scratch-mark

Would Someone Shut This Asshole Up? T. Colin Campbell

Short of the ass assuming room temperature (hurry, please), I’m on a bit of holiday, would love to do it myself, but is anyone else willing, with some time?

On the Amazon forum.

’bout time:

I agree with Margaret. There are excellent publications showing that a high protein diet (trending to a low carbohydrate diet) is closely coupled with increased formation of urinary calculi as well as increased urinary calcium and oxalate. I reviewed it in our book, The China Study, pp 211-214–representing work of an outstanding, well published researcher at Medical Research Council at Leeds, U.K., by the name of Professor W.G. Robertson.

In addition a ‘low carb’–high protein (as provided by milk, meat) has been shown to dramatically increase growth rates of experimental cancers, correlate beautifully with several cancers in humans, increase total and LDL cholesterol, increase atherogenesis, increase bone fracture rates (i.e., osteoporosis), increase multiple sclerosis, increase IGF (a hormone that correlates with cancer growth), decrease formation of endothelial progenitor cell formation that is involved in repairing vascular damage, etc., etc.

Your arrogance is overwhelming, probably because you are so short on understanding the scientific literature. Read our book for more detail, now a national best seller almost 6 times over–with NO FORMAL PR, only from my 300+ invited lectures since our book was published in 2005, now mostly to medical schools and medical conferences.

I think that you might be able to tell my drift: your arrogance and ignorance show, big time.

Jesus Christ, already.

Did I really swear off f-bombs? What a shame. So, anyone (or many) willing to take it up? Vivian’s immediate  response is not bad, but we need more.

Listen. Where else do you get to tell your high-fat experiences where the silliest low-fat skeleton on planet Earth lurks? And BTW, look up Chris Masterjohn’s review of The China Study. If he’s right, Campbell is a fraud. He need be showed no mercy, no respect. That would be bad. Very bad. Very very bad.

So what are you waiting for? Get involved. Donate. Please?

P.S. I hope to see some action or I’l have to get involved myself, in spite of the vacation. This is too egregious to let slide.

Richard Nikoley

I'm Richard Nikoley. Free The Animal began in 2003 and as of 2021, contains 5,000 posts. I blog what I wish...from health, diet, and food to travel and lifestyle; to politics, social antagonism, expat-living location and time independent—while you sleep—income. I celebrate the audacity and hubris to live by your own exclusive authority and take your own chances. Read More

63 Comments

  1. Patrik on February 15, 2010 at 23:05

    Read our book for more detail, now a national best seller almost 6 times over–with NO FORMAL PR, only from my 300+ invited lectures since our book was published in 2005, now mostly to medical schools and medical conferences.

    I love how this guy is establishing a lame Argument from Authority position. Not only is that a logical fallacy, but for me, if the standard MDs are buying his shit, well, it must be shit……

    • Kurt G Harris MD on February 16, 2010 at 08:39

      The appeal to authority is the weakest rhetorical argument, and is never weaker when the one making it IS the authority.

      By the way, medical school noon conferences are populated by medical students – although smart, they are as a group hardly the most critical audience.

      Medical school is all about believing what you are told and spitting it out on the next test.



    • Grant on February 16, 2010 at 16:21

      I respectfully disagree Dr. Harris. An “appeal to authority” when one is the authority isn’t actually an appeal to authority. It’s simply a “I don’t want to rehash this with you, here’s where you can see my position” type of cop out. It may be valid to criticize someone who goes into a discussion knowing (or at least should be aware) that he’s going to have to repeat to new people what he already knows, and when he’s pressed, he simply gives up and says “here, look at what I said here”, but it’s not valid to accuse him of appealing to authority. More precisely, in that instance, what he”s doing is implicitly giving the excuse that what his opponent is saying is so patently absurd that it’s not even worth a considered response. He’s pronouncing a verdict upon his opponent’s intelligence. It’s actually the logical fallacy of ad hominem.

      Nevertheless, in this instance, Dr. Campbell did use the appeal to authority – but it wasn’t himself that was the authority. Instead it was the public. He cited his work’s popularity as if that by itself proved something about it’s veracity.



