Talk:The China Study/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

NPOV problems

This is, more or less, a medical advice article, and, as such, WP:MEDRS applies to some extent. A lot of claims are made, but are pretty much exclusively cited to the book or reviews that parrot the book; there appears to be a lack of evidence of either other scientists agreeing with the interpretations, or even discussion of the original study's findings except as filtered through the book.

Do the Campbells provide a fair, unbiased explanation of the science? As the article stands, no attempt is made to demonstrate or refute the points raised. I'd presume, if this was a mainstream view, that some very strong sources could be provided (e.g. something on the level of the American Medical Association, Cancer Research UK, etc). As they don't seem to exist, one has to presume that the views aren't entirely mainstream, and thus the article is biased towards a minority view by constantly quoting the interpretations of the book as fact.

Some form of vegetarianism probably is healthier, at least for most people. But the claims here seem to be exaggerated. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Agree. See here e.g. Alexbrn (talk) 04:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS

We cannot state the premise, show that one or two studies agree, and state that the authors were correct in their medical advice. One can usually find some single, small study to prove just about anything. It's the totality of studies that matters. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:32, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

The claim "Hall's blog cites her main source as the website of Weston A. Price Foundation"

At first sight I found this a strange and disingenuous claim, particularly as Harriet Hall herself has written a highly negative article about the Weston A. Price Foundation - she seems to be considerably more critical of them than she is of the China Study: https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/sbm-weston-prices-appalling-legacy/ In her article about the China Study - https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/385/ - before she's got started with her own investigation, Hall writes briefly about the opinions for and against the book, including one link to a WAPF article ("But I also found this critical review which makes some excellent points and accuses the authors of misrepresenting the findings of the study.") among mentions of PETA, Vegnews, Heather McCartney, Amazon, and also linking to the website of Oprah (who featured the book and is in favor of it). This is nowhere near citing WAPF, or Oprah or any of the others for that matter, as "her main source" - or indeed as a source at all when it comes to her subsequent investigation following from the heading "Problematic References" ("I didn’t look at the praise or criticism of others until after I read the book, and the following represents my independent impressions.") I am therefore deleting this claim from the article. --Wineisred (talk) 18:57, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Veganism v vegetarianism

The introduction (p6) states that:

' What made this project especially remarkable is that, among the many associations that are relevant to diet and disease, so many pointed to the same finding: people who ate the most animal-based foods got the most chronic disease. Even relatively small intakes of animal-based food were associated with adverse effects. People who ate the most plant-based foods were the healthiest and tended to avoid chronic disease. These results could not be ignored.... the findings proved to be consistent. The health implications of consuming either animal or plant-based nutrients were remarkably different.'

This suggests that the authors believe that the research shows that even small amounts of animal based foods are harmful. I therefore suggest that the most recent good faith post by ‎96.19.39.193, that the authors supported vegetarianism rather than veganism, is incorrect. The authors would surely not recommend a diet that they here state to have adverse effects? If citations can be given to show this to be wrong, I am happy to let the edit stand. Otherwise I feel it should be reverted. The fact that the editor read the book is not sufficient evidence for such an across the board change. A basic rule is that we source our evidence to support changes. TonyClarke (talk) 20:54, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I can appreciate your comment about my edit. My basis for the edit is from my understanding of the information in chapter 3 (Turning off cancer) in the book. The author there states his research pointed to the fact that a dose of less than 10% casein halted the formation of foci and therefore posed little risk of cancer development. Further in the chapter they do talk about experiments with plant proteins and that they did not produce foci growth even in high doses. This entire chapter discusses the fact that low doses of protein did not promote cancer cell development, and that 10% protein is necessary for proper health. In the entire chapter there is no clarification as to what type of protein (animal or plant) the author is speaking of. On page 63 of the book he tells of the results from the experiment with the HBV transgenic mice and there states that the mice fed 6% casein had no signs of cancer development. My interpretation of this is that low protein intake is the factor that was proven and not the source of the protein (animal or plant based). Respectfully,96.19.39.193 (talk) 16:52, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I accept your points, and thanks for shedding extra light on this, for me at least. TonyClarke (talk) 08:23, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Typo? Counties / Countries?

"...the data was correlated with 1983–84 dietary surveys and blood work from 100 people in each county. The research was conducted in those countries because they had genetically similar populations..."

Should this say "in those counties"? There doesn't seem to be a clear explanation of countries mentioned previous to this sentence to be referencing back to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.235.142.53 (talk) 07:58, 18 September 2018 (UTC)