Vegan Zealots Censor Criticism of The China Study on Wikipedia

Can you imagine yourself, as a Paleo / Primal or even low-carb diet practitioner tooling around the Internet with the intent of silencing vegans critical of your dietary practices?

I don’t see it. If anything, the more information the more education and the more education the better off we all are. Is it possible we could be so certain, so locked in our own dogma that we have no room to consider other possibilities?

I certainly hope not and I would fight tooth and nail against any such trends. Remember, Animals Don’t Need Gurus. Please pardon me for quoting myself.

But then there’s that Guru factor, and I just hate that. I loath Gurus, and you should too. You know what I think a Guru is? It’s someone who sells you tantalizing, feel good, sound good lies or incomplete information that rarely if ever works for anyone as advertised. When it doesn’t work for most (i.e., it works for some, just like stopped clocks are right twice per day) there’s always the subtle implication that you’re just not applying the info right. But don’t worry. The next product speaks exactly to those problems. Repeat. Over and over.

But I guess the vegans are in die hard need of a guru in the form of T. Colon Campbell, owing to what we’ve been seeing already, and now, their laughable ‘rally the troops’ shenanigans over the editing of The China Study article on Wikipedia. Now, I must warn you ahead of time. This next link I’m going to provide and quote is foot stomping hilarious. For the sake of your electronic equipment, set all beverages you may be drinking aside and by all means, do NOT have anything in your mouth whilst reading this, lest it end up all over the place.

Here you go, from a true zealot. I think I’ll quote the whole thing just because it’s so damn funny.

by Betty Banana 1 day ago

Help in maintaining the Wikipedia "China Study" page, right now under heavy attack by professional lobby groups, among other disguised as "Denise Minger" posting anti "China Study" propaganda! It is URGENT! They basically plan to explode the entire article! I know this type of attacks as a long term Wikipedia editor!

I am sorry if this request lands in the wrong thread, but please alert all vegan Wikipedia editors and admins of this (if you know any)! "Denise Minger" is very likely a large scale underground defamation campaign against Dr.Campbell! No matter if she is a real person or not, this is no "private blogger". I wrote already to Dr.Campbell himself, I hope there will be more awareness of the case. But what is essential is urgent protection and following up on the Wikipedia article:

Wikipedia is one of THE 10 most visited pages WORLDWIDE. Each day thousands of people basically read "Dr.Campbell is a quack and was demoted by a fellow scientist" (=Ms Minger, who is again and again showed in the position of somebody with scientific background; any adds about her "private fun blogger without deeper education" status get instantly removed). I have seen too many real large scale defamation campaigns (I edit the Wikipedia almost since the beginning, and mostly anonymously after some large scale clashes with exactly such professional underground attackers).

I have read many very professional and scientific comments in this group, and I understand that I am far below the educational level of many people here, but I have enough experience as Wikipedia editor to tell apart when something is going wrong, and going wrong fast.

It seems that this "Denise Minger" is involving people in long scientific discussions – which the average layman is unable to understand at all – and ultimately the true attackers proceed on with their real task, while basically stealing your time and strength. It is good that there are so many knowledgeable people who can debunk that horrid nonsense she/they is/are spreading, but the average layman will be unable to tell anything apart. I have seen the graphs she posted in one of her recent articles, they look like "Dr.Campbell did not tell the truth and hid important data", all those graphs showing "no correlation between food and cancer" and "some people get cancer and some do not, and some of them eat meat and other eat no meat". I have no means to tell where she got that from and if this is something from the data or if she or somebody else made this all up and what the hell.

But the average simple people without scientific background will see only that, and that will be all what they understand. The online masses are not very knowledgeable, but they do have a large impact if many of them support a certain cause. And this is part of the plan here as it seems. A large scale defamation campaign "from behind", which may or will reach the "major press" one day. And literally tear apart any credibility of Dr.Campbell and his publications!

I am aware that those people are reading these threads here too, therefore I do not provide too many inside informations. I only hope to direct some of your attention to what is happening in the Wikipedia article (right now!). Many people, simple people, only know what is written in the Wikipedia. They presume that it is maybe not all true, but most of it IS. They presume that if there is a long Wikipedia article with a lot of scientifically sounding material, then this is the current stance of the real science! It is very easy to quickly destroy even the most credible people and organizations, by massively – but professionally – exploding and rewriting major Wikipedia articles!

Please do not take this lightly. This is a war somebody is leading on, but it can be stopped by focused and clear approach at the major concentration points (like the Wikipedia).

I have read through most of the comments in that scam blog and it seems only a few seem to be mistrusting the truthfulness of this entire bizarre scenario. Just tell me, which "private fun blogger" is able, aside of her alleged full time work and study of "English literature", to write 36 pages of scientific responses to a professor?!! And again and again??? Either "she" is some sort of very mighty – and very mad and crazy and hate filled – genius, which in itself would be something extremely rare and highly unlikely (really, why would a pretty young girl have so much reason for such a giant ordeal, fight, all that massive work, all that hate??? such a massive and time consuming insane campaign on such a scale??? and why does "she" have so many "sudden" supporters, and why is she portrayed so elaborately as a "scientific opponent of Dr.Campbell" in the Wikipedia???). Or "she" is in reality another underground camping. And I have seen enough of those.

Please consider adding this possibility to your agenda and to support the Wikipedia article on a daily base. Thank you in advance (sorry for my phony nickname, but I have also seen a lot of real violence, and try to protect my privacy art least a bit, even if this is often impossible).

I considered going through and deconstructing some of the incoherency but what’s the point? That would merely distract from the overall absurdity of the thing. Also, there’s more inanity following that entry, such as this one.

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!

I am never too optimistic, but this is one good step in the right direction.

Your idea of adding 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 is seemingly one of the targets :(

You can’t make this stuff up. Real life: far stranger than fiction.

Moving along, I want to make a few things clear. I don’t have a problem with private censorship. I do it here, even. But something purporting to be a legitimate source of unbiased information such as an encyclopedia should, at a minimum, include biased sources from all legitimate sides if any is going to be included at all.

Yes, you can complain that Denise Minger is merely a young, bright English graduate…and how can her analysis be trusted without at least some sort of review process?

Good question. Fortunately, the answer to that question has been provided by none other than T. Colin Campbell himself, in two substantial replies to Denise’s work.

A Challenge and Response to The China Study

Ms. Denise Minger has published a critique of our book, The China Study, as follows (PDF)

I quote from the second link.

