In regards to eating meat

[Patrick]

The China Study is purely epidemiological. The connection or correlations it shows cannot prove anything.

I think you've missed my point, which is that it proves there's a correlation, and that's enough.

Are you familiar with a Raw Vegan critique of The China Study ?

I just read it, and was stunned, but not in the way you may have thought I would be. I was stunned that this blog by a 24-year-old, self-taught woman would be offered as a legitimate critique of the China Study.

I approach the field of nutrition like learning a new language: total immersion-style. You didn’t learn your native tongue by sitting in a classroom following grammar lessons; you learned it by jumping into an initially confusing world and feeling your way around until it all started making sense. Every day, I make a conscious effort to surround myself with learning opportunities. I read everything I can get my hands on—from statistics textbooks to scientific papers. I find curricula posted on university websites, copy the lesson plans that look relevant, and acquire the reading material from the library instead of paying thousands of dollars for classroom instruction. If I can’t grasp something on my own, I email or call smart people and ask them to help me.

That's all very nice but the bottom line is, that she isn't even remotely qualified to analyze the data.

It's a must read for anyone wanting to argue or event support The China Study.

Well if we're going to hold up such a standard - that anyone who ever recommends any book or other resource must have read not only the book, but all critiques of the book, then none of us could ever recommend anything.

I can see that we do not have the same perception of what science is. So if I want to continue discussing scientific matters I will have to first clear up what science is to me.

I subscribe to Karl Popper's definition of the scientific method. Which incidentally is also the most widely accepted definition by scientists.

- Science does not prove anything ever.

- The scientific method can only disprove an hypothesis, but never prove it.

- As long as an hypothesis is not disproved, it remains a valid explanation of observed phenomena.

- It is understood that ALL theories (which are simply sets of valid hypotheses) will always eventually be disproved. That is to say invalidated.

- Anyone making use of the scientific method is a scientist.

In this context and from what you have said, I believe that a metaphysical and/or philosophical discussion would probably be more useful regarding meat eating.

The poison is in the dose my friend. Water can be a poison to your metabolism if the dose is too high.

Yes, and most people in our society overdose on junk foods, no question about it. That was taken into consideration in the China Study. Other factors were eliminated. This is the whole point of the study.

Yeah I tried raw food vegan.

Since I'm presently embarking on a raw vegan diet myself, I'm interested in what you experienced, if you care to share. What type of raw vegan diet did you do? Was it 'mostly' raw vegan, or 100%? If not 100%, what else was included? And for how long? I'm just curious because, as I said, I'm really investigating it so I'm interested in people's experiences, so I can avoid any pitfalls they may have encountered.

I ate raw vegetables and beans exclusively for a few weeks. Including salads with olive oil and other "good" fats. I experienced clearer thinking and more energy. But I was unbelievably hungry the whole time. No matter how much of it I ate.

That is actually what gave me a nudge toward my awakening. Because I thought that what was happening to me was very improbable, if not impossible, from a scientific point of view.

You wouldn't believe everything I tried.

Heh, yeah I would because I'm one of those people too, who has tried nearly everything! Every diet, every supplement, every therapy...over the years. I have quite a collection! So I can relate.

I feel understood.