Re: T. Colin Responds to my China Study Review

[Guest guest]

On 11/2/06, Masterjohn wrote:

> http://www.vegsource.com/articles2/campbell_china_response.htm

>

> Chris

>

>

I didn't realize that was new. I just read it (or skimmed over it) a

few weeks ago when a vegan on another list I'm on sent it in rebuttle

to my mentioning your article about the book. He sure doesn't like

you, Chris! LOL.

This was my favorite part: " When I asked him [Chris] who supports

WAPF, he told me that farmers, among others, were important

contributors. Because factory farms now produce most of the food in

the U.S., I would be more comfortable if I knew how much influence

these 'farmer' conglomerates have on WAPF itself. "

Farmer conglomerates and WAPF. LOL.

[Guest guest]

Hi Steph,

> I didn't realize that was new.

I have no idea how new it is (probably posted on there but I didn't

look), but I had no idea it existed until last night. It explains why

I've been getting a greater than usual number of emails from

vegetarians through my web site lately.

> I just read it (or skimmed over it) a

> few weeks ago when a vegan on another list I'm on sent it in rebuttle

> to my mentioning your article about the book. He sure doesn't like

> you, Chris! LOL.

Guess not :-)

> This was my favorite part: " When I asked him [Chris] who supports

> WAPF, he told me that farmers, among others, were important

> contributors. Because factory farms now produce most of the food in

> the U.S., I would be more comfortable if I knew how much influence

> these 'farmer' conglomerates have on WAPF itself. "

>

> Farmer conglomerates and WAPF. LOL.

That's hilarious. It's difficult to believe he's not being disingenuous here.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

Emma,

> I can understand mentioning a sentence or two about WAPF promoting fat

> and cholesterol consumption in order to reveal a political agenda, but

> going to the extent of investigating age, educational background, etc.

> etc., is just plain weird. What does he hope to glean from it?

The funny thing is our rather extended email discussion last year

(which evolved out of an offer on the part of WAPF to publish a

response to my review in the journal, which he initially accepted and

then later declined) was the source of most of his information on me,

and I had asked him if I could publish our correspondence and he said

no. So I think it's odd that he publicly cites details from the same

private conversation without even asking my permission or telling me

he did so.

In any case he will have to edit the piece soon, as I have two items

currently accepted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

> In any case he will have to edit the piece soon, as I have two items

> currently accepted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.

Well now how can that be, Chris? You're a 24-year-old sock puppet of

Sally Fallon's, and neither of you have the proper degrees.

*rolling eyes*

If that wasn't the priesthood defending the temple, that piece he

wrote, I'd like to know what is. So what kind of email *are* you

getting from the veggies?

Lynn S.

------

Mama, homeschooler, writer, activist, spinner & knitter

http://www.siprelle.com

NOTICE: The National Security Agency may have read this email without

warning, warrant, or notice.

[Guest guest]

>In any case he will have to edit the piece soon, as I have two items

>currently accepted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.

I thought the same thing when I read that part! Haha! He's definitely

appealing to authority in his rebuttal - his own authority - rather than

rebutting the actual concepts in the debate. And it's quite clear he

mentions your age and background as a ploy to imply that your arguments are

not of the scientific caliber that his are since he's been researching

nutrition for 50 years, which he mentions, I believe, at the outset.

I also like his implication that perhaps due to your age, you probably don't

have writing skills of the caliber presented in your article, which he

suggested that Sally probably helped write. LOL. I never knew that being a

24-year-old history major prevented one from being an excellent writer. The

things you learn from brilliant, experienced scientists such as Mr.

....

Are you planning to rebut his rebuttal?

Suze

[Guest guest]

>

>This was my favorite part: " When I asked him [Chris] who supports

>WAPF, he told me that farmers, among others, were important

>contributors. Because factory farms now produce most of the food in

>the U.S., I would be more comfortable if I knew how much influence

>these 'farmer' conglomerates have on WAPF itself. "

>

>Farmer conglomerates and WAPF. LOL.

