DENISE MINGER OF RAWFOODSOS HAS NOW BEEN FOUND DEBUNKED. WORK FOUND FLAWED.

1. DENISE MINGER WAS FOUND USING IMPROPER UNADJUSTED RAW UNIVARIATE STATISTICAL CORRELATIONS THUS DEBUNKING HER OWN CONCLUSIONS.

2. DENISE MINGER FAILED TO UNDERSTAND THE CHINA STUDY'S RESEARCH FINDINGS.

3. DENISE MINGER PICKED OUT ONLY 1/18th OF THE DATA IN THE CHINA STUDY AND ONLY CHERRY PICKED AND LOOKED AT A TINY 0.05 PORTION. ABOUT WHICH SHE TURNED OUT TO BE ALSO INCORRECT AS WELL.

4. DENISE MINGER IS A 23 YR OLD "ENGLISH MAJOR" WITH NO MEDICAL DEGREE, NO CERTIFICATION IN PHYSIOLOGY, BIOCHEMISTRY, OR HUMAN NUTRITION, NOT QUALIFIED IN MATH OR STATISTICS, NO EXPERIENCE WITH ACTUAL PATIENTS, NO EXPERIENCE WITH HEART SURGERY, AND IS NOT LICENSED TO PRACTICE MEDICINE, OR TO DISPENSE HUMAN NUTRITIONAL OR MEDICAL ADVICE TO THE PUBLIC.

-

[Paraphrased Transcript of the Discussion of all the Flaws in the work of Denise Minger]

Details:

Denise Minger published a critique of the book, The China Study, entitled as follows:

"Fact or Fallacy? « Raw Food SOS: Troubleshooting on the Raw Food Diet"-Denise Minger

NOTE: Ms. Denise Minger is simply an English major, not a statistician nor an epidemiologist.(Background and academic credentials are certainly not everything..but..background in the field, and especially peer review, all give one perspective and insight that is not otherwise attainable.)

DENISE MINGER DEBUNKED:

The response to Denise Minger can be divided into 3 parts: •Denise Minger's Misunderstanding The China Study's objectives and research findings. •Denise Minger's Excessive reliance on the use of unadjusted correlations in the China database. •Denise Minger's Failure to note the broader implications of choosing the right dietary lifestyle

DENISE MINGER'S FAILURE:

A. Denise Minger's failure understanding the book’s objectives. Denise Minger failed to understand that the findings described in the book are not solely based on the China "survey data".

As explained in the book The China Study, it drew conclusions from *several* findings and it is the *consistency* among ALL the various findings that matter.

These principles also collectively and substantially inferred major health benefits of whole plant-based foods.

Unfortunately, this issue of biological plausibility too often escapes the attention of "statisticians", who are more familiar with 'number crunching' than with actual biological phenomena.

Denise Minger:- user of microsoft excel- english major- no authorization to practice medicine- no certification in nutrition- has a food-blog.

Note: [Minger addresses] only 1 chapter of the China Study book [which] was devoted to the china "survey project", which is only one, in a chain of experimental approaches.

(Minger's blog postings only addressed 1 out of 18 chapters of the China Study. 1/18th.)

Doctor T. Colin Campbell- American Biochemist- Emeritus Professor of Nutritional Biochemistry- CORNELL UNIVERSITY- Author of over 300 scientific papers- Dr. Campbell's china study work described by the NYT as "The Grand Prix of Epidemiology"- B.S. Pennsylvania State University- M.S. in Nutrition & Biochemistry- Ph.D in Nutrition- Ph.D in Biochemistry- Ph.D in Microbiology- Research Associate at MIT, Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge- Department of Biochemistry & Nutrition, Virginia Tech- Cornell University (Ivy League), Division of Nutritional Sciences- Senior Science advisor to the AICR, American Institute for Cancer Research- Physicians Committee Advisory Board - PCRM- Member of the U.S. NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES- Expert panel on Food Safety- Honorary Professorship, Academy of Preventive Medicine, China

CHINA STUDY EVIDENCE SUPPORTED:

Because of the uniqueness of the China database, the evidence was highly supportive.

One of the unique characteristics of this survey was the "traditional" dietary practices of this cohort of people. Mostly, they were already consuming a diet largely comprised of plant-based foods..thus making our final observations that much more impressive.

In the book, we summarized findings from *other* research groups for a variety of Diseases, to determine the consistency of ours with their findings..One of the most compelling parts of this was the fact that so many of their findings, published in good peer-reviewed journals, had been..ignored and/or distorted..for a long time there has been, an intentional effort..to denigrate studies..of plant-based diets. The fact that there has been resistance, oftentimes hostile and personal..speaks volumes.

CHINA STUDY FINDINGS BACKED:

Most importantly, there is the enormously impressive findings of my colleagues..showing remarkable health benefits of Plant-Based nutrition. Not only in disease prevention but also disease treatment:

OTHER SCIENTISTS ALSO AFFIRMING THE CHINA STUDY RESEARCH:

Doctor Hans Diehl- Post Doctoral research fellow in cardiovascular epidemiology at the National Institute of Health NIH- DrHSc, MPH, FACN, CNS, - Dr. Diehl is the Director of the Loma Linda Medical Institute- Cardiovascular Epidemiologist with a Doctorate in Health Science- Masters in Public Health Nutrition- Director of the Pritikin Longevity Center- Post Doctoral scholar at UCLA

Doctor Michael Klaper, M.D.- Advisor for NASA.- Astronaut long-term space nutrition program for planetary exploration.- College of Medicine, University of Illinois- Post Graduate in Anesthesiology- Post Graduate in Surgery- Post Graduate in Internal Medicine- Post Graduate in Orthopedics- Vancouver General Hospital- University of California, Obstetrics- Treatment of Atherosclerosis, Obesity, Diabetes, arthritis, high blood pressure- Board Certified in Urgent Care Medicine- 11 yrs practice in Hawaii USA- 3 yrs practice in New Zealand- PBS Documentary- Nutritional TASK FORCE for the NMSA

Doctor Caldwell Esselstyn, M.D.

- Dr. Esselstyn is an OLYMPIC GOLD MEDALIST- F.A.C.S certification- Bachelor of Arts from Yale University- M.D. degree Case Western Reserve University,- Army Surgeon in Vietnam- Doctor Caldwell Esselstyn is the Recipient of the U.S. Military Bronze Star.- Scientific Advisory Board member of the Center for Science in the Public Interest.- Physician who Treated the former PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA

-Research Journal Publications: - Esselstyn CB - Prevent and Reverse Heart Disease: The Revolutionary, Scientifically Proven, Nutrition-Based Cure (2008) ISBN 1583332723 - Esselstyn CB - "Is the Present Therapy for Coronary Artery Disease the Radical Mastectomy of the Twenty-First Century?". American Journal of Cardiology 106 (6): 902-904. doi:10.1016/j.amjcard.2010.05.016. ISSN 0002-9149.(Sept 15, 2010). - Esselstyn CB Jr, Ellis SG, Medendorp SV, Crowe TD. "A strategy to arrest and reverse coronary artery disease: a 5-year longitudinal study of a single physician's practice". Journal of Family Practice 41 (6): 560-8. PMID 7500065.

