- Health and Science
- The Free Program
- McDougall Newsletter
- Success Stories
- Search »
Join Dr. McDougall along with fellow McDougallers in lively discussions and share your opinions.
TanneryGulch wrote: I went looking for data to rebut that, but I found that in every study mentioned in The China Study aflatoxin was the carcinogen
debbie wrote:... and this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casein and the quote "When coagulated with rennet, casein is sometimes called paracasein. ... promotion of cancer and other diseases which was discovered in the 1980s by ...
TanneryGulch wrote:Heh... Yep, there it is, with graphics and everything, plus another study showing the same effect on breast cancer with two other chemical carcinogens. Dunno how I missed it. Thanks, 'dog.
Care to retort, Heretic?
karin_kiwi wrote:TanneryGulch wrote:Heh... Yep, there it is, with graphics and everything, plus another study showing the same effect on breast cancer with two other chemical carcinogens. Dunno how I missed it. Thanks, 'dog.
Care to retort, Heretic?
No, he won't. This is one of the points that I discussed with Stan months ago. He said only casein-aflatoxin was a problem in The China Study and pretended to be interested if anyone had evidence for casein's promoting other cancers etc. As usual, once he's effectively proved wrong he abandons that argument until a later point in time.
OK, I went and found where he said this before and where a couple of us responded (his post is about halfway down the page). TanneryG, your Q2 might have some answer here as well:
http://www.drmcdougall.com/forums/viewt ... c&start=15
Heretic wrote:Again please post a study link! I am not saying that it is not impossible, only that I have not seen any source other than Campbell. I do not have Campbell's book.
hope101 wrote:Perhaps we could do it the other way. Rather than us come up with the burden of proof for our choice--on a board advocating a low fat, whole foods plant-based lifestyle--those who still have genuine doubt could pose their question to Jeff. I suspect you'll need more than one rat study to undermine his breadth of knowledge.
karin_kiwi wrote:Heretic wrote:Ann685 wrote:Campbell cited and repeated studies in "The China Study" where animal protein actually caused cancer tumors to grow. Switching to plant protein caused the cancer tumors to shrink. His studies convinced me that animal protein is a key factor in cancer growth.
To me this means that even though we come in contact with carcinogenes, our chances of actually becoming diseased with cancer are very low if we eat a plant based diet.
This is not the case. Campbell investigated carcinogenic effects of aflatoxins (a type of mold toxins) present sometimes in certain plant produce like nuts or grains, that are made worse by the presence of casein (milk protein) but not by other proteins. Thus his conclusions may be applicable to aflatoxins in conjunction with casein but not to animal protein in general. In addition, Campbell himself is supposed to have published the following data after his China Study research which does not seem to support the theory that animal protein were any more correlated with cancer than plant protein:Campbell's publication wrote:FIGURE 1: Associations of Selected Variables with Mortality for All Cancers
Carbohydrates +23% [HIGHEST CORRELATION WITH CANCER]
Total Calories +16%
Total Protein +12%
Plant Protein +12%
Fish Protein +7%
Animal Protein +3%
Total Lipids -6%
Fat % Calories -17%
Fat(questionnaire) -29%* [MOST NEGATIVE CORRELATION WITH CANCER]
Capitalized text in square brackets are my comments.
Junshi, Chen, T. Colin Campbell, Li Junyao, and Richard Peto, Diet, Life-style and Mortality in China: A Study of the Characteristics of 65 Chinese Counties, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990
Stan, the actual book I think you're referring to is "Mortality, Biochemistry, Diet and Lifestyle in Rural China: Geographic Study of the Characteristics of 69 Counties in Mainland China and 16 Areas in Taiwan" published in 2006. This book is simply raw data tables and anyone with half a brain knows that looking at a single table means nothing, especially out of context. You are in possession of a full brain and therefore know that doing this kind of thing is manipulative and done only with the intention of making a point that cannot be made with a fuller picture.
Unless you're going to say that Campbell is deliberately misleading people with fraudulent interpretation of the data, then The China Study should be regarded as what Campbell believes as a result of his entire career in the field - including interpretation of all the data and tables in that book. His position on animal protein (not just casein) is quite clear and based on many forms of protein.
You are only partly right about the casein - that was the protein in the rat studies. However, the human observations that prompted the rat studies showed a relationship between cancer formation in response to aflatoxin and total animal protein intake - not just casein. In The China Study, Campbell very clearly implicates animal protein in general (not just casein, which was not generally consumed by the Chinese in the study) as a primary factor that affects cancer and mortality. Animal protein intake even at the very low levels consumed by the Chinese (relative to Americans) had a strong correlation. I think that you know this and are choosing not to acknowledge it because it doesn't meet your agenda. As usual.
This is not a McDougall debate board, this is a McDougall support board. I'm getting very sick of the challenges and the posts supporting diets that are totally inconsistent with the McDougall Program. Not just from Stan, although he's by far the worst offender. He's not even pretending to seek information - he's just furthering his goal of promoting his own views and creating discord. Please be clear I'm not talking about posts from people who are genuinely questioning and seeking information, which of course are appropriate.
I personally wish that these anti-program posts could be removed or at least relocated to a special board dedicated to being a place to debate or challenge aspects of the program. I'm seeing more and more people utterly confused because of these posts, some of which are coming from people who are generally fairly well-informed and have promoted their healthcare/medical qualifications here - even though some of what they say directly contradicts McDougall (yeah, Geoffrey, this is you, too - though I do appreciate that your posts are well-intentioned, unlike Stan's). Everyone's entitled to their opinions, but the McDougall Support Board is not the place to promote alternative views and undermine the program. This kind of discussion is inappropriate for a place that contains lots of people who've barely skimmed the McDougall website, much less read any of the books properly, and are looking to the people here to inform them about what the McDougall program is and how it helps.
I don't want this to turn into the kind of place it was when it was at VS.
TanneryGulch wrote: If you're so interested in support, help this McDougaller (me) understand that he has good reasons for eating the way he does. That's the only form of support I'm interested in.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 8 guests