LOL. That was my favorite part too. You have to wonder if he just read vegan

propaganda about WAPF or actually spent any time at all on the WAPF web site

to find out what WAPF is about. For a, ahem, highly respected scientist

who's been involved in nutrition research for over 50 years you'd think he'd

at least apply those thorough research skills and read the first few paras

of the introduction on the WAPF website, from which he'd learn that WAPF

does NOT support conglomerate farms. Goes to show how meaningless

credentials can be.

Suze

[Guest guest]

I noticed that he did not refute any scientific claims. His defense

consisted primarily of saying that because you aren't an " official "

published scientist with " official " training in nutrition, that people

should ignore you.

[Guest guest]

LOL this is so great Chris.

You win !

Do you think any of his vegan fan club will ask why he deigned to

notice this particular 24 yo? snicker, snicker.

Connie

>

> http://www.vegsource.com/articles2/campbell_china_response.htm

>

> Chris

[Guest guest]

Suze,

> I also like his implication that perhaps due to your age, you probably don't

> have writing skills of the caliber presented in your article, which he

> suggested that Sally probably helped write. LOL. I never knew that being a

> 24-year-old history major prevented one from being an excellent writer. The

> things you learn from brilliant, experienced scientists such as Mr.

> ....

The funny thing is the example he uses to back up this suspicion is

that I concluded that dairy is not a source of dioxin, contrary to the

EPA's findings (actually I think he's modifying each of our positions

so as to create the appearance of conflict, but anyway...). Umm,

non-sequitor anyone?

> Are you planning to rebut his rebuttal?

Yes, but probably not for a few weeks.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

>

> http://www.vegsource.com/articles2/campbell_china_response.htm

>

Within the article he claims:

" I am impressed with his writing skills but not with the content of

his argument. I also wonder, however, whether his writing skills have

been honed and reviewed by his superior, Sally Fallon, who has

training in English. "

See, I knew it. Sally has nothing better to do than follow your

writings around, reviewing and honing the various posts, articles and

other utterings of - according to - her inferior. What ever.

So, are you going to inquire as to why he publicized correspondence he

told you he wanted kept private. Especially disturbing is the

personal information having nothing whatsoever to do with the argument

that he disclosed. That was a low blow, though you probably could

give a hoot one way or the other. How do you feel about that anyway?

Deanna

[Guest guest]

you are the man!

I read his rebuttal and I have to say....it's well written but I don't

agree with its content (hahaha)! Other NNers have already done a good

job of highlighting its flaws.

Think about it though, his article will at least temporarily satisfy

the low-fat and vegetarian masses who might have been starting to

wonder about the WAPF message. He did a good job at that, at least for

people who are easily persuaded and can't read between the lines. When

you want to believe in something, all it takes is a well-worded

persuasive argument, no matter if it's full of holes. It's something

we should all keep in mind, because not everything WAPF currently

touts as truth (and it's interesting to hear his perspective, gosh, we

ARE awfully confident in ourselves, aren't we?) is necessarily true.

We do need to remember to keep an open mind. I do think that we are

far better at doing this than established nutrition researchers, however.

So in what publications are these peer-reviewed articles appearing and

what are the topics?

Tom

[Guest guest]

Tom,

> Think about it though, his article will at least temporarily satisfy

> the low-fat and vegetarian masses who might have been starting to

> wonder about the WAPF message. He did a good job at that, at least for

> people who are easily persuaded and can't read between the lines. When

> you want to believe in something, all it takes is a well-worded

> persuasive argument, no matter if it's full of holes. It's something

> we should all keep in mind, because not everything WAPF currently

> touts as truth (and it's interesting to hear his perspective, gosh, we

> ARE awfully confident in ourselves, aren't we?) is necessarily true.

> We do need to remember to keep an open mind. I do think that we are

> far better at doing this than established nutrition researchers, however.

I'll take the free web site traffic either way.

> So in what publications are these peer-reviewed articles appearing and

> what are the topics?

I have an hypothesis paper on the molecular mechanism of vitamin D

toxicity being published in Medical Hypotheses any day now, and a

letter being published in the Journal of the American College of

Cardiology regarding the " single meal of saturated fat... " study. The

latter was accepted months ago and I still haven't gotten the proofs

from Elsevier because it is being held up while they wait for a reply

from the authors to publish in tandem with it. The former should be

published any day now.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

Tom-

> I read his rebuttal and I have to say....it's well written

I actually wouldn't even go that far. There are a number of basic

grammar errors (e.g. " This is wrong, quite literally, dead wrong. " )

on top of what I would consider blatantly obvious, even transparent,

inconsistencies and lapses in logic.

