Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Addressing the claims of Dr. T. Colin Campbell
Author Message
James Offline
Administrator
*******

Posts: 2,827
Joined: Feb 2012
Reputation: 15
Post: #1
Addressing the claims of Dr. T. Colin Campbell
I don't see where any of Campbells data has been called into question.That would require a careful reading of his book and I don't see anything that indicates that.It is full of multiple studies any of which could stand alone but when taken as a whole they make a powerful case.

I posted some of the erroneous claims already. Studies dispute his claims such as a lack of certain diseases in rural China. For example his claim that Rural Chinese do not develop diabetes, which is contradicted by this study:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2915528/

And there were other links about the study from other posters addressing the flaws in Campbell's claims. For example, these links:

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

http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp...t-8e.shtml

There are several flaws in Campbell's claims. First he claims that eating any food higher than 0 grams in cholesterol is unhealthy. This is as far from the truth as anyone can ever get. Cholesterol is ESSENTIAL to the body, which is why most of the body's cholesterol is derived by liver synthesis, not diet. If the liver is functioning properly then dietary cholesterol becomes irrelevant as the liver will synthesize whatever is not supplied by diet. And again, diet is not a major source of cholesterol in part because dietary cholesterol often gets bound by plant sterols, which prevent the absorption of cholesterol. More importantly though is the fact that cholesterol serves numerous functions in the body including healing of tissues, cell membrane formation, allowing the brain to function properly, and the synthesis of vitamins and hormones. Abnormally low cholesterol levels SIGNIFICANTLY increases the risk of heart attack, stroke, dementia, depression, etc.

It is also well known that it is basically impossible to get B12 from a plant based diet. This is why strict vegetarians tend to get sick 2-6 years down the road if they do not supplement with B12, since it takes this long to use up their liver stores of B12. And what happens when we lack B12? Well methylation is reduced from a lack of SAMe production, which among other things causes an increase of heart disease by increased homocysteine levels.

In short, the diet he is promoting is disease causing, not disease preventative. But he was able to paint a different picture by being very selective on which studies to present, which were often animal studies that do not correlate to humans, and as pointed out by misrepresenting the numbers.


And as I have said so many times, all strict diets present problems. A strict vegan diet is no different.

http://www.MountainMistBotanicals.com
(This post was last modified: 03-14-2016 12:18 AM by James.)
06-27-2012 02:44 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
James Offline
Administrator
*******

Posts: 2,827
Joined: Feb 2012
Reputation: 15
Post: #2
RE: Addressing the clims of Dr. T. Colin Campbell
From your response it does not sound like you have read the book

Nope, and I do not plan to waste my time doing so. People who have read the book and listened to his videos have pointed out flaws in his conclusions. Reading the book is not going to change these flaws. As pointed out Campbell claims a lack of certain diseases in rural China, but actual studies show the opposite. So did Campbell just happen to miss those studies or did he deliberately ignore them? Then there is the fact as I have pointed out several times that he is relying heavily on animal studies that DO NOT automatically correlate to humans. In fact I have absolutely no doubt that I could find animal studies to prove just the opposite of what Campbell claims. Why? Simple, because the animals chosen for studies are chosen for a desired outcome, and studies are often manipulated in other ways for the same reason. In fact, instead of just saying this I will show you. Since milk has been claimed as a carcinogen by Campbell:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17430183
A role for milk proteins and their peptides in cancer prevention.
Abstract

A role for the amount and type of dietary protein in the etiology of cancer has not been studied extensively. Nevertheless, there is no compelling evidence from epidemiological studies to indicate that protein, at levels usually consumed, is a risk factor for cancer. On the other hand, animal studies suggest that certain peptides and amino acids derived from dietary proteins may influence carcinogenesis. The predominant protein in milk, casein, its peptides, but not liberated amino acids, have antimutagenic properties. Animal models, usually for colon and mammary tumorigenesis, nearly always show that whey protein is superior to other dietary proteins for suppression of tumour development. This benefit is attributed to its high content of cystine/cysteine and gamma-glutamylcyst(e)ine dipeptides, which are efficient substrates for the synthesis of glutathione. Glutathione is an ubiquitous cellular antioxidant that directly or through its associated enzymes destroys reactive oxygen species, detoxifies carcinogens, maintains proteins in a reduced state and ensures a competent immune system. Various experiments showed that tumour prevention by dietary whey protein was accompanied by increased glutathione levels in serum and tissues as well as enhanced splenic lymphocyte proliferation, phagocytosis and natural killer, T helper and cytotoxic T cell activity. Whey protein components, beta-lactoglobulin, alpha-lactalbumin and serum albumin were studied infrequently, but results suggest they have anticancer potential. The minor component lactoferrin has received the most attention; it inhibits intestinal tumours and perhaps tumours at other sites. Lactoferrin acts by induction of apoptosis, inhibition of angiogenesis, modulation of carcinogen metabolising enzymes and perhaps acting as an iron scavenger. Supplementing cows with selenium increases the content of selenoproteins in milk, which on isolation inhibited colon tumorigenesis in rats.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17044772
Tumor-protective and tumor-promoting actions of dietary whey proteins in an N-methyl-N-nitrosourea model of rat mammary carcinogenesis.
Abstract