It is both interesting and gratifying that there has been such a huge response, both on her blog and on those of others. This is a welcome development because it gives this topic an airing that has long been hidden in the halls and annals of science. It is time that this discussion begin to reach a much larger audience, including both supporters and skeptics.

But I guess he didn’t really mean it since, as already shown, Campbell appears to be cheerleading this sort of behavior from the bananas (literally) people from the safety of the sidelines.

A last final note: this is no call to action. Everybody does what they want, independently.

Since Covid killed my Cabo San Lucas vacation-rental business in 2021, this is my day job. I can't do it without you. Memberships are $10 monthly, $20 quarterly, or $65 annually. Two premium coffees per month. Every membership helps finance this work I do, and if you like what I do, please chip in. No grandiose pitches.


  1. Ishmael on October 9, 2010 at 13:12

    What we have here is a religion; that is really the only way in which you can look at this veganism phenomenon. Granted, it fits into a larger scheme of new age concepts, so perhaps you could say that veganism is simply a religious right of the Gaia Worship trend. But there are people who make this the main focus of their religious doctrine.

    That banana site is a cult. As you said, these “leaders” are gurus. They are religious icons. Their followers are no different than Scientologists who believe in lizard-alien ghosts blowing up volcanoes with nuclear weapons and whatever else – you can make people believe anything, so the fact they believe that somehow the diet that sustained us for hundreds of thousands of years is just totally wrong, and somehow in the last hundred years started causing cancer for some reason, is not particularly surprising.

    As you mentioned, the banana forum does not allow you to post unless you have already read through their religious tracts and believe everything they say. This is a textbook cult behavior. Here’s the quote:

    “So please if that’s why you want to join, read 811, peruse the forum and do your research first then join us when you are convinced that this is the right way to go.”

    He goes on to say that if you question any aspect of the belief system on the forum, you will be banned.

    The girl you quote in this article, with her “don’t confuse me with the facts” chant is the ideal cult member. Not only is she starry-eyed and childlike in her emotional development, she is of a notably sub-par intelligence bracket.

    Anyway, I respect your efforts of pointing to the faulty logic behind these people’s bizarre belief system, but it really isn’t going to work any better than trying to debunk Emperor Xenu. They don’t believe in this for reasons based in science or logic, they do so out of emotion and a strange though probably innate human drive to believing in something illogical and go through a bunch of rituals and stuff – historically, people with the kind of fanatical drive these people have would become heavily involved in some type of church activity, maybe become nuns and priests. But that isn’t fashionable anymore, so they got a new thing going.

    And this is propaganda. There is an agenda, by those planning the future of the planet, to have everyone be vegetarian. They are now linking this agenda with the biggest propaganda coup in the entirety of human history – the all-encompassing reason to change every aspect of human civilization – “global warming”.

    They also claim when you eat meat it causes people to starve and a bunch of other stuff. Google it. They would prefer everyone on the planet have nothing to eat but genetically modified vegetables, keeping them docile and weak. If you look into these animal rights groups, they are all funded by foundations linked to the United Nations. I am sure Campbell is linked into this system, based on just a quick perusal of his status and background.

    So, my criticism of your approach: I think, rather than arguing with zombies about their silly religious beliefs, your time would be better spent addressing the larger issue of this international push by the united governments of the world to force people into vegetarianism. Attacking the cults, you are exposing the stupidity of it, but not the greater forces at work.

    Perhaps you have written about the UN propaganda drives before. I am new here and have not read you back pages as of yet. But the real debunking, just like with global warming, is at the source. You can talk about ice core samples to these people until you’re blue in the face, but when you explain the concept of using the threat of global warming as a vehicle for a political agenda, the whole thing makes sense.

    But, I did certainly enjoy this. Thanks. And keep up the good work.

    • gallier2 on October 9, 2010 at 13:30

      You’re absolutely right. Chris Masterjohn had written some time ago about the links of Rockefeller funded organism and the push against sound nutrition.

      • Ishmael on October 9, 2010 at 23:24

        Ah yes. He seems to have written a review of Lily E. Kay’s marvelous book “The Molecular Vision of Life: Caltech, The Rockefeller Foundation, and the Rise of the New Biology”.

        I was not aware of this Masterjohn fellow, but he seems to have a very good head on his shoulders. The above article is crucial; in fact, I would argue that it is significantly more astute than Kay’s book itself.

        I think this should be the focus when deconstructing the “vegan” paradigm.

        We must also view Campbell’s “work” in the context of the “cancer conspiracy”. In all likelihood, cancer is due in its entirety to viruses, the fertile breeding ground for which is created by the plethora of biology-altering chemicals that we are surrounded by constantly, and which fill processed and genetically engineered foods. It can be inferred that the lack of funding into this research is related to the concept of “population control” we are hearing so much about these days, which links directly back to the UN, which is pushing population control (reduction) through a multitude of programs, including subsidized abortions and sterilization programs in third world countries.

        I don’t mean for it to seem like I am going to “wide spectrum” with my commentary on vegan madness, but it truly does deserve a context in which we can see the larger picture, as without such, we see simply a bunch of babbling idiot cult members.

      • Richard Nikoley on October 9, 2010 at 23:38

        Ah, Ishmael, anyone ready to dig is always a friend of mine.

        Good for you.

        Now, go Google ‘activator x’

        Let me know what you think.

      • Ishmael on October 10, 2010 at 01:30

        Yes, I am familiar with Dr. Price. To be honest, I have not read the entirety of his book, but the photographs of the generations of tribes people’s teeth speak for themselves. The fact that sugar is a poison serving as the main contributor to the decline of health in the entire world is obvious enough that its having not been widely recognized is clear evidence of some sort of underhandedness.

        Processed foods containing refined sugar, transfats and HFCS should be classed as poisons, their sale should be restricted to consenting adults over the age of 18 and they should be labeled as dangerous and disease causing in the way that cigarettes are.

        The fact that this is not the case indicates the power of the major corporate food producers, but it also indicates that the governments of the world, far from having an interest in promoting public welfare, have an interest in creating a docile and weak citizenry. Thus, we now see them ready to start pushing such suicidal (genocidal?) dietary plans as “the four food groups”.