As already pointed out offlist, admits upfront that he

put his book together in a fundamentally unscientific way!

>> In planning the strategy for our book to tell this story, we

>> wondered: Do we simply summarize a bunch of studies favoring my

>> new views and run the risk of selecting only the evidence that I

>> liked? Or do we summarize, without judgment, both the pro and con

>> evidence, only to leave the reader more confused? We chose

>> neither. We decided to tell the story how I personally learned it

>> and why I was willing to recommend it for my family, my friends

>> and myself. In this way, the reader decides whether the message is

>> as convincing as I found it, perhaps even worth trying.

In fact, not only is his supposed " third option " actually a simple

rephrasing of the first one, in which he only mentions the studies he

likes, he's actually conceding that there's enough evidence AGAINST

his position to seriously confuse readers!

>> They even misunderstand what scientific discovery is all about—at

>> least the version of discovery that I have learned over the past

>> half century.

It's particularly hypocritical of him to attack his critics'

understanding of the scientific method without any actual explanation

while directly admitting to subverting the method himself, as

mentioned above.

Sadly, I imagine that you're probably right that his retort, garbage

though it is, will nonetheless be effective in sating the appetites

of our critics, since so few people have any understanding of the

scientific method themselves.

>> They rely rather heavily, for example, on choosing selected but

>> uncorrected correlations (associations of one variable with

>> another) from the huge number (about 100,000 or so) that were

>> published in the 894-page China Project monograph itself (Chen,

>> J., , T. C., Li, J., and Peto, R. Diet, life-style and

>> mortality in China. A study of the characteristics of 65 Chinese

>> counties, pp. 894. Oxford, UK; Ithaca, NY; Beijing, PRC: Oxford

>> University Press; Cornell University Press; People's Medical

>> Publishing House, 1990).

This is another unsupported assertion. He doesn't discuss the

correlations raised by his critics and he doesn't explain how or why

they're (allegedly) uncorrected.

>> At least, this is the way research SHOULD be done. Unfortunately,

>> this often fails to take place. Instead, researchers get anxious

>> and speculate beyond the results of a single experiment thus

>> giving rise to the perception that a very broad truth has been

>> discovered or is emerging. This especially happens when there are

>> financial implications.

How richly ironic. himself generalizes from a correlation

between cancer and casein consumption (itself open to debate) to a

conclusion that all animal protein is carcinogenic.

I leave everyone here to do the amusing (and infuriating) math.

>> We tried in our book to avoid this problem by chronologically

>> reporting on the main experiments during my career, along with the

>> research of others, to elaborate a larger view that I thought was

>> taking shape. We felt that this chronology of experiments respects

>> readers, leaving them to decide whether they agree or disagree.

>> It's about connecting the dots, so to speak.

This, of course, fundamentally contradicts his earlier admission that

he stacked the deck by NOT presenting the con evidence because he

didn't want to leave readers " more confused " .

>> 3) whether the associations are biologically plausible (e.g.,

>> being consistent with existing clinical information, especially

>> within this clinical project)

" Plausibility " is a very dangerous standard. It's inherently

vulnerable to bias, and it can very easily filter out results that

confound expectations and conventional wisdom -- the sorts of results

he claims earlier in the article to have embraced upon discovery

earlier in his career, back when he was supposedly pro-meat.

>> Price's main book was published in the late 1930s—at least this is

>> the book that is most commonly cited by WAPF. I bought the book,

>> carefully read it ...

>>

>> In no way did Price publish reliable data in this book that could

>> be used to evaluate the relationship of food with overall

>> health. ...

>>

>> Either by statements or inferences, WAPF writers and enthusiasts

>> then go on from Price's meager observations to aggressively claim

>> health benefits for animal based foods, especially those

>> associated with unprocessed, raw cow's milk produced by grass-fed

>> animals.

claims to have read NAPD " carefully " , but he then

characterizes it in fundamentally inaccurate ways. Sadly, few people

-- particularly, I suspect, in his audience -- have read NAPD

themselves and would therefore catch his errors.