The mammary tumor-protective effects of dietary factors are considered to be mediated by multiple signaling pathways, consistent with the heterogeneous nature of the disease and the distinct genetic profiles of tumors arising from diversemammary cell populations. In a 7,12-dimethylbenz(a)anthracene-induced model of carcinogenesis, we showed previously that female Sprague-Dawley rats exposed to AIN-93G diet containing whey protein hydrolysate (WPH) beginning at gestation Day 4 had reduced tumor incidence than those exposed to diet containing casein (CAS), due partly to increased mammary differentiation and reduced activity of phase I metabolic enzymes. Here, we evaluated the tumor-protective effects of these same dietary proteins to the direct-acting carcinogen N-methyl-N-nitrosourea (NMU). We found that lifetime exposure to WPH, relative to CAS, decreased mammary tumor incidence and prolonged the appearance of tumors in NMU-treated female rats, with no corresponding effects on tumor multiplicity. At 115 days post-NMU, histologically normal mammary glands from WPH-fed tumor-bearing rats had increased gene expression for the tumor suppressor BRCA1 and the differentiation marker kappa-casein than those of CAS-fed tumor-bearing rats. Tumor-bearing rats from the WPH group had more advanced tumors, with a greater incidence of invasive ductal carcinoma than ductal carcinoma in situ and higher serum C-peptide levels than corresponding rats fed CAS. WPH-fed tumor-bearing rats were also heavier after NMU administration than CAS tumor-bearing rats, although no correlation was noted between body weight and C-peptide levels for either diet group. Results demonstrate the context-dependent tumor-protective and tumor-promoting effects of WPH; provide support for distinct signaling pathways underlying dietary effects on development of mammary carcinoma; and raise provocative questions on the role of diet in altering the prognosis of existing breast tumors.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16504496
Dietary whey protein lowers serum C-peptide concentration and duodenal SREBP-1c mRNA abundance, and reduces occurrence of duodenal tumors and colon aberrant crypt foci in azoxymethane-treated male rats.

We evaluated partially hydrolyzed whey protein (WPH) for inhibitory effects on the development of colon aberrant crypt foci (ACF) and intestinal tumors in azoxymethane (AOM)-treated rats. Pregnant Sprague-Dawley rats and their progeny were fed AIN-93G diets containing casein (CAS, control diet) or WPH as the sole protein source. Colons and small intestines from the male progeny were obtained at 6, 12, 20 and 23 weeks after AOM treatment. At 6 and 23 weeks, post-AOM, WPH-fed rats had fewer ACF than did CAS-fed rats. Intestinal tumors were most frequent at 23 weeks, post-AOM. At this time point, differences in colon tumor incidence with diet were not observed; however, WPH-fed rats had fewer tumors in the small intestine (7.6% vs. 26% incidence, P=.004). Partially hydrolized whey protein suppressed circulating C-peptide concentration (a stable indicator of steady-state insulin secretion) at all four time points relative to the corresponding CAS-fed animals. The relative mRNA abundance for the insulin-responsive, transcription factor gene, SREBP-1c, was reduced by WPH in the duodenum but not colon. Results indicate potential physiological linkages of dietary protein type with circulating C-peptide (and by inference insulin), local expression of SREBP-1c gene and propensity for small intestine tumorigenesis.

So which, if any of the studies are correct and apply to humans? The ones Campbell chose to use or the studies Campbell chose to ignore since they did not fit his pre-made conclusion?

Actually, if you read carefully these studies also back my earlier point about the difference between whole compounds and isolates. Again the use of isolates can be used to alter the outcome of a study and can be used to manipulate outcomes.


.The China Study is one of the most scientifically sound studies ever conducted in the field of nutrition.Dr Campbell,and the other vegan doctors,

In your opinion.

recommend B-12 supplementation so that had not been a problem for the kids of the "famous" vegan doctors DR Essee,Dr Mcdougall,Dr Joel Fuhrman,etc.The kids raised this way are strong,trim,and unusually healthy.

According to them. Since we do not know their children personally or if they supplement this is speculation. For that matter we don't know if the kids sneak out of the house once in a while to go enjoy a nice big juicy hamburger with their friends. On the other hand I have known several raw foodist vegetarians who were sick from B12 deficiencies since they were not getting B12 in their diets and had depleted their liver stores.