        All this talk about health care reform is utterly nonsensical, as approximately all of the health problems that are presently costing such massive amounts of money to treat are caused by diet. It is highly appropriate that this charge for “health care reform” (a program designed to further governmental control over individual’s lives while bankrupting the country and lining the pockets of pharmaceutical companies, which are the yin to you processed food industry’s yang) is being led by a morbidly obese consumer of poisonous processed foods, Mr. Michael Moore. If he were to lay off the sugars and transfats, he wouldn’t need a massive liberticidal health care program to save his gluttonous form.

      • Ishmael on October 10, 2010 at 02:44

        I should have included other biotoxins, which are not necessarily consumed as part of a diet, as causes of modern health problems. These include all of the comerically produced chemical products which surround us, from cleaning products to plastics. It’s worth noting that the electromagnetic waves produced by cellphones and wifi aren’t doing anyone any good either. The key here is that nature did not produce cancer and diabetes, man did.

      • Richard Nikoley on October 10, 2010 at 08:09

        Just to be clear, I was referring to an article by Masterjohn on Activator X, now known to be vitamin K2, MK-4. Like vitamin D, lots of stuff coming out about K2 these days, though usually focussing on the MK-7 subform.

      • Ishmael on October 10, 2010 at 20:13

        I’m looking into this now.

    • Richard Nikoley on October 10, 2010 at 19:18


      My approach is simply what it is and I do not over think it because I think any planning or strategy is ultimately going to end up bullshit. That would be death to the blog. I have intellectual ADD. That is, nothing in particular interests me for very long, but I always have a short window of passion, and I take advantage of it.

      That’s not the whole story, but a lot of it. When I watch my logs, thre’s about 2,500- 3,500 visits per day and about an addition 1,000 page views. Much of that traffic comes from Google and in my own search function, vegetarian themes are the most searched week after week after week

      I don’t know if it’s having an impact on newbie veggies or those considering it, but Im sure hoping so.

      • Ishmael on October 10, 2010 at 20:10

        Yes, I do not want to seem critical. I really like what you are doing here. I am simply trying to shed some light on just how big and bizarre this whole thing is, and give you suggestions of where you might want to go with it in the future. I am presently in the process of putting together my own personal blog, on which health will be among the main focuses, and articles such as this will be the type that I link to show pieces of the picture.

        What you are doing is, I am quite sure, very effective for people who are, as you say, simply browsing around. This is the majority of internet users. You write concise articles, sticking the point very quickly and directly. I have a very difficult time being concise. I have so many concepts I want to smash all together when I write articles, that I end up producing things that generally do not appeal to a very wide audience. In the past, I have gotten exposure simply due to good networking, but have comment sections filled with “this is too long, I can’t read all of this, but I disagree with it because…” The average internet user has a very short attention span, and short, interesting articles are more effective for a general audience than the novels I tend to post on blogs.

        I salute you.

      • Richard Nikoley on October 11, 2010 at 07:20

        Yea, been there done that with the very long ass articles. Not to say I still don’t sometimes, or won’t. But the stats don’t lie. Many of the long ones go unread, even by many regular readers.

  2. VeganWarrior on October 9, 2010 at 13:50

    “In conclusion, moderate consumption of lean red meat as part of a balanced diet is unlikely to increase risk for CVD or colon cancer, but may positively influence nutrient intakes and fatty acid profiles, thereby impacting positively on long-term health.”

    • AJP on October 9, 2010 at 19:12

      Tommy and VW. Those links are great but really large.

      Use this free tool to convert those links to smaller ones.

      Here are your same two useing the tool.



      Just a friendly suggestion.

  3. 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 9, 2010 at 15:02

    […] T. Colin Campbell: Scientist or Propagandist? e ainda Vegan Zealots Censor Criticism of The China Study on Wikipedia […]

  4. O Primitivo on October 9, 2010 at 15:29

    RED MEAT and COLON CANCER epidemiology:

    How to Become an Easily-Brainwashed Sucker in 5 easy steps -> “4. Place great emphasis on formal credentials”

  5. Andrew on October 9, 2010 at 19:07

    Hi all,
    I think all this is perfectly normal. There are a range of different views, some of which have more scientific backing than others. People naturally gravitate towards some simplistic position because, in the words of E. Dijkstra , our heads are too small. We also have strong tribal tendencies (see for some nice slides. Be sure to watch the slide comments too) so that’s normal too.

    The other thing is that science is not all or nothing. The scientific method often begins with a hunch. We have trouble dealing with the continuum from no evidence through some to an overwhelming body of evidence. That’s particularly true for intractably complex multivariate systems, such as we are. So I think we need to cut each other some slack and stick to the difficult, complex issues at hand. For a good treatment of logic have a look at particularly ad hominem.

    So for tribal simpletons who don’t understand science we’re doing alright ;-)


  6. johnmc on October 9, 2010 at 10:52

    So typical of the bullshit merchants to try and hide all opposition to their position in order to “protect the innocents”.

    • Kelly on November 12, 2010 at 22:42

      I have alerted the Wiki noticeboard of this censorship:

      I suggest others do the same and / or comment below stating wiki policies, but it will probably be censored from that page too!

      In the wiki article, I backed my criticism references with NON BLOG information and it was still removed.
      SlimVirgin (animal rights wiki moderator, among others there) is stating that I need strong news like references.
      This is incorrect – you only need these type of references if the material you state is ‘likely to be challenged’ … posting someone’s review or criticism of a book should NOT be challenged, it does not make any sense. Therefore any type of reference should be OK.
      It’s only when you state something like “80% of red heads are colour-blind” that you need to cite a strong reference, as that of course is likely to be challenged (as it simply is not true)

      I’m not sure how to reply to the original post here. I may repost this further down the page!

  7. Ishmael on October 10, 2010 at 00:56

    I would agree that Mr. Dunn’s comments contribute little in the way of discussion. However, it is interesting that his, of all the comments here, is the one you chose to respond to. I would be interested to see if any of the believers in veganism and the China Study would be willing to engage in an intellectual debate of these topics. Obviously, any form of criticism or debate is forbidden on your own forums, but, as Richard seems to allow people with opposing viewpoints to voice their opinions on his blog, I see no reason why such a discussion could not take place here.

    You could start by providing a rebuttal to what amounts to the key point in Denise Minger’s China Study criticism, which is the fact that when lysine is added to the wheat protein, it has the same effects on cancer cells as casein protein.

