T. Colin Campbell: Scientist or Propagandist?

You be the judge

There’s a site of cloistered raw vegans who eat fruit, and who don’t let anyone disturb their worldview through membership screening.

I knew about this forum post from back in July (Blog Bandits). The group-think evident in the comments is, well, typical of this sort of thing. This is referring to Denise Minger’s annihilation of The China Study in a series of posts and my post cataloging all the blogs instrumental in getting Denise’s work noticed.

We need to formulate a fantastic response that can be circulated throughout the blogs listing Denise’s critique, a lot may not be accepted but I’ve found a lot will be as well. The ones that do not feature responses from us are obviously HIGHLY threatened by our message, I have a certain level of respect for the blogs that do take the time to address comments against Denise’s claims.

Disdain for independent thought and action and, you’re only threatened when you don’t care to have their unified catechism plastered all over your blog comments, but not when you have amassed a veritable library of membership and posting guidelines a-la 30bd. One of their "blog bandits" tried it over here. Had it been just one comment it would have been fine, but this bandit posted the exact same text in reply to five or ten other comments, like a bot.


So, anyway, I haven’t paid much attention to it until I was alerted to the then last comment on page two of the thread.

Ok done so with the following…(& on the blog you recommended)

Greetings banana lovers :)

We really need some blog bandits to come help us spread the truth about Denise Minger’s thoroughly botched China Study analysis.

We (The China Study Group) have been in contact with Colin Campbell and he would really appreciate the assistance as well. All you need to do is to post a comment or two on the following blogs….http://www.30bananasaday.com/group/debunkingthechinastudycritics/

Come to this thread and let us know that you are joining us please!

[emphasis added]


Tell me what kind of legitimate research scientist would coordinate and encourage a group like that to go out and, essentially, spam blog comments. Comments are for independent thought, experience, discussion.

At that link in the quote you’ll also find this comment.

jenna, i’ve just heard back from nelson campbell. they’ve taken the site down because they are in the process of regrouping their strategy. if you want some of the articles from the site, we can try to post them here.

He’s referring to a website Campbell’s son put up hastily where they had intended to respond to Denise and discuss via comments. But they quickly took it down when they realized that they couldn’t even contend with the most minor of challenges in questions.

So I guess they’ve "regroup[ed] their strategy" by means of enlisting the help of the most sycophantic of all their ignorant followers. A job like this calls for group-think zealots above all.

Campbell deserves their devotion. In conclusion I’ll quote a comment from Denise’s original entry on TCS that came in just this morning.

Hitler once said “People will swallow lies….provided they are big enough.” Very few things in this crazy, complex world arrange themselves into clear concise patterns which perfectly fit one type of belief / ideal / agenda. When such a ‘perfect’ fit IS presented….it’s not just LIKELY to be a fake, I promise you, it IS a fake. Campbell’s book is a literary Potemkin village.

Now that’s good: a literary Potemkin village.

Memberships are $10 monthly, $20 quarterly, or $65 annually. The cost of two premium coffees per month. Every membership helps finance the travel to write, photo, and film from interesting places and share the experiences with you.


  1. Darrin on October 7, 2010 at 12:55

    Thanks for the heads up, Richard. The 30 Bananas a Day gang tried to spam the hell out of my blog when I first wrote up an article on Denise’s post. Guess I’m gonna have to gear up again, haha. Thank god for Akismet.

  2. William Marcum on October 7, 2010 at 16:26

    Wow.. I read through some of the “forum guidelines”.. and honestly the place reads like the rule book for a Nazi prison camp. I mean, honestly you can’t even post pictures of fruit that they deem has been too badly mixed together? These guys are nut jobs, and that’s without taking into account the fact they think they can live eating just fruit.. and be healthy?

    You know, the internet has done amazing things.. but unfortunately, it’s also made it so all the crazy people can get their voice out there… and people actually listen.

    • Richard Nikoley on October 7, 2010 at 17:29

      I’m going to completely disagree with you, William.

      The Internet is a huge blessing. Don’t believe me? Go Google some neo-Nazi sites. Now, what’s better, that they can agitate locally, totally stealth and cloistered, a-la 1930, or be dismissed as the ignorant fools they are ’cause they’re not even clever enough to not set up obviously amateurish web sites?

      Sure’ they’ll rake in a few disaffected, unsociable teens, mostly males – the American equivalent of the Middle Eastern phenomenon of adolescent males so frustrated from zero access to pussy they’ll blow themselves up and take as many with them as they can

      Intelligence always reigns. The Internet is the most powerful tool ever for uncovering it and promoting it.

      • haig on October 7, 2010 at 19:31

        Agreed. Reminds me of the anecdote about the KKK told in the book Freakonomics. The KKK was effectively dismantled after they appeared as the villains in a series of Superman radio shows. Read more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stetson_Kennedy (search for superman or KKK within that article). The Internet is at its best when we can actually mock and ridicule the insanity out in the open instead of letting it kindle unnoticed.

        I attended a Richard Dawkins lecture last night at Caltech and he reiterated a similar sentiment regarding creationists and anti-evolutionists. He said ridicule is the preferred tactic, though not abuse. We should try to show the craziness for what it is in a clever and honest way in order to make people embarrassed to hold such ideas.

      • Richard Nikoley on October 7, 2010 at 21:05

        I could not agree more and that is what FTA is all about. In a word, be too embarrassed to co,mention. There’s my co,mention control right there, and it’s very effective.

      • Richard Nikoley on October 7, 2010 at 21:06

        You get it. I’m on a fucking soft keyboard.

      • William Marcum on October 9, 2010 at 16:11

        That’s a good point, I generally don’t think about it like that. Usually I just shake my head and walk away, perhaps I should be more proactive about it.

  3. Katt on October 7, 2010 at 10:10

    It is an unfortunate circumstance of human nature that group-think happens. Like people tend to cling together and you will find it among Vegans, Fruitarians, Socialsts, Libertarians, Tea Partiers and even among Paleo folk. The true individualist is a much more rare thing.

    That said… it’s very sad when that sort of group-think promotes blatantly unjustified propaganda. Le sigh. Stop SPAM where it happens and let the rest destroy themselves.

  4. Jeromie on October 7, 2010 at 10:18

    Your blog always makes my day. Honestly. In my master’s program (exercise physiology with an emphasis in ‘coaching wellness’), I know two vegans (out of 6 of us) and, even though no arguments have arisen, my view of them has been tainted by all that they’ve done when it comes to Denise and her critique. Tom Naughton has some great posts, too. Keep up the great work and don’t ever hold back – it’s way too entertaining!

  5. David Csonka on October 7, 2010 at 10:21

    I do not believe he is an unbiased neutral scientist at all anymore, and he probably hasn’t been for years.

    He’s obviously a “true believer” of his own rhetoric.

