Why do people write these articles.

[didi]

Is there anyone on the group who thinks he is immune to cancer because he eats plants and eschews animal foods? Especially if he has not been a life long vegan? Is there anyone who thinks any person will always be cured of cancer if he already has it and starts eating plants?

I have an acquaintance who had a mastectomy fifteen years ago and she is active and working and doing well. She is definitely not a vegan.

The author of the article was correct in at least one statement. All Campbell's study of rats and casein showed was that if you (or your rat) ingest aflatoxin and eat casein you will get liver cancer. It was an unwarranted leap of logic to extrapolate to all animal proteins.

Didi

[Kiki]

Is there anyone on the group who thinks he is immune to cancer because he eats plants and eschews animal foods? Especially if he has not been a life long vegan? Is there anyone who thinks any person will always be cured of cancer if he already has it and starts eating plants?

Perhaps not total immunity, but I think many people adopt the diet because they DO expect a certain amount of protection from cancer, heart disease, diabetes, etc.

Isn't that part of the reason for you feeling so disheartened after your heart attack? You'd made so many strides in adopting the diet, getting your weight down, and getting your blood sugars under control. Yet, disease still struck.

[vgnwitch]

I have Linda McCartney's cookbook and she was definately not vegan at the time she wrote the book. It is full of dairy, eggs and fat. Lots of fat. I don't know, but she may have become vegan after she found out she had cancer.

I have all three of Linda McCartney's cookbooks: Home Cooking, Linda's Kitchen, and On Tour. In Linda's Kitchen, she began using soy milk, but not exclusively. The recipes are vegetarian and, like Home Cooking, use a lot of meat analogues, eggs, and cheese. On Tour has more vegan recipes, but it is not a vegan cookbook by any stretch of the imagination. I was never aware of her becoming vegan, although she certainly might have. I think On Tour was published after she passed away.

[Theodore]

I guess I haven't actually read the article, but I can tell from reading all your comments that it was probably the most b.s. article that's ever been written. So I hate it. And I shudder to think how much more I'd hate it if I was to actually read it.

The China Study, in particular, seems to come in for heavy bashing -- is it because people do not like its message?

People like to bash everything, whether it's pro-vegan, pro-meat or pro-whatever. The only reason you don't see people bashing pro-meat studies is because there aren't any pro-meat studies.

[VegMommy]

The China Study gets a lot of bashing because it's not very good science.

Before adopting a vegan diet I researched all my options very carefully. The main argument The China Study has against cancer is the rat study. If you do a little googling, you can find the original study and it's obvious that it's not quite what Dr. Campbell claimed.

A vegan diet provides protection against some diseases, and not against others.

Seventh Day Adventists have less of some cancers, but more of others. You can find out by googling.

I don't care about any of this.

I've weighed the pros and cons, health-wise.

I've weighed the psychic, mental and emotional costs, and I've decided that plant-based is for me.

Please don't make assumptions, or bash anyone on the basis of plant vs. animal. There's much more to it. You have to be smart, read all the science yourself, weigh your options, and make an educated choice.

[VegMommy]

Thanks, LoriLynn.

I'm kind of emotional right now, due to surgical menopause issues, so Theodore's comments may have hit me harder than they should have and maybe I shouldn't have responded until I felt a little calmer.

Thanks for your kind words.

I'm really looking forward to learning from this great community. And I would also like to be able to participate fully, giving my opinion without worrying about not being politcally correct. To me, the truth is all-important, and good science trumps all. But, then again, I judge everything I read and learn against my own experience. And, so far, my experience tells me that McDougall is the way to go.

[Theodore]

Thanks, LoriLynn.

I'm kind of emotional right now, due to surgical menopause issues, so Theodore's comments may have hit me harder than they should have and maybe I shouldn't have responded until I felt a little calmer.

Thanks for your kind words.