    Perhaps then you could explain your understanding of the concept that a diet with zero cholesterol is healthy, as this is such a ridiculously unsupported claim, and one which Mr. Campbell has repeatedly failed to address with any level of coherency. What effect do you believe such a drastic alteration of our ancient biology would have on, for instance, the hormonal system? How would it affect male fertility? Do you view chemical manipulation of human beings which results in lowered testosterone levels and sperm count as a positive or negative trend?

    I would also be interested in your perception of the fact that veganism causes brain atrophy. Do you believe a smaller brain is a negative or positive development?

    A secondary concept worth discussion, one outside of the scientific realm but still highly relevant to these topics, would be the political implications of this push for vegetarianism, which I have briefly commented on above.

    A couple of points you may be interested in addressing:

    Campbell’s book is in fact a work of advocacy, not hard science, as he admits beginning this project with intent to prove that consumption of animal products is unhealthy; this is called “confirmation bias”.

    Campbell is a member of the advisory board of PCRM, an advocacy group with the intention of pushing legislation which will provide a legal framework for integrating his allegedly scientific concepts into governmental programs. For example, one of their goals is to remove animal products from the free lunch programs provided for poor children in public schools.

    You could also comment on the UN push for reforming the diets of the entire planet to meet the standards of vegetarianism and their heavy funding of advocacy groups used to push this agenda. Do you view those orchestrating this new system of global government, meant to be based on the Chinese model of social control and management*, as benevolent benefactors, guiding the citizens of the world into a bright new future? Does it bother you that you are following a belief system that has been produced and proliferated solely for political purposes?


    Feel free to respond to any or all of these topics, or bring up points of your own. You could also invite some of your fellow believers in veganism to join and contribute as well. I am highly interested in these issues, and based on the fact that you have come to this blog in order to defend your belief system, it seems to me that you also have a vested interest in understanding them. The best way for this debate to move forward is through open discussion. I urge you, and your fellow vegans, to join me in a candid debate of these concepts.

    Thank you; I look forward to your response.

    • Ishmael on October 10, 2010 at 01:03

      This comment was in response to a comment by “VeganWarrior”, which seems to have been removed, presumably because of it’s crude and irrelevant nature.

      My point offer of debate stands, as long as Richard does not have an issue with vegan responses which remain civil; I believe this is something they are capable of.

      • Richard Nikoley on October 10, 2010 at 01:37

        Yep, vitriol stands, from whomever and to what ever level.

        Just don’t put it in one sentence & run. That gets a delete & do over.

      • R Dunn on October 10, 2010 at 09:56

        Dang. What did I miss? Whatever it was I’m sure I could’ve handled it. I can take it as well dish it out (which I really rarely do). I am sure I wouldn’t have cried.

        I’ll be back later with a more measured response.

      • Ishmael on October 10, 2010 at 20:20

        Don’t worry about it man. I am not trying to be some annoying “no fun allowed” type prick. I just found it interesting that of all the comments the vegan could have commented on, he commented on a joke.

        A big part of the problem when dealing with these people is that after they become vegans they lose so much of the functionality of their brains that they are not really capable of understanding complex concepts. That is part of why it is so difficult to debate with them.

      • Tommy on October 11, 2010 at 10:57

        “A big part of the problem when dealing with these people is that after they become vegans they lose so much of the functionality of their brains that they are not really capable of understanding complex concepts.”

        They become vegetables?

      • Ishmael on October 11, 2010 at 11:20

        Yeah. Without the necessary vitamins (b12, for one), the brain doesn’t function any better than the rest of the body. It is a fact that veganism shrinks your brain.

        No big surprise. Shrinks every other part of your body — in all honesty, the lack of cholesterol almost certainly shrinks the penises of men following this diet as well.

        It is worth noting that all of that type of damage is probably repairable, if one goes back on a diet high in meat and eggs. The body has an incredible ability to repair itself. But I would rather not have a shrunken brain, myself.

      • Tommy on October 11, 2010 at 10:58

        You are what you eat

  8. Michele on October 9, 2010 at 11:06

    So first their problem was that Denise was supposedly too young and didn’t have the scientific education to write an accurate critique, and now their problem is that “Denise” has too much science in her critique and so must obviously be an evil conspiracy by an underground committee. Okaaay….what this tells this member of the uneducated online masses (simple too! don’t forget that!) is that being vegan makes you paranoid and hallucinate.

    • VeganWarrior on October 9, 2010 at 11:20

      Hey! I don’t hallucinate and I’m not paranoid…. I think.

    • Jesrad on October 10, 2010 at 09:48

      Now that you mention it… I just realized every single vegan I know tends on the paranoid side and sees conspiracies everywhere… Creepy.

      • Rachael on October 10, 2010 at 16:09

        I was a vegan for a while, and I did feel persecuted and eventually developed severe depression and anxiety. That sounds flippant, but I am totally serious, I think it’s pretty likely that fat, and specifically saturated fat are required for good brain functioning.

      • Khrystyna on October 11, 2010 at 02:25

        I know as an ex-vegan (who wasn’t preachy at ALL, I never liked to speak about it) that you are subject to a lot of aggression and mocking because of it and you do start to develop a them and us mentality as a result. Everyone assumes you’re some crazy new age hippy and that you’re going to be all fanatical and preachy about it. People love to take the piss out of you any chance they get and it can get so grating after a few years. I think that’s why so many are defensive and paranoid, because they just get fed up of being the butt of all the jokes at the dinner table.

    • mm on October 15, 2010 at 17:24

      Notice also how someone called her “Denis Minger” and at some point “she” was air-quoted… I love the implication that she can’t possibly be a real woman because of what she’s done. Seems she isn’t feminine/womanly enough, too logical in pointing out Campbell’s own vulgarised book contradicts his research, perhaps? or too much of a math geek? Or simply isn’t vegan? I wonder how the feminists will take to this form of invalidation.

  9. Tommy on October 9, 2010 at 11:23

    “If anything, the more information the more education and the more education the better off we all are. Is it possible we could be so certain, so locked in our own dogma that we have no room to consider other possibilities?”

    Great statement Richard. That’s how I see it….no need to fight about it, learn from it, all of it. You can only reach your own individual place by having all the information, from all sources. Knowledge is power. I think they are being fanatical. I had already read that piece you quoted, over at their site. I couldn’t believe what I was reading….are these grownups? lol. Very fanatical and almost scary. This is how radicals and cults are formed.