    • Kurt G Harris MD on February 16, 2010 at 19:11

      I was agreeing with, and addressing, Patrik.

      Any argument based on the presumed reliability of the source is a an appeal to authority rhetorically.

      That his argument fails in this instance is precisely my point. What is there to disagree about?



    • Grant on February 16, 2010 at 19:22

      I apologize. I didn’t realize that no one besides Patrik was allowed to comment upon what you had written here. But since you asked, what there is to disagree about is what I said and explained: the particular way in which Dr. Campbell fails in this instance. So I continue to disagree – not every argument based upon the “presumed reliability” of the source is an appeal to authority. I don’t think he was asking his opponent to presume that the source was reliable. Instead, he was implying that the opponent’s objections were phrased so poorly, and so below acceptable levels of responsible discourse, that they deserved nothing more than an ” You’re too stupid to discuss these things extemporaneously. I’m not going to continue to try. Look at this if you want to know more.” That is ad hominem.



    • Kurt G Harris on February 17, 2010 at 15:09

      You are perseverating. I get it.



    • Grant on February 17, 2010 at 17:05

      It’s the proper response when the one you are speaking to evidently hasn’t bothered to digest what has been said.



    • Kurt G Harris MD on February 19, 2010 at 11:28

      You are arrogant, pedantic and rude and wrong so that figures you would view it as proper.



    • Michael on February 19, 2010 at 01:06

      Medical school is all about believing what you are told and spitting it out on the next test.

      Actually that is a good description of modern education in general.



  2. peterlepaysan on February 16, 2010 at 00:42

    Lies.

    Damned lies.

    Statistics.

    Epidemiology.

    “Researchers”

    Now we get Campbell?

    We are very definitely going to hell in a handcart.

  3. O Primitivo on February 16, 2010 at 17:35

    The China Study: More Vegan Nonsense! (Anthony Colpo)
    http://anthonycolpo.com/the-china-study-more-vegan-nonsense/

  4. Reid on February 16, 2010 at 05:51

    Maybe Margaret is getting her information from here: http://women.webmd.com/guide/high-protein-low-carbohydrate-diets

    I thought WebMD was pretty reputable. Not so much after reading that link.

    • Sue on February 16, 2010 at 16:48

      No, Margaret is getting her information from The Perfect 10 Diet by Dr Aziz. She usually mentions that diet whenever posting but didn’t that time.



  5. Laurie on February 16, 2010 at 06:00

    Alright, I gave it a shot, Richard. (I am Gluten-Sensitive). I rarely ever submit anything to amazon forums – I didn’t even know I had a user name until I hit the send button. Must have replied to something or other ages ago. Anyway, it’s not a great attempt, but hopefully I pointed out a few flaws in Campbell’s thinking.

  6. Suzan on February 16, 2010 at 06:22

    I’ll go over there later.

    I’ve been reading your blog for a long time, and love it. Today was the first time I said “ouch” to myself. JMO, but here goes. I really don’t mind you cursing on your blog at all. It’s your blog and you can do what you want. I’m not easily offended, and I am sick of the world using “I’m so offended” like they say “I’m so tired.” However, when you venture into using “JC” as a cussword, your blog post leaves the “Richard is charming and sassy” realm and goes into the “Richard is beginning to piss me off,” category. Live and let live, I know. But everybody has a line that they should tread carefully on. Some folks, even people who are intelligent (gasp! what a shocker) and who live the Paleo diet think that JC should be off limits when using colorful language. Thanks for letting me have my say. Carry on.

    • Jon Thoroddsen on February 16, 2010 at 07:39

      OT: When people use the name of the aforementioned saviour in exasperation, I always took it to mean “JC, please give me a respite” .

      Do you believe that Richard was using JC as a cuss word, or just in vain?



    • Kurt G Harris MD on February 16, 2010 at 08:44

      Suzan, I think you may be being too sensitive. ( I agree with you on the pointlessness of the f-bombs)

      Buddhists, jews, atheists and believers alike use it as an exclamatory.

      What if someone tells you because of their faith they find it offensive if you even utter God’s name?