Doctor Alan Goldhamer, M.D.- Licenses Osteopathic Physician- Medical Doctor- Faculty of Bastyr University- Director of the Residential Health Education Program

Doctor John McDougall, M.D.- Board Certified Physician in Internal Medicine- Graduate College of Human Medicine, university of Michigan- Queens Medical Center internship- St. Helena Hospital, Napa California- Blue-Cross Blue-Shield program- Advisory Board Member of the PCRM- Certified by the National Board of Medical Examiners (Coroners)

- Published Journal Research: - McDougall J. "Dairy & type 2 diabetes Mellitus: wrong conclusions." Arch Int Med. 2005 Nov 14;165(20):2434

- McDougall J. "Effects of a low-carbohydrate diet." Mayo Clin Proc. 2004 Mar;79(3):431 - McDougall J. "Optimal diets to prevent heart disease." JAMA. 2003 Mar 26;289(12):1509 - McDougall J. "Misinformation on plant proteins." Circulation. 2002 Nov 12;106(20):e148 - McDougall J. "Plant foods have a complete amino acid composition." Circulation. 2002 Jun 25;105(25):e197 - McDougall J. "Effects of a very low fat vegan diet in subjects with rheumatoid arthritis." Jrnl of the American College of Nutrition 17:512, 1998. & Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine 8:71-75, 2002. - McDougall J. "Rapid Reduction of Serum Cholesterol and Blood Pressure by a Twelve Day, Very Low Fat, Strictly Vegetarian Diet" Journal of the American College of Nutrition 14:491-496 - McDougall J. "Reduction of Risk Factors in an Intensive Cardiac Rehabilitation and Lifestyle Modification Program in High Risk and Cardiovascularly Diseased Patients. Journal of Cardiopulmonary Rehab 9:397 - McDougall J. "Preliminary Study of Diet as an Adjuvant Therapy for Breast Cancer Published": Breast, Diseases of the Breast 10:18-22.

Doctor Dean Ornish, M.D.- Appointed to The White House Commission on Complementary Medicine- President of the Preventive Medicine Research Institute- Medical Doctor- M.D. from the Baylor College of Medicine- Massachusetts General Hospital- University of Texas, Bachelor of Arts degree- Lancet Hert Trial on Coronary Artery Disease (CAD) 1990- Developed procedure that Reversed Coronary Atherosclerosis- Member of the Board of Directors of the United Nations High Commission- Advisory Board Member of HealthCorps.- Elected to the California Academy of Medicine- Kellermann memorial Award for Distinguished contribution toward Cardiovascular Disease Prevention- Awarded by the International Academy of Cardiology- Gold Award from the American Academy of Achievement- Presidential Citation from the APA- Recipient of the Beckman Medal from the German Society for Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease- People Magazine most interesting people

- Featured in TIME 100, Time Magazine- LIFE MAGAZINE Award as One of the Most Influential Members of the current Generation.

- Research Journal Publications: - Ornish, Dean, Fletcher, Janet, Fullsac, Jean Marc, Roe, Janet. Everyday Cooking with Dr. Dean Ornish, 150 Easy, Low-Fat High Flavor Recipes. Harper Collins, U.S. (1996) ISBN 0-06-017314-9 - Ornish, Dean. Love & Survival - 8 Pathways to Intimacy and Health. Harper Collins, 1998. ISBN 0-06-093020-9. - Ornish, Dean. Dr. Dean Ornish's Programme for Reversing Heart Disease, Ivy Books, 1996. ISBN 0-8041-1038-7. - Ornish, D., et al. Can lifestyle changes reverse coronary heart disease? The Lifestyle Heart Trial. Lancet (21 Jul. 1990) 336(8708):129-33. - Ornish, D., Scherwitz, L. W., Doody, R. S., Kesten, D., McLanahan, S. M.; Brown, S. E.; et al. Effects of stress management training and dietary changes in treating ischemic heart disease. JAMA (1983) 249: 54. - Ornish, D., Scherwitz, L. W., Billings, J. H., Brown, S. E., Gould, K. L., Merritt, T. A., et al. Intensive lifestyle changes for reversal of coronary heart disease. JAMA (1983) 280: 2001. - Ornish, Dean. Eat More, Weigh Less. Collins, 2001. - Dunn-Emke, S., Weidner, G., Pettengill, E., Marlin, R. O., Chi, C. and Ornish, D. Nutritional adequacy of a very low-fat vegan diet. J Am Diet Assoc. (2005) 105: 1350. - Ornish, D. Intensive lifestyle changes in management of coronary heart disease. In: Harrison's Advances in Cardiology. Edited by E. Braunwald. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002 - Sumner, Michael D.; Weidner, Gerdi; Merritt-Worden, Terri; Studley, Joli; Ornish, Dean. Adherence to a multicomponent lifestyle modification program. Journal of Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation (Sep./Oct. 2005) 25(5):291. - Ornish, Dean. High-fiber diet and colorectal adenomas. New England Journal of Medicine (7 Sep. 2000) 343(10):736-738. - Ornish, Dean, Brown, Shirley Elizabeth, Kottke, Bruce A., Shea, Steven, Barth, Jacques D., Bryan, Gregory, K., Hokanson, John E., Austin, Melissa A., Ginsberg, Henry N., Tall, Alan R., Deckelbaum, Richard J. Hunninghake, Donald B., Criqui, Michael H., Heiss, Gerardo, Sox, Harold C. Treatment of and screening for hyperlipidemia. New England Journal of Medicine (7 Oct.1993) 329(15):1124-1128. - Gould, K. Lance, Ornish, Dean MD, Scherwitz, Larry, Brown, Shirley, Edens, R. Patterson, Hess, Mary Jane, Mullani, Nizar, Bolomey, Leonard, Dobbs, Frank, Armstrong, William T., Merritt, Terri, Ports, Thomas, Sparler, Stephen, Billings, James. Changes in myocardial perfusion abnormalities by positron emission tomography after long-term, intense risk factor modification. JAMA (20 Sep. 1995) 274(11):894-901. - Ornish, Dean. The Spectrum: A Scientifically Proven Program to Feel Better, Live Longer, Lose Weight, and Gain Health. Ballantine Books, 2008. ISBN 0345496310.

ISBN 978-0345496317.

Doctor Terry Shintani, M.D.- MD, JD, MPH, KSJ- Physician, Attorney, Nutritionist, Author-

And since the book's publication:

T. BarnardCorso

Doctor Neal D. Barnard, M.D.- Clinical Researcher- Adjunct Associate Professor of Medicine at George Washington University.- George Washington School of Medicine & Health Sciences- M.D. from George Washington University- Board Certified Neurologist- Published in the American Journal of Cardiology- Review staff of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive & Kidney Diseases- President of THE CANCER PROJECT- Head of the Washington Center of Clinical Research- Musician. Electric Guitarist. - Neal Barnard's composition "Dream of the Black Horse" was played at the Washington DC national mall, at the Journey to Freedom event at the Library of Congress.- Awarded Research Grant from the National Institute of Health (NIH) for Diabetes and Diet Research- Developed insulin assay using monoclonal antibodies from hybridomas.- Founded the Washington CCR.- Lifetime member of the American Medical Association (AMA)

Doctor Joel Fuhrman- Board Certified Medical Doctor- Research Director of the Nutritional Research Project- Member of the Medical Staff of the Hunterdon Medical Center.- Board of Directors of the American College of Lifestyle Medicine.- NYT Best selling author, book has remained on and is still on the list

