Minger, McDougall, Campbell

[bethannerickson]

I guess I come from this from a different perspective. If you recall, I'm the long-time McDougaller who was diagnosed with colon cancer last year. I actually asked my oncologist why his profession is basically ignoring Campbell's work.

He gave me a simple answer: Campbell supposedly stopped one kind of cancer (there are many, different kinds of cancer that respond differently to various treatments) in one organ (there are many organs in the human body, if I get a "met" from my colon cancer in my liver, it will need very different treatment than the original cancer), in rats specially bred to grow tumors (we're humans, not genetically modified rats) using one concentrated source of animal protein (there are many kinds of plant/animal proteins... Campbell's pure casein generally isn't consumed in that state, minus the rest of the milk). I couldn't believe I hadn't thought of that before. That's evidently why the oncologist/medical community hasn't heartily embraced his research, it's not because they're evil money grubbing nutritional idiots jonesing for more business. In fact, my oncologist said he found Campbell's work a “good starting point” for more research.

Just thought I'd throw this into the mix.

Beth

[hazelrah]

The thing is, grain availability is actually down over the last century: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/91/5/ ... nsion.html

That's a great article. To any rational person, that should disprove any delusion that increased consumption of grains ( or charbohydrates in general) correlates to the increase in obesity over the last few decades.

Mark

[davestill]

I actually asked my oncologist why his profession is basically ignoring Campbell's work.

He gave me a simple answer: Campbell supposedly stopped one kind of cancer (there are many, different kinds of cancer that respond differently to various treatments) in one organ (there are many organs in the human body, if I get a "met" from my colon cancer in my liver, it will need very different treatment than the original cancer), in rats specially bred to grow tumors (we're humans, not genetically modified rats) using one concentrated source of animal protein (there are many kinds of plant/animal proteins... Campbell's pure casein generally isn't consumed in that state, minus the rest of the milk).

Exactly. They are trapped in a reductionist mind-set that prevents them from seeing the broader implications of Campbell's findings. This trap is reinforced by the fact that their livelihood incentivizes them to continue pursuing reductionist solutions. Read Campbell's 'Whole' for more on this topic.

[bethannerickson]

I actually asked my oncologist why his profession is basically ignoring Campbell's work.

He gave me a simple answer: Campbell supposedly stopped one kind of cancer (there are many, different kinds of cancer that respond differently to various treatments) in one organ (there are many organs in the human body, if I get a "met" from my colon cancer in my liver, it will need very different treatment than the original cancer), in rats specially bred to grow tumors (we're humans, not genetically modified rats) using one concentrated source of animal protein (there are many kinds of plant/animal proteins... Campbell's pure casein generally isn't consumed in that state, minus the rest of the milk).

Exactly. They are trapped in a reductionist mind-set that prevents them from seeing the broader implications of Campbell's findings. This trap is reinforced by the fact that their livelihood incentivizes them to continue pursuing reductionist solutions. Read Campbell's 'Whole' for more on this topic.

I've read "Whole." I've read "The China Study." I have my certificate in plant based nutrition from e-Cornell. I'm familiar with the Campbell's research. The quote from my oncologist has nothing to do with reductionism. He simply stated that different tumors react differently to different treatments. What works for one tumor may or may not work for another. Evidently Campbell could "turn on" and "turn off" cancer in the liver of genetically modified lab rats using pure casein. Good for him. That doesn't mean his technique will work with humans living in the real world.

Taking Campbell's research to heart, I shouldn't have gotten cancer... I've been no oil, healthy eating vegan for ten years, MWL McDougaller for five. If I had cancer before I started McDougalling, it should not have grown. But it did... to the size of a golf ball. Using info about the type of tumor I had, its grade, and such, the oncologist said I had the cancer 3 - 5 years.

Those oncologists you disparaged so eloquently saved my life. Please don't put words in their mouth and please don't tell me what they're thinking if you haven't actually spoken to one.

How disappointing... guess people don't like to hear bad news about their good habits, either. We're not disease proof and some of Campbell's claims are pretty extraordinary.