  10. Khrystyna on October 9, 2010 at 11:39

    I just did a post along the same lines on my blog;

    although I don’t have a way with words like Richard does unfortunately, so any constructive criticism is welcome :)

    • Nathaniel on October 9, 2010 at 16:39

      Good post, especially the part about confirmation bias. And nice blog. :)

    • Richard Nikoley on October 10, 2010 at 19:09

      I would not criticize a thing, Khrtstyana, except perhaps having an easier handle to spell. :)

      Actually, I recall hitting your blog from some link a few months ago and involuntarily looking at post after post of your most excellent photography. I had no idea these comments were from the same person.

      You just keep right at it. Good job.

      • Khrystyna on October 11, 2010 at 02:28

        Lol thanks Richard, I do have a real problem with spelling and my spell checker doesn’t always seem to amend for it 100% for some reason. I need a proof reader! :)

      • Richard Nikoley on October 11, 2010 at 07:27

        Oops, I was talking about the difficulty I have in remembering how to spell your name. :)

      • Khrystyna on October 11, 2010 at 07:45

        Ha ha must be some residual paranoia from my vegan days ;) Ya I’ve been known to forget how to spell it myself from time to time, don’t worry about it! :)

  11. Hannah on October 9, 2010 at 11:40

    This is hilarious, real-life theater of the absurd. Are these lunatics really so hopped up on bananas that they are completely unaware that they are spewing drivel? Denise Minger should probably buy some large sunglasses and a trench coat to match her new reputation. Oh shit, I forgot she’s actually not even a real person, I don’t think they make trench coats in size invisible. Oy. fucking. vey.

  12. Anna on October 9, 2010 at 11:56

    Don’t forget, she’s too pretty. Thanks for the warning about removing beverages from the vicinity because I surely would have spat coffee while reading that nugget. Huh? What’s pretty got to do with the price of tea of tea in China?

    • Athena on October 9, 2010 at 18:51

      I read that too and was like “oh so pretty girls can’t obviously write amazing pieces of work, they are too busy painting their toes and brushing their hair” PLEASE! Dont the 30bananas people realize that when they go strawman in their argument, they loose all credibility? Oh wait…they did that when they started telling people to eat 30 bananas a day….

  13. Ann on October 9, 2010 at 11:57

    Wow. This is so stupid my head hurts, not surprised though. I used to be vegetarian for a long time and I know how myopic they can be. Confirmation bias at work. I say let them kill themselves. it’s just a wiki article after all.

  14. Paul C on October 9, 2010 at 12:31

    If I ever get violences from evil genius pretty girl, I am chainging my name to Carl Cucumber.

  15. Denise's Dad on October 9, 2010 at 13:13

    I’m Denise Minger’s father. I can vouch that she is real and her education and long interest in nutrition (since at least 8) is what she describes. Is Denise a genius? I myself am a Mensa member, but Denise makes me look rather dull. And while I’m at the end of a doctoral program, it is Denise who has been of help to me — specifically on statistics. Please know that I have — as does Denise — the deepest respect for all people’s dietary choices and for issues we grapple with, including moral and ethical issues. I also know that Denise has the deepest regard for Dr. Campbell and his comprehensive work. It is not people who are being argued; it is data and interpretations of data. Current theory in any field must always be subject to logical challenges based on new data or analysis. That’s how science has to work if we are to keep it distinct from belief. There is no conspiracy. Nothing hidden in any of this discussion. It’s all right there for everyone’s consideration and (ideally) rational discussion of the data.

    • Khrystyna on October 9, 2010 at 14:21

      You guys are hogging all the good DNA!

    • DML on October 10, 2010 at 10:02

      “I myself am a Mensa member”…

      I am just curious: Why do people sometimes mention that is if it is some sort of credential? It’s just like people who say “I am a Ph.D.” and expect everybody to fall all over themselves kissing their ass.

      As someone who has worked with people with Ph.D’s –in fact, I am working toward one myself– and also associated with a Mensa member, I can honestly say that the mere fact someone can claim to be one or the other or perhaps both means nothing to me. Ph.D’s and mensa members can be just as stupid and biased and ignorant as, say, the janitor is sometimes stereotyped to be. Frankly, in my experience, it is the janitor who has more interesting things to say and has a better perception of what is going on in the world! So, who is more intelligent? Who knows? Not I! All I know is just because someone can toss around the fact they are a mensa member or Ph.D means nothing to me; it shouldn’t mean anything to other people, either. Neither one is an automatic credential for ability, knowledge, intelligence, nor the respect of others.

      So I ask again: Why do people mention such things as if they are some sort of automatic credential?

  16. Denise's Dad on October 9, 2010 at 13:17

    PS The posting system filled in a smiley face with glasses where I had written “parenthesis since at least 8 parenthesis.”

  17. Crystal on October 9, 2010 at 13:18

    I can’t help myself especially since I see it as apt to the discussion.

    “Jane: Why isn’t our low-protein gruel wearing down his resistance like all
    the others?
    Glen: It doesn’t wear down your resistance if you eat a whole month’s supply!
    He even ate mine!
    — The Simpson’s “The Joy of Sect”

    Eat a whole months supply of bananas and you can sustain yourself for a little while to follow “The Leader”.

  18. Annon on October 9, 2010 at 13:20

    Hey thanks for warning me as I did indeed have drink in hand and it could have been disastrous. What a load of biased crap.

  19. Karen on October 9, 2010 at 13:34

    Idiocracy in reality. Well, maybe not reality…

  20. Joseph on October 9, 2010 at 13:37

    Now we all know what people really mean when they talk about “going bananas”.

  21. Russ Taylor on October 9, 2010 at 13:56

    How do these vegs have so much time to wage such crazy campaigns? Instead of preaching veganism they should do an instructional book on time management, that would appear to be something they’re knowledgeable on.

    Oh, maybe their drum circle broke up, I guess that could account for all the free time.

    And Denise, in the words of many hip hop musical performers “Fuck all them haters!” Or something along those lines.

  22. j4 on October 9, 2010 at 16:00

    I like how the poster keeps calling Wikipedia ‘the Wikipedia’. Reminds me of ‘the internets.’ If the entirety of the post was not so sadly true it would make a great onion article.

  23. Nathaniel on October 9, 2010 at 16:43

    I wonder, will it ultimately be T. Colin Campbell’s legacy to be remembered not as a scientist, but as a cult leader? :D

    Reminds me of Pythagoras, the Greek mathematician, who was also the leader of a cult that practiced vegetarianism.