I'm really looking forward to learning from this great community. And I would also like to be able to participate fully, giving my opinion without worrying about not being politcally correct. To me, the truth is all-important, and good science trumps all. But, then again, I judge everything I read and learn against my own experience. And, so far, my experience tells me that McDougall is the way to go.

Interesting.

[nicoles]

VegMommy, sorry you had to experience this harsh interaction your first day. People are generally far nicer here, and I hope you stick around.

Anyway, about the article - the guy who wrote it is a doctor who specializes in weight loss and does lap-band surgery. He has a vested interest in debunking the notion that diet could in any way be an effective and healthful way to lose weight and reduce disease risk.

I personally do not believe that all - or even some cancers - are so simple in their mechanisms that one thing guarantees "immunity."

I think this WOE is more healthful overall, and reduces the risk of some common cancers, like breast and prostate, but is not a cure-all, prevent-all.

Whether or not the claims he makes against The China Study are true, he himself did not cite any research to support his claims, and his individual examples of vegans who got/died from cancer does not a valid scientific study make.

All in all, he has a right to write what he wants. And we have a right to decide for ourselves if we agree or not.

[VegMommy]

I think this WOE is more healthful overall, and reduces the risk of some common cancers, like breast and prostate, but is not a cure-all, prevent-all.

I couldn't agree with you more! I had endometrial cancer, and so I have a vested interest in avoiding any future cancers. I have chosen a vegan diet as the best way to stay healthy.

But that doesn't mean I can't discern good and bad science, and from what I've read, the China Study doesn't deliver what it claims to. But I'm not one to throw the baby out with the bath water. I still believe a whole food, vegan diet to be the healthiest option for me, so that is what I am eating.

[BenFTW]

Thanks, LoriLynn.

I'm kind of emotional right now, due to surgical menopause issues, so Theodore's comments may have hit me harder than they should have and maybe I shouldn't have responded until I felt a little calmer.

Thanks for your kind words.

I'm really looking forward to learning from this great community. And I would also like to be able to participate fully, giving my opinion without worrying about not being politcally correct. To me, the truth is all-important, and good science trumps all. But, then again, I judge everything I read and learn against my own experience. And, so far, my experience tells me that McDougall is the way to go.

Well, he did come off as fanatical in his response but what you said about The China Study not being very good science is understandably a thing many people would strongly disagree with.

I think your point on seven day adventists and the vegan diet is not very good reasoning. Vegan and vegetarian are two different things. Them having more of some disease and less of others, being vegetarians, isnt comparable to vegans. They are still consuming eggs and dairy, which with the dairy makes them a terrible point to correlate with vegans after saying a vegan diet protects against some diseases and not against others (while discussing The China Study and the rats).

You're more than entitled to your opinion...

[VegMommy]

You're right, BenFTW, about the Seventh Day Adventists, study. And that's one of the reasons I decided to go vegan anyway.

The China Study, though, is a separate issue. There were many variables in the rat study, and the conclusions didn't reflect the actual findings.

I'm not trying to rally anyone to my side or anything. Just saying that the China Study isn't all it's cracked up to be, but it doesn't make a difference. There are still a lot of compelling reasons to go vegan.

[rijman]

I'm not trying to rally anyone to my side or anything. Just saying that the China Study isn't all it's cracked up to be, but it doesn't make a difference. There are still a lot of compelling reasons to go vegan.

But then again the China Study is "The most comprehensive study of nutrition ever conducted." The New York Times said this "The study can be considered the Grand Prix of Epidemiology." While the China Study doesn't yet provide all the answers I would argue it is everything it is cracked up to be and more.

[f1jim]

While all of us may line up on different sides of the argument about just how good the data is in The China Study, differences in ones opinion do not deserve anything but disagreement an perhaps reasoning for that disagreement. I have removed several posts for either personal comments or repeating those comments. If there is a problem with a message please do not lash out. Report the message to a moderator or flag it and one will evaluate it.
Thank you
f1jim