>> I also wonder, however, whether his writing skills have been honed

>> and reviewed by his superior, Sally Fallon, who has training in

>> English.

This is just laughable. Surely isn't suggesting that Sally

rewrites (or writes!) everything posts here on NN and on his

own website and newsletter. The funniest aspect of this smear,

though, is that CAMPBELL is the one who really needs an editor!

Maybe Sally could help him out if he asked really, really nicely with

maple syrup on top.

>> When I asked him who supports WAPF, he told me that farmers, among

>> others, were important contributors. Because factory farms now

>> produce most of the food in the U.S., I would be more comfortable

>> if I knew how much influence these 'farmer' conglomerates have on

>> WAPF itself. I don't decry the industry promoting its product—

>> honestly of course—but I question the blatant attempt of WAPF

>> writers to convey seemingly objective opinion that favors the

>> industry without making clear their serious lack of qualifications

>> and conflicts of interest.

This is but one example of many of 's ignorance or

mendacity. Either he doesn't know that WAPF is OPPOSED to factory

farms and that there are no " conglomerates " of small family pasture-

based farms which provide some of the small support for the

foundation, or he's deliberately conflating the two to hoodwink his

readers.

>> WAPF Founder Sally Fallon who has Bachelors and Masters degrees in

>> English sums up her organization's views as follows, " Animal fats

>> and cholesterol are not villains but vital factors in the diet,

>> necessary for normal growth, proper function of the brain and

>> nervous system, protection from disease and optimum energy

>> levels. " It is time to seriously question the scientific

>> objectivity and professional qualifications of WAPF staffers and

>> their writers. It also is time to question their excessive

>> exaggeration of Weston A. Price's observations.

Here is just playing on the plausibility biases of his own

readers. Because Sally's degrees are in English, she must not be

credible on nutrition. Because everyone knows that animal fats and

cholesterol are harmful, what she says is dangerously wrong, and

because what she says is dangerously wrong, it's time to oppose her

and the foundation and attack the credibility of Price's own work.

>> I would be remiss, however, not to mention two areas of agreement.

>> First, WAPF have emphasized the questionable value of highly

>> processed essentially plant based foods whose calories are mostly

>> comprised of refined carbohydrate (e.g., sugar, white flour) and

>> oils, both plant based. I concur with this view. Indeed this is

>> the main reason that my son and I emphasize in the book " whole "

>> plant based foods, not these plant food fragments. Second, some

>> have been critical of our book title that incorrectly implies that

>> the book's overall message mainly depends on the China Study

>> itself (it is only one chapter in our book). This title was the

>> choice of our publisher. His view was based on marketing

>> considerations and certainly was not due to the fact that the

>> entirety of the book is represented by the findings from the China

>> Project.

Token concessions are merely a rhetorical technique designed to make

one look more fair-minded than one really is.

> Think about it though, his article will at least temporarily satisfy

> the low-fat and vegetarian masses who might have been starting to

> wonder about the WAPF message. He did a good job at that, at least for

> people who are easily persuaded and can't read between the lines. When

> you want to believe in something, all it takes is a well-worded

> persuasive argument, no matter if it's full of holes.

I'd go further. When you want to believe in something, it doesn't

even take a well-worded argument to support your belief: you'll take

pretty much anything.

> (and it's interesting to hear his perspective, gosh, we

> ARE awfully confident in ourselves, aren't we?)

Of course it's true that there's a fine line to walk between a

necessary and robust confidence and a -style resistance to

questions, but is clearly of the opinion that science is a

priesthood and its priests must not be questioned. That's a

profanation of real science, an abomination that must be opposed at

every turn.

-

[Guest guest]

On 11/2/06, Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

>

>

>

>

>

>

> http://www.vegsource.com/articles2/campbell_china_response.htm

>

> Chris

>

Come on. I mean really. This is the kind of stuff that tempts one to

forget about work, become a professional student, and spend the rest

of one's life skewering these kinds of arguments in *public* debate.

While this is a response it certainly is no rebuttal. He provides us

with nothing more than some personal biographical information,

*assertions* about how you allegedly miscontrued his work with

absolutely *no* specific examples, and then some not so subtle

adhominen attacks against you and Sally.

