4 ms·

Denise Minger thoroughly critiques T. Colin Campbell's (seemingly incompetent) interpretation of the data in this study. https://deniseminger.com/the-china-stu

Denise Minger thoroughly critiques T. Colin Campbell's (seemingly incompetent) interpretation of the data in this study. https://deniseminger.com/the-china-study/ https://deniseminger.com/the-china-study/ EDIT: TCC's reply: http://www.vegsource.com/news/2010/07/china-study-author-colin-campbell-slaps-down-critic-denise-minger.html http://www.vegsource.com/news/2010/07/china-study-author-col...

amarka 8y ago
Why should I trust Denise Minger over Colin Campbell? I read Capbell's China Study and I'm definitely interested in counter points to his findings, but it seems like Minger is a food blogger (and recent book author) while the other is a biochemist with a long history in their field.
- superpermutat0r 8y ago
  You shouldn't. Denise Minger does not know what she's analysing. And it's visible from the response. TCC said multiple times that his study should have been a starting point for new research. Not as a definitive statement on what the optimal diet is.
- slothtrop 8y ago
  You don't have to trust anything, she lays out relevant information from the original study with analysis. It's not conjecture when the info is there plainly to see. Reading studies isn't that hard.
justin66 8y ago
The headline given by "vegsource" to the article on T. Colin Campbell's reply ("China Study Author Colin Campbell Slaps Down Critic") is unfortunate, since his reply is surprisingly detailed and collegial.
- getpost 8y ago
  I think this would be excellent material for a medical statistics course. Fortunately, the raw data is available. Do the data support the TCC's conclusions? Are Denise Minger's critiques valid?
  - feb 8y ago
    Harriet Hall from Science Based Medecine finds Denise Mingers critiques good and well researched: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-china-study-revisited/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-china-study-revisited/
    - superpermutat0r 8y ago
      But they are not. She didn't control any variables. She also didn't mention that TCC published several studies that go against the thesis of China Study, after he wrote the book. There's definitely valid criticism of the epidemiological study model but Monger's sloppy data munging is not.
bjoli 8y ago
I let my biostatistician friend have a look at her critique ha wasnt impressed and commented om her blog. His comment was promptly removed. Many comments criticising her statistical errors have been removed, which makes me draw the conclusion that she mostly just wants to sell books and write a popular blog than be att part of serious academic discussion.

amarka 8y ago

Why should I trust Denise Minger over Colin Campbell? I read Capbell's China Study and I'm definitely interested in counter points to his findings, but it seems like Minger is a food blogger (and recent book author) while the other is a biochemist with a long history in their field.

superpermutat0r 8y ago
You shouldn't. Denise Minger does not know what she's analysing. And it's visible from the response. TCC said multiple times that his study should have been a starting point for new research. Not as a definitive statement on what the optimal diet is.
slothtrop 8y ago
You don't have to trust anything, she lays out relevant information from the original study with analysis. It's not conjecture when the info is there plainly to see. Reading studies isn't that hard.

justin66 8y ago

The headline given by "vegsource" to the article on T. Colin Campbell's reply ("China Study Author Colin Campbell Slaps Down Critic") is unfortunate, since his reply is surprisingly detailed and collegial.

getpost 8y ago
I think this would be excellent material for a medical statistics course. Fortunately, the raw data is available. Do the data support the TCC's conclusions? Are Denise Minger's critiques valid?
- feb 8y ago
  Harriet Hall from Science Based Medecine finds Denise Mingers critiques good and well researched: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-china-study-revisited/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-china-study-revisited/
  - superpermutat0r 8y ago
    But they are not. She didn't control any variables. She also didn't mention that TCC published several studies that go against the thesis of China Study, after he wrote the book. There's definitely valid criticism of the epidemiological study model but Monger's sloppy data munging is not.

bjoli 8y ago

I let my biostatistician friend have a look at her critique ha wasnt impressed and commented om her blog. His comment was promptly removed. Many comments criticising her statistical errors have been removed, which makes me draw the conclusion that she mostly just wants to sell books and write a popular blog than be att part of serious academic discussion.