    • Suzan on February 16, 2010 at 13:05

      I can’t really speak for them, it was just my own opinion expressed on Richard’s writing. 🙂



    • Richard Nikoley on February 16, 2010 at 09:24

      OK, Suzan. Pretty cool rebuke, actually. I’ll take it. At any rate, it was meant more as a prayer (in futility) than anything else.



    • Suzan on February 16, 2010 at 13:03

      🙂 I hear ya. I get exasperated when I am communicating to the conventional wisdom folks myself.



  7. Ned Kock on February 16, 2010 at 06:27

    The China study is one of those studies where one can find statistically significant associations between almost any pair of variables. The reason for this is that P values (i.e., probabilities of chance), which are widely used in statistical analyses, go down as sample size goes up.

    If someone conducts a study with 100 people and finds a correlation of 0.1 between two variables, the corresponding P value is relatively high (> .05), and the relationship is deemed insignificant. If the same study involved 10,000 people, the correlation of 0.1 would be associated with a much lower P value, and would be considered statistically significant.

    The above applies to standardized partial regression coefficients as well, which are calculated through multiple regression analyses. The bottom line is that a 0.1 coefficient suggests a weak association, whatever the P value is.

    We need more posts on “lying with statistics”. There are a number of ways in which researchers can fool others (and themselves) with statistical results.

    • Patrik on February 16, 2010 at 09:50

      I always refer to this very edifying post when it comes to statistical significance:

      “There is increasing concern that in modern research, false findings may be the majority or even the vast majority of published research claims. However, this should not be surprising. It can be proven that most claimed research findings are false.”

      http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2005/09/why_most_publis.html



    • djinn on February 16, 2010 at 12:09

      Patrik –

      That may too subtle a tool to use on Campbell. His results are usually obvious, blatant lies, not just false.

      That being said, that is one of my favorite papers in the whole world. I sleep with it under my pillow.



    • Richard Nikoley on February 16, 2010 at 13:23

      right, djinn:

      He’s a liar, fraud, opportunist of the worst order. From Masterjohn:

      http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/China-Study.html

      What is most shocking about the China Study is not what it found, but the contrast between Campbell’s representation of its findings in The China Study, and the data contained within the original monograph.

      Campbell summarizes the 8,000 statistically significant correlations found in the China Study in the following statement: “people who ate the most animal-based foods got the most chronic disease.”26 He also claims that, although it is “somewhat difficult” to “show that animal-based food intake relates to overall cancer rates,” that nevertheless, “animal protein intake was convincingly associated in the China Study with the prevalence of cancer in families.”27

      =============================
      Figure 1
      Associations of Selected Variables with Mortality for All Cancers in the China Study Total Protein +12%
      Animal Protein +3%
      Fish Protein +7%
      Plant Protein +12%
      Total Lipids -6%
      Carbohydrates +23%
      Total Calories +16%
      Fat % Calories -17%
      Fiber +21%
      Fat (questionnaire) -29%*
      * statistically significant ** highly significant *** very highly significant
      ==============================
      (Data taken from the original monograph of the China Study.)

      But the actual data from the original publication paints a different picture. Figure 1 shows selected correlations between macronutrients and cancer mortality. Most of them are not statistically significant, which means that the probability the correlation is due to chance is greater than five percent.

      It is interesting to see, however, the general picture that emerges. Sugar, soluble carbohydrates, and fiber all have correlations with cancer mortality about seven times the magnitude of that with animal protein, and total fat and fat as a percentage of calories were both negatively correlated with cancer mortality.

      The only statistically significant association between intake of a macronutrient and cancer mortality was a large protective effect of total oil and fat intake as measured on the questionnaire. As an interesting aside, there was a highly significant negative correlation between cancer mortality and home-made cigarettes!28 Campbell’s case for the association between animal foods and cancer within the China Study is embedded within an endnote. Campbell states: “Every single animal protein-related blood biomarker is significantly associated with the amount of cancer in a family.”29



    • Alex on February 16, 2010 at 14:41


    • Sue on February 18, 2010 at 00:53

      That was a good one.