This guys arrogance, while muted, seemingly knows no bounds. He of

course couldn't be bothered with you, but with the urging of friends

he decided to respond (seems his friends knew better than him when

something needs a response). Sheez Lord , glad you decided to

come down off your throne and wallow with us heathen. Gag me.

He of course is a 50 year degreed scientist (this reminds me of the

great nanny on another list who always likes to trot out his

credentials when responding) and you are just a 24 year old

overconfident arrogant pipsqueak. And yet...here he is responding. Gag

me.

He of course thought all the noise was because his book was having an

impact. And yet the noise he responded to was from a little or of no

consequence special interest group (according to him) with a talented

but unsubstantial writer posing as a scientist. Which only begs the

question about who is really making noise with their work. This to me

is an example of the old saying about throwing a stick into a pack of

dogs and the one it hits barks the loudest.

Obviously he responded to you because you caught him with his pants

down by the strength of your critique, and to maintain any semblance

of being anything other than a vegan ideologue he, IMO, had to

respond. Far as I am concerned you were too nice to him on a couple of

points, and there was one point in the article where you could have

laid the hammer down for good but didn't, and I specifically told Suze

Fisher that when she let me read your final draft before it went to

the printers.

And the use of private correspondence in public exchanges without

permission (or private exchanges for that matter) is simply

outrageous.

Not to spill the beans since I am writing a response which will be the

lead article on my newly revamped website, but I thought it quite

funny when he suggested that you and Sally (and presumably all your

" enthusiasts " ) are posing as " qualified " scientists. He must not have

ever read this particular disclaimer on your site:

" Dear Reader,

" ...Please understand that I am not, however, qualified to dispense

medical or health advice of any kind. Likewise, although the articles

reference peer-reviewed publications, these articles are not

peer-reviewed themselves.

" Although I am trained in lab science techniques and journal article

writing at the undergraduate level and plan to pursue a PhD in

Molecular and Cellular Biology, I do not currently possess a graduate

degree or a medical degree, and I have not published peer-reviewed

research. "

It does seem strange to that the only way one would know is a

scientist from the article is because he said so, since there is no

evidence of actual science within the response itself.

Moral of this story, put your ego aside long enough to do your

homework when engaging someone on the issues. When they take the time

to cite and quote, be courteous and at least engage them on some of

the issues. If at that point you want to attack their credentials then

fine. At least the reader will (presumably) have evidence that such an

attack is on target rather than condescending or patronizing (by the

way this is not uncommon among highly degreed people. Enig once

pulled this on Ray Peat, while completely ignoring his arguments over

on one of the coconut oil lists.) And lord have mercy please interact

with the *best* your opponent has to offer. He should have just left

old *anonymous* jayy out of the loop altogether.

--

How sweet it is! The GOP, RIP

http://snipurl.com/w7d6

" He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose. "

Jim Elliot

[Guest guest]

On 12/3/06, wrote:

> I specifically told Suze

> Fisher that when she let me read your final draft before it went to

> the printers.

>

>

>

Oh, I see, it's not Sally writing all of Chris' work, it's Suze!

rotflol

[Guest guest]

I was disappointed. I would like to see a substantive rebuttal on the

issue of animal-related blood biomarkers. In the section of the book

where he misspeaks about folate he also says that elevated plasma

homocysteine is related to animal consumption and yet my understanding

is that it is an indirect measure of low B-12, folate, and/or B-6

status. So high homocysteine being related to cancer in China tells

me people need to eat more liver. Perhaps this is all addressed in

the original study.

And so my bigger frustration is that the original study costs $200 to

buy. I was at UC Berkeley a few weeks ago and it was not available at

the time. It's not widely available in university libraries here in

California and I'm already stretching the limits of public funding and

the generosity of librarians trying to get some of Price's articles

through interlibrary loan at a small CSU.

http://www.rebuild-from-depression.com

[Guest guest]

On 12/4/06, galeforcewinds00 <amgrose@...> wrote:

> I was disappointed. I would like to see a substantive rebuttal on the

> issue of animal-related blood biomarkers. In the section of the book

> where he misspeaks about folate he also says that elevated plasma

> homocysteine is related to animal consumption and yet my understanding

> is that it is an indirect measure of low B-12, folate, and/or B-6

> status.