- Member of the U.S. National Skating Team- Came in 3rd in the World Professional Skating Championships- University of Pennsylvania (Ivy League) School of Medicine

- Books - Super Immunity: The Essential Nutrition Guide for Boosting Your Body's Defenses to Live Longer, Stronger, and Disease Free (hardcover) - ISBN 978-0062080639 (HarperOne; 1st edition Sep 20, 2011) - Eat For Health: Lose Weight, Keep It Off, Look Younger, Live Longer (hardcover) - Volume 1 ISBN 0-9799667-2-8, Volume 2 ISBN 0-9799667-3-6, Gift of Health Press; First edition (April 1, 2008) - Eat to Live: The Revolutionary Formula for Fast and Sustained Weight Loss (paperback) - ISBN 0-316-73550-7, (Little Brown & Company; 1st edition January 15, 2003) - Disease Proof Your Child: Feeding Kids Right (hardcover) - ISBN 0-312-33805-8, Publisher: St. Martin's Press (August 1, 2005) - Cholesterol Protection for Life (paperback) - ISBN 0-9744633-1-0, Publisher: Gift of Health Press (September 15, 2004) - Fasting & Eating for Health: A Medical Doctor's Program for Conquering Disease (paperback) - ISBN 0-312-18719-X, Publisher: St. Martin's Griffin (April 15, 1998)

- Journal Research Publications - Dunaief D, Gui-shuang Y, Fuhrman J, et al. Glycemic and cardiovascular parameters improved in type 2 diabetes with the high nutrient density diet. Presented at the 5th IANA (International Academy on Nutrition and Aging) meeting July 26 & 27, 2010 Hyatt Regency Tamaya Resort & Spa 1300 Tuyuna Trail Santa Ana Pueblo, NM, USA J Nutr Health Aging 2010;14:500. - Fuhrman J, Sarter B, Glaser D, Acocella S. Changing perceptions of hunger on a high nutrient density diet. Nutrition Journal 2010, 9:51 (7 November 2010) - Fuhrman J, Sarter B, Calabro DJ. Fasting in Remission of Autoimmune Disease. Alternative Therapies 2001;8(4):1-3. - Fuhrman J, Selzer ME, Kaplan FS. A shoulder-facial synkinesis in normal human subjects. University of Pennsylvania Orthopaedic Journal 1991;7:43-45. - Sarter BS, Campbell TC, Fuhrman J. Effect of a high nutrient density diet on long-term weight loss: a retrospective chart review. Alternative Therapies 2008;14(3):48-53.

And more contributions backed by countless others confirming the background for the work:LedermanMontgomeryPopper

Pulde SchulzShewman

..and more.

I cannot overemphasize the remarkable accomplishments of these primary care physicians. In effect, their work affirmed my earlier laboratory research. I should add that I knew none of them or their work during my career in the laboratory, thus was not motivated or biased to find ways to affirm their work.

It was the combination of these various lines of inquiry that made so compelling the larger story told in the book, at least for me.

Denise Minger mostly ignores these fundamental but highly consistent parts of the story.

Biology is not for engineers and number crunchers, as important as they may be, because, compared to their systems, biological response is much more complex and dynamic.

[EXTERNAL COMMENTARY: In other words, someone who has never cut into a human chest, or a human body, and seen the widespread effects cancer or damaged and clogged arterial vessels on an actual live human heart, and have interacted with that person's family and that individual's very life, will always be deficient in the ability to make medical and biological conclusions, versus a blog of something from a spreadsheet after putting some things into microsoft office. END INDEPENDENT EXTERNAL COMMENTARY.]

*** DENISE MINGER'S USE OF IMPROPER USE OF RAW UNIVARIATE CORRELATIONS. ***

B. The use of ‘raw’ univariate correlations.

In a study like this Survey in China which is ecologic and cross-sectional, univariate correlations represent 1-to-1 associations of two variables, one perhaps causal, the other perhaps effect. Use of these correlations (about 100,000 in this database) should only be done with caution, that is, being careful not to infer one-to-one causal associations.

Even though this project provided impressive and highly unique experimental features, using univariate correlations to identify specific food vs. specific disease associations is not one of these redeeming features, for several reasons.

First, a variable may reflect the effects of other factors that change along with the variable under study. Therefore, this requires adjustment for confounding factors-mostly, this was not done by Denise.

[DENISE MINGER'S WORK HAS NOW BEEN REVEALED AS DEEPLY FLAWED DUE TO FAILURE TO ACCOUNT FOR CONFOUNDING FACTORS, PLUS THE IMCORRECT USE OF RAW UNIVARIATE STATISTICAL CORRELATIONS IN HER ARTICLES].

Second, for a variable to have information of value (as in making a correlation), it must exhibit a sufficient range. If, for example, a variable is measured in 65 counties (as in China), there must be a distribution of values over a sufficiently broad range for it to be useful.

Third, the variables should represent exposures representative of prior years when the diseases in question are developing. I see little or no indication that Denise systematically considered each of these equirements.

[DENISE MINGER FAILED IN HER ARTICLE TO ADDRESS THE FACTORS OF RANGE AND PRIOR HISTORY, THUS MAKING HER ENTIRE WORK AND CONCLUSION FLAWED.]

I should point out that when we were deciding to publish these data in the original monograph, we decided to do something highly unusual in science-to publish the uninterpreted raw correlations, hoping that future researchers would know how to use or not use them.

[DENISE MINGER DID NOT KNOW HOW TO USE THEM, AND HOW NOT TO USE THEM.]

We felt that this highly unusual decision was necessary because we were wary of those in the West who might have doubted the validity of data collected in China. We had several experiences to suspect this. But also, we believe that research should be as transparent as possible, simply for the sake of transparency, thus minimizing suspicion of any hidden agendas [TO EXPOSE LOBBYISTS, QUESTIONABLE DIET BOOK AUTHORS, BLOGGERS, ETC]

We knew that taking this approach was a risk because there could be those who, knowing little or nothing about experimentation of this type, [SUCH AS MINGER] might wish to use the data for their own questionable purposes.

Nonetheless, we decided to be generous and, in order advise future users of these data, we added our words of caution-written about 1988-as part of our 894-page monograph. I also have repeated this caution in other publications of mine.

It seems that Denise missed reading this material in the monograph.

[DENISE MINGER FAILED TO READ & UNDERSTAND HOW TO PROPERLY USE THE RAW DATA, DESPITE BEING WARNED AHEAD OF TIME.]

As I was writing this, I also saw this comment from a self-described professional epidemiologist, a PhD in cancer epidemiology on one of the blogs:

COMMENT: "A Cancer Epidemiologist refutes Denise Mingers China Study Claims due to incorrect data analysis - 30 Bananas a Day"

This is a comment that is relevant to the point that I am now addressing in this response. I do not know this person but did find her comment interesting. After reviewing Denise’s critique, the Cancer Epidemiologist PhD wrote the following for her (Denise Minger's) blog, only then to see it quickly and mysteriously disappear.

COMMENT BY PHD CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGIST: "Your analysis is completely OVER-SIMPLIFIED. Every good epidemiologist/statistician will tell

you that a correlation does NOT equal an association. By running a series of correlations, you've merely pointed out linear, non-directional, and unadjusted relationships between two factors."

