Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
reply to post by Son of Will
www.youtube.com...
In the above video, at 19 minutes and 17 seconds he begins to reveal his true intentions. It is fraud, but it's not legally punishable...because
it's very simple to produce and interpret data (especially when you're the one producing AND interpreting it) from observational data to support any
hypothesis. Selection bias, or perversion of data, is not good science.
Fraud, but not legally punishable? That's an utterly absurd statement from any way you look at it. He has not shown any biased data here.
For instance, there were some small associations between animal products and disease; however, Campbell fails to mention, evidently intentionally,
that there were associations between plant proteins and cancer (which he admits to later...in the video above) and extremely strong associations
between wheat consumption and heart disease/myocardial infarction....et al.
This entire paragraph is bogus. There were large associations between meat and disease, inverse associations between plant proteins and disease, with
small associations between wheat and disease. Since this is exactly what naysayers have said in the past, I'm assuming you just did a copy&paste of
someone else's claims. That's sloppy.
As Imagniary-dude already pointed out, this study is nothing more than a book of numbers or "correlations". Not only is it extremely difficult to
interpret (unless you're unbiased and good with statistics/numbers), it's extremely unreliable in providing conclusive evidence of disease
causality.
Imaginary-dude pointed that out? Actually, I did when I brought it up in the first place. Even though you're wildly exaggerating the difficulty of
extracting meaningful data from correlation studies, yes, it does pose a difficulty.
The China Project is either blindly accepted (usually by Campbell's colleagues at PCRM), due to the time consumption/difficulty in which it takes to
review/interpret, or it is generally ignored because of how unreliable such studies are.
Vegans don't blindly accept anything - many of us started out as meat eaters, but changed our ways when confronted with scientific data. On the other
hand... this thread is a good example of how the naysayers, like yourself, blindly accept the word of online bloggers over peer-reviewed scientific
studies, presumably to defend a lifestyle you feel is being threatened.