Beth

[davestill]

Beth, I have read your story, and applaud you for your strength and willingness to share. I apologize if I gave offense.

I've read "Whole." I've read "The China Study." I have my certificate in plant based nutrition from e-Cornell. I'm familiar with the Campbell's research. The quote from my oncologist has nothing to do with reductionism. He simply stated that different tumors react differently to different treatments. What works for one tumor may or may not work for another. Evidently Campbell could "turn on" and "turn off" cancer in the liver of genetically modified lab rats using pure casein. Good for him. That doesn't mean his technique will work with humans living in the real world.

I do not read Campbell's findings as revelation of new technique. The big message, to me, was that diet can effect the progression of cancerous cells. Oncology (like all medical treatment) is based on reductionism, and your oncologist's explanation of why Campbell's findings don't get much traction sounds very reductionist. Reductionism isn't a dirty word, but can be detrimental to problem solving when it is the only tool used.

Taking Campbell's research to heart, I shouldn't have gotten cancer... I've been no oil, healthy eating vegan for ten years, MWL McDougaller for five. If I had cancer before I started McDougalling, it should not have grown. But it did... to the size of a golf ball. Using info about the type of tumor I had, its grade, and such, the oncologist said I had the cancer 3 - 5 years.

If only we could get such a guarantee against cancer. I have no illusions that I am close to being cancer-proof (started this WOE of eating at 50, and my mother died of colon-cancer at 65). But I do feel like I've significantly improved my odds (but remaining vigilant). Perhaps the diet lessened the severity of your cancer, and/or delayed the onset, and/or increased your odds of treatability? I'd like to think so.

Those oncologists you disparaged so eloquently saved my life. Please don't put words in their mouth and please don't tell me what they're thinking if you haven't actually spoken to one.

How disappointing... guess people don't like to hear bad news about their good habits, either. We're not disease proof and some of Campbell's claims are pretty extraordinary.

Beth, all I said was that your doctor was taking a reductionist view (which applies to the entire medical profession, including excellent doctors), and pointed out that, like all other doctors, his income is incentivized by reductionism. Whether or not that incentivization actually influenced his views is unknown (probably even to him). My point was that his entire education, profession, and source of income is rooted in reductionism, and thus it isn't surprising he takes a reductionist view of a holistic finding. That doesn't mean I think he's a bad doctor (in fact, I might need a doctor just like him one day).

[f1jim]

I think cancer is a complicated and our understanding about the mechanisms around the development and growth of cancers is still rather young.
I am not sure anyone is trying to put words in anyone's mouth. People like to discuss the issue and feel pretty safe doing it here. We encourage that discussion. There is a lot we have learned about cancer even if we have just scratched the surface.
No one here should ever imply that following this diet will make one impervious to cancer. Nor should they assume that following this program is a cure if you already have cancer. Cancer clearly has multiple factors that influence it's start and development. There are dietary risk factors. There are lifestyle factors. There are environmental factors. And on and on. So we can't simply say eat well and your cancer troubles are behind you. I wish life were that simple.
We do know that a healthy diet can have a substantial impact on the risk of developing cancers. We know it can have an effect on the spread of cancers. That's about all it's safe to say. I don't think Dr. Campbell is really saying much more than that in his writings. Context is everything and in at least one talk he has given he was clear he was not positioning diet as the cure for cancer. Only that it had a strong influence on cancer. Just as some non-smokers get lung cancer and some smokers don't it's a complicated maze of risks and preventions we end up navigating as we walk through life.
We do say that if you play the numbers you are better off following this way of eating than many other choices. That doesn't mean you get a free no-cancer ticket to the road through life. There are no 100% outcomes in anything about life.
I do like the idea of maximizing my odds in life as I step up to the craps table of life. Certainly more today than in decades past.
f1jim

[dteresa]

I think everyone should understand that it is a matter of statistics. The best anyone can say with the limited knowledge we have is that certain lifestyles give you a better chance of certain things. Ruth Heidrich had breast cancer, a mastectomy and still has an encapsulated cancer in her lungs and has lived about thirty years after her diagnosis. She switched to a starch diet after consulting McDougall and now eats mostly raw food. Does this mean that if the same thing happens to me I will survive as long as Dr. Heidrich? No. No one knows. Does this mean that eating vegan from birth protects against every kind of cancer or that someone who has eaten the SAD all his life will get cancer or have a heart attack? No. The best we can do is play the odds.