I think that high methionine intake can theoretically be tied to

homocysteine, all things being equal (i.e. deficiencies of above

nutrients and betaine being equal), but you're definitely right that

it is a much, much better marker for those nutrient deficiencies.

Vegans and vegetarians have elevated homocysteine, so his argument

could fairly be called ridiculously stupid.

> And so my bigger frustration is that the original study costs $200 to

> buy.

You should be able to obtain it fairly easily through interlibrary

loan if it isn't available at a university library you can travel to.

> I was at UC Berkeley a few weeks ago and it was not available at

> the time. It's not widely available in university libraries here in

> California and I'm already stretching the limits of public funding and

> the generosity of librarians trying to get some of Price's articles

> through interlibrary loan at a small CSU.

That's the library's job. They should be more than willing to fulfill

any interlibrary loan request you might have.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

> That's the library's job. They should be more than willing to

fulfill

> any interlibrary loan request you might have.

>

I know, but I really do use a whole lot of tax payer resources as it

is. And their main loan person has been out on-and-off for various

health reasons for six months. So I just try not to overstay my

welcome.

http://www.rebuild-from-depression.com

[Guest guest]

On 12/2/06, <slethnobotanist@...> wrote:

>He should have just left old *anonymous* jayy out of the loop altogether.

>

>

> --

JayY posted a lot of critical comments about " The China Study " in

response to positive reviews on Amazon.com, so I think that's why

felt he should answer him. It was to the point that someone

at Amazon.com started deleting his comments, although they're allowing

him to post them again.

Also, it's easier to pick on an anonymous critic rather than an

independent researcher like Colpo, whose review of the book,

" The China Study: More Vegan Nonsense! " was quite pointed. JayY posted

Colpo's article at length in response to a lot of the book reviews,

since the article is no longer available from TheOmnivore.com site.

In the vegsource.com rebuttal, quotes JayY as saying, " I've

never sat on a government advisory panel, never attended even a single

university lecture, and cannot yet boast of having the same volume of

published literature as [...] " when the quote is actually

from Colpo's review, and I think it's disingenuous for him to

attribute it to JayY. However, I can understand why he'd want to keep

the readers of vegsource.com in the dark about Colpo's work,

especially " The Great Cholesterol Con. "

Naomi

[Guest guest]

I heard that JayY is Colpo. they are the same person.

>

> >He should have just left old *anonymous* jayy out of the loop altogether.

> >

> >

> > --

>

> JayY posted a lot of critical comments about " The China Study " in

> response to positive reviews on Amazon.com, so I think that's why

> felt he should answer him. It was to the point that someone

> at Amazon.com started deleting his comments, although they're allowing

> him to post them again.

>

> Also, it's easier to pick on an anonymous critic rather than an

> independent researcher like Colpo, whose review of the book,

> " The China Study: More Vegan Nonsense! " was quite pointed. JayY posted

> Colpo's article at length in response to a lot of the book reviews,

> since the article is no longer available from TheOmnivore.com site.

>

> In the vegsource.com rebuttal, quotes JayY as saying, " I've

> never sat on a government advisory panel, never attended even a single

> university lecture, and cannot yet boast of having the same volume of

> published literature as [...] " when the quote is actually

> from Colpo's review, and I think it's disingenuous for him to

> attribute it to JayY. However, I can understand why he'd want to keep

> the readers of vegsource.com in the dark about Colpo's work,

> especially " The Great Cholesterol Con. "

>

> Naomi

>

[Guest guest]

On 12/5/06, Naomi Giuliano <n.giuliano@...> wrote:

> On 12/2/06, <slethnobotanist@...> wrote:

>

> >He should have just left old *anonymous* jayy out of the loop altogether.

> >

> >

> > --

>

> JayY posted a lot of critical comments about " The China Study " in

> response to positive reviews on Amazon.com, so I think that's why

> felt he should answer him. It was to the point that someone

> at Amazon.com started deleting his comments, although they're allowing

> him to post them again.

