a lot, but so is life.

    1. From the last comment:

      “I know this may sound like hokus pokus to some, but I hope to do a better job explaining this idea in a future book. ”

      A line of food products AND a book, eh?

      1. “The simple truth is that biology is too complex for us to discern its essential truths by building a picture from the ground up, one mechanism at a time. Instead, we need to listen for the symphony created by these countless mechanisms” – Campbell

        He is so full of crap. He will never hear the same “symphony” that somebody else does. It is just an excuse for him to ignore all the contradictory evidence and pick and choose which evidence makes up his symphony.

        A “symphony” is okay for maybe building a hypothesis, but the hypothesis has to be testable or you are talking Creationism again.

        And one little rodent study with complete/incomplete proteins (combined with aflatoxin) seems to be the cornerstone of his “symphony”.

        He admits that many scientists think what he is doing is hocus pocus, but then he and his acolytes turn around and make these appeals to authority any time he is questioned. You can’t be both the ‘science renegade’ and the ‘mainstream authority’ at the same time. A renegade has to argue the science every chance he gets, but Campbell avoids it and prefers to preach to the faithful instead. The science is just reductionist nonsense to him. He is such a fraud.

        It is annoying how bad he is abusing science, and yet the people who cannot think critically are holding him as some type of scientific authority.

      2. Just another comment about Campbell’s “symphony.”

        There is this guy named James D. Watson. In his field, he has more credentials than Campbell, and he is probably much better known. He won the Nobel Prize for discovering the double helix of DNA, and he headed up the Human Genome Project.

        He also apparently doesn’t think much of women, fat people, or blacks. One remark he made was “[I am] inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa [because] all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours—whereas all the testing says not really.”

        His “symphony” tells him that skinny white males are the only people worth hiring. He does have a buttload of credentials in genetics.

        Maybe “symphonies” are just hypotheses, and maybe a little reductionism has its place in testing hypotheses.

  10. Rational thinkers didn’t let Nietzsche get away with simple physical metaphors (such as going “beyond” good and evil — which way is “beyond,” to the right? Left? Over the next hill?), so why should anyone let Dr. Campbell get away with this patently absurd metaphor of a “symphony”? If he’s got hard science to back his hypothesis, let him show it. If not, these flights into escapist poetic fantasy only make him seem desperate to stay one step ahead of his pursuers, which is in the context of this interesting blog, no metaphor.

    His sudden departure from explicit language is as telling as anything he’s said so far.

  11. I find the banter between Denise and Dr. Campbell quite interesting (Good Drama Guys;) As far as I can tell you are both interested in the same things.

    Dr. Campbell research SUGGESTED that less than 12% animal protein in your diet had health benefits for some people. I am willing to wager that Dr. Campbell eats some animal protein.

    I was trying to find a suggestion on your blog on how much raw animal protein that you recommend but could not find it. How much raw liver or tongue can someone eat? I have a hard time finding a clean source here in Michigan.

    Your recommendations did show a vast majority of your food coming from plant-based whole foods as does Dr. Campbell.

    I personally think you are gorgeous whatever you are eating being cooked food or raw.

    Intelligence can be a trap without practice and patience. Crunching the numbers of Dr. Campbell research is ultimately useless if someone keeps eating the same crappy diet.

    If you and your readers are happy and getting the results you want great, leave others alone that are getting the same results with different methods.
    Unhappy people tend to pick more fights.

    I may not agree with everything Dr. Campbell says but I took the time to read his book and gleaned some helpful information.

    I hope others do the same.

    1. Sophistry is evil. The desire to challenge it rarely stems from some innate unhappiness as you may suggest. Seek instead the providence of curiosity- for without it we might never ask questions.

      It doesn’t matter who or what Denise is or what she believes, if she can show that CC’s claims are objectively untrue within the context that they were made, then CC is guilty of misinformation (and profiting from it!).

      Is it possible that WFPB diets are absolutely superior? Of course! Does CC have the evidence to show that? Hell no.

    2. You know what, 12% is about the limit where extra protein stops making helpful contribution. That can be seen in many healthy non-industrial (aboriginal) tribes.

      Whether you get those twelve percent from Animal or Plant sources is immaterial, the only requirement is that it should be complete. If your digestive system is doing OK, then it will be broken down into useful amino-acids and will be used.

      What you do get from Animal sources are important fats, the saturated fats (yes they are not that evil and are required in every cell in our body, including skeletal), the Omega-3 fats. Yes you can get saturated fats from carbs, but those are only long chain fats, you need to get the shorter chain from food.

      What you do get from Animal sources are important Vitamins, B12 and K2. K1 does not equal K2, former is just a blood Klotting factor, while K2 is required for Calcium metabolism.

      What you do get from Animal sources are important minerals, Zinc. Zinc can be got from plant sources, but its difficult to use because it is bound in phytates. Unless you ferment it well, its not available.

      There is a reason, no vegan society exists. There are also some reasons why there are so few vegetarian societies. I know of only India. The reason, is that there needs to be people, that think themselves above animals. Who think that they can eleviate animals from their misery. Who think that they can be above what they basically are, animals.

      Yes we are animals. It is best to understand that fact. Then do the best we can for the environment. Ignoring facts does not make a rational human being. An irrational human being cannot do any good. He can be easily manipulated. All religions are basically a tool in the hands of these manipulators. They are all based on actual human beings that did a lot of good, then some manipulators got into the act and used HIS/HER name to manipulate people.

    3. Kevin,

      I believe Campbell said he avoids all animal products except for special occasions.