  6. Ray Dixon - Pure Spontaneity on October 7, 2010 at 10:24

    TC Campbell probably still believes his conclusions and always will. I know he continues to defend his study and he certainly wants to sell his study as a means of income, but I wonder how much he encourages outright propaganda. He is probably more like Al Gore than he is someone who riots at an anti-globabl warming rally. I don’t buy what either one of them are peddling.

  7. Athena on October 7, 2010 at 10:26

    the 20bd people will wipe themselves out soon enough. They are already having followers having their teeth fall out, have multitude of health issues, and seriously who thinks all that fruit is a good idea? I just smile, and let them kill themselves slowly.

    • Jared on October 8, 2010 at 07:17

      Athena..aptly named. Being the goddess of military strategy, I must say your logic is sound! Why waste our energy fighting them when we can just watch them fall by the way side, victims of their own delusions? It’s a bit harsh, but I like it! Besides, I’d rather save my energy for Tabata sprints and kettle bells!

    • Auggiedoggy on October 17, 2010 at 22:14

      We are witnessing evolution here! The religious nutburgers (fruitarians, vegans, raw vegans) of the human species are doing all they can to remove their kind from the gene pool thereby leaving the more intelligent and more robust to pass on more favorable genes to future generations. :)

  8. Nathaniel on October 7, 2010 at 10:37

    Richard, I’ve enjoyed your repartee with TC Campbell, and I can’t wait to see you taking on the 30BaD community. I wonder if they will personally respond.

    Like I wrote in another thread, they are pretty much a cult of fruitarianism.

  9. Jonathan on October 7, 2010 at 10:50

    LOL. The a-list-of-all-39-blog-entries looks like a nice list of sites I would really enjoy and have to add to my RSS feed.

    • Khrystyna on October 7, 2010 at 13:26

      Woo hoo! my blog was on there, I just regret not having said something more clever about it all now ;)

    • Bushrat on October 7, 2010 at 19:02

      I know. I discovered a few other paleo blogs to read due to that list. I should really send the 30 bad bunch a thankyou – maybe a few beef ribs.

      • Richard Nikoley on October 7, 2010 at 21:02

        Don’t discount some of them may be eating them and lying. Same suspicion doesn’t apply to us. Most of us “freelie” admit we eat plenty of fruit.

  10. Russ Taylor on October 7, 2010 at 10:51

    Man, let me first say that I would LOVE to be able to be a Fruititarian! If all I had to do was slam down tons and tons of delicious fruit all day, and I would still be fit and healthy, I would be in HEAVEN! Even the raw food thing, it would be supremely easy and simple to be able to get by without cooking anything. Would I get bored of that? Yes, I surely would. And after probably the 30 day “honeymoon” period, my performance and body comp would suffer, I’d be depressed again and would be making a rack of ribs for breakfast.

    That being said, this “tactic” of using militant, close minded hippies to do your dirty work reminds me off (God, I’m gonna hate typing this name) P. Diddy doing his whole “Vote or Die Campaign” during the Bush vs. Kerry election. The only difference being that P. Diddy (again, dammit!) for all his stupidity would probably have sense enough to know that a man’s gotta eat some meat! I was lurking on the 30bd blog one day just to read some of their rants and it IS totally ridiculous! Tons of fun, but totally ridiculous.

    And yeah, the total refusal to address Denise Minger publicly is VERY telling. I mean, she’s obviously brilliant, but compared to Campbell’s long career technically she’s a young upstart. So seriously, unless he has the chops to back up what he’s printing he just needs to shut it down, admit defeat, and make vegans the world over weep.

    Speaking of vegans weeping, are there and emo-vegans out there? That would really be worth a laugh!

  11. Melissa on October 7, 2010 at 11:12

    This surprises me. I would think Campbell would want to distance himself from a diet that even PCRM and other vegan nutritionists like Jack Norris would view as deleterious to health. Diets of all fruit or even all-raw vegetable matter make them look like cranks.

  12. Vegan Warrior on October 7, 2010 at 11:18

    If I ate too much fruit, my triglycerides would be way up there. There’s an immediate cause/effect for me with the ingestion of fruit.

    Not sure what to think about the Campbell thing. It’s disappointing from the aspect that a free exhange of ideas and information is always preferable. I would hope that Campbell, or anyone, would not hide from stepping up and admitting where he might be wrong (or at least guilty of engaging in speculation), but I think he might feel like he’s under attack, and he’s taking some sort of defensive posture in all of this (or passive-aggressive). If some of you guys are honest with yourselves, you’d maybe concede that your online posts and behavior haven’t exactly engendered any sort of open discussion. Works both ways.

    • CPM on October 7, 2010 at 12:14

      Well, Campbell’s first response to Denise included claims that Denise was likely an agent of the WAPF and questioned whether she was old enough to write her critique without help from somebody else. Not a good way to set the tone and encourage enlightened debate about the science.

      He put a call out to all of the graduates of his nutrition class to go out and rebut her, but all they did was parrot his derogatory remarks about the WAPF and Denise’s age and proclaim what a great scientist Campbell is without addressing any of the content of her critique.

      Maybe there have been stronger remarks here at Free the Animal and by others who have had prior experience with Campbell on the Amazon discussions, but the anti-Campbell comments really didn’t get too bad on Denise’s blog, especially relative to what he started.

      The now defunct CampbellCoalition website had moderated comments, so he could have totally controlled the tone of the debate had he chosen to, but instead he just immediately closed the comments (then later let a comment through praising Campbell).

      The opportunity has been there, but he is no longer a scientist wanting debate. He just wants to get his message out and bad-mouth anyone that dares disagree.

    • Sarah Madden on October 7, 2010 at 12:51

      Au contraire, I find the paleo community more than open to discussion based on real science. We ADORE debate, we thrive on it and we learn by it. I have changed my mind so many times in the last 2 years because I’m not stuck in dogma. Even Richard has admitted his mistakes:


      That’s the great thing about not having a dietary strategy as a religion, you’re free to change your mind. :)

      • Richard Nikoley on October 7, 2010 at 14:18

        Sarah, now there you go tarnishing my reputation as an ego maniac who only wants to vent and get people to agree with me, as it’s such a great surrogate for actual masturbation.

    • Richard Nikoley on October 7, 2010 at 13:37

      vegan Warrior, the ONLY comments I censor around here are gratuitous trolls, i.e., small, hit & run quips from the same ip using multiple pseudonyms.

      They are welcome to a debate here. But their not going to post the same lazy, canned policy statement in reply to every challenge.

      They are going to have to think and come up with references and explain themselves when challenged. Consequently, I do believe the knowledgeable paleos are going to be left wanting

      • Richard Nikoley on October 7, 2010 at 13:41

        It’s for the very same reason that you never see anyone but the most newbie creationists on serious evolution discussion forums anymore. And you only see the newbies now and then because they have not yet had experience at open-ended debate and don’t realize their “unassailable arguments” originate in the 1940s & 50s, and only work in church where the ignorant all belly laugh together, believing themselves enlightened.