In certain ares of China where they live live long active healthy lives their cholesterol averages around 120 so very low cholesterol can't be too unhealthy.

That is not not very low. A friend of mine had a reading of 50 and his primary doctors still had him on statins saying that this low of cholesterol was safe. So we got him to go to another doctor and that doctor told him the same thing that I did, which was that cholesterol that low is extremely dangerous.

Also Dr Campbell and the othet vegan doctors and others who follow their diet have similar low levels (below 150.)Dr Campbell is around 80 yrs old and still very healthy and unusually active for one of any age.

Cholesterol levels vary significantly, and can change quickly depending on the situation. So it is easy to take one person and whatever reading of many that was lowest and say look his cholesterol is low. This does not mean it will not be higher an hour later. This is one of the reasons that cholesterol readings are a joke.

Then there is the fact that there are different forms of cholesterol. LDL, VLDL, HDL and their ratios. So which cholesterol was low? What was the ratio?

But more importantly is the fact that dietary cholesterol IS NOT a major contributor to cholesterol levels. Liver synthesis is the primary source of cholesterol. And there are various factors governing liver production.

And as pointed out before high cholesterol does not cause heart disease. But low thyroid is a primary cause of heart disease. And one of the things that suppresses the thyroid is the consumption of raw goitrogenic plants. And a lack of B12 will also lead to lower methylation and thus increase levels of heart disease promoting homocysteine. And I can find plenty of animal and human studies to back these claims as well. And again, this goes back to what I have said over and over. ANY strict diet has it limitations and thus poses potential problems. If people want a healthy diet then they need to eat a normal well balanced diet. Not a strict raw food, or vegetarian, or high meat, or high fat or any of the other unhealthy ridiculous diets being proposed out there. In fact, with all the different opinions on diet who is right and who is wrong? All claim to have the answer and all have the animal studies to "back" their claims.

I think your opinions and ideas may change a great deal after you read the book.

See above.

http://www.MountainMistBotanicals.com
06-27-2012 02:57 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
James Offline
Administrator
*******

Posts: 2,827
Joined: Feb 2012
Reputation: 15
Post: #3
RE: Addressing the clims of Dr. T. Colin Campbell
Here is Dr. Campbells rebuttal.http://www.vegsource.com/news/2010/07/china-study-author-colin-campbell-slaps-down-critic-denise-minger.html

One of my biggest problems with Campbell's claims comes from his own statement in his response:


"First and foremost, our extensive work on the biochemical fundamentals of the casein effect on experimental cancer in laboratory animals (only partly described in our book) was prominent because these findings led to my suggestion of fundamental principles and concepts that apply to the broader effects of nutrition on cancer development."

As I pointed out before just because something occurs in another animal this DOES NOT mean it will happen in a human. Again, chocolate or grapes can kill a dog. Does this mean these are also lethal to humans? Sheep can eat arsenic in levels that can kill a human. So should we apply these levels to humans since sheep can eat them?

I have two major problems when it comes to animal studies. First of all animals are specifically chosen for these tests to achieve the desired effects. You can even buy various strains of mice with different properties to make sure you get whatever desired outcome you want. Secondly, animal studies are also frequently manipulated in another manner. Animals are often give isolated compounds in massive doses, which again do not correlate to humans. Look at the study on chromium picolinate that claimed it was carcinogenic because when they gave the mice 6,000 times the equivalent dose recommended for humans the mice got cancer. The researchers set out to prove chromium picolinate caused cancer so the test was designed to make sure that there would be genetic mutations to cause the cancer. And as I pointed out they will often use isolated compounds. Isolates do not have the same properties as whole compounds. Separate the coumarins from alfalfa and you will get a different effect than the alfalfa that also has vitamin K to counter the coumarins. Another way animal tests get manipulated is by administering the compounds in a different manner than normal. For example, I have seen sites claiming it is dangerous to consume saponins because they hemolyze the red blood cells. This is true if injected, but not when taken orally since saponins are never absorbed in to the bloodstream. But again some researchers wanted to "prove" plant saponins were dangerous so they designed the study to where it would abnormally destroy the red blood cells. And there are the studies where researchers claimed that a substance was dangerous based on the feeding of large amounts of the substance to animals that it is not part of their normal diet. A great example is how they came up with the myth that high cholesterol caused heart disease. Then did this by feeding excessive amounts of cholesterol to rabbits, which cholesterol is not a normal part of their diet. The rabbits developed atherosclerotic lesions and thus the myth of high cholesterol causing heart disease was born.

Point of all this is I don't trust animal studies. They are frequently manipulated to achieve desired results, and even if done properly the results DO NOT automatically correlate to humans.

http://www.MountainMistBotanicals.com
06-27-2012 03:01 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)