I have created a couple of posts addressing the very serious inaccuracies and flaws in the claims of Denise Minger and the cholesterol skeptics, and have included several hundred references with easily accessible links.
I have already posted this on the forum under ‘The Science’ board, but thought it may also belong here as it also addresses the China Study. Let me know if you have any thoughts on the posts.
Your input is much appreciated healthy longevity. Your blog post looks very good. Make sure to promote the s*** out of it.
Cholesterol denialism made (perhaps) some sense in the 1930's, the little ploys that these neo-carnivorists/creationists try to feed us today is just silly, old gimmicks the tobacco industry, vaccine denialists, 9/11 conspiratorists, climate change denialists, etc all have used.
Hehe...funny, the fraudulent behavior of Minger has been noticed even at the 30ban hate site:
In regards to FOK "For those interested in looking into it on your own, you can find the relevant issue of Proceedings of the Nutritional Society without having to pay by registering at journals.cambridge.org. The offending graph that Denise made is at http://rawfoodsos.com/2011/09/22/forks-over-knives-is-the-science-l...
The graph is among a bunch of graphs between the 19:50 minute header, and the 21:56 minute header. If you mouse over it, it’s title is norway_war_animal_protein. She has reported animal protein intake of the 36-37 year 12 grams lower, and the protein intake of the 1945 year 20 grams lower than it should have been reported according to the supposed source. The assumed source is table 2, on page 266 of the 4th issue of the 5th volume of the Proceedings of the Nutritional Society 1947. These changes make the data reveal the exact opposite of what she proposes"
Denise is a real number cruncher. The best weapon the cholesterol denialists/creationists have :)
Yes I have just posted a response on the 30ban hate site. I am guessing that the haters will either change the subject or make a number of unfounded statements that I have already addressed within my posts, as my stats show that most of them do not even bother to read the second post.
This is amazing. Thank you very much. It also occurred to me that she suggests that most western health issues that are commonly associated with a high fat diet (animal product) are really attributable to other things like refined flours, oils, sugars and packaged foods. But that whole argument collapses when you consider these graphs showing European health improvements during the 2 world wars when such packaged and refined foods were not even invented yet.
Just read this! She is a moron! Yes data and correlations are missing. Missing correlations between fat intake as well as excessive plant protein (soy)....This book is just the beginning of the research that is needed! Lifestyle and habits are difficult to research because it takes years and $! Who will pay for it ? Not our GOVT that backs the damn $ (Dairy and Meat industries). We are lucky we have Dr. Campbell's book to begin with. Come on Ms. Minger get a life!
Thanks Joanna. Please share my post if you find it informative.
Dr. Campbell's new book "Whole: Rethinking the Science of Nutrition" that is due to be released in May should answer some important questions.
Great blog! I've mentioned it in one of my videos too, where I respond to Kris Gunnar's article "8 Ridiculous Myths About Meat Consumption". You've got some really good information gathered.