"I suggest you pick up a basic biostatistics book, download a free copy of “R” (an open-source statistical software program), and learn how to analyze data properly. I’m a PhD cancer epidemiologist, and would be happy to help you do this properly. While Im pressed by your crude, and - at best - preliminary analyses, it is quite IRRESPONSIBLE of you (Denise Minger) to draw conclusions based on these results alone.

"At the very least, you need to model the data using regression analyses so that you can account for multiple factors at one time.”

[THIS PHD JUST EXPOSED THE FLAWED NUMBER-CRUNCHING AND FAULTY CONCLUSIONS REACHED BY DENISE MINGER IN HER CHINA STUDY POSTING - THEN DENISE MINGER DELETED IT SO NO ONE WOULD SEE.]

This blogger is making the same point that I am making but I am puzzled why was it deleted from Denise’s blog?

Lest it be forgotten, the main value of the China data set is its descriptive nature, thus providing a baseline against which other data sets can be broadly compared, either over time or over geographic space. I must emphasize: the correlations published in our monograph CANNOT be blindly used to infer causality-at least for specific cause-effect associations having no biological plausibility.

[THEY CANNOT BE USED TO INFER CAUSALITY, YET THIS IS WHAT MINGER TRIED TO DUPE THE PUBLIC WITH.]

Nonetheless, they do offer a rich trove of opportunities to generate interesting hypotheses, relatively few of which have been explored to date. In contrast, using models representing biological plausibility, which was determined from prior research, I simply wanted to see if they were consistent with the China survey data.

[EXAMPLE SHOWING THE FLAW]

For the sake of understanding the downside risk of using univariate correlations, I‘ll use this imaginary conversation involving a few correlations that Denise Minger thought were relevant to her personal allergy to wheat, although many other examples from Denise's treatise could serve the same purpose.

[NOTE: THOSE ADVANCING ANTI-GRAIN ANTI-WHEAT AGENDA OFTEN USE AN ALLERGY CALLED "CELIAC DISEASE" IN ORDER TO CONVINCE PEOPLE THAT WHEAT IS "DANGEROUS TO HUMANS". THIS IS NOT SO MUCH AN ALLERGY AS IT IS A DNA GENETIC DISORDER, IN OTHER WORDS YOU DONT "CATCH IT" FROM WHEAT, ITS DETERMINED IF YOU WERE BORN WITH IT USING A TISSUE SAMPLE DNA BIOPSY.

FIRST: NOT SURE OF THE STATS ON BEING STRUCK BY LIGHTNING, BUT CELIAC DISEASE, FAR FROM AFFECTING THE ENTIRE POPULATION OF HUMANS ONLY OCCURS AT A RATE OF LESS THAN 1%, 1 OUT OF 135 CASES, THIS MEANS 99% OF HUMANS HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH CELIAC DISEASE AND WHEAT. YET CELIAC IS OFTEN USED TO SCARE PEOPLE INTO THINKING EVERYTHING FROM ACHES TO HEADACHES ARE DUE TO THEIR SANDWICH.

SECOND: CELIAC DISEASE IS NOT ONLY ASSOCIATED WITH WHEAT. CELIAC DISEASE HAS BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH MENTAL INSTABILITY, PSYCHIATRIC BRAIN PROBLEMS, AND SCHIZOID DISORDERS. REMEMBER, YOU CANT CATCH IT FROM WHEAT, ITS NOT CAUSED BY WHEAT, ITS A GENETIC CONDITION. YOU'RE BORN WITH CELIAC. SO IF ANY PERSON IS COMPLAINING OF "WHEAT ALLERGIES", TO SUCH AN EXTENT THAT IT MAY BE CELIAC DISEASE, THAT PERSON MAY ALSO IN CERTAIN INSTANCES BE SUSCEPTIBLE TO MENTAL PROBLEMS. THIS CANNOT BE ASCERTAINED IN THE CASE OF MINGER OR ANYONE ELSE CARRYING ON ABOUT EXCESSIVE WHEAT PROBLEMS AND ALLERGIES, BUT DENISE MINGER MAY WISH TO CONSULT A SPECIALIST IN ORDER TO CHECK FOR ANY SCHIZOPHRENIA, OR OTHER MENTAL PROBLEMS BEFORE IT GETS WORSE. EVERYTHING IS PROBABLY FINE, BUT CELIAC AND COMPLAINING OF PROBLEMS WITH WHEAT ARE LINKED TO IT.]

[EXAMPLE OF MINGER FLAW]Denise infers a point concerning a significant (but unadjusted) univariate correlation between wheat flour consumption and two cardiovascular diseases plus a couple other diseases. In doing so, she [erroneously] infers that wheat flour causes these

cardiovascular diseases. She also states that “none of these correlations appear to be tangled with any risk-heightening variables, either.” And then she implies that I ignored this potentially important correlation, perhaps intentionally, because of my alleged "bias" against meat. I use this particular example here because others who very much dislike my views have inferred on the Internet that this example [erroneously] cited by Denise represents evidence of my "lack" of integrity. The conversation goes like this:

After Denise reminds "me" of these univariate correlations... “Denise, that correlation of wheat flour and heart disease is interesting but I am not aware of any prior and biologically plausible and convincing evidence to support an hypothesis that wheat "causes" these diseases, as you infer. “Did you, by any chance, look for evidence whether there might be other variables confounding the wheat flour correlation, variables that change in parallel with wheat flour consumption? I presume you did because you said that ‘none of these correlations appear to be tangled with any risk-heightening variables.’

[IN OTHER WORDS, MINGER CLAIMED SHE CHECKED FOR CONFOUNDING FACTORS, BUT SHE NEVER DID.]

“But just a minute, I found some, and they’re all highly statistically significant (p<0.01 to p<0.001).

[TURNS OUT ITS NOT SIMPLY WHEAT, THERE ARE INDEED OTHER STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT ITEMS FOUND!]

"Higher wheat flour consumption, for example, is correlated, as univariate correlations, with • lower green vegetable consumption.

Many of these people (with heart problems) live in northern, arid regions where they often consume meat based diets with little no consumption of vegetables.

[By the way, Tuoli county data, to which you refer as my “sin of omission” intentionally were excluded from virtually all our analyses on meat consumption because this county ranked very high when meat consumption was documented at survey time, but much lower when responding to the questionnaire on frequency of meat consumption. That is,

these nomadic people migrate for part of the year to valleys, where they consume more vegetables and fruits.]

[IN OTHER WORDS, THESE PEOPLE TOLD THE STAFF 1 THING ON THE QUESTIONNAIRE, AND TOLD THEM ANOTHER THING WHEN IT CAME TIME FOR THE ACTUAL DATA SURVEY, THUS CONFOUNDING THEIR RESULTS FROM THIS COUNTY AS ABNORMAL AND POTENTIALLY CONTAMINATED OR SIMPLY NON-REPRESENTATIVE OF PEOPLE IN GENERAL. THIS IS WHY IT WAS THROWN OUT.]

"Higher wheat flour consumption, for example, is correlated, as univariate correlations, with • Lower serum levels of Monounsaturated Fats. (monounsaturated fats [from other sources, not wheat]possibly increasing risk of heart disease.)

"Higher wheat flour consumption, for example, is correlated, as univariate correlations, with • Higher serum levels of Urea. (Urea is a biomarker of protein consumption) [Meaning it may not be the wheat, it might be the Meat!]