I really do believe though that after my heart attack, coding, revival with cpr and three shots with those paddles, and stent placement that my recovery was very fast. The nurses were surprised at how fast I was up and around and walking around the unit and did not believe I have diabetes. That was in the intensive care unit. I walked through three buildings when I was transferred to the cardiac care unit and the nurses laughed at me and said it was the first time anyone ever walked onto their unit. It came with a minor price I think. In the hospital I only ate oatmeal, fruit and potatoes. The vegetables were overcooked and watery and came in quarter cup portions. That was all there was to eat in the hospital when I decided enough eating in "moderation". My heart patient room mates were ordering roast beef, eggs and sausage for breakfast, chocolate cake and chocolate ice cream. I do not think my woe now has made me heart attack proof. I do have a stent with all the problems that entails after all. And I still have diabetes even though my numbers are good. I do not think I have cured it. I only control it so far. So the best I can do is play the odds and exercise and eat a plant, no fat diet. And take B12.

didi

[bethannerickson]

I think cancer is a complicated and our understanding about the mechanisms around the development and growth of cancers is still rather young.
I am not sure anyone is trying to put words in anyone's mouth. People like to discuss the issue and feel pretty safe doing it here. We encourage that discussion. There is a lot we have learned about cancer even if we have just scratched the surface.
No one here should ever imply that following this diet will make one impervious to cancer. Nor should they assume that following this program is a cure if you already have cancer. Cancer clearly has multiple factors that influence it's start and development. There are dietary risk factors. There are lifestyle factors. There are environmental factors. And on and on. So we can't simply say eat well and your cancer troubles are behind you. I wish life were that simple.
We do know that a healthy diet can have a substantial impact on the risk of developing cancers. We know it can have an effect on the spread of cancers. That's about all it's safe to say. I don't think Dr. Campbell is really saying much more than that in his writings. Context is everything and in at least one talk he has given he was clear he was not positioning diet as the cure for cancer. Only that it had a strong influence on cancer. Just as some non-smokers get lung cancer and some smokers don't it's a complicated maze of risks and preventions we end up navigating as we walk through life.
We do say that if you play the numbers you are better off following this way of eating than many other choices. That doesn't mean you get a free no-cancer ticket to the road through life. There are no 100% outcomes in anything about life.
I do like the idea of maximizing my odds in life as I step up to the craps table of life. Certainly more today than in decades past.
f1jim

I'll admit I'm a bit raw when it comes to this subject. I apologize if I seemed testy in my last post. As I approach my one year cancerversary, I really need to trust my oncologist. While my tumor markers are good, I have a unusual liver number that they're watching. I'll be scanned for mets in the next month and get to endure a whole host of fabuous and wonderful (ha) tests.

To be honest, the only people who have consistently demonstrated an ounce of understanding throughout this entire nightmare year has been those in the medical profession. WFPB folks have accused me of sneaking oil, dairy, sugar... you name it... that I somehow deserved this cancer... all because of that damned quote "We could turn on and turn off cancer" from FOK.

A little information in the wrong hands can be very detrimental.

I wholeheartedly agree with Jim's sentiments. Thanks for your input, Jim.

Going back to the original subject of this thread: Science is messy. Many things aren't clear cut. I think it's fine that people are questioning the China Study. There are truth in those pages, there are also inaccuracies. But, that's a good thing because at least someone has started the conversation.

