Yes, I have a problem with the source. I thought that might be your source based on your phrasing and the fact that there are so few that criticize Campbell's

Yes, I have a problem with the source. I thought that might be your source based on your phrasing and the fact that there are so few that criticize Campbell's research. I won't go out of my way to criticize the Weston A. Price Foundation, though. People can make up their own minds. I just find it funny that you question Campbell's motives, but not the motives of his critics. Campbell has spent 50+ years as a scientist, largely funded by research grants from the National Institute of Health, and has arrived at the conclusion that diets low in animal products are healthier. Since a responsible nutrition researcher is likely to share and promote news that he believes to be both lifesaving and actionable, it is only natural that he would ally himself with other physicians that have also come to the same conclusion (Physician's Committee for Responsible Medicine) to spread that message. PCRM is a great organization, in my opinion, and their membership is composed of some of the leading physicians in the area of nutrition, including the physicians that are the only ones to have successfully reversed advanced heart disease without medication. The Weston A. Price Foundation claims it is 'unbiased', in contrast to the PCRM. That is bullshit. Follow the money to smell the bias. The Weston A. Price Foundation's membership is largely composed of family farmers, including ranchers and dairy farmers. Do you think they might be a bit biased on the subject? You will notice that the foundation's homepage at http://www.westonaprice.org/ http://www.westonaprice.org/ currently has logos from eight companies that sponsor their conferences. What do we see? A meat company, a seafood company, a supplement company, a publishing company, etc. Yep, no bias there. By the way, the link you give is for a review of the book "The China Study" by Campbell and his son, which is not the ACTUAL published China research study I was citing. Only a chapter of that book is devoted to the China research study. Campbell wrote a rebuttal to the review you cite, which is reproduced at: http://www.vegsource.com/articles2/campbell_china_response.htm http://www.vegsource.com/articles2/campbell_china_response.h... Masterjohn then wrote a rebuttal to that rebuttal...and then Campbell wrote a response to that. It's all very tiring, actually, because anyone can just look at the research studies in the aggregate and see who is right based on the science.