"Higher wheat flour consumption, for example, is correlated, as univariate correlations, with • greater body weight (higher risk of heart disease?)

[IN OTHER WORDS, DENISE MINGER FAILED TO MEDICALLY UNDERSTAND THAT SIMPLY EATING A SANDWICH, WITH WHEAT IN THE BUN AND MEAT IN THE MIDDLE, WOULD MEAN THAT EVERY TIME THEY ARE EATING MEAT THEY ARE ALSO GETTING WHEAT SIMPLY BY COINCIDENCE. SO THE WHEAT COULD BE HEALTHY, THE MEAT COULD BE CAUSING THE HEART DISEASE, AND SHE HAS ONLY PULLED UP A TABLE SHOWING THAT THEY ATE WHEAT, NOT LOOKED AT THE MEAT, AND SHE HAS POINTED A FINGER AT THE BUN SAYING AHA! SEE! EVERY TIME THEY EAT WHEAT THEY GET HEART DISEASE! - THIS IS FALSE. THIS IS WHAT MINGER DID. LACK OF EXPERIENCE? OR MINGER PALEO DIET AGENDA?]

"Interestingly, you might be interested to know that all of these variables are known from prior knowledge, i.e., biological plausibility, to associate with higher risk for heart disease.

[IN OTHER WORDS, DENISE MINGER HAS NEVER OPERATED ON ANYONE, NEVER SEEN THE EFFECTS OF HEART DISEASE, IS NOT CERTIFIED IN MEDICINE, DEFICIENT IN MEDICAL EXPERIENCE,AND AS A 23-YEAR OLD ENGLISH MAJOR WAS THUS IN-EQUIPPED TO UNDERSTAND THE CONFOUNDING FACTORS THAT ARE ALREADY KNOWN TO EXIST AND MUST BE CONTROLLED FOR.]

"Denise, this is quite an oversight that could suggest the opposite conclusion from the one that you intended to convey. Or was this bias reflecting your personal preference for eating raw meat and avoiding wheat flour? Any thoughts?

[DENISE MINGER, AS IT SO HAPPENS - IMAGINE THAT - HAPPENS TO BE THE ONE THAT WAS DISCOVERED TO HAVE THE BIAS. THIS INDIVIDUAL, MINGER, RUNS A BLOG ADVANCING THE PALEO DIET, AN AGENDA THAT INCORRECTLY TOUTS THAT STONE AGE MAN NEVER ATE GRAIN (FOUND TO BE FALSE), AND SUGGESTS EVERYONE EAT RAW ORGAN MEATS (FOUND TO BE POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS AND/OR CONTAMINATED). SHE IS ALSO ARRANGING TO SELL A DIET BOOK WHOSE SPONSER (IMAGINE THAT) IS ALSO A PALEOLITIC DIET AUTHOR (IDENTIFIED AS MARK SISSON) WHO IS ALSO IRONICALLY PUSHING SALES OF HIS DEBUNKED PRIMAL DIET BOOK. THESE ALL MAKE POORLY SUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS ABOUT EATING MEATS, PROCLAIMING NOT TO EAT GRAIN, AND USING THE SCARE TACTICS OF CELIAC DISEASE. WHAT A COINCIDENCE.]

"Why did you highlight this relationship as a key example of my “sin of omission”, being even more ‘troubling than the distorted facts in The China Study and the details that (I) leave out?’” Incidentally, aside from Denise’s claiming there were no confounding factors, I might have taken her seriously when she posed a possible effect of wheat flour on heart disease, because it may be possible to gather prior evidence that could be considered as supporting the opposite point of view.

[IN OTHER WORDS, THE SAME STATISTICS MINGER DID, COULD HAVE BEEN LOOKED AT IN CONJUNCTION WITH PRIOR DATA, AND SHOWN EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT SHE SAID.]

In fact, this would be a proper use of univariate correlations, simply searching for those correlations that might hint of supporting evidence for such an hypothesis. If sufficiently convincing, then we could design a more analytical type of study. This exercise is called

hypothesis generation, which is one of the virtues of the China data set.

[SO, MINGER HAD THE CHANCE TO DO IT RIGHT, BUT SHE DIDN'T. AND INSTEAD PUBLISHED FLAWED CONCLUSIONS.]

But Denise is doing something different, coming very close to almost randomly inferring causality without adjusting for confounding factors, without scanning the variables for analytical authenticity and without-to my knowledge-having prior evidence of biological plausibility for such an hypothesis.

[MINGER MADE BEGINNER-LEVEL UNDEREDUCATED MISTAKES, WILDLY GUESSING AT UNSUBSTANTIATED CONCLUSIONS, AND FAILING TO ADDRESS EVEN THE MOST ELEMENTARY CONFOUNDING VARIABLES IN HER MATH & NUMBER CRUNCHING.]

Then, she uses this example as evidence of a “sin of omission” and a “distorted fact” on my part. Using these rather inflammatory words infers serious personal indiscretion on my part.

[DENISE MINGER, WHO TURNS OUT TO BE THE ONE THAT PUBLISHED FLAWED MATERIAL POINTED FINGERS AND ACCUSED OTHERS OF ESSENTIALLY FRAUD. THIS IS TYPICAL OF HER WORK. BUT THIS ALSO CHANGES HER FROM SIMPLY A PERSON WHO MERELY BEGAN TRYING TO LEARN AND DISCOVER SOMETHING, TO SOMEONE WHO IS UNQUALIFIED IN THE FIELD ALL OF A SUDDEN MAKING INFLAMMATORY CHARGES AGAINST SOMETHING THEY TURNED OUT TO KNOW LITTLE ABOUT. PRECISELY THE SIGNS OF SOMEONE PROMOTING THEIR BLOG, OR PUSHING AN UNSUBSTANTIATED DIET BOOK AGENDA.]

There are different ways of using univariate correlations in a database like this. It is not that these correlations are useless and should be ignored. Rather, it is a question of using them intelligently. By this, I mean first adjusting these correlations for confounding factors (if and when possible) then examining the individual variables of the correlations for authenticity. Depending on the reliability of these correlations, they may be used to guide whether a hypothetical, cause-effect model, perhaps having preliminary evidence of biological plausibility, is on the right track. The most critical expertise needed for their use is knowing the underlying biology, which is so often missing among trained statisticians.

[IF DONE IN THE PROPER SCIENTIFIC & MATHEMATICAL WAY, IT CAN BE DONE.]