If I understand correctly he didn't feel he had to answer

anyone. It appears to me that he included JayY cuz he was an easy

target. That is not to say JayY isn't correct, but his approach made

it easy to dismiss him, at least from what I read. You don't parade

your own lack of credentials and then essentially insult the man's

intelligence. That is not the way to get people to see your side of

things, even when you are right. There are other ways to get around

the credential issue in a more elegant and effective fashion.

> Also, it's easier to pick on an anonymous critic rather than an

> independent researcher

Indeed it is. That is precisely my point. A good rebuttal always deals

with the best of what the " opposition " is offering and leaves the

exotic, strange, idiosyncratic, and extreme points *or* presentations

(relative to that position of course) alone. It is not always easy to

sort such things out but nonetheless its the hard work that goes into

effective argumentation.

> like Colpo, whose review of the book,

> " The China Study: More Vegan Nonsense! " was quite pointed. JayY posted

> Colpo's article at length in response to a lot of the book reviews,

> since the article is no longer available from TheOmnivore.com site.

>

> In the vegsource.com rebuttal, quotes JayY as saying, " I've

> never sat on a government advisory panel, never attended even a single

> university lecture, and cannot yet boast of having the same volume of

> published literature as [...] " when the quote is actually

> from Colpo's review, and I think it's disingenuous for him to

> attribute it to JayY. However, I can understand why he'd want to keep

> the readers of vegsource.com in the dark about Colpo's work,

> especially " The Great Cholesterol Con. "

Not having read Colpo's book, I can't really comment to agree or

disagree. But if that quote is attributable to Colpo then it means

with that style, assuming it is representative of how he normally

writes, he will be essentially preaching to the choir.

Maybe that is okay for him, but having had to write in a environment

that was *very* hostile to what I believed on nearly every point while

in college, I do know somewhat how these things go, and have a general

idea what it takes to win the war, not just the immediate argument.

Though it may not always seem so, I am personally much more interested

in winning converts than winning arguments. That may mean at times

backing down or cranking down the heat, realizing you are dealing with

a fellow human being and not just a notch on your debate belt. I'm

talking strategy here not the abandonment of principle. Oftentimes

taking a respite from the fray gives you the opportunity/permission to

come back harder than ever. Colpo/JayY's style, or so it seems to me,

will simply cause people to dig in their heels on either side of the

argument.

That is not to say such an approach doesn't have its place, just not

sure that was/is the right venue.

--

" All [gov't] can see in an original idea is potential change, and

hence an invasion of its prerogatives. The most dangerous man, to any

gov't, is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without

regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably

he comes to the conclusion that the gov't he lives under is dishonest,

insane, and intolerable, and so, if he is a romantic, he tries to

change it. And even if he is not...he is very apt to spread discontent

among those who are. "

H.L. Mencken

How sweet it is! The GOP, RIP

http://snipurl.com/w7d6

[Guest guest]

,

> Far as I am concerned you were too nice to him on a couple of

> points, and there was one point in the article where you could have

> laid the hammer down for good but didn't, and I specifically told Suze

> Fisher that when she let me read your final draft before it went to

> the printers.

Could you be more specific? Which points?

> Not to spill the beans since I am writing a response which will be the

> lead article on my newly revamped website,

What's the URL? I noticed that warongoodfood.com is down.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

On 1/3/07, Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

> ,

>

> > Far as I am concerned you were too nice to him on a couple of

> > points, and there was one point in the article where you could have

> > laid the hammer down for good but didn't, and I specifically told Suze

> > Fisher that when she let me read your final draft before it went to

> > the printers.

>

> Could you be more specific? Which points?

Without my notes, no, at least not in a useful way. And they are

sitting in Suze Fisher's woodshed in Maine. Hopefully I will have them

soon. I'm going to re-read your article soon. If I get a chance I will

post my notes here.

> > Not to spill the beans since I am writing a response which will be the

> > lead article on my newly revamped website,

>

> What's the URL? I noticed that warongoodfood.com is down.

thewarongoodfood.com and it is still under construction.

--

What is the ballot? It is neither more nor less than a paper

representative of the bayonet, the billy, and the bullet. It is a

labor-saving device for ascertaining on which side force lies and

bowing to the inevitable. The voice of the majority saves bloodshed,

but it is no less the arbitrament of force than is the decree of the

most absolute of despots backed by the most powerful of armies.

~ R. Tucker