  24. Ned Kock on October 9, 2010 at 16:57

    Here I go dropping links again; thanks Richard for being a great host, and for being a gateway to other blogs like mine. I have been making a point of doing China Study analyses (mostly multivariate) and noting very clearly where Denise is absolutely right on target with her conclusions.

    She is right most of the time; very thorough and very careful. In fact, I cannot remember anything I don’t agree with. But Campbell made very correct points as well, some going against “popular” ideas at the time they were made. See below.

    This one suggests very clearly that Denise’s point was absolutely correct regarding schistosomiasis infection being a major confounding variable.

    This one suggests that animal protein is actually protective against colorectal cancer, whereas plant protein is not. This supports Denise’s points, and goes squarely against Campbell’s. It also points out that fruits and veggies typically contain trace amounts of protein, and thus are not the problem. This supports some of Campbell’s conclusions.

    This one suggests that total cholesterol is protective against heart disease. Completely against what Campbell said many times.

    Now, this one suggests that wheat flour promotes heart disease, which is consistent with Denise’s analysis. But it also shows that rice may be somewhat protective. Campbell called for a whole foods diet based on the China Study, so wheat flour being shown to be a bad thing actually supports Campbell’s claim.

    This one shows suggests that calorie restriction does not increase longevity. It actually supports a good point that Campbell made, when many people were jumping in the calorie restriction bandwagon. Campbell said exactly this, that calorie restriction does not improve health.

    So, as you can see, it is not all black-and-white. Denise is bright, no doubt. Campbell is also bright, and has made some major contributions in other areas (just do a search for his name on Google Scholar), but dropped the ball a few times. (I am a researcher and I make mistakes as well, so I am not going to be throwing stones.) Campbell shared the data he collected, with his collaborators, and it is generally good data (with some problems like any dataset). So I don’t think Campbell is evil incarnate. In fact, I thank him for collecting and sharing the data.

    On the Wikipedia thing. All that is needed is a “neutral” news agency (e.g., CNN) reporting on Denise’s findings, and a related noted on the China Study Wikipedia article will stand. Blogs are not considered “neutral” based on Wikipedia policy.

    The person who said s/he was an editor on Wikipedia probably knows that s/he has to abide by the Wikipedia rules. All is needed is a news article or a article published in a refereed journal. They did leave the text regarding Masterjohn’s post on WAPF, which means that they consider WAPF acceptable as a source.

    As they say in New Zealand: “Jimbo Wales should be knighted!”

    • Richard Nikoley on October 9, 2010 at 17:09

      Whew, arrived in Santa Barbara and checked into the hotel just in time to see all the comments (on a Daturday, to boot – don’t you people have lives :).

      And I also got up and running just in time to quickly get Ned’s link laden post out of the hold queue. Thanks, Ned. Excellent and even as always. You make my job much easier.

      I know that Chris has blogged a couple of times about Denise, but since in the blog section, may not stand. Perhaps he could persuade WAPF to do a feature article on it.

      I’ll email him and make him aware.

  25. Tom Naughton on October 9, 2010 at 17:47

    That is laugh-you-ass-off funny! I can already picture the evil meat-producers sitting around, trying to figure out how to discredit Campbell …

    One of them finally says, “I’ve got it! Let’s create a fictional but believable expert to rip apart his statistics!”
    “You mean, like, someone with a doctorate in biochemistry or mathematics?”
    “Hell, no! I’m thinking we create a 26-year-old English major who’s also really cute!”

    • jon w on October 10, 2010 at 00:32

      Tom, it’s not so far-fetched. Have you heard of Robin Sage?

  26. R Dunn on October 9, 2010 at 19:41

    I think the solution is pretty simple. They should lie down in a pasture, meditate themselves into a coma and die in peace – preferably in a field suitable for salad bar beef.

    Then the chickens could come along and pick at their carcasses.

    In time their bones would turn to dust and replenish the minerals in the soil.

    The plants win.

    The animals win.

    And we win.

  27. Michael on October 10, 2010 at 08:36

    “… finally one of THE major Wikipedia admins, who happens to be vegan, is now watching over the article.”

    Not surprising.

    I’d have thought Wikipedia could do without yet more tarnish on its reputation, but evidently not.

  28. SAMeat on October 10, 2010 at 08:43

    Sounds like a Nigerian Scam email to me. Living in dirty mud huts with a computer connection and a cell phone, Vegetarians send out information to innocent, stupid Americans who are greedy enough with their lives and the lives of their families to believe it without even thinking about it, much less investigating it themselves.

  29. Stan(Heretic) on October 10, 2010 at 10:54

    Warning: – under no circumstances one should try blocking or fighting vegans’ censorship of Wiki by their own editors or on any other venue, by its owners!. If they want to censor their own public site let them do that! Publish your material somewhere else! I am warning you of the Law of Unintended Consequences! I lived in a culture that practiced this kind of “we are right” paradigm, (an Eastern Europe communist state) and I have seen it fall! We have worked out a golden rule (attributed to Jacek Kuron) :

    “Don’t burn their their party buildings – build your own!

    Stan (Heretic) Bleszynski

  30. Jason on October 10, 2010 at 18:33

    I don’t think Betty Banana’s first language is English. It can’t be, yet her writing reads like a non-native speaker and she claims to be a Wikipedia editor? Good Lord…..

  31. R Dunn on October 10, 2010 at 20:45

    Perhaps my previous comment was not the most auspicious debuting comment.

    I like it when things seem simple. Occasionally I do enjoy a tumble down a rabbit hole of deep think.

    I am going to cover a lot of ground quickly.

    2010 will go down as the year in my life when I became immersed in nutrition. I had known for some time time I should do something about my diet, but was not exactly sure what. I had considered giving a vegetarian diet a go but had lingering doubts about it. I bought the China Study and began to plod through it. Quite frankly all the vegetarians I have known didn’t impress me with their overall appearance, health and attitude, That was just not my crowd.

    Fortunately, in February I read an article at Lew Rockwell about Cavemen who walk among us – Arts & Culture, Books, Health – -

    Within a week I had purchased Loren Cordain”s book – The Paleo Diet.

    Diet in the context evolutionary biology made sense . When I looked at the food list I said “I’m in.”

    Within 2 months I had begun to build a reference library of books, videos and articles. I hunted down most of the Paleo/ Primal blogs

    As a libertarian in the “anarcho” camp I particularly liked Richard’s blog – and his intelligent irreverence.