  13. LCforevah on October 7, 2010 at 11:18

    I went to the comments at the “bananas” site and find it very interesting that in all this time, no one has come up with a hard critique of Minger’s numbers. They’re all talking about the need to take her critique down, but have come up with nothing.

    Minger is an English lit major and a person who loves numbers, understands and can execute statistical analysis. Where is her vegan equivalent? Do these people not understand what needs to be involved in attempting to refute Minger’s critique? Jeebus help them!

    • Denise Minger on October 7, 2010 at 12:58

      To their credit, they’re assembling a more detailed (and straw-man riddled) critique of my critique here:


      Which I’m intermittently debating with them here:

      • Melissa on October 7, 2010 at 13:24

        Both those sites make my brain hurt. I’m surprised you can stand it.

      • Bushrat on October 7, 2010 at 19:07

        I think they’ve given up on your intermittent discussion because you keep cheating by throwing facts and logic at them. Fight fair; stick to sophistry and sollipsism like them.

    • Richard Nikoley on October 7, 2010 at 13:29

      well LCforever, one might infer what can happen when you deprive your brain of complete proteins and essential fats.

      But being such the nice guy I am, I’ll refrain. :)

      • LCforevah on October 8, 2010 at 07:50

        Bwahahahaha !!

  14. Michael on October 7, 2010 at 11:40

    The whole thing is just so creepy.

    As far as I can tell Campbell reports results that he probably wishes he hadn’t got but then “forgets” to mention any result of the sort in the future. I suppose at least one can say it appears he doesn’t falsify results, but it’s certainly deceptive. It also looks to me as if every time he doesn’t get quite what he might have wished to get he tries to make sure it doesn’t happen next time, even to the extent of swapping the rats out:

    “While Fisher 344 rats failed to develop fatty liver on Campbell’s 5% low-protein diets, this seems to reflect a general immunity of this strain to fatty liver. One recent study showed that Fisher 344 rats are also immune to fatty liver when fed 37% of their calories as alcohol .”

    Campbell obviously knows his way around labs, but he lacks a scientific attitude. Trying to design your experiments to make sure you get the results you *want* is not science.

    The whole thing ends up pretty meaningless, except as an exercise in deception, because how can you possibly get from one particular (and rather peculiar) strain of rats to humans?

    But the propaganda thing is just bizarre – and deeply creepy.

    By the way, I think the lady will find it wasn’t Hitler who said that but Josef Goebbels. And I guess he ought to have known: he was after all the propaganda specialist.

    • LCforevah on October 7, 2010 at 11:51

      Michael, remember Taubes’ 2002 Big Fat Lie article? He started doing the research for it after interviewing a few nutritional scientists who displayed the same bias. He realized he was dealing with people tweaking their own experiments and tainting their own results, and that piqued his curiosity.

      The article led to his book, GC, BC, and the rest is history.

      • Richard Nikoley on October 7, 2010 at 13:49

        And don’t forget Taubes knew what he was dealing with from his previous experience in taking down the cold fusion speudoscience.

      • Stan(Heretic) on October 7, 2010 at 17:27

        [OFF TOPIC] There some anomalious effects, poorly reproducible but reproducible nevertheless, that have never been explained by science, only “explained away” by Taubes. There was a lot of politics involved. That story reminds me very much of the present nutrition science scandal, except in CF, Taubes choose to ignore all supportive evidence in favor of CF and sided 100% with the establishment! Incidentally I consider both stories equally fascinating and both reflect poorly on the status of the North American scientific establishment and their culture of consensus that has replaced the scientific method, IMO.

    • Richard Nikoley on October 7, 2010 at 13:47

      I wondered about that Hitler reference but didn’t think it critical to the message enough to check. As to Goebels, I prefer referencing Leni, as propaganda in art kinds goes hand in hand with the whole romance surrounding raw veganism.

  15. Michael on October 7, 2010 at 11:57

    I will add one other thing, if I may.

    I think all this shenanigans would be comical, if it didn’t have such bad consequences.

    Ancel Keys takes data from 22 countries and throws away the data for all but 7 in order to “find” a correlation that isn’t there. Apparently, he’s working out of some weird puritanical motives. Campbell spends years twisting and turning in order to hide the real state of things. Presumably he does this out of some vegetarian motive – which I suppose is a kind of puritanical thing, too.

    And all this would be amusing – only doctors and governments are naive enough and stupid enough to listen to such people. The end result is stupid and dangerous dietary advice – and advice that, moreover, anyone who takes a look at what hunter-gatherers eat and how their health compares to ours can immediately see is ludicrous; that anyone who, as the Paleo Movement reminds us, takes an evolutionary perspective can immediately see is completely fatuous. Yet such advice is given. And it kills. There are people who are sick and in pain because of these gentlemen; people have gone to early graves, leaving disrupted and grief-stricken families behind.

    This is what makes it all deeply creepy instead of funny.

    • Paul C on October 7, 2010 at 12:53

      Campbell is Hamlet, and meat is the Claudius that killed his farmer father at an early age. It’s not science, it is revenge.

      I have plenty of photos from the 1950s showing my dairy farmer relatives, and they are surprisingly plump, and usually surrounded by bread and beer bottles.

    • Mallory on October 8, 2010 at 08:42

      eww i never thoght of it that way…..youre right very sick and creepy

  16. mango genocide on October 7, 2010 at 12:16


    “Please read the following…

    * We recommend womyn eat at least 2500 calories from fruits daily and men get at least 3000 calories and more if one wants to live an active, passionate lifestyle. We will not tolerate what we deem as “anti-fruit” posts or advice that recommends calorie restriction/or the suggestion that others are “overeating on fruit”

    * We do not subscribe to the concept of “waiting for true hunger” before eating, we find this advice subjective and potentially dangerous for our members. Posts recommending this will be deleted and members may face suspension, we take this advice very seriously…

    * Topics/posts/members that constantly question the validity of the calorie model may be suspended, the calorie model has been proven over and over again to be a highly valuable tool in succeeding on a 100% low fat raw vegan lifestyle and as a result we refer to it constantly.

    * We do not subscribe to the concept of “emotional eating” so posts of this nature may be removed because at the end of the day they lead to calorie restriction and 30BaD is NOT about that, this lifestyle is about abundance not deprivation. ”

    Well, isn’t that SPECIAL???!!

    • Richard Nikoley on October 7, 2010 at 13:56

      Thanks for posting that, Mango.

      I wanted to keep the post short and though just the significant LIST of links to their library of self-protecting guidelines enough, even without clicking through to any of them. Can you say cloistered?

      Anyway, a few more pages and they’ll have a veritable Bible of orthodoxy, questioning of which could get you excommunicated.

    • Melissa on October 7, 2010 at 17:51

      Hehe, “Womyn”.

    • Joseph on October 7, 2010 at 18:44

      Someone should remind them not to leave the peels lying around after every meal.

    • Auggiedoggy on October 17, 2010 at 23:29

      Wow! Quite the insecure lot, aren’t they? Is farting permitted or is it cause for banishment? I mean, eating all that damned fruit has to have an effect on the old system! I’d prolly be spending half the day on the Johnny-flusher if I were consuming 3000 calories from nothing but fruit!

