So who is this Denise Minger who "debunked" Campbell's China Report?
Well, she's apparently affiliated with Northern Arizona University - specifically, NAU's College of Engineering, Forestry and Natural Sciences, the Merriam-Powell Center for Environmental Research.
Denise Minger has 7 credits on NAU's Programs & Projects / Merriam-Powell website - for web design and maintenance.
As it happens, NAU and Merriam-Powell are affiliated with the Landsward Institute, in partnership with Babbitt Ranches.
Through the Landsward Institute (formerly the Ecological Monitoring & Assessment Program), Northern Arizona University and land stewards of the Colorado Plateau … an innovative partnership between Babbitt Ranches and Northern Arizona University. The partnership united the resources of a research and educational institution with an intimate knowledge of the land brought by a multi-generational ranching family. The EMA Program has worked to create a new model for sustainable, use-inspired land stewardship on the Colorado Plateau.
This case study explores the feasibility of a new business venture by a fourth-generation family business, Babbitt Ranches. As the business leader of a vast ranching empire in northern Arizona, Mr. William Cordasco, President of Babbitt Ranches, has developed a business plan to produce, process, distribute and sell beef and related beef products.
So why is a web designer with a college for "environmental" research that's partnered with a beef rancher tackling vegetarians?
Originally posted by kimish
reply to post by loner007
I believe that the human brain grew in size and evolved due to a diet of animal protein. I could be wrong because evolution isn't "fact" although I believe it is. But allow me to ask you this, why do humans have teeth that are used for the tearing of flesh like the teeth of true carnivores? Herbivores have all flat teeth for grinding. Please correct me if I am wrong. Btw (by the way), you ARE an animal lover aren't you?
Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
reply to post by Son of Will
Son of will...if you would have kept reading, or if you could do any thinking on your own, you would not only notice that the blogger invited herself to join the conversation for the simple reason to respond to the post you supplied here.
That poster was grabbing at straws, SoW. Denise Minger has NO affiliations with those organizations other than....they gave her work.
Humans are physiologically best suited for a primarily frugivorous diet, complemented by eggs and invertebrates. All of these provide animal derived nutrients, such as B12, without increasing the degenerative disease(s) risk associated with meat and dairy consumption. As such, we may be classified as omnivorous, but not necessarily as meat eaters. An omnivorous animal adapted for meat consumption, such as the bear, does not: * undergo an immune system reaction every time it consumes meat, * suffer free radical damage as a result of eating meat, * have to watch how much meat it consumes longterm in order to avoid succumbing to degenerative diseases, * worry about cholesterol levels, colon cancer, heart disease, low sperm counts, or any other negative effects Perhaps most telling, humans get healthier when they significantly lower, or completely stop, their consumption of meat and dairy.
At the end of the day, however, studies like the China Project will never be accurate. Observational studies simply can't identify true causes of Multivariate diseases, like heart disease. There's just no arrow of causation. Funny thing is, Dr. Campbell believes epidemiology is more accurate because it allows for examination of large cohorts of the population and identifies broader "lifestyle" influences.
Campbell's work can be summed up into two words: Fallacious Reasoning
Epidemiology is the study of factors affecting the health and illness of populations, and serves as the foundation and logic of interventions made in the interest of public health and preventative medicine. It is considered a cornerstone methodology of public health research, and is highly regarded in evidence-based medicine for identifying risk factors for disease and determining optimal treatment approaches to clinical practice.
Originally posted by Son of Will
Granted, you are correct that she probably is innocent of all those accusations. Except the most important one - she has NO credentials whatsoever when it comes to nutrition. In her own words, she is self-educated. Well guess what, self-educated is just another word for "I don't have any formal training in that".
If you're saying The China Study is just an attempt to get money, what makes you think this woman didn't have precisely the same intention as what you're accusing Campbell of doing - namely, misconstruing the data just to get some money? She states several times that she didn't care what her job was, she just wanted money, it seems more plausible that she is the fraud, not Campbell.
Originally posted by kimish
reply to post by loner007
How is that relevant to gorilla teeth though? Just curious. And you don't have to admit you were wrong about us humans not having teeth like a cat or a dog, I would be embarrassed too for that comment but your still cool in my book. BTW humans DO have teeth like that of a cat and dog. We have teeth called canines, I don't think that's irony.
Q: Chimps, our closest relatives, sometimes consume meat. They even have the same kind of teeth as we do. Doesn't this imply meat is a natural part of the human diet as well?
A: Humans and chimps may be related to a certain degree, but we are not the same species, anymore than eagles are the same species as Canadian geese. The first is a carnivory predator, while the latter is a grass grazing vegetarian. The genetic similarities between chimps and humans, in some instances, are less important than the differences. Consider this: "The greatest differences between humans and chimpanzees occur in the canine teeth. Small peg-like human canines do not project from the tooth row. In contrast, chimpanzee canines are much larger, robust, and project far above their tooth row. Diastemas, gaps in the tooth row of the maxilla allow projecting mandibular canines to pass the opposing canine and incisor during occlusion. The maxillary canine passes the buccal side of its opposing pm3, allowing the lingual surface of the canine to make contact with a blade-like sectorial surface on the premolar. Humans lack the large diastema and the human pm3 is non-sectorial. Human anterior teeth (canines and incisors) are greatly reduced in size and human incisors are positioned close to a transverse plane that passes through the canine teeth. Chimpanzee incisors are positioned well forward of this plane. Consequently the parabolic or elliptical human dental arcade contrasts sharply with the U-shaped arcade of chimpanzees. Human molars tend to be rounder and more compact than chimpanzee molars. Occlusal molar surfaces of human teeth are relatively flat, and quickly become even flatter with attrition (Department of Anthropology, University of Texas)." Compare the canine teeth of a chimp (whose teeth are very similar to, and almost as impressive as, those of the vegetarian gorilla) with those of a human:
Although genetically similar, chimps are only 29% identical to humans when the number of proteins we share are measured. This difference is significant and can account for a large variety of traits the two species do not share (Chimpanzee Sequencing 2005).
Whatever similarities exist among chimps and humans, we are, none the less, different species. Mimicking the habits of another species makes no sense, particularly in light of some rather undesirable aspects of chimpanzee behavior, such as infanticide and consumption of one's own faeces.
As a public health discipline, epidemiologic evidence is often used to advocate both personal measures like diet change and corporate measures like removal of junk food advertising, with study findings disseminated to the general public in order to help people to make informed decisions about their health. Often the uncertainties about these findings are not communicated well; news articles often prominently report the latest result of one study with little mention of its limitations, caveats, or context. Epidemiological tools have proved effective in establishing major causes of diseases like cholera and lung cancer but have had problems with more subtle health issues, and several recent epidemiological results on medical treatments (for example, on the effects of hormone replacement therapy) have been refuted by later randomized controlled trials.
serves as the foundation