    By April I was into paleo in a big way.

    This shift in my way of thinking about diet and nutrition occurred in the context of a lifetime of self-examination. Since an early age, 14 perhaps, I have looked at what I believed and wondered why I believed it. Until we reach cognitive maturity, our brains are filled with what our parents, culture and education system put there. I have always been one to question the influences of these sources of knowledge.

    I always liked Mark Twain’s line “I have never let my schooling interfere with my education.”

    With questions about the content of one’s beliefs and how they are justified eventually came an interest in metaphysics and epistemology.

    When you examine the reasons for why you believe what you believe, it is not long before you wonder why other people believe what they believe. I think that we are talking about the same reality, so it is interesting to me when different people’s perceptions of reality differ.

    When a group of people’s beliefs cluster around a central tenet, at first they come together in a social context where they exchange and refine (or redefine} their ideas.
    These ideas can be the basis of belief systems or in the case of formal information systems, as in science, they can form paradigms.

    While not buying into the totality of anyone’s ideas (who does?), 25 years ago I became intrigued by the work of Karl Popper and scientific methodology. About a year and a half ago, I became interested the work of Thomas Kuhn – especially The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. It was Kuhn who popularized the idea of paradigms – a collection of related concepts and theories that form a lens through which we view reality.

    Now people can have all the lenses they want. A good discourse can lead to new discoveries and insights. It can, however, get ugly.

    Those people who become convinced of the superiority of their beliefs might become advocates. If they have an authoritarian bent, they could decide that their beliefs are what everyone should believe.

    That will inspire activism. Activism will lead to an agenda that becomes a policy that requires a political solution. By political solution I mean the passage of laws. With the passage of laws comes the necessity of enforcement. Then they have to push people around, i.e. police action, to get their way. It also leads to stealing, i.e. taxes, to pay for their solutions

    it can have big impact on your life. At that point for me it becomes personal.

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

    Now onto something more relevant to this thread.

    The current imbroglio at Wikipedia over the ongoing “revision” of the China Study entry is very reminiscent of what happened when one, William M. Connolley, was in charge of overseeing the entries about climate science. As an adherent of the hypothesis of man made global warming, he had set himself up as the “gatekeeper” of anthropogenic global warming. He was responsible for editing out several thousand entries that contradicted his world view, thus keeping alternative views out of sight and out mind of the casual Wikipedia user.
    The methodology of the activist mindset seems to work the same in any discipline.
    To see how it may play out check out these links –
    Connolley may be out at Wikipedia | Watts Up With That? –
    Wikibullies at work. The National Post exposes broad trust issues over Wikipedia climate information | Watts Up With That? – h

    A China Study “gatekeeper” appears to be recreating a similar situation.
    Hopefully, this gatekeeper will be shown the door and a more balanced editor will pick up the pieces.
    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

    As I mentioned earlier, I began plodding through The China Study last January. I finally finished it in the middle of June. By that time I was thoroughly in the paleo/ primal camp and was not impressed nor swayed by it. I put it back on the shelf.

    Now most of you probably know that the actual China Study was a major epidemiological undertaking by Cornell and Oxford. The data collected in that study was the basis for Campbell’s book
    In July when I began to reads the reports about Denise’s debunking of the study and then her actual critiques I took another look at Campbell’s book.

    I began to realize the book had been misnamed. It should have been called The China Hypothesis.

    During the ensuing uproar I invoked Kuhn’s work and began to see that from a vegan point of view it had become the China Paradigm.

    A quote from a commenter at this blog ( discussing Kuhn summarizes my outlook fairly well –

    “So my position is that, while it is true that scientific training does inculcate adherence to various conceptual schemes, but that they can also evaluate them, since the overall ethic and rigor of science supersedes the paradigms at work. While I agree with Kuhn generally, I am more optimistic, since practitioners vary substantially in their ability to adopt new paradigms. Some people are hopeless and do indeed have to die off rather than change their minds, but many others are quite capable of changing their minds, so the field goes in new directions, if more slowly than optimal. ”

    There are those who “are quite capable of changing their minds’ such as Lierre Keith, Rhys Southan at Let them Eat Meat, Denise Minger and others I’m sure. As for Campbell and those at 30 nanners. I doubt that we will see very few if any of them ever change.

    One thing is for sure. In a certain time and place in the future I will be changing my mind about something. Probably not about vegans.

    R Dunn

    Other posts about science and method –
    The Reference Frame: The rise of populist pseudoscience –
    The Reference Frame: Karl Popper and 21st century enemies of science –
    The Reference Frame: Induction & how scientists think –

    • R Dunn on October 13, 2010 at 20:07

      Follow up for anyone who might be intersted.

      I thought Connolley was out, but apparently he retains editing priviledges at Wikipedia and continues to abuse them.

      Wikipedia climate revisionism by William Connolley continues

      Off topic, so I’ll stop with this one.

    • Bushrat on October 13, 2010 at 23:08

      You should check out the late Australian philosopher David Stove. In particular you should read “Popper and After: Four Modern Irrationalists”. It is very heavy going, but Stove is a very intelligent and extremely rational man and maybe the best philosopher of the 20th Century.

  32. Sue on October 10, 2010 at 22:36

    Bloody Wikipedia. I am currently finishing off an assignment (which I should be concentrating on not visiting Richard’s site!). Anyway, we are not allowed to use Wikipedia as a reference as not a credible site!

    • Khrystyna on October 11, 2010 at 02:32

      That’s fair enoguh really, it’s not exactly peer-reviewed or weel regulated in any way.

  33. Karl on October 11, 2010 at 02:04

    Another fun point about that 30bananas site is that their quick and dirty way to tell you aren’t eating enough fruit is similar to my top of the head list of the problems you’d have from eating too much fruit. Although, admittedly I wouldn’t have guessed that eating dog poop would about among the problems of eating too much fruit, but that’s number 18 in their FAQ.

    If you start to question veganism… you aren’t eating enough fruit!
    If you’re so thin and weak your friends are worried… you aren’t eating enough fruit!
    If cooked food starts to look and smell good… you aren’t eating enough fruit!

    This stuff is priceless…

    • Khrystyna on October 11, 2010 at 02:36

      I wouldn’t be able to leave the bathroom from one day to the next eating that much fruit, the thought of it is actually scary lol :)

  34. Nathaniel on October 11, 2010 at 09:01

    “If you’re so thin and weak your friends are worried… you aren’t eating enough fruit!”