The six models to which I referred in our book are those evaluated in this manner. Yes, when possible, I also used univariate correlations (along with statistical significance) in support of these models but only after we had preliminary supportive data for the model (only brief summarized in the book). Here are a few representative publications of those supportive data for the six models that we explored in our book:

Breast cancer (Marshall JR, Qu Y, Chen J, Parpia B, Campbell TC. Additional ecologic evidence: lipids and breast cancer mortality among women age 55 and over in China. Europ. J. Cancer 1991;28A:1720-8 1727; Key TJA, Chen J, Wang DY, Pike MC, Boreham J. Sex hormones in women in rural China and in Britain. Brit. J. Cancer 1990;62:631-636.) Liver cancer (Campbell TC, Chen J, Liu C, Li J, Parpia B. Non-association of aflatoxin with primary liver cancer in a cross-sectional ecologic survey in the People's Republic of China. Cancer Res. 1990;50:6882-6893; .Youngman LD, Campbell TC. Inhibition of aflatoxin B1-induced gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase positive (GGT+) hepatic preneoplastic foci and tumors by low protein diets: evidence that altered GGT+ foci indicate neoplastic potential. Carcinogenesis 1992;13:1607-1613). Energy utilization (Horio F, Youngman LD, Bell RC, Campbell TC. Thermogenesis, low-protein diets, and decreased development of AFB1-induced preneoplastic foci in rat liver. Nutr. Cancer 1991;16:31-41:Campbell TC. Energy balance: interpretation of data from rural China. Toxicological Sciences 1999;52:87-94). Colon cancer (Campbell, T.C., Wang G., Chen J., Robertson, J., Chao, Z. and Parpia, B. Dietary fiber intake and colon cancer mortality in The People's Republic of China. In: Dietary Fiber, Chemistry Physiology and Health Effects, (Ed. Kritchevsky, D., Bonfield, C., Anderson, W.), Plenum Press, New York, 473-480, 1990). Affluent-Poverty Diseases (Campbell TC, Chen J, Brun T, et al. China: from diseases of poverty to diseases of affluence. Policy implications of the epidemiological transition. Ecol. Food Nutr. 1992;27:133-144).

Protein-growth rate:(Campbell TC, Chen J. Diet and chronic degenerative diseases: a summary of results from an ecologic study in rural China. In: Temple NJ, Burkitt DP, eds. Western diseases: their dietary prevention and reversibility. Totowa, NJ: Humana Press, 1994:67-118; Campbell TC, Junshi C. Diet and chronic degenerative diseases"perspectives from China. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1994;59:1153S-1161S).

[SEEING "IF"(SCIENTIFIC METHOD) IS DIFFERENT THAN "FORCING THINGS TO SHOW" (PSEUDO-SCIENCE).]

As I previously said, one of my interests in the China database was simply to see if there was evidence supporting the health benefits of a plant-based diet for these various models (and many more). The fact that we observed a slew of statistically significant results supporting this proposition, especially for a dietary experience having such low total fat and animal based foods, was quite remarkable. Did every correlation among our 100,000 show the expected? This was my comment, verbatim, already published in our book (that Denise did not acknowledge in her critique): “Do I think the China Study findings constitute absolute scientific proof? Of course not. Does it provide enough information to inform some practical decision-making? Absolutely. An impressive and informative web of information was emerging from this study. But does every potential strand (or association) in this mammoth study fit perfectly into this web of information? No. Although most statistically significant strands readily fit into the web, there were a few surprises. Most, but not all, have since been explained.”

[SUMMARY OF DENISE MINGER'S ACCUSATIONS:]

In summary, Denise’s critique lacks a sense of proportionality.

She gives (with considerable hyperbole, at times) the analyses of the China data more weight than they deserve by ignoring the remaining evidence discussed in the other 17 chapters in the book. The China research project was a cornerstone study, yes, but it was NOT the sole determinant of my views (as I have repeated, almost ad nauseum in my lectures).

[IN OTHER WORDS, MINGER, A 23 YEAR OLD ENGLISH MAJOR, PICKS OUT BARELY 1/18th OR 0.05 OF THE DATA AND MATERIAL. AND THEN WHILE HERS WAS THE WORK THAT WAS FLAWED, WENT ON TO MAKE WILD

ACCUSATIONS ABOUT OTHERS INCLUDING PHD'S, DOCTORS, AND CARDIAC SURGEONS WHO HAVE ACTUALLY OPERATED ON PEOPLE AND SEEN THE EFFECTS OF HEART DISEASE. ALL THE WHILE SHE WAS THE ONE MAKING FALLACIOUS CLAIMS.]

In doing so, and except for a few denigrating remarks on our experimental research, she also ignores the remaining findings that I presented in our book. She seems not to understand what our laboratory research was showing.

[DENISE MINGER TURNED OUT TO LACK UNDERSTANDING OF VIRTUALLY 95% OF THE CONTENT OF THE ENTIRE CHINA STUDY]

Using univariate correlations mostly without adjustment for confounding factors, qualification of variable authenticity, and/or biological plausibility can lead to haphazard evidence, subject to the whims of personal bias. Also, univariate correlations of this type can lead to too much emphasis on individual nutrients and foods as potential causes of events.

[MINGER POUNCED ON JUST THE THING THAT IS OFTEN USED TO PROMOTE PERSONAL BIAS.]

Also, as I already mentioned, she erroneously) questions our omission of the Tuoli County data as if this was some sort of sleight of hand on my part (I had ALREADY explained openly this omission in one of my papers AND on my preliminary blog).

She over-interprets the very limited ‘dairy’ data which only includes 3 counties (of 65) that use a very different product from what we consider to be dairy.

[MINGER DIDN'T KNOW THAT THE INFO SHE IS PUSHING ALL ABOUT DAIRY PRODUCTS IS NOT USING WHAT PEOPLE THINK OF AS DAIRY]

And she continues to characterize my views in reference to veganism and vegetarianism (I don’t even use these words) as if I were motivated by an ideology instead of by my consideration of empirical data and biological plausibility.

[OFTEN PEOPLE MIRROR ONTO OTHERS WHAT THEY DO THEMSELVES. FOR INSTANCE, SOMEONE WHO IS UNBIASED, TENDS TO THINK MOST OTHERS ARE ALSO. PEOPLE WHO KNOW THEY THEMSELVES ARE BIASED, TEND TO SPRAY THAT CHARACTERIZATION ONTO OTHERS AND THINK THAT MOST OTHER PEOPLE ARE LIKE THEMSELVES. IN THIS CASE, THE DATA PONT TO DENISE MINGER BEING THE ONE THAT IS BIASED, PROMOTING A PALEO RAW FOOD DIET CONTAINING OFFAL AND UNCOOKED ORGAN MEATS, AND THEN CASTING THIS ACCUSATION BELIEVING OTHERS ARE BIASED AS WELL.]

Not only does Denise misrepresent and misunderstand the rationale for the science in The China Study, her choice of words do not facilitate what she hopes to achieve. Her overall message, often embellished with adjectives and subjective remarks, appeals to some questionable characters sympathetic to or subservient to the Weston A Price Foundation, a farm lobbying group whose advocates and apologists have accused me of being a “fraud”, a “liar”, a “buffoon” and (earlier) an associate of a “terrorist” organization.

