The China Study: Nutritional effects are the same for all cancers

[Villages PL]

There's no link for this information. Anyone who's interested can find it in chapter 8 of the following book: "The China Study" by T. Colin Campbell, Ph.D.

In chapter 8 he talks specifically about 3 forms of cancer (breast, prostate, and large bowel) but he makes it clear from the beginning that the effects of nutrition are the same for all forms of cancer.

I believe it was misstated in the last thread that only certain cancers are related to diet.

And this fits in with what Dr. Longo said (see previous thread for the link) that those with the highest protein intake have the highest risk of cancer and mortality.

[CFrance]

I thought what was stated in a previous thread was that genetics trump nutrition where cancer is concerned. The China Study book is over ten years old.

[Barefoot]

I thought what was stated in a previous thread was that genetics trump nutrition where cancer is concerned. The China Study book is over ten years old.

VPL, have you read Denise Minger's comments about The China Study?

From an article:
"The China Study involved 367 variables and 8000 correlations. I said I would leave it to others to comment on the study design and the statistical analysis, and now someone has done just that (http://rawfoodsos.com/the-china-study/). Denise Minger devoted a month and a half to examining the raw data to see how closely Campbell’s claims aligned with the data he drew from; she found many weaknesses and errors."

[graciegirl]

I view this as more user friendly than the extreme diet espoused by the China Study.

Food Pyramids and Plates: What Should You Really Eat? | The Nutrition Source | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/pyramid-full-story/)

[hulahips]

Good book but old. Read it yrs ago

[dbussone]

Good book but old. Read it yes ago


And statistically inaccurate.

One of many articles: http://drlwilson.com/Articles/CHINA%20STUDY%20BOOK%20REVIEW.htm

[dbussone]

Here's another:

http://anthonycolpo.com/the-china-study-more-vegan-nonsense/

"More Vegan Nonsense".

[dbussone]

And here's another:
http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/China-Study.html

Who would like more?

[lanemb]

First let me preface this by saying I am a heart patient who at 49 had a heart attack 12 years ago. I am only slightly over weight and had cholesterol levels just below 200.

There is a lot of good information in the book on nutrition and it is fact based. It is also one of the largest studies ever done. Reading it definitely changed my diet habits and provided measurable results. That said it doesn't work for everyone.

The single biggest change I made was eliminating red meat since white meat has 1/3 the fat of red. I also almost never eat processed sandwich meat of any kind. This alone dropped my cholesterol by 75 points. I had tried exercise and other diets and nothing else helped. I have continued this regiment for about 5 years with the cholesterol levels remaining low.

My doctor believes what I am doing has worked for me. I give this book to the heart patients in my life. My own son did not heed the advice and two weeks ago at 43 with a family history, bad diet and being a smoker had a heart attack at 43. Fortunately for him he was staying with me and my wife and I recognized the symptoms early and called 911. Maybe now he will focus on what I have learned worked for me.

I am always open to hear what has really worked for other heart patients. My brother-in-law is a retired doctor and has also made some of the changes based on the book. My doctor says I am lucky. Many of his patients did not find out how to improve their health and cholesterol levels as I did and they are no longer with us.

If you haven't walked in these shoes you are probably not as impacted by reading the book.

[dbussone]

First let me preface this by saying I am a heart patient who at 49 had a heart attack 12 years ago. I am only slightly over weight and had cholesterol levels just below 200.

There is a lot of good information in the book on nutrition and it is fact based. It is also one of the largest studies ever done. Reading it definitely changed my diet habits and provided measurable results. That said it doesn't work for everyone.

The single biggest change I made was eliminating red meat since white meat has 1/3 the fat of red. I also almost never eat processed sandwich meat of any kind. This alone dropped my cholesterol by 75 points. I had tried exercise and other diets and nothing else helped. I have continued this regiment for about 5 years with the cholesterol levels remaining low.