    LOL… my god.

    That’s like saying….

    “If your head starts to hurt… you’re not hitting yourself in the head with a hammer enough!”

  35. […] Subscribe ← Vegan Zealots Censor Criticism of The China Study on Wikipedia […]

  36. Logan on October 11, 2010 at 11:58

    Betty Banana has posted a response to Denise on Denise’ site, newest post. She’s…. unhinged to say the least. There is something very telling about the rebuttals and tactics used against Ms. Minger, indicative of an almost unbelievable unwillingness to entertain the possibility that their opinions are ill-conceived. It’s actually as amusing as it is frightening.

    Ol’ Betty Bananas and her buddies can’t seem to make up their minds: is the Denise person a non-credible, young, inexperienced, English-major undergrad (pretty girl) blogger, and cannot be believed, or is “Denise Minger” a front for WAPF or some other shadowy organization of meat-eaters, and cannot be believed?

    Whatever the case, they are doing us all a favor by acting like Denise just slapped their mommies. The more they protest, the more credibility Denise gets. And if Betty Bananas is the best they’ve got, Denise is doing pretty good.

  37. wolysoly on October 15, 2010 at 00:23

    I just checked the wikipedia discussion page for The China Study and the latest addition is (no joke) this dialogue.

    “Removed criticism

    I suggest we delete ANY criticism of this work immediately. Wikipedia has a duty to protect this important book/study. Conflicting studies should be expunged. Articles or quotes from conflicting Doctors need to be deleted or at least make sure you remove ‘Dr.’ from their name as to discredit.

    Excellent work everyone! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

    Are you serious? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

    This is pretty sad. The people who’ve removed all the criticism references from this article should be ashamed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

    If you have to be dishonest about suppressing dissent, then your material must not be factual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diafono (talk • contribs) 06:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)”

    Its too far out that I half-think that it is satirical. I never really bought the crazy vegan zealot image that is suggested by many paleo members but this is pretty hard to ignore. absolutely shameful.

    • CPM on October 15, 2010 at 08:02

      It appears to be satirical to me. It was posted after all the criticism was removed.

      • wolysoly on October 15, 2010 at 17:11

        I was hoping someone would say that! :)

  38. 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 Chipper WOD, Anarcho Capitalism, Complex C on October 15, 2010 at 15:01

    […] Vegan Zealots Censor Criticism of The China Study on Wikipedia […]

  39. Daily WOD | The Blue Paparazzi Hub on October 17, 2010 at 20:53

    […] Vegan Zealots Censor Criticism – Free the Animal […]

  40. Weekly Update: 10/23 on October 23, 2010 at 10:01

    […] Vegan Zealots Censor Criticism of The China Study on Wikipedia – A bit of a rant I came across about a pack of vegan evangelists who are practicing “jump circle defense” of the China Study on Wikipedia.  If you aren’t aware of the China Study, many vegans are using it as evidence of the superiority of vegan diets despite it’s many problems. […]

  41. Sunday 10/24/10 | Derby City CrossFit - Louisville, KY on October 23, 2010 at 19:03

    […] 10/24/10 Strength Rest WOD Rest CF Football Here CF Endurance Here Vegans Censor Criticism What It Takes to Be a Better Than Average Powerlifter How Clothing Companies Lie to Spare Your […]

  42. Roelant on October 24, 2010 at 13:52

    Richard, I’m dropping this link on a fb page if you don’t mind. Some veganazis just spammeded mercola’s post on CLA and grassfed beef, and I’m just kind of sick of it. If they are allowed to post on the damn thing, I’ll just post this little tidbit on vegan nonsense. Either way, that thread is hijacked. I presented some scientific backing and in response was accused of having a god complex, arrogance, lack of ethics and um, a hope I would never become a parent,Lol. What all that has to do with the Inuit, I don’t really know, they just did a lot of hand waving and avoided the question

  43. Don Matesz on November 13, 2010 at 10:18

    I just read the first couple of pages of that pdf containing Campbell’s response to Minger. On page two, he wrote: “the casein effect, which was studied in great depth and, if judged by the formal criteria for experimentally determining which chemicals classify as carcinogens, places casein in the category of being the most relevant carcinogen ever identified.” I almost laughed…his research DID NOT show casein to be a carcinogen, i.e. a substance that initiates cancer, it showed, at most, that high doses of isolated casein function to PROMOTE cancer, i.e. a cancer promoter. Even in his own words in The China Study the carcinogen was aflatoxin. He criticizes Minger for “lack of perspective” but can’t properly distinguish between a carcinogen and a promoter? And does he seriously believe that nature put a carcinogen (casein) in all mammalian milk, including human milk? Now that makes biological sense, mother’s milk causing cancer (sarcasm). The burden is on him to prove that the Masai or Fulani, who virtually live on milk, have cancer rates similar to or exceeding Americans consuming only a fraction of the milk protein. “Nothing in biology, including nutrition, makes sense except in the light of evolution.” Campbell just prefers to ignore evidence of ancestral diets.

    • Sam on December 18, 2010 at 18:15

      >> can’t properly distinguish between a carcinogen and a promoter? And does
      > he seriously believe that nature put a carcinogen (casein)

      All good points Don, but I would go further & say the casein provides nutrition to all cells – and other proteins don’t,

      The only reason the deficient nutrition kills the cancer cells before the rest of the body is the body can temporarily compensate.

  44. Total Body Health Studio » Blog Archive » China Study – How Not to do Science on February 19, 2011 at 16:08
  45. A bit tired of Durianrider lying about the paleo/primal diet... | Mark's Daily Apple Health and Fitness Forum page 32 on November 17, 2011 at 05:35

    […] Seriously, though… Wikipedia? Like they haven't ever pulled info because it was anti-veg! Wikipedia censors criticism of China Study – Fre the Animal May 9, 2011 – 168.7 lbs and 30.6% BF November 6, 2011 – 144.7 lbs and 26.7% BF […]

  46. Brad Longazel on April 14, 2015 at 10:11

    I have no idea why vegan became a thing. Humans have existed for centuries and meat has been part of our diets for the entire time. The safe simple nature of not eating meat is only perpetuated by the sympathy for a living creature. That animal exists as energy and energy is only transferred. Live a strong life.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.