[WESTON A PRICE FOUNDATION (WAPF) IS A KNOWN FRONT GROUP WHICH USES PSEUDO-SCIENCE TO SPREAD FALSE NUTRITION MISINFORMATION ACROSS THE INTERNET. MEMBERS OF THE WAPF INCLUDE: SALLY FALLON MORELL & MARY G ENIG, AND KAA YLA T DANIEL, WHO SPREAD KNOWN FALLACIOUS SOY MYTH INFORMATION ACROSS THE INTERNET, ATTEMPTING TO LOBBY FOR PEOPLE TO INGEST MORE MEAT FROM MEAT-FARMERS BY INSINUATING THAT SOY CONTAIN ESTROGEN (IT DOES NOT, IT CONTAINS PHYTO-ESTROGEN WHICH IS NOT IDENTICAL), AND DR. JOSEPH MERCOLA, A WAPF HONORARY BOARD MEMBER. TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF MINGER'S REFERENCES SUCH AS WESTON A. PRICE, WAPF'S MERCOLA HAS BEEN CITED 3 TIMES BY FEDERAL AUTHORITIES IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FOR MAKING FALLACIOUS HEALTH AND MEDICAL CLAIMS. MERCOLA'S WEBSITE MERCOLA.COM HAS BEEN RATED AN "F" BY CONSUMERS WHO WERE DUPED INTO ORDERING CONCOCTIONS, ILLICIT HEALTH REMEDIES, AND PHONY DIET SUPPLEMENTS. THE BETTER BUSINES BUREAU HAS REVOKED WAPF'S MERCOLA'S BUSINESS ACCREDITATION. AND THIS IS WHAT DENISE MINGER IS USING TO SUPPORT A RAWFOOD PALEOLITHIC DIET AGENDA AND ACCUSE OTHERS OF BEING DISINGENUOUS. MINGER IS BASING HER "FACTS" ON A KNOWN WAPF FRAUD GROUP WHOSE MEMBERS HAVE BEEN CITED BY FEDERAL AUTHORITES.]

I doubt that this is what she wanted to achieve. These individuals, for much too long, have been carelessly using or even ignoring science to further their own interests, such as advocating for the use of a very high fat, high protein diet mostly consistent with the diet that has caused us so much difficulty.

[AS ANOTHER EXAMPLE, MINGER AND/OR HER MINIONS ARE USING NAME-CALLING AND BASHING USING INFLAMMATORY AND PROFANE REMARKS AGAINST ACTUAL CARDIAC SURGEONS WHO HAVE OPENED UP A HUMAN CHEST AND SEEN THE EFFECTS OF HEART DISEASE SAYING THEY DON"T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT, AND THEN BASING HER OPINIONS ON A BIASED LOBBYIST GROUP WAPF, OR PALEO DIET AUTHORS WHOSE MEMBERS ADVERTISE THEMSELVES AS "DR", AND THEN YOU FIND OUT THEY ARE MERELY A DENTIST, OR AN ACCOUNTANT THAT GOT A PHD DEGREE AND IS NOW USING THE TERM Dr. IN FRONT OF THEIR NAME, AND A GUY WHO USED TO WRITE MAGAZINE ARTICLES ON PHYSICS AND IS NOW PROFESSING TO KNOW ALL ABOUT THE EVOLUTION OF MAN'S DIET AND RECOMMENDING PEOPLE TO EAT HUGE AMOUNTS OF MEAT, AND FAT, AND LOWCARBS, AND TELLING PEOPLE THAT'S GOOD FOR THEIR HEART.]

[AS AN EXAMPLE OF THIS, WITNESS THE MAN NAMED "DR" STEPHEN BYRNES. STEPHEN BYRNES WAS THE OFFICIAL SPOKES-PERSON OF THE WESTON A. PRICE FOUNDATION, WAPF. BYRNES WENT AROUND PUSHING A BIASED AGENDA OF TOUTING MEAT AND DEBASING AND DERIDING VEGETARIANS, AUTHORING INTERNET ARTICLES AND DIATRIBES BASHING THOSE ON VEGAN OR VEGETARIAN DIETS AND HE CHEERED EATING LOADS OF MEAT AND TOLD PEOPLE DON'T WORRY ITS GREAT FOR YOUR HEART...STEPHEN BYRNES IS DEAD. HE DIED OF HEART DISEASE AND A STROKE. STEPHEN BYRNES, THE VERY SPOKES PERSON OF THE WESTON A. PRICE MEAT LOBBYIST GROUP DIED OF HEART DISEASE AT THE AGE OF 42.]

[AS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THIS, DR ROBERT ATKINS IS KNOWN AS ONE OF THE MOST RECENT INDIVIDUALS TO RESURRECT THE OLD IDEA OF MEAT-BASED LOW CARBOHYDRATE DIETS. ATKINS CHEERED EATING STEAK, MEAT, BACON, FAT, PORK, AND SAID THIS IS A GREAT WAY TO LOSE WEIGHT, AND SATURATED FAT & MEAT ARE GREAT FOR YOUR HEART. ATKINS IS DEAD. ATKINS FELL WHILE LEAVING HIS PORCH AND HIT HIS HEAD. HIS AUTOPSY REVEALED HEART DISEASE. HE HAD EVIDENCE OF A STROKE. ITS POSSIBLE HE HAD A STROKE, FELL AND HIT

HIS HEAD. ATKINS MEDICAL EXAMINER'S CERTIFICATE RECORDS ATKINS' WEIGHT AT A WHOPPING 258 POUNDS. AT ONLY 6ft TALL THIS CLASSIFIES HIM AS MORBIDLY OBESE. PRETTY ASTOUNDING FOR THE AUTHOR OF A "DIET" BOOK. IN ORDER NOT TO LOSE THE FORTUNES (INHERITANCE) OF HIS LOWCARB MEAT BASED DIET BOOK EMPIRE, ATKINS' WIFE MOVED TO COVER IT UP BY ACCUSING OTHERS OF IMPROPERLY REVEALING HIS RECORDS, AND INSISTED HE ONLY WEIGHED 195 POUNDS INSTEAD OF 258. SORRY FOR MRS. ATKINS, BUT 195 IS STILL CLASSIFIED AS OBESE. JUST NOT MORBIDLY. SO THE INDIVIDUAL WHO RECOMMENDED PEOPLE EAT LOADS OF BACON, LARD, PORK, AND FAT, AND YOU'D LOSE WEIGHT, AND IT WAS GREAT FOR YOUR HEART, DIED OBESE, POTENTIALLY FROM HIS HEART. THIS IS AMONG THE BASIS OF THOSE THAT DENISE MINGER IS BASING HER ARTICLES, BLOGS, AND INFORMATION ON.]

This name calling means nothing to me personally but it does indicate their desperation with our message. They would be well advised not to use such tactics because it reflects on them, not me.

Whether Denise intended this is not clear, but the results of her (flawed) critique is clearly apparent.

I must repeat for emphasis that no single study (or even a group of similar studies) is perfect in its design, in its data collection or in its interpretation of results. From the perspective of developing a research career, I see two possible paths that a researcher may follow. One option proceeds from experiment to experiment by probing ever deeper into the details of one of those experiments that they may happen upon where precision of measurement matters deeply and where the findings can become useful at some future time--indeed, they may “happen upon” an observation that becomes their life’s work very early in this process, maybe even at the outset.

A second option proceeds ‘outwardly’ to better understand the broader implications of a series of findings, or experiments. I did some of the first but eventually preferred the second, taking each finding not as something to refine into ‘perfection’ but to ask whether it was sufficiently compelling to suggest the next obvious experiment that eventually might lead to an important network of findings. Having done both, I strongly prefer the latter option because the whole, indicated by a network of findings, is often far more useful than its parts. I also believed that this second option had more potential to meet the interests of the public. I also am very much motivated by the fact that there are far too many individuals needlessly paying a heavy personal price in their health for not

having access to information of this kind that could have saved their lives, a moral issue for me. [UNLIKE MINGER] Under no circumstances was I controlled by what my personal preferences might have been. In the case of our project in China, I believe that its design, its uniqueness and its execution are virtually without parallel in its quality--thanks very much to my colleagues.