      If Campbell and his followers like his diet that is fine. The problem is that he misuses science to bolster claims about animal products being bad. He still insists for example that all animal protein causes cancer, and he says this is pretty much scientific fact. Most of the criticism here has not been of the diet he advocates but of the abuse of science he exhibits in his book and articles.

      He has also repeatedly invoked his credentials to bolster the belief among the general public that the claims in his book and articles are scientific fact, and he has not responded very well anytime someone attempts to question the science. It is just disturbing to many scientifically minded people to see a scientist abuse science to the extent that he has. He has gone out of his way to “lawyer” the evidence to convince the public of his views, and then he pretends that somehow he is in actuality doing superior science to everyone else.

      Campbell insists that his book provides concrete scientific evidence that meat products are bad, and people attempting to affect public policy have held his book up as “scientific” evidence. It is important to show that his book is nothing but a weakly formulated hypothesis that does not withstand even modest scientific scrutiny.

      The way the scientific process works is that everything is open to scientific debate. If people see problems with someone else’s work, they bring it up. Apparently this is “fighting words” to Campbellites and Vegans.

  12. I do not understand why people are coming to this blog exhorting you to leave others’ diets alone and stop picking fights! Come on, folks, Denise is just checking the data and pointing out where some conclusions may not be supported. Do whatever you want with the information.

    Being in Chicago, I guess I’ll have to wait till morning to read your eagerly anticipated update. (You’re such a tease…)

  13. Denise is doing her job revealing to the world that Emperor Campbell has no clothes using his own data, and his loyal subjects just hate looking like chumps, which is why they are attacking her.

    1. Not true. I saw a news report about someone finding her comatose and being taken to an ambulance by paramedics.

  14. this data set is not going to lead anyone anywhere except go in rounds chasing your tails.

    i’m looking forward to wheat article and perhaps raw milk article too.

  15. I agree with Pallav – and that Campbell’s book seems to be based on the principle that complete proteins cause cancer in rats in concert with aflatoxin, so all us humans should eat incomplete protein. An idea so patently ridiculous and incompatible with human life that I can’t believe any one with a functional brain cell could believe it. @Johnson – maybe you need B12. Your neurons don’t appear to be working fully.

  16. So aflatoxin and animal protein causes cancer and therefore we should cut out animal protein.I have a novel idea, how about we stop eating aflatoxins in the first place. They are only found in unnecessary foods anyway, unless I misunderstand what aflatoxins are.

    1. Dr. Michael Eades writes in his critique of The China Study:

      “As I’ve written often in these pages, rodents aren’t just furry little humans. They are a distinct species separate and apart from humans. The rodents usually used in lab experiments are Sprague-Dawley rats, an inbred strain that has a tendency to develop cancer easily. (See Abelson, PH. (1992) Diet and Cancer in Humans and Rodents, Science 255(5041); Jan 10: 141) In fact, these rats can develop cancer just from a change in diet. I ran quick checks on a bunch of the studies referenced in The China Study, and all checked used Sprague-Dawley rats.”

      1. Thank you but I have already read and admired (as always) Dr Eades views. I am always skeptical of using animals as subsitutes for humans. At best they can provide a very good indication of what MIGHT be going on, but until experiments involving humans have been conducted than its still just educated guesswork. So I do agree with you (I just have to be long winded about it).

        My point though is aflatoxin’s are only found in grains and legumes, neither of which is something people should be eating in the first place. So if a combination of aflatoxin and animal protein cause cancer, why should we not stay with animal protein instead.

        In other words, TCC’s conclusions is that A and B together cause cancer, so lets ditch B. I say, if A and B together cause cancer, lets ditch A.

  17. I have proof-read Denise’s newest “dissertation” and believe me, it is a masterpiece and well worth the wait. It leaves a lot of fodder for new research to be conducted. I haven’t yet seen what she’s written on wheat, but I’m very excited to see what she discovers from the data.

    For those of you waiting for a “cutesy” response, you won’t see it here. Personally, I prefer her creative writing style (which by the way has won her many awards and put her through college with numerous scholarships), but I realize there’s no room for that in scientific papers.

  18. Still chugging along. From the original data, it looks like blood glucose is probably a better biomarker for disease than cholesterol!

    Anywho, I promise to have it up by the end of the day. For reals this time.

  19. Since this has attracted so much attention from so many, I hope you take all the time you require. In the meantime, people like Dr. Eades and the responses by Dr. Campbell and others will make for enough reading for days, if not weeks. This has been a very interesting education in methodology, ideology and the place of analysis in observational studies. I can’t thank everyone enough for all the time and effort they have put into this matter.

  20. 2:30 AM. Done! Booyah!

    Will give it a final proofreading tomorrow upon waking, and then it will, at long last, be up for viewing. If anyone needs it in a format other than PDF, speak now or forever hold your peace — I’m not sure how successful it’ll be pasted into a blog entry.


    Bed time.

    1. If anyone needs it in a format other than PDF, speak now or forever hold your peace — I’m not sure how successful it’ll be pasted into a blog entry.

      Well…doesn’t it need to be a blog entry for linking and/or so Google can crawl the html? It’s going to wind up being a very high-authority page. Seems a shame to lock it up in a PDF.

      1. anon – I don’t think it should be a blog entry if it is 40 pages long. I am assuming there will be a blog entry to introduce the paper. If people want html, then I think that would work better as a separate page that is linked to from the blog entry. I think that can wait though; I am ready for the PDF.

    2. Almost done proofing. I’ll to HTML-ify at least part of it, but if that ends up not working or taking too long, I’ll just post the PDF first and work on getting it in a blog post/multiple posts over the next couple days.

  21. Hi,
    This link:
    Myocardial infarction/CHD variables for Excell ’97 – ’03

    leads to same file as the colorectal file.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s