    • djinn on February 16, 2010 at 11:58

      Ned –
      Good point. One thing I really like about the China project was the data showing that cigarette smoking (hand rolled) resulted in increased lifespan. Funny Campbell never mentioned it………



  8. Alex on February 16, 2010 at 10:56

    Interestingly enough, he actually has been partially shut up. When I click the link to the discussion on Amazon, his post is hidden and labeled “Customers don’t think this post adds to the discussion” with a link to show the post anyway. Knowing that anything TCC writes is nonsense, I didn’t bother to click through to his post.

  9. Paul C on February 16, 2010 at 11:17

    You would be entertained by the books on T. Colin Campbell’s Amazon wish list, if you click on his name to get to his profile.

  10. DB on February 16, 2010 at 11:21

    What’s really sad is that there are people out there looking for the honest truth, and in their search go to a place like Whole Foods and land on the China study first. And then believe it. It’s sad that militant vegetarians are seen as experts. Then again, let them be veggies. As evolution will have it, they’ll eventually disappear from the landscape, but unfortunately not before sucking our healthcare system of so much $$.
    I’m so glad that my son broke up with his vegetarian girlfriend. She was sick a lot anyway…

  11. djinn on February 16, 2010 at 11:48

    Richard, I’ve trashed that stupid, lying, ridiculous sonofabitch at every opportunity (there have been a lot of opportunitys) and I’ve got to admit the bastard has done wore me out. He just keeps popping back up like a fixed game of whack-a -mole. I’m just planning to outlive him (I’m about his age) and keep his name alive for the next 20 years as a synonym for succesful charlatan.

    By the way, anyone reading the comments over there has to be struck by the overwhelming anti-Campbell flavor!

  12. Scott Miller on February 16, 2010 at 12:22

    Couldn’t help by add a reply to that thread. Not that it will do any good. I wish I could compare his blood work to my 72-yr-old Dad’s, who been paleo for 6-7 years now, and in excellent health. (This, in fact, after having cancer and a heart attack about 8-9 years ago, and being on no less than 12 meds–none that he has taken in 5+ years.)

    • djinn on February 16, 2010 at 12:38

      Scott – It always does SOME good. To paraphrase Jason Robards Jr. in A Thousand Clowns – you can’t have too many sucess stories. (If nothing else, it improved my mood. Thanks)



  13. TrailGrrl on February 16, 2010 at 16:26

    I didn’t even know that Amazon.com HAD forums about LC diet or anything else like that. Must be that I am too busy hitting the “Buy with One Click Shoppjng” like it’s a crack pipe.

    I have a book around here somewhere called “How to Lie with Statistics.” It’s a little orange paperback. More fun than all my regular stat books.

    My doctor must be ahead of the curve, although she tends more toward suggesting a “South Beach” sort of thing with lean proteins. I noticed on the sheet of paper they give you to show what you should do (ie., your thyroid is at this level, you need it to be at this level) that one of the boxes they can check is “low carbohydrate” diet.

    An awful lot of people have various cancers and CVD for it to be linked to “high protein” diets, since it would seem that most people are not in fact on a high protein diet.

    TrailGrr

  14. Suzan on February 16, 2010 at 17:31

    I know we’re all already pissed off, but I had to provide this link to a review of a new diet book that is utter and complete nonsense:

    http://comfort-eaters-diet.blogspot.com/2010/02/book-review-serotonin-power-diet.html

  15. Jeromie on February 17, 2010 at 12:04

    Thought this fit the topic of discussion:

    • Richard Nikoley on February 17, 2010 at 13:41

      Yea it fits the nonsense, idiotic, lying side of the topic, i.e., campbell.



    • Jeromie on February 18, 2010 at 09:51

      Yeah, someone from work asked me about it. I said her take on protein is ridiculous, and the China study is bogus. It’s like Ancel going to 22 countries to find a connection between cholesterol and heart disease. Bogus nonsense.



  16. Ann on February 17, 2010 at 04:45

    Along the same lines:
    Atkins Diet, Sans Meat, Shows Promise:
    http://abcnews.go.com/Health/WellnessNews/story?id=7785653&page=1

    But the researchers interviewed towards the end of the article basically say that there is no way actual, real people could possibly adhere to this diet. 75% of protein from soy & gluten. Yum. The comments are… entertaining.