However, as trained people know, making specific inferences about causality is not appropriate in a study of this kind.

The concept of 'ecologic fallacy', wherein a univariate correlation is improperly used to diagnosed or to treat an individual person, is well known.

[DENISE MINGER HAVING ELEMENTARY COMPETENCE ON THE SUBJECT FALLS FOR THE ECOLOGIC FALLACY]

In contrast, if one initially has a reasonably convincing and biologically plausible body of data and if the data are appropriately qualified, then using a study like to this to see if there is consistency, is appropriate. This is appropriate in my opinion if the hypothesis being addressed represents a comprehensive causal effect where many factors are acting in concert and where there may be multiple ways of examining the data (e.g., multiple factors being consumed, multiple clinical biomarkers of factor tissue status, multiple methods of measurement and, perhaps, even multiple outcomes). This is what we did.

We began with a collection of previously developed cause-effect models (previously published) that we could test for consistency with the China data. We found on balance considerable support in the China database for these models. As I've said many times, not all the evidence in the China database supported this conclusion, although the large majority did. To find this degree of consistency in a population mostly using a low fat, high fiber, whole plant-based foods with little or no processed foods-where I had thought that we would see little or nothing-was impressive.

One cannot, as Denise has done, rely on univariate correlations to make conclusions, especially when they are focused on specific foods for specific diseases-it is too easy to find what one wants to find.

[DENISE MINGER DID JUST WHAT THOSE WHO UNDERSTAND NUMBERS AND SCIENCE KNOW SHOULDN'T BE DONE.]

I know that this discussion between Denise and me is difficult to judge by readers of this exchange without having access to the raw data base and without knowing how to use or interpret it. Accepting this, therefore, I suggest that, in the final analysis, the reliability of any conclusion about complex cause-effect issues should be judged by its ability to predict health outcomes.

[TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC, A LOOK UNDERNEATH THE HOOD OF A CAR MIGHT SEEM HARD TO FIGURE OUT, WITH THE INVOLVEMENT OF ALL THE HOSES AND PARTS. AND YOU MAY NOT UNDERSTAND FULLY WHEN YOU HEAR 2 MECHANICS TRYING TO SEE WHO'S GOT THE RIGHT INFO ABOUT THE ENGINE. BUT THE IDEA HERE IS THAT EVEN IF YOU DON'T KNOW ALL THE INTRICACIES, YOU CAN TELL WHEN FIRST OF ALL ONE OF THEM IS A PROFESSIONAL MECHANIC, AND THE OTHER ONE IS BAD MOUTHING THE JOURNEYMAN MECHANIC AND TELLING YOU HOW TO TINKER WITH YOUR IMPORTANT CAR ENGINE BECAUSE THEY 'RODE A BIKE ONCE' SO THEY KNOW HOW WHEELS WORK.]

In this case, the results of people using a diet of whole, plant-based foods, as shown by physician colleagues(previously mentioned, McDougall, Esselstyn, Ornish, Barnard, Fuhrman, et al) as well as by many of the readers of our book are nothing less than incredible. There is nothing else in medicine like it!

[IN OTHER WORDS, AFTER THE PLANT-BASED DIET WORK OF ESSELSTYN, ORNISH, BARNARD, MCDOUGALL, AND FURHMAN, THE CAR STARTS RIGHT UP! AND IT PURRS JUST LIKE A LAMBOURGHINI, FERRARI, OR BMW. WHEREAS ATKINS LOWCARB MEAT, PALEO DERIVATIVES, AND STEPHEN BYRNES HIGH SATURATED-FAT MEAT DIETS FROM THE WESTON A PRICE FOUNDATION ARE NOT SO FORTUNATE.SADLY HAVE ENDED UP IN THE JUNKYARD OF THE SKY.]

DENISE MINGER'S FAILURE TO ABSORB THE LARGER HUMAN STUDY:

C. Denise’s failure to note the broader implications of choosing the right dietary lifestyle. I suggest that those people who are so hostile to this message take another look at their reasoning. There is far more to this story than the interpretation of the scientific data alone.

There are major issues of health care and health care costs, there are serious environmental issues that have not been adequately communicated to the public, and there are political, social and ethical issues that must be considered. Of most importance, there are people who deserve to hear this message-namely, the taxpayers. For me to do anything less than to report on these findings is both immoral and unethical. In the current discussions about this issue, I would urge that it is vitally important that all of us keep these ideas in mind, while being very careful not to promote ideas simply for the sake of defending one’s own personal preferences. I strongly believe that discussion of these issues focus outwardly for the sake of all of us, not just inwardly for the satisfaction of personal ego. [MINGERS-IT'S ABOUT OTHERS, ETHICS, THE WORLD, NOT A SPREADSHEET, NOT A DIET BOOK, OR ALL ABOUT YOU.]

My greatest mistake throughout this process may have been our acquiescence to our publisher’s choice for our book’s title. We suggested 200 possible titles, not one of which was ‘The China Study’. But when we objected, he said that we already had signed the contract and this was his right and responsibility. We felt locked in, especially because we had already explored publication with about 10 other publishers, some of whom had offered advances (one very large), if we did it their way. Because we had refused to accept their suggestions (including at least half the book as recipes, going easy on the references and ‘dumbing down’ the language), it seemed clear that we had no other choice than to go along with our new publisher who accepted our way of telling this story. Obviously, the title of our book has been misleading for some because of the inappropriate weight suggested by the China project itself. When these rather novel data are considered both in reference to biologically plausible, multi-factor models of causation and in reference to the large body of other kinds of studies discussed in the book, the China project database becomes very important. But relying on the results of this study in isolation, especially when unadjusted univariate correlations are used, is not appropriate. I should conclude by noting the suggestion of the professional epidemiologist, cited

above, who suggested that ultimately Denise may wish to publish her findings in a peer-reviewed journal but who presently felt strongly that the current version would not be accepted. I concur.

[MINGER'S WORK BELONGS ON A BLOG POPULATED BY "TRUE-BELIEVERS" AND WOULD NOT PASS THE SNIFF-TEST IN PEER-REVIEW].

-

[CONCLUSION REGARDING DENISE MINGER'S BLOG ARTICLES:

THE WORK BY DENISE MINGER AND THEN BLOGGED AS ARTICLES PURPORTING TO DISCREDIT ITEMS SUCH AS THE CHINA STUDY HAS NOW BEEN REVEALED AS HORRIBLY FLAWED. IT CONTAINS STATISTICAL ERRORS, FALSE CAUSAL INSINUATIONS, FULL OF BEGINNER'S MISTAKES, AND IS BIASED WITH SKEW.

AND NOW THAT THESE FALLACIOUS CONCLUSIONS AND STIPULATIONS BY DENISE MINGER HAVE BEEN EXPOSED, IT HAS TURNED OUT TO SHOW THE OPPOSITE. DENISE MINGER, WHO CONDONED NAME-CALLING, CAST ASPERSIONS AND POSTED HYPERBOLIC PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC RHETORIC ACCUSING OTHERS TURNS OUT TO BE THE ONE THAT WAS EXPOSED AS UNSCIENTIFIC AND FALLACIOUS.

THE MATERIAL BY DENISE MINGER IS NOW REGARDED AS WHOLLY DISCREDITED AND HER MATERIAL CAN HEREBY BE DISCARDED.]