  17. John Troll on October 7, 2010 at 12:28

    Cross fit, kool aid, Vegan, kool aid, Fruitloopians, kool aid. Paleo, kool aid. Stop living in a niche and being target of niche strategies.


    • Richard Nikoley on October 7, 2010 at 13:59

      everything in moderation, right Troll?

      So convenient to have absolutely no absolutes.

      • John Troll on October 7, 2010 at 14:51

        Not really. Fuck moderation.

        I am advocating not advocating thematic bs. People need these concepts to define them, to guide them – where? Where? Why set limits (like not eating meat or grains, or not running a long trail or climbing a mountain)? If I like running in the desert for days, why should I not do it? Because Art said endurance will kill me? Should I stick to a couple of 30 min/week bs powerlifting in a “box”? If you take a look at the two cases above, which one looks and feels more primal?

        Why not everything to the fullest? Why not enjoy natural things, both in its original and modernized version? Why not stop searching for shortcuts to lose weight or become stronger or shit less or shit more and remove yourself from this boundaries and enjoy what you like? What about the cultures and moments you are missing out when you decide to eat like a 14 year old girl? Paleo sure has a lot of cool information on healthy eating and good insights on other stuff, but do I want to restrict my life to make-believe that I am strong, big dick caveman? Why fight against vegetarians? I don’t care if people who don’t eat meat are missing out on health, I do think they are missing out on taste and pleasure.

        While I enjoy the information in this blog I got very disappointed when I started to really read the comments, after you dissed that Irish woman only to find out that it is all about little fights gangs of new york style. Vegans vs Paleo.

        Ride on, man

      • Richard Nikoley on October 7, 2010 at 15:16

        dissed the Irish girl?

        Any reference?

        So are your absolutes limited to discourse only?

        Regarding diet & lifestyle, I think I have been one of the major proponents of doing what works for you, within a paradigm of some dietary and movement absolutes.

        Who got all the shit because of potatoes?


        Who published the email from a runner who didn’t but into the no-cardio thing?


        Have you been reading?

      • Garth Whelan on October 7, 2010 at 15:53

        I love your posts, if only most people who disagreed with us were as smart as you.

  18. CPM on October 7, 2010 at 12:37

    I actually got a couple of the 30Bad guys to come out and debate me on Denise’s blog:


    So far nobody from 30Bad has yet stepped up to respond to my comment on Campbell’s pseudoscience though:


    • Alex on October 7, 2010 at 13:08

      It’s bizarre to watch guys who eat a diet that no human society has ever eaten, that causes some people serious health problems, and that many (perhaps most?) people can not stick to long term, claim that this extreme fringe diet is ideal human nutrition, while simply ignoring 2.5-3 million years of paleoarcheological evidence of hominids not eating that diet. It’s a new age hippy analog of creationism.

      • Auggiedoggy on October 17, 2010 at 23:37

        You’re looking at this the wrong way folks. Let them eat their vegan, raw vegan or all fruit diet. It accomplishes two important things:

        a) There’s more meat for us!

        b) They remove themselves from the gene pool (evolution in progress)

        There may be more benefits to be had but these are my top two.

    • Richard Nikoley on October 7, 2010 at 14:02

      Unfortunately, CPM, hyperlinks to individual comments on Denise’s blog do not seem to work. Given the number of comments on some of her posts, that gets quite unwieldy.

  19. David Csonka on October 7, 2010 at 13:35

    The really funny thing is to see how they would react to a global extinction of the cavendish due to soil fungus and other pathogens. I wonder how they’d do eating the smaller naturally seed filled wild banana.

  20. Helen on October 7, 2010 at 14:27

    I know this sounds incredibly stupid, but are you sure that these people aren’t pulling a prank? You know, something along the lines of “Let’s-see-how-many-spiritually-bankrupt-people-we-can-get-to-go-along-with-our-crazy-idea?” To me, the 30banana thing has all the ear-marks of a social psychology experiment gone live.

    • Richard Nikoley on October 7, 2010 at 14:39

      Helen, I have to say in my own case I am ardently opposed to second guessing myself to inaction. Think of Indiana Jones in that marvelous sequence where in the marketplace the guy with the sword comes at him in fancy maneuvers and he just pulls & shoots.

      That’s a touchstone for how I live my life.

      Fuck ’em all and let Cod sort it out (not a typo – stolen from a blogging friend, actually).

      One of the reasons this blog is moderately successful is that I am 80% or more about style, my style. If you like it, great, if not, then fuck off.

      • Helen on October 7, 2010 at 14:57

        I’m sorry, Richard, I didn’t mean to imply that you should second-guess yourself. I love your shoot-from-the-hip style…your style is exactly why I read your blog and I wouldn’t want you to be any other way. Its just that those banana people are so crazy that it makes me* wonder if they are pulling a prank because I can’t quite wrap my brain around the idea that they might actually be serious about the all-fruit diet. But if they are, then they deserve exactly what they will get.

        *Again, I’m not implying that I think YOU ought to spend one second of your day wondering about it, just that its the kind of thing that I wonder about. But then, I wear a tin-foil hat ;)

      • Richard Nikoley on October 7, 2010 at 15:22

        We’re cool, Helen. Just wanted to make sure people don’t mistake what Im up to. While I actually love this life, I have kind of a moderate approach to it personally that may not be apparent. The blog is for one thing: attract the new and entertain the old.

        I’m best at that that when I don’t over think it.

      • Auggiedoggy on October 17, 2010 at 23:41

        I think I’m going to really enjoy this blog of yours. I’ve only been here two days and there’s much catching up to do!

  21. Emily Deans, M.D. on October 7, 2010 at 15:36

    I find it a little sad that a full professor of nutritional biochemistry can’t muster up a better argument. If my life’s work were based on something so insubstantial that a 23 year old english major could take it apart with Excel….

    • Richard Nikoley on October 7, 2010 at 15:43

      yea, but Emily, where’s your head? Don’t you know that Microsoft Excell is sooooooooo powerful that it totally contextualizes by user, which is why it asks you to enter some info about yourself on first use?

      So, Denise must have put in that she was an English grad rather than a statistics PhD and thus, got totally different results than would have the stats guy

      Conclusion: the Vegan wrath is misdirected. Denise is off the hook and they need to be focussing on Gates. :)

      • Emily Deans, M.D. on October 7, 2010 at 15:57

        I don’t think Gates programmed Excel for the “symphony” of holistic health. Perhaps you are right.

      • Richard Nikoley on October 7, 2010 at 17:17

        Just to be clear, Emily, that comment was totally tongue in cheek.