My doctor believes what I am doing has worked for me. I give this book to the heart patients in my life. My own son did not heed the advice and two weeks ago at 43 with a family history, bad diet and being a smoker had a heart attack at 43. Fortunately for him he was staying with me and my wife and I recognized the symptoms early and called 911. Maybe now he will focus on what I have learned worked for me.

I am always open to hear what has really worked for other heart patients. My brother-in-law is a retired doctor and has also made some of the changes based on the book. My doctor says I am lucky. Many of his patients did not find out how to improve their health and cholesterol levels as I did and they are no longer with us.

If you haven't walked in these shoes you are probably not as impacted by reading the book.


I have not read the book. I tend to read the scientific studies themselves rather than the articles about them.

As I have said many times, I believe in moderation in all things dietary. If you study the meta-data, they support a moderate physiological approach.

[jimbo2012]

VPL, have you read Denise Minger's comments about The China Study?

Have you read Dr Campbell's response?

One thing we were struck by early on was the fact that Minger apparently removes comments on her blog from scientific researchers who point out the flaws in her reasoning and in her understanding of accepted research methods. In his report below Dr. Campbell notes an example of one researcher whose critical post was removed.

A cancer epidemiologist who says she posted criticism of Minger's methods last week on Minger's blog complained in a posting on VegSource that her critical post first appeared and then was removed from the Comments area of Minger's blog. In fact, Minger herself posted on VegSource in response to this epidemeologist's complaint, and did not deny that the epidemeologist's critical comments had been yanked. After complaining on VegSource about the post disappearing, the epidemiologist's post apparently reappeared on Minger's blog. (Minger subsquently said something about a "spam filter" being at fault.)
As the exchange showed, it was clear to the epidemologist that Minger was out of her depth, and she offered to give Minger some some assistance and teach Minger some proper methods of analysis. In response Minger expressed excitement at hoping to attract professional researchers to help examine Dr. Campbell's data in the future, and see if they can aid Minger in proving Dr. Campbell is wrong in some way. Minger wrote that if she could enlist actual researchers who could help her poke holes in China Study data, "this could be a really great opportunity to grab the attention of the medical community."
About the only community interested in the kind of thing Minger is attempting would be the pro-beef Weston Price Foundation and the meat industry. Minger may find helpers coming forward from those ranks and offering their assistance; many have already tried unsuccessfully for years to attack and undercut the message of Dr. Campbell's life work. On their own website, the Weston Price people express how thrilled they are that Minger has joined in their attempts to discredit Dr. Campbell's work. (In fact, Minger is a fan of the Weston Price Foundation and recommends their work to others. You can read an expose about the Price Foundation at the end of Dr. Campbell's article -- which includes the revelation that Price himself, the founder, actually recommended a vegetarian diet to his family as the most healthy.)
Of course, Minger expresses no interest in publicizing any of her work when it shows Campbell is correct.
We see this often; someone trying to build some credibility on their own by taking aim at the biggest target they can find in hope that they can punch a hole, thus showing themselves to be smart enough to take down the big guy. Unqualified to actually do any kind of study of her own, Minger hopes to find flaws in the peer-reviewed work of researchers from Oxford University, Cornell University, and the Chinese Academy of Preventive Medicine.
Except she's not up to the task of taking on professional researchers who have to work to the most rigorous standards in academia. These are slightly higher than standards for kids blogging on the web.

A critic's post pointing out some of Minger's errors disappears from her blog, and reappears when the critic starts complaining about it elsewhere on the web. Minger then publicly admits that she could use help understanding Dr. Campbell's research, because she doesn't have professional expertise to analyze and interpret the data she's pontificating about.
23-year-old Minger lists her educational and professional qualifications on her Facebook page as writer, Catholic school teacher, summer camp instructor, and "Professional Sock Puppeteer."
So we were mildly surprised that Dr. Campbell felt he needed to take the time to dignify Minger's musings with a response. Still, this is the internet, and I guess sometimes it doesn't hurt to respond, even if the attacks constitute no more than a mosquito bite.
So just in case there are individuals who might feel there was merit to any of Minger's scientific-sounding speculation, here is Dr. Campbell's response:

[jimbo2012]

It is both interesting and gratifying that there has been such a huge response, both on her blog and on those of others. This is a welcome development because it gives this topic an airing that has long been hidden in the halls and annals of science. It is time that this discussion begin to reach a much larger audience, including both supporters and skeptics.
I hope at some point to be able to read all of the discussions and the questions that have been raised, but present deadlines and long-standing commitments have forced me, for now, to focus on the most common concerns and questions, in order to respond in a timely manner here.
the-china-study2.jpgKudos to Ms. Minger for having the interest, and taking the time, to do considerable analysis, and for describing her findings in readily accessible language. And kudos to her for being clear and admitting, right up front, that she is neither a statistician nor an epidemiologist, but an English major with a love for writing and an interest in nutrition. We need more people with this kind of interest.
I am the first to admit that background and academic credentials are certainly not everything, and many interesting discoveries and contributions have been made by "outsiders" or newcomers in various fields. On the other hand, background, time in the field, and especially peer review, all do give one a kind of perspective and insight that is, in my experience, not attainable in any other way. I will try to make clear in my comments below when this is particularly relevant.
My response can be divided into three parts, mostly addressing her argument's lack of proportionality--what's important and what's not.

Misunderstanding our book's objectives and my research findings
Excessive reliance on the use of unadjusted correlations in the China database
Failure to note the broader implications of choosing the right dietary lifestyle
Before proceeding further, however, I would like to make a general comment about my approach in responding to Denise. I believe Denise is a very intelligent person, and I can see how she might reach the conclusions she did; this is easy to do for someone without extensive scientific research experience. Having said this, there are fundamental flaws in her reasoning, and it is these flaws that I will address in this paper. Some might wonder, "Why didn't he go through her laundry list of claims and address each one in the same order?" The answer is simple: these claims are derived from the same faulty reasoning, so it is this underlying problem that I will address. I do in fact illustrate this point by addressing one of her claims regarding wheat, and the reader can assume that one could go through a similar exercise with all her claims.

A. Not understanding the book's objectives.
The findings described in the book are not solely based on the China survey data, even if this survey was the most comprehensive (not the largest) human study of its kind. As explained in the book, I draw my conclusions from several kinds of findings and it is the consistency among these various findings that matter most.
First and foremost, our extensive work on the biochemical fundamentals of the casein effect on experimental cancer in laboratory animals (only partly described in our book) was prominent because these findings led to my suggestion of fundamental principles and concepts that apply to the broader effects of nutrition on cancer development. These principles were so compelling that they should apply to different species, many nutrients, many cancers and an almost unlimited list of health and disease responses (e.g., nutritional control of gene expression, multi-mechanistic causation, reversal of cancer promotion but not reversal of initiation, rapidity of nutritional response, etc.). These principles also collectively and substantially inferred major health benefits of whole plant-based foods.
This earlier laboratory work, extensively published in the very best peer-reviewed journals, preceded the survey in China. These findings established the essence of what can be called biological plausibility, one of the most important pillars establishing the reliability of epidemiological research. [Biological plausibility represents established evidence showing how a cause-effect relationship works at the biological level, one of the principles of epidemiology research established by the epidemiology pioneer, Sir Bradford Hill.]
Unfortunately, this issue of biological plausibility too often escapes the attention of statisticians and epidemiologists, who are more familiar with 'number crunching' than with biological phenomena. The first 15-20 years of our work was not, as some have speculated, an investigation specifically focused on the carcinogenic effects of casein. It was primarily a series of studies intended to understand the basic biology of cancer and the role of nutrition in this disease. The protein effect, of course, was remarkable, and for this reason, it was a very useful tool to give us a novel insight into the workings of the cancer process. [Nonetheless, the casein effect, which was studied in great depth and, if judged by the formal criteria