or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Have you read this?

post #1 of 36
Thread Starter 
I know that we cannot discuss negatively other dietary choices, so please tread lightly. I am wondering, though, if others here have read this? http://www.vegsource.com/articles2/c...a_response.htm
post #2 of 36
Useful! Thanks! :
post #3 of 36
post #4 of 36
Bookmarked it - thanks!
post #5 of 36
Very interesting. Thank you!
post #6 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristaN View Post
I know that we cannot discuss negatively other dietary choices, so please tread lightly. I am wondering, though, if others here have read this? http://www.vegsource.com/articles2/c...a_response.htm
You don't have to tread lightly, as far as I'm concerned. However, please do know that Campbell and Masterjohn communicated privately by e-mail, and Campbell made public what was in them in this article. Not only that, but he doesn't address Masterjohn's well-written critical review of "The China Study" (available at http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/China-Study.html), and instead resorts to ad hominem attacks (he says that Masterjohn is young, inexperienced, blah blah, but in fact Masterjohn is a pre-med student who has published a medical hypothesis paper, available at: http://tinyurl.com/y5crbc).

He also brings up Sally Fallon's English degree, as if that makes her not qualified to be able to read medical abstracts or think and write critically (kind of like mainstream doctors who dismiss us mothers and our criticisms of their profession since we have no medical background). Strangely, or not, he is silent about Dr. Mary Enig, co-writer of "Nourishing Traditions" and other WAPF articles and a well-respected nutrition researcher.
post #7 of 36
Thanks!!!
post #8 of 36
i really find the information about how t. colin campbell did a complete 180 degree turn from his dairy farm roots and belief in the healthfulness of animal proteins to be very compelling. it's not easy to turn your back on what you were basically raised to believe about food like that; especially when it is your family's source of income. you have to admire someone who can face the data and study results and instead of trying to twist it all to fit their agenda, keep their mind open and even change their stance.

i also think it's hilarious how campbell, through his links with the PCRM (and their link to PeTA) has been called a "domestic terrorist via association"...and people think he is the one flinging ad hominem attacks around. ha.
post #9 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by christacular View Post
i really find the information about how t. colin campbell did a complete 180 degree turn from his dairy farm roots and belief in the healthfulness of animal proteins to be very compelling. it's not easy to turn your back on what you were basically raised to believe about food like that; especially when it is your family's source of income. you have to admire someone who can face the data and study results and instead of trying to twist it all to fit their agenda, keep their mind open and even change their stance.
I'm more concerned about some of the nutritional errors he makes in his books (for instance on page, 20 he says, "Folic acid is a compound derived EXCLUSIVELY from plant-based foods[...]"). He has never answered critics about errors like these, and this is one of the minor ones.

Quote:
Originally Posted by christacular View Post
i also think it's hilarious how campbell, through his links with the PCRM (and their link to PeTA) has been called a "domestic terrorist via association"...and people think he is the one flinging ad hominem attacks around. ha.
I assume you're talking about Masterjohn's review of "The China Study"? If so, he was quoting what other organizations said about PCRM. Read again. The quote is:

"Fast forward to the present. Campbell is now on the advisory board of the Physician’s Committee for Responsible Medicine,2 which describes itself as “a nonprofit organization that promotes preventive medicine, conducts clinical research, and encourages higher standards for ethics and effectiveness in research,”3 but whose pro-vegan agenda reflects its ties to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and other animal rights groups, including, according to Newsweek, Stop Hunting and Animal Cruelty, which the Department of Justice calls a “domestic terrorist threat.”4" (italics mine)

I think Masterjohn's review was quite respectful, but I hear he's in the process of re-writing the review, perhaps to reflect the fact that Campbell is not above using personal correspondence to attack people publicly with the information. For someone who has all the trappings of public success and accolades, I find it very curious that he sinks to such shady actions.
post #10 of 36
whether or not it's a quote, it's pretty shady to repeat it. also you totally paraphrased what campbell said about masterjohn. he did not call him "young and inexperienced". he said he was 24, and not a nutritional research scientist. neither of those seem like ad hominem attacks - rather, facts - ...but linking campbell to domestic terrorists, whether by quote or not, does.
post #11 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicharronita View Post
I'm more concerned about some of the nutritional errors he makes in his books (for instance on page, 20 he says, "Folic acid is a compound derived EXCLUSIVELY from plant-based foods[...]"). He has never answered critics about errors like these, and this is one of the minor ones.
well, i'm no nutritional research scientist, but i believe that the only non-plant source of folic acid is liver, and that's because the animals who's livers you'd eat, get it from plant foods and store it in that particular organ.
post #12 of 36
interesting.

have any of y'all read "eat, drink and be healthy" by walter willet, phD harvard School of Public Health. it was a NY Times bestseller 5 yrs ago or so. he makes the case for good fats, but not sat fats. he's in charge of the long running nurses health study II and the book is based on the findings from it and the nurses study I. i think it would fall in line with the china study book. i only had time to skim the article right now, but will go back and read it more thoroughly later i hope.
post #13 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by christacular View Post
whether or not it's a quote, it's pretty shady to repeat it.
Well, that's a different issue from saying that Masterjohn had called Campbell part of a domestic terrorist organization, when he hadn't. How shady, anyway? There's a connection between the organizations that's been commented on, and Masterjohn was repeating it. *shrug* I think it was legitimate in the context of the review, because Campbell disingenuously tries to paint himself as this totally unbiased reviewer, when CLEARLY he is anything but.