Beth

[dteresa]

Beth, I most sincerely hope no one accused you of eating food you shouldn't. I hope it was just that some remember dr. Esselstyn's patient who was getting worse on the diet even after eating perfectly and it turned out that he was using oil on things. According to esselstyn when he eliminated the oil he improved. I believe dr. esselstyn had him write a food diary and found the oil. So I guess the thought might be that maybe you missed something not as a criticism but to tell you the truth, for reassurance that whatever we are eating will protect us one hundred percent. Well, hope springs eternal. I also most sincerely hope that when some were scrutinizing your diet they did it with an eye toward helping you maintain the best health possible after your surgery.

As an aside, when those of us who were gung ho nursing moms in the seventies went to nursing mom's and la leche league meetings we spent a lot of time patting each other on the back and assuring each other that our kids would grow up unusually well adjusted, happy, healthy, practically perfect in every way people. Most moms in those days bottle fed and we were on the fringe of child nurturing then. For years it came as a surprise to me that my kids, whom I love to death, were far from perfect despite the hours I put in nursing them and got colds and allergies and didn't do their homework sometimes just like the other kids. If I had it to do over again I would do the same thing. Just without the rose colored glasses.

didi

[bethannerickson]

Beth, I most sincerely hope no one accused you of eating food you shouldn't. I hope it was just that some remember dr. Esselstyn's patient who was getting worse on the diet even after eating perfectly and it turned out that he was using oil on things. According to esselstyn when he eliminated the oil he improved. I believe dr. esselstyn had him write a food diary and found the oil. So I guess the thought might be that maybe you missed something not as a criticism but to tell you the truth, for reassurance that whatever we are eating will protect us one hundred percent. Well, hope springs eternal. I also most sincerely hope that when some were scrutinizing your diet they did it with an eye toward helping you maintain the best health possible after your surgery.

As an aside, when those of us who were gung ho nursing moms in the seventies went to nursing mom's and la leche league meetings we spent a lot of time patting each other on the back and assuring each other that our kids would grow up unusually well adjusted, happy, healthy, practically perfect in every way people. Most moms in those days bottle fed and we were on the fringe of child nurturing then. For years it came as a surprise to me that my kids, whom I love to death, were far from perfect despite the hours I put in nursing them and got colds and allergies and didn't do their homework sometimes just like the other kids. If I had it to do over again I would do the same thing. Just without the rose colored glasses.

didi

Thanks for your kind words, Didi. I don't know the motivations of the folks who questioned whether I McDougalled well enough. I did have one women email and ask if I'd ever had a negative thought... perhaps that caused my cancer. I replied, "Nope. I've never had a negative thought. I've never lied, either." Good grief, people can be funny.

Rose colored glasses vs reality: yeah, reality can be tough. But since we're here, I guess this is where we're at.

Beth

[Spiral]

In Dr. Dean's Ornish's book "Program for Reversing Heart Disease," Ornish writes about "eastern medicine" and "western medicine" and that there's a place for both.

Ornish implies that "eastern medicine" is a holistic approach, whereas "western medicine" is a reductionist approach. But I might be misstating his point. Still, in that book he faults western medicine for not getting to the root cause of diseases like heart disease. I think this same sort of thinking motivated Dr. Esselstyn after he did numerous breast cancer surgeries.

As for Dr. Campbell, in "The China Study" he did write about how the meat industry tried very hard to suppress dietary guidelines that, if followed, might reduce the incidence of cancer among Americans. This is near the end of the book.

I realize that our doctors do an excellent job with the tools that they have. But I have received very little nutritional advice from Doctors and what advice I did get was that I purchase a copy of "The South Beach Diet" (a low carb diet).

So, while I have often relied on Doctors to help me when I needed a procedure or a surgery (I had nasal surgery last year), I am not surprised when some (not all) Doctors either minimize the impact of nutrition on diseases like heart disease and cancer or fail to mention it all to their patients. When they say, "Dr. Campbell's ideas need additional study," I feel like saying, "So, while we wait for additional study, do we sit around and eat bacon and eggs for breakfast?"

A fair question is this: At this point in time, given the studies that have already been done, isn't it fair to say that eating lots of meat, especially processed meat, is linked to certain types of cancers? Or does this need "additional study?"