Christina Applegate diagnosed with breast cancer

[Marey]

I don't think this diet or any other diet can be any guarentee that you won't get cancer of some kind. I think you can reduce your risk of getting cancer, but there is no 100% foolproof way to eliminate cancer risks, especially if most of your life you ate unhealthfully like most people in the West.

Very good point, Chumly. Cancer can be caused by environmental toxins too.
She had mammograms yearly? Dr Day says that mammograms can increase the risk of breast cancer.

[Quiver0f10]

I don't think this diet or any other diet can be any guarentee that you won't get cancer of some kind. I think you can reduce your risk of getting cancer, but there is no 100% foolproof way to eliminate cancer risks, especially if most of your life you ate unhealthfully like most people in the West.

ITA! And it upsets me when I see people automatically blame diet when someone gets cancer or dies. Yes, diet is huge in reducing the chances of getting cancer or whatever, but it doesn't guarantee it.

[Ann685]

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.

[Chumly]

I've also read that people who eat a plant-based diet and smoke have a much lower risk of lung cancer than smokers eating SAD.

[sparrowrose]

Christina Applegate seems to be vegetarian as opposed to vegan.

I'm pretty sure you're right. I read an article about her a few months back in one of those free health magazines the pharmacy gives away and she mentioned that her dancing keeps her slim because sometimes she just "gives in" and eats an entire cheese pizza by herself.

Sparrow

[Javelina]

This is really, really sad.... Here's an article about Christina's double mastectomy from Natural News.
http://www.naturalnews.com/023907.html

[Lacey]

Ionizing radiation is the one thing that for sure cause cancer and the risk is from cumulative, lifetime exposure (that means x-rays too)!

Notice in the article that Javelina posted it says that she started getting mammograms at age 30.

I will never know of course but I have often wondered if the aggressive schedule of mammography that my sister adhered to (as often as every 6 months starting by at least age 40 if not earlier) had anything to do with the aggressiveness of the breast cancer that had killed her by age 50.

[Heretic]

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:

FIGURE 1: Associations of Selected Variables with Mortality for All Cancers

Carbohydrates +23% [HIGHEST CORRELATION WITH CANCER]

Fiber +21%

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]

(*=statistically significant)

Capitalized text in square brackets are my comments.
Stan (Heretic)

---------------

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

[karin_kiwi]

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:

FIGURE 1: Associations of Selected Variables with Mortality for All Cancers

Carbohydrates +23% [HIGHEST CORRELATION WITH CANCER]

Fiber +21%

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]

(*=statistically significant)

Capitalized text in square brackets are my comments.
Stan (Heretic)

---------------

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.

Rant over.

[eaufraiche703]

you're absolutely spot on, Karin!

the board is provided for support of this program for those who are trying to adopt this dietary lifestyle. the debates aren't really illuminating or particularly entertaining - and they are a source of distraction and confusion!

can't y'all go argue someplace else?

[hope101]

Thankyou, Karin, for an articulate rebuttal to Heretic's cherry-picking of data that supports his agenda. Since I am not nearly so coherent, I'll simply quote the China Study introduction. This is taken from T. Colin Campbell's website itself. The bolding is mine:

"What we found was shocking. Low-protein diets inhibited the initiation of cancer by aflatoxin,
regardless of how much of this carcinogen was administered to these animals. After cancer
initiation was completed, low-protein diets also dramatically blocked subsequent cancer
growth. In other words, the cancer-producing effects of this highly carcinogenic chemical were
rendered insignificant by a low-protein diet. In fact, dietary protein proved to be so powerful in its
effect that we could turn on and turn off cancer growth simply by changing the level consumed.

Furthermore, the amounts of protein being fed were those that we humans routinely consume.
We didn’t use extraordinary levels, as is so often the case in carcinogen studies.
But that’s not all. We found that not all proteins had this effect. What protein consistently and
strongly promoted cancer? Casein, which makes up 87% of cow’s milk protein, promoted all
stages of the cancer process. What type of protein did not promote cancer, even at high levels
of intake? The safe proteins were from plants, including wheat and soy."

And the conclusions:

"I could not, and did not, rest on the findings of our animal studies and the massive human
study in China, however impressive they may have been. I sought out the findings of other
researchers and clinicians. The findings of these individuals have proved to be some of the
most exciting findings of the past fifty years.
These findings—the contents of Part II of this book—show that heart disease, diabetes and
obesity can be reversed by a healthy diet. Other research shows that various cancers,
autoimmune diseases, bone health, kidney health, vision and brain disorders in old age (like
cognitive dysfunction and Alzheimer’s) are convincingly influenced by diet. Most importantly,
the diet that has time and again been shown to reverse and/or prevent these diseases is the
same whole foods, plant-based diet that I had found to promote optimal health in my
laboratory research and in the China Study. The findings are consistent."

[Steve]

Karin, Thanks a million for the post. Just like eaufraiche703 said, your post is spot on.

[f1jim]

Heretic not only posts his "selective data" here on the McDougall forums, but on the WebMD forum for Ornish followers. Then he posts the fact that he does this over on the diet debate forum on WebMD. Like a virus and spyware creator bragging about his work, he posts for his very few worshipers about his prowess at disturbing. It's all so juvenile, but the few people still posting on the diet debate board eat it up! They think he walks on water!!! He then runs to the cover of "they refuse to debate me" (or more recently let's his groupie do that!) completely ignoring the purpose of the boards he infects! I think most everyone at the other boards is now on to him and his appearance here is his search for virgin territory to ply his "nutritional ideas." Unfortunately for him, there is a lot of crossover on the boards and his act has long since started to get old. The response to him here was direct and vocal. He will soon move on to more vulnerable sites.
f1jim