  17. donny on February 17, 2010 at 08:38

    Doctor Campbell.

    On page 213 of The China Study, you have chart 10.4; Association between animal protein intake and formation of urinary calculi. It shows a nice steep curve upward in annual discharge rate as animal protein intake increases. But the lowest protein intake plotted is about 21.5 grams, the highest is about 24.5 grams; the lowest discharge rate is 18 per 10000 people, the highest 26 per ten thousand. Do you really expect ten thousand people to eat three grams less protein just so that eight less kidney stones will be formed in those ten thousand people?
    Really?

    Could somebody please post this for me? I’ve never actually bought from Amazon, so I can’t do it myself.

  18. Tim Rangitsch on February 17, 2010 at 15:09

    Well, I got in my two cents on that Amazon shit fest, but didn’t do near as good a job as some of you fine fellows! I just saw Peter D (Hyperlipid) laid down the goods…

  19. john on February 17, 2010 at 16:48

    Richard,
    Your plea sounds more like the call of a cult leader. Or a sissy bitch who needs backup.

    • Richard Nikoley on February 17, 2010 at 18:48

      well john, you’re not the first ignorant moron to show up and won”t be the last. [yawn]

      At any rate, the various additions to the Amazon thread speaks for itself.



  20. john on February 17, 2010 at 19:14

    Yes, I read the thread, however it does not change the alarming fact behind my statement:
    Your plea sounds more like the call of a cult leader.

    • Richard Nikoley on February 17, 2010 at 19:58

      So? You sound more like an ass incapable of making critical distinctions. Bering an ass is fine, in my book. Stupid ass? Not so much.



    • Sue on February 18, 2010 at 01:15

      John are you the idiot that made this comment on Amazon:
      “Low- carb diets give people gout, kidney stone, osteporosis, and cancer and mess up hormones. “



  21. George on February 18, 2010 at 07:05

    I thought that this poem is a nice contribution to this discussion:

    A CYNIC’S TALE *
    ©2008 Herbert Nehrlich

    Due to a host of human flaws
    I have acquired two new habits,
    man makes up theories and laws
    just think of Keys and all his rabbits.
    In a colossal fit of rage
    he focused on cholesterol,
    wrote notes about it, page by page
    and did not spare the vitriol.
    And half a century went by
    with millions killed by medicine
    they have not learned, and folks still die
    the devil wears his constant grin.
    Though here and there a voice is heard
    about the fallacy as such
    a treatise written by a nerd
    stirs up the sceptics and the Dutch.
    And murmurs grow within the ranks
    perhaps we have a faulty plan,
    yet peer review says, change? No thanks
    it truly is the bogeyman.
    So, to the consternation of
    the citizens in all the lands
    they argue, criticize and scoff
    as tunnel vision ties their hands.
    But, 60 years is rather long,
    to lead us down the garden path,
    but to admit that they were wrong
    don’t hold your breath, just do the math.
    A man may make himself a noose
    and even try it on for size,
    but few would kill the golden goose
    this tells us where the problem lies.
    Digressing now, truthseekers fooled,
    oppressed, deceived and sternly ruled
    the great rewards of untold wealth
    are found by dabbling in health,
    one utilises innate fears
    and whispers furphies into ears,
    take fluoride, it’s a halogen
    it ‘s given to your next of kin,
    an enzyme killer to the cell
    imported, seemingly from hell.
    The silliness may never end
    as sanity goes ’round the bend,
    and hear ye, now, there’s climate change
    the chemistry extremely strange,
    carbon dioxide is no foe,
    you may recall, I told you so.
    Would I forgive you if you asked
    the motives of these common thieves
    it took a while but I unmasked
    the hidden cards inside their sleeves,
    mankind can be divided thus
    in two large groups, just one is plus
    the other has a minus soul
    a one track mind, a single goal:
    Strip down your fellow man and sing
    the praises of the well-dressed king,
    Joe Citizen, the Emperor
    the proper term is temperer,
    so let me close this cynic’s tale
    do lock them up, and don’t post bail.