      • Emily Deans MD on October 7, 2010 at 17:28

        I don’t think Microsoft does tongue in cheek either

  22. CPM on October 7, 2010 at 16:36

    It looks like somebodoy at 30Bad is now trying to organize an attack on the China Study wikipedia page. It is pretty funny reading:


    • Richard Nikoley on October 7, 2010 at 17:42


      I’m into my scotch just now and began laughing so uncontrollable, scotch through the nose, at para 2 – something like Denise Minger is really an underground front – that I had to close the browser to come back to later, after Ive whipped by back with a cat of nine tailes, or something and am in so much agony that even that idiocract won’t make me break a smile.

      • Khrystyna on October 7, 2010 at 17:50

        I can’t figure out if the person that wrote it stupid or has English as a second language, the english is so poorly written and just makes no sense at all a lot of the time. It’s embarassing! To think that people like that are allowed to edit wikipedia is crazy. The Wikipedia page has no mention of Denise at all either.

      • Alex on October 7, 2010 at 18:28

        People have tried adding a section about Denise’s analysis (look at the history), but Denise doesn’t meet Wikipedia’s source reliability rules. From the discussion page of the CS entry:

        “Our normal rules for source reliability require some sort of third-party validation of the quality, e.g. publication in a peer-reviewed journal, publication by a recognized authority, etc. What evidence do we have that the Minger material is reliable?”

        As for stupid or ESL, I think it’s ESL. She states that she edits the wiki entry anonymously, and the most recent edit is the removal of the Denise section with this comment: “(Removed the Minger scam. A “private foodie fun blogger” without any scientific education or background is not a credible “source” and by no means any type of peer-reviewed scientific data.) (undo) (Tag: section blanking)” I did a lookup on her IP address, and it is in Germany.

      • Khrystyna on October 7, 2010 at 18:38

        Ah you are much more adept in Wikipedia than I am, thanks for clarifying!

      • Richard Nikoley on October 7, 2010 at 20:24

        Well, Jimbo Wales was a frind of mine long be foe Wikepedia, and I’ve had no cpntact in many years. However, I know a mutual acquaintance wh might be able to bring his to his attention.

        Let me be clear: sometimes exceptions for exceptional work are called for. Nobody expects a 23yrold English major to do this.

        But in the end, you need to leave it up to them.

      • Khrystyna on October 8, 2010 at 02:08

        Oh that would piss 30bad of so much. It’s be armageddon! I think her work (and she herself) is more than exceptional enough to warrant bending the rules, it’s leaving out a fairly damn big part of the story not having mention of it just because she doesn’t meet the usual criteria.

      • Richard Nikoley on October 8, 2010 at 07:27

        I’ve heard back that Jimmy Wales doesn’t get involved in those matters. Likely a good decision on his part in the overall scheme of things.

      • Mallory on October 8, 2010 at 08:44

        holy geez thanks for that link…i think i just peed my pats laughing

      • Denise Minger on October 8, 2010 at 11:30

        There was a really long section with a summary of my critique up for a couple months. Looks like they took it down last night — along with the criticism by Dr. Michael Eades and the analysis by Richard Kroeker. Is Eades really not considered a credible source?

      • Richard Nikoley on October 8, 2010 at 11:47

        last I read, Denise, it has been restored. The editor who restored it said “restored vandalism,” adding that Campbell’s lengthy responses to you made you a credible source, at minimum.

      • Richard Nikoley on October 8, 2010 at 12:17

      • J4 on October 8, 2010 at 12:21

        Removed again it appears, along with most of the other critical responses. This time by a long time editor and PETA follower.

      • Richard Nikoley on October 8, 2010 at 12:26

        I doubt that will stand. Have no idea what sort of dispute arbitration Wikipedia has in place, but this is outrageous, and a 5yr old would know it.

        I guess I’m going to have to blog this and call attention to it.

        I may even call for my old friend Jimbo to get his house in order.

      • CPM on October 8, 2010 at 12:46

        It’s funny how they cannot tolerate any criticism, even in the “criticism” section. A lot of zealotry over basically just a diet book.

        It’s not like it is peer-reviewed science that is being disputed. It is basically just a diet book.

        Harriet Hall at Science Based Medicine, a group that specializes in calling out pseudoscience, had no problem with Denise’s analysis and in fact relied heavily on Denise’s analysis in her own criticism of the China Study. Someone who specializes in calling out pseudoscience sided with Denise’s analysis over Campbell’s. That should be worth something.

    • Kurt G Harris MD on October 7, 2010 at 18:09

      I am with Helen. The whole site at 30BAD is actually deeply subversive. It’s not the Onion.

      It’s the dietary equivalent of this:


      • Elysa on October 7, 2010 at 20:23

        Ok, wait….

        Can I be Paleo and still be Pastafarian? Since I can no longer partake of his noodly appendages will I lose his love and grace?

      • Alex on October 8, 2010 at 05:02

        Depends on how orthodox you are. Is Richard still paleo, even though he’s a potato-eating heretic? Am I still paleo, even though my pre-workout breakfast today is a steaming hot plate of mung bean based noodly appendages smothered in meat sauce?

      • Katt on October 8, 2010 at 06:46

        These people make much more sense in that light, Dr. Harris. It’s only when they become blog-terrorists that they become a serious nuisance. Otherwise… it is impossible to take them seriously at all.

      • Elysa on October 8, 2010 at 08:46


        They’re not even good at being blog terrorists. Announcing your intentions and proposed methodology on a public blog that is getting many hits from “Teh Enimee?” That’s “Beavis and Butthead” and “Dumb and Dumber” level stupid.

        Methinks they need a good fatty pork roast to clear their heads.

  23. Walter on October 7, 2010 at 20:48
  24. Canibais e Reis » Blog Archive » “T. Colin Campbell: Scientist or Propagandist?”, um artigo do Free The Animal expondo o domatismo científico da ideologia vegana on October 8, 2010 at 16:45

    […] T. Colin Campbell: Scientist or Propagandist? […]

  25. Canibais e Reis » Blog Archive » “T. Colin Campbell: Scientist or Propagandist?”, um artigo do Free The Animal expondo o dogmatismo científico da ideologia vegetariana/vegana on October 8, 2010 at 16:49

    […] T. Colin Campbell: Scientist or Propagandist? […]

  26. Jared on October 8, 2010 at 07:30

    Proof that your diet/lifestyle has become a cult: when someone publishes a book that challenges said beliefs, you decide to get a couple of zeroes to accost the author at her book signing. Because pelting an innocent woman with a gluten/pepper grenade is a very civilized method for stimulating intelligent discourse.

    The question is, when do a bunch of cowardly hippies decide to paste Denise with a pepper-laden pie?

    Denise, watch your back. If you ever smell a combination of bong resin, body odor, and pie crust and notice a pair of ashen, toothless ruffinas shuffling toward you, cover your face!

    • Denise Minger on October 8, 2010 at 11:31

      “If you ever smell a combination of bong resin, body odor, and pie crust and notice a pair of ashen, toothless ruffinas shuffling toward you”

      I live in Portland. This happens daily.

      • Gwen on October 8, 2010 at 17:51

        Oh Denise!

        I live in Portland too, and this is the truth: I was in mid-chew of a bite of pork chop when I read your response and nearly choked trying to wrestle a laugh with the bite.