Quote:
Originally Posted by christacular View Post
also you totally paraphrased what campbell said about masterjohn. he did not call him "young and inexperienced". he said he was 24, and not a nutritional research scientist. neither of those seem like ad hominem attacks - rather, facts - ...but linking campbell to domestic terrorists, whether by quote or not, does.
My point is that Campbell, instead of answering the legitimate issues Masterjohn brings up about the book in his review, talks about Masterjohn's youthfulness and inexperience. What does that have to do with anything? What does Fallon's having an English degree have to do with anything for that matter? It sure looks like he's trying to discredit anyone who criticizes him or his book.
post #14 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by christacular View Post
well, i'm no nutritional research scientist, but i believe that the only non-plant source of folic acid is liver, and that's because the animals who's livers you'd eat, get it from plant foods and store it in that particular organ.
That's different from saying that the ONLY food source of folic acid comes from plants.

I don't know if you've read the book, but in the very next line he goes on to say, "Homocysteine is an amino acid that is derived primarily from animal protein." In the context of these two sentences, it's pretty clear he is saying the former comes ONLY from plants and the latter is mainly from animal protein.
post #15 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by beanma View Post
have any of y'all read "eat, drink and be healthy" by walter willet, phD harvard School of Public Health. it was a NY Times bestseller 5 yrs ago or so. he makes the case for good fats, but not sat fats.
Sounds vaguely familiar, but I'm rather tired of hearing about how "evil" saturated fat is. It, along with eliminating soy from my diet, is what caused a 180 degree turn in my health from bad to good. I'm also tired of the experts who claim that it's bad for you—they are NOT telling the whole story. I find the information contained in "The Great Cholesterol Con" and "Know Your Fats" a lot more compelling.

I can't wait for Gary Taubes' "A Big Fat Lie?" to come out in the spring. Apparently he's done writing it, but is having the 2,000 or so references thoroughly checked to forestall critics' dismissing it due to any errors.
post #16 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicharronita View Post
Well, that's a different issue from saying that Masterjohn had called Campbell part of a domestic terrorist organization, when he hadn't. How shady, anyway? There's a connection between the organizations that's been commented on, and Masterjohn was repeating it. *shrug* I think it was legitimate in the context of the review, because Campbell disingenuously tries to paint himself as this totally unbiased reviewer, when CLEARLY he is anything but.
Wait...you truly don't see how trying to make a connection from Campbell organizations deemed "terrorists" by the government is a shady thing to do in a piece that's ostensibly about nutrition?

Saying Campbell has a vegan agenda is one thing. Saying (and even worse, coopting other people' words to insinuate it) he has a terrorist agenda is quite another.

post #17 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaydee View Post
Wait...you truly don't see how trying to make a connection from Campbell organizations deemed "terrorists" by the government is a shady thing to do in a piece that's ostensibly about nutrition?
No, since the point Masterjohn was making is that Campbell is far from an impartial researcher like he claims in his book (and even in the vegsource.com rebuttal). What IS shady is Campbell using information from private e-mail correspondence with Masterjohn to attack him in a public forum.

Apart from that ONE sentence, the rest of the Masterjohn review is about the book. I wish I could say the same about Cambell's rebuttal on the vegsource.com—it's mostly about how Masterjohn, WAPF (and any other critic for that matter) supposedly don't have the credentials to review his book, rather than answering the specific, legitimate criticisms that have been brought up about it.
post #18 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicharronita View Post
My point is that Campbell, instead of answering the legitimate issues Masterjohn brings up about the book in his review, talks about Masterjohn's youthfulness and inexperience. What does that have to do with anything? What does Fallon's having an English degree have to do with anything for that matter? It sure looks like he's trying to discredit anyone who criticizes him or his book.

well, that's not the impression i got from campbell's response. he was pointing out that the critics from wapf have taken a lot of things from the china study out of context and completely misinterpreted the raw, uncorrected data from it; which seems like mistakes the inexperienced would make. i think questioning a critic's credentials is rather a good point to make in this case; because having degrees and a long history in the nutritional research sciences certainly must help you to filter through and understand data relating to that field.

but there is a lot that veggies and nt'ers won't agree on and frankly, having this debate over and over again in this supposedly veggie-friendly forum is getting kind of tired.
post #19 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by christacular View Post
but there is a lot that veggies and nt'ers won't agree on and frankly, having this debate over and over again in this supposedly veggie-friendly forum is getting kind of tired.
post #20 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by christacular View Post
well, i'm no nutritional research scientist, but i believe that the only non-plant source of folic acid is liver, and that's because the animals who's livers you'd eat, get it from plant foods and store it in that particular organ.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicharronita View Post
That's different from saying that the ONLY food source of folic acid comes from plants.
Not really, if the only reason the folic acid is in the liver is because the animal is getting it from a plant, then yes...folic acid would only come from plants...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vegetarian and Vegan