  22. john on February 18, 2010 at 16:43

    “Low- carb diets give people gout, kidney stone, osteporosis, and cancer and mess up hormones. “

    No dear Sue, quite the opposite, I fully subscribe to the Paleo way of life. However, the cult like behavior of some of the informal leaders in the blogosphere as well as their followers jumping to attention to fight on behalf of a leader’s call is quite ridiculous.

  23. The White Man (Oppressor) on February 18, 2010 at 20:45

    Get ready to attack and destroy:

    http://www.forksoverknives.com/

  24. Richard Nikoley on February 19, 2010 at 00:31

    Kevin:

    Two serious questions.

    1) Do you think I give a fuck?

    2) Do you think I give a fuck?

    Get it?

  25. […] Judging by these collectivist panties-in-a-bunch "paleo" fans, I'm completely attracting the wrong kinds of readers, now. I'll be happy to go back to hundreds instead of thousands & tens of thousands just to be rid of morons who want me to be some sort of Frankensteinesque versions of a Fucking-Paleo-Obama, or or some incomprehensible shit. I quote from comments. […]

  26. peterlepaysan on February 19, 2010 at 01:24

    John
    start your own blog.

    you are clearly very clever and intelligent.
    Please lead the rest of into enlightenment.

    Use your own forum.

    • Richard Nikoley on February 19, 2010 at 01:31

      But peterlepaysan (peter, man of the countryside, if I’m getting my French right):

      See, they’re essentially anonymous. You too, but the distinction is that you’re just taking it how it comes. Sure, you’re probably not going to like every post. I wouldn’t expect that.

      At any rate, yea, that pretty much nails it. And, there’s this:

      https://freetheanimal.com/2010/02/panties-in-a-bunch-paloes.html

      Those who liked the rawer side of things have the two anonymous pussies to thank.



  27. peterlepaysan on February 19, 2010 at 01:32

    You are clearly both illiterate and illogical.
    Why do you bother displaying your inadequacies?

  28. Alan on February 19, 2010 at 06:05

    Unbelievably this fork and knives mob have a fan site on Facebook. Quite a long list of misguided vegetarian idiots praising it too. Should see the conventional wisdom being thrown back and forth. This rubbish isn’t going away any time soon. So sad I couldn’t post without becoming a fan.

  29. Bryce on February 19, 2010 at 06:45

    I really hope this movie is a whopping success, and the entire country polarizes completely, half paleo, half vegan, with minimal SAD. Then it will become obvious within a decade or so who is healthier, and we’ll actually have resolution.

    There’s a reason so many people “used to be” vegetarian. It sucks, and people quit when their bodies are begging for meat. I don’t know a single person who “used to be paleo.” Everyone who does it finds it infinitely rewarding and sustainable.

  30. donny on February 19, 2010 at 07:51

    “I really hope this movie is a whopping success, and the entire country polarizes completely, half paleo, half vegan, with minimal SAD. Then it will become obvious within a decade or so who is healthier, and we’ll actually have resolution.”

    Naw. When you’re Vegan, muscle loss, tooth loss etc. can be explained away as detox. Lots of people try being vegetarian, fail at it, ignore the possibility that they failed just because their bodies craved something in meat that is actually essential to their health. They know eating vegetarian makes them miserable, but don’t connect this to the healthiness of the diet. I don’t think a healthy diet makes an animal miserable, I think it does the opposite.

    • John on February 20, 2010 at 06:19

      Like any religion, they have found ways to explain away just about everything.



  31. Richard Nikoley on February 22, 2010 at 10:02

    Hey look, the asshole has posted a long diatribe about how mistreated he’s been.

    Drop dead, Campbell.

  32. […] Seeing as I was taken to task by a couple of people for my "disrespectful" words toward Dr. Campbell here, is this going to be more of the […]

  33. Karen De Coster » California to Establish an F-Bomb Awareness Week on February 25, 2010 at 16:35

    […] is a private joke, but my California friend Richard Nikoley is in big trouble. He swore off swearing for his New Year’s Resolution, and recently, he came […]

Leave a Comment





YouTube1k
YouTube
Pinterest118k
Pinterest
fb-share-icon
40
45
Follow by Email8k
RSS780