  27. zach on October 8, 2010 at 08:42

    The people at 30 bananas are full of it. I for one would be starving to death on a mostly fruit diet. I’d be less hungry eating NOTHING than eating fruit and veggies all day.

  28. CrossFit 1776 | CrossFit in Williamsburg, VA | Williamsburg Strength and Conditioning | Speed, Strength and Agility Training for Football, Wrestling and Mixed Martial Arts in Williamsburg » Deadlifts, working for max reps, T. Colin Campell, Sir Mix- on October 8, 2010 at 11:29

    […] T. Colin Campbell: Scientist or Propagandist? […]

  29. Chaohinon on October 8, 2010 at 13:26

    To be fair, “attacking” blog comments and news articles isn’t a bad way to propagate your ideas. I mean, provided you actually do so in a civil, reasonable manner.

    • Richard Nikoley on October 8, 2010 at 14:59

      On an individual basis, with your own ideas and arguments, bolstered by references if you wish.

      Not in the slightest what these fuckers are up to. So save your “fairness.”

  30. Tommy on October 8, 2010 at 13:53

    Has there been a rebuttal to Denise by Campbell? To be honest, for someone like me who has no dog in this fight either way, I find it all amusing. Personally I have no alliance to either issue whether animal or vegetable as far as diet goes. “BUT” no matter the health benefits (should there be any) I would never go vegan. 30 bananas? Forget it. I guess that puts me in a position of I don’t care who wins…but I am kinda,sorta hoping it’s high fat! wink wink. But looking at this objectively and as I said, someone with no sides in this, it is confusing. If I were just a standard dieter and I was looking for information I might read Good Calories Bad Calories and say “wow!!, Well I’ll be damned.” Then after completing that someone could then hand me the China study and I would say “wow! Well I’ll be damned.” Both sides have research and studies to back them and both have armies of followers supporting them all with their own success stories. Both sides also have those who were once on the other side now transformed and complaining of pitfalls and health hazards from the other way. It’s amazing. It’s like freakin’ bizzaro world lol!!

    For everything I read on one side (as a layman) there is a perfectly believable counter from the other side.

    • Richard Nikoley on October 8, 2010 at 15:01

      First response:


      Second response (PDF):


      In case the above doesn’t work, his second response on Vegsource:

      • Emily Deans, M.D. on October 8, 2010 at 15:09

        Those responses are so insubstantial, they give me a headache.

      • Tommy on October 8, 2010 at 15:47

        “Those responses are so insubstantial, they give me a headache.”

        You see how this stuff influences people? I am just the average guy and I have little knowledge of all this. If I were to pick up that book I would say “wow” and believe it all true. I thought his rebuttal was convincing. While you see obvious holes due to your background. But again….I am Joe average (the guy looking to stay healthy and hears about a new book). I haven’t read it by the way and don’t intend to. The same goes for books on the other side of the issue. For the science types (those who understand it) it depends on their research and interpretation of the data. For the regular guy it depends on what you read first.

      • Emily Deans, M.D. on October 8, 2010 at 16:05

        The basis of his entire argument is that a complete protein, casein, is more cancer promoting than incomplete plant protein. The whole problem with this argument is that if we, as humans, consume entirely incomplete protein, we will DIE. As did his young rats on the low protein diets. He never seems to address this whole need of humans for complete protein in his research or his responses to any critiques of the China Study. It makes the whole argument completely ridiculous. Any first semester nutrition student would know we need complete protein to survive.

        Perhaps I am missing something, but there it is. Ri-di-cu-lous.

      • Tommy on October 8, 2010 at 16:16

        Thanks. You see how much I don’t understand? lol. But the importance of that is that I represent a good portion of those out there buying into these things….on both sides. The average dieter or similar. It seems that depending on your preference (meat, non meat, high carb, low carb etc) you can find studies, books, forums/blogs or believable evidence enough to justify whatever you want to do.

      • Emily Deans MD on October 8, 2010 at 16:18

        To put it another way, the reason Eades and Harris and all those oldsters didn’t bother to refute the China Study book, and it took an idealistic brilliant young blogger to do it, is that the main argument is too stupid for anyone with any world wisdom and scientific sense to bother refuting. (Denise, you are adored, but you would not have done this if you were five years older).

      • Richard Nikoley on October 8, 2010 at 16:27

        I think they don’t because life piles up on you as you get older, and this was a major undertaking and she did it without funding.

        Drs Harris and Eades are at a pint where they really need to be paid to undertake something like this, to the extent Denise did.

        Considering that, we are very fortunate.

      • Emily Deans MD on October 8, 2010 at 16:37

        I disagree – Eades himself noted that the monograph was all observational data, and therefore boring, as it couldn’t prove anything. Not worth pursuing. I don’t disagree that we are fortunate in Denise. But perhaps I wouldn’t have realized how much the stupid arguments in the China Study book held sway. Rather like that whole lipid hypothesis.

      • Tommy on October 8, 2010 at 17:34

        Well, as a reader and a more or less someone who looks for simplicity this has been my approach after my MI. I had my blood work done after tinkering with my eating (low fat). Then I went vegetarian and had it tested again (pretty much no fats). Then I switched to a new version of my own creation adding back pastured chicken and eggs, milk and occasional beef. (30% fats ) Had my blood work again.
        Now I upped my intake of fats and have beef daily, lower carbs ( aprx 46 % fats) and have an appointment for a stress test and blood work in December. The experimentation continues. That’s how I do it!

        As for the China study, the funny thing is it doesn’t really appeal to me, not even for health reasons. I don’t think I could go that route. How do these things get sold to presidents while the other side of the coin doesn’t? Amazing. You’d think a southern guy like Clinton would love the idea of more meat and fat!! The information is out there.

      • Chris Masterjohn on October 8, 2010 at 17:49

        Actually it is even worse than that because casein itself is not a complete protein. It was complete in his studies because he supplemented it with methionine.


      • Chris Masterjohn on October 8, 2010 at 17:53

        Eades himself may not have done it, but you won’t find Walter Willett saying something like that and I think he is older than Eades. I agree with Richard that the issue with age is simply you get more and more busy. If I were to spend 200 hours on something that weren’t directly related to my doctoral dissertation right now, it would take me a couple years. The reason Denise did this is because Denise is brilliant and it was meant to be torn apart from her by the beginning.


      • mango genocide on October 8, 2010 at 16:41

        Yes, they’re practically PaulKrugmanesque…

      • Tommy on October 8, 2010 at 15:39

        Thanks Richard.
        Wow, it’s a good thing I have no interest in being a vegetarian or vegan because I thought he was pretty convincing.

        Actually, I feel like I am watching a Tennis match..lol . This just goes back and forth with convincing arguments on both sides. My head is now turned to Denise’s side of the court waiting to see if she can return that shot!
        It seems like the same thing I feel after reading the first 70 pages (so far) of Good Calories Bad Calories…..the section on the Cholesterol/fat/heart disease studies. Inconclusive.

        All I see are people arguing (debating). I thought he answered convincingly, and now I’m sure she will and then he will….inconclusive.

      • Bushrat on October 8, 2010 at 22:09

        And you just nailed the biggest problem. As you admit you don’t understand what’s going on, but you know that Campbell so far has had the last word and now you are awaiting Denise’s reply. However, Campbell hasn’t even responded to Denise’s original points or made a valid argument. Hell, he barely makes sense. Its rather like he has responded to her scientific diatribe by sticking his tongue out and saying “nah nah nah.”
        It may be a bunch of gibberish, but to someone without a solid scientific background Campbell could be making valid points and then it all boils down today to who has the last word instead of who has the best argument.

  31. CrossFit 1776 | CrossFit in Williamsburg, VA | Williamsburg Strength and Conditioning | Speed, Strength and Agility Training for Football, Wrestling and Mixed Martial Arts in Williamsburg » Saturday’s WOD and weekend reading on October 8, 2010 at 15:36

    […] T. Colin Campbell: Scientist or Propagandist? […]

  32. Elisabeth on October 8, 2010 at 19:30

    From the start, I thought it odd that a man who considers himself a serious professional would bother to get into a repartee with someone who disagrees with his work- especially when it’s done in a blog. What on earth is he so afraid of? Why is he so insecure?

    • Richard Nikoley on October 8, 2010 at 21:48

      That’s easy, Elizabeth.

      Campbell is a lying zealot, but he’s no dummy. He knew Denise had him by the balls.

      And she still does.

      So they’re “regrouping their strategy.”

      And, now think about that obvious political speak in the context of something that’s supposed to be scientific, open honest.

      They undo themselves further every time they open their mouths.

  33. Richard Nikoley on October 8, 2010 at 22:00

    Hey all

    I’m going to do a blog about the Wikipedia deal ’cause I think it’s important. You know what, I would even do a blog about it if somone was trying to shut out those people who’ve gone bananas ( for 30 days or 30 times a day – can’t recall which).

    It purports to be an encyclopedia and so should include all reasonable inut on the matter and as one editor put it, Campbell’ significant responses to Denise put it squarely in that category, even though she’s just a hot chick with an English degree. :)

    But, I’m headed to SoCal in the morning, so don’t know exactly when I’ll get to it. But most hopefully by sometime tomorrow afternoon. Sunday at the latest.

    • gallier2 on October 9, 2010 at 02:20

      You should have followed the problems of wikipedia editing concerning global warming, you would have understood that it is fubar. Wikipedia is a good source for undisputed knowledge (maths, chemistry, CS or for media things, music groups or comics), but controversial info, forget about it. The editors seem to be made out of the same cloths as the vegan zealots.

      • Stan(Heretic) on October 9, 2010 at 08:24

        Very true! I tried to post a reference, Oxford monography document link and to quote a few data and it was taken out within hour. The reason maths, chemistry, software docs are reliable is because the editors they hired probably have no clue about those and thus hold no opinions. However, there is also completely Campbell-less entry on wiki to the Oxford-Cornell China study itself.

      • Alex on October 9, 2010 at 08:46

        I totally agree. If there’s even a hint of controversy about a subject, there will be questionable, agenda-driven editing done. And, that’s why Wikipedia is increasingly regarded as a huge joke with no credibility. Sure, the editing on the China Study wikipedia page is infuriating, but is it really worth getting all worked up over such a lame, integrity-challenged website?

      • Richard Nikoley on October 9, 2010 at 08:49

        I don’t know that it’s worth getting worked up over, but a post with the appropriate title and content might rank high enough on Google that it shows up reasonably close to the wikipedia hit.

        Worth a try, just for setting the record straight if nothing else.

      • Khrystyna on October 9, 2010 at 09:18

        As someone who spent the last four years in nearly constant pain, malnourished and on several meds due to my vegan diet it is most definately worth it. I read the China study (ironically, a nutrition lecturer of mine who had done his Phd with Campbell lent it to me) and completely bought into it, as it bolstered my preconceptions so nicely. Had I seen such intelligent critiques of it sooner, I would probably have seen the light, gotten better sooner andmaybe not damaged my body so badly. You would be amazed how easy it is as a vegan or vegetarian to never come across anything that challenges your conceptions because you tend to only expose yourself to information that supports your lifestyle (vegan nutrient books, vegan websites etc). Wikipedia is so widely used by nearly everyone it is an ideal way to expose the book for the scam it is. The vegan lifestlye has fucked my health up beyond all recognition and I’m only 25, so it really really matters that this sort of information reaches normal (vegan/vegetarian)people who don’t necessarily check out pro-animal product sites like this but may very well out of curiosty check out the wikipedia page.

  34. Denise Minger on October 9, 2010 at 08:31


    “I just come back from the Wikipedia with a small first victory :) I was alerting many (vegan) admins and long term editors, and other people were on the move as well, and finally one of THE major Wikipedia admins, who happens to be vegan, is now watching over the article. ALL the “Denis Minger” blah got removed :) Plus some of the other only blog published, not peer-reviewed and not in the least scientifically backed nonsense too!”

    Your idea of adding 30bananas.com as source is basically good, but I tried that already, and it got wiped out in no time, even with sarcastic comments added. I wanted to add some of the material that Dr.Campbell left here on his own, so it was all credible and not some private blog, but it seems as I said, somebody is trying to manipulate and spread intrigues in the background, and so 30bananas.com is seemingly one of the targets :(”

    “thx for trying to add 30bad to the wiki. it’ll be wiped out a few times, but eventually it will stay. certain posts on here are really well done (eg look at chris’ in this thread from minger’s blog for instance as well as follow the link to B’s response “has minger read the china study”) and finely substantiated.”

    Yes, because all posts on 30 Bananas a Day are peer-reviewed and scientifically flawless… ;)

    • Khrystyna on October 9, 2010 at 09:21

      I actually find this really upsetting, if only they realised how much damage (to other people as well as themselves) the misinformation they are so desperately fighting to promote can do :( What can we do?

    • Chris Masterjohn on October 9, 2010 at 10:14

      That’s hilarious that they come up with all these hysterical conspiracy theories about Minger, Inc. and the corporation’s should-be house-wife front girl and then they go and create a vast tofulo-wing conspiracy to suppress the free flow of information.

  35. Khrystyna on October 9, 2010 at 09:24

    Maybe I’m being a bit over emotional (this is a personal issue for me) but this is just wrong wrong wrong. I’m going to do a blog post on it too and hopefully more other bloggers will to, even if only a handful of people are enlightened to truth behind this scam it would be worth it.

  36. […] Subscribe ← T. Colin Campbell: Scientist or Propagandist? […]

  37. Richard Nikoley on October 9, 2010 at 10:32

    Alright. We ended up setting our departure back a few hours and so I had time to put something together on the Wikipedia fiasco.


  38. Deirdre Braddock on October 14, 2010 at 04:20

    Has anyone looked into the possibility that this Minger person may be taking bribes and payoffs from the meat industry? Just a thought. I’ve been a raw vegan for 25 years and I find T Colin Campbell’s work to be amazing, revolutionary and the ABSOLUTE truth except that I think it would be even more advantageous to explain and understand why cooking food, whether it be plant based or meat based, is a very destructive practice making it very difficult to regenerate cells and heal on the deepest cellular level in the human body.

    • gallier2 on October 14, 2010 at 04:46

      Has anyone looked into the possibility that this Campbell person may be taking bribes and payoffs from the plant food industry? Just a thought. I’ve been a moron for 25 years and I find T Colin Campbell’s shit doesn’t smell, I want to bear his children, I want to jump from a cliff for him. Führer befiehl wir marschieren (Dear leader give order we will march .

      Deirdre, start to think for yourself, learn to learn, learn about logic, learn maths, learn text comprehension, then reconsider the advice given in books and blogs.

      • Bushrat on October 14, 2010 at 22:30

        I laughed so hard that people in the computer lab gave me funny stares.

    • Alex on October 14, 2010 at 04:38

      Personally, I think the mathematics industry, under pressure from the secretive Burgerbuilders, conspired to give statistics a pro-meat bias.

    • Richard Nikoley on October 14, 2010 at 07:09

      Well I must say that I’m relieved that Campbell’s work isn’t just the absolute truth, but the ABSOLUTE truth.

      Read “Catching Fire: How Cooking Made us Human” by Richard Wrangham, a vegetarian, I believe. The plain fact is that with our small guts and energy demands of a large brain, you cannot extract sufficient energy from only raw foods to have evolved the small gut large brain combo we have. Disputable, but indisputable is that there is far greater bioavailability in cooked food than in raw.

      I advocate eating plenty of both, cooked and raw, plant and animal, real food.

      • Bushrat on October 14, 2010 at 22:33

        I will have to read that book. I’m skeptical that even a diet of cooked vegetables alone would have been sufficient for us to evolve our big brains.

      • Auggiedoggy on October 18, 2010 at 00:18


        Do you recommend that book? I’ve been looking at bits and pieces of information Googled from the Internet and I have a basic idea of Langham’s theory on how cooking made us what we are. Although most anthropologists don’t necessarily share his theory, it does sound plausible (from my somewhat limited understanding of it).

        On a related subject, has it occurred to you that the 30 bananas folk are small-brained with large guts? In which case, they can’t be faulted for their fruity diet.



      • Auggiedoggy on October 18, 2010 at 00:24

        Langham = Wrangham :(

  39. […] T. Colin Campbell: Scientist or Propagandist? | Free The Animal […]

  40. Deirdre on February 26, 2011 at 01:02

    Where is all this hostility coming from? You make yourself look like a bully who beats up other kids on the playground. Find some peace, man.

    • gallier2 on February 26, 2011 at 01:29

      Wow, and it took you more than 4 months to respond with such a lame post, talk about slow thinking!
      And no, I’m not a bully but can not stand unquestioned hostile arrogant faith, which is the only thing visible in the comment I responded to.

  41. Deirdre on February 26, 2011 at 01:48

    Actually, I wish I’d taken the time to read Denise Minger’s own admission that she eats a 90-95% plant based diet and avoids dairy. What’s all the fuss about then? What motivates this gal to take on T. Colin Campbell? That’s all I’m asking.
    A funny thing happened on the way to nursing school. I took a Nutrition for Nursing/Healthcare Practitioner course. We had to do a personal dietary analysis as a final project. We kept a diary of food intake for 3 days and then “processed” the data through a software program that evaluates food intake against the RDAs. At the end of the course, my instructor informed me that my raw vegan diet fit the dietary recommendations better than any student to come before me. And here’s something else: I hadn’t ever really bothered to calculate and compare my own intake against any recommendations; Rather I was trusting my appetite and mother nature…and the weird thing is that I was taking in about 4200 calories a day. Folks my age, size and activity level were advised to take in about half the calories I was getting. It’s no wonder, if you try to fill a day of food according to the RDAs and do it with raw vegan food, anyone would come up short on calories and probably also the basic nutrients. So why, at 47 years of age and 5′ 7″ with an active lifestyle, am I not gaining a lot of weight?
    For 26 years now, raw food exclusively, nothing cooked, all vegan: fruits, vegetables, nuts and seeds and I show no signs of deficiency. My blood sugars are consistently stable and between 80 and 115, my blood pressure and heart rate are well below average, and I feel fantastic 24/7 (except once a month but let’s not get into that here). So I don’t get it? Why all the fuss? When are we going to stop arguing about all this stuff and just eat what we feel like eating? I like what I eat, you like what you eat. Why be so defensive about it?

  42. Alex Thorn on February 26, 2011 at 02:00

    “A funny thing happened on the way to nursing school. I took a Nutrition for Nursing/Healthcare Practitioner course. We had to do a personal dietary analysis as a final project. We kept a diary of food intake for 3 days and then “processed” the data through a software program that evaluates food intake against the RDAs. At the end of the course, my instructor informed me that my raw vegan diet fit the dietary recommendations better than any student to come before me.”

    That only tells you that the foods you eat contain levels of those nutrients that are at or above the RDA guidelines – it does not take into account how much (or little) of those nutrients you have actually absorbed and assimilated.

    “Rather I was trusting my appetite and mother nature…and the weird thing is that I was taking in about 4200 calories a day. Folks my age, size and activity level were advised to take in about half the calories I was getting. It’s no wonder, if you try to fill a day of food according to the RDAs and do it with raw vegan food, anyone would come up short on calories and probably also the basic nutrients. So why, at 47 years of age and 5′ 7″ with an active lifestyle, am I not gaining a lot of weight?”

    Richard answered that last question (above) with his reference to Richard Wrangham’s book Catching Fire: How Cooking Made us Human:

    “The plain fact is that with our small guts and energy demands of a large brain, you cannot extract sufficient energy from only raw foods to have evolved the small gut large brain combo we have. Disputable, but indisputable is that there is far greater bioavailability in cooked food than in raw.”

  43. Denise on March 8, 2011 at 12:47

    In my opinion it’s no less shameful than a group of paleo bloggers attempting to organize themselves and bomb the internet with Denise Minger’s analysis to begin with. What they are doing is the same as what you did. boo hoo!

    • Richard Nikoley on March 8, 2011 at 14:48

      you forget a critical distinction, Campbel lied and Denise told the truth. Incidentally, this will come out in time. Her report is now being redied for submission to a major, famous medical journal for peer review and publishing, with a big name sponsor.

      • LCforevah on March 8, 2011 at 15:50

        Richard you beat me to it. It’s a false equivalence to declare that people who have the facts are somehow committing the same kind of harassment as say, 30bananas spreading their lies.

        You know, I don’t care that there are now about 43+ take-downs of the China Study. What matters is that Campbell can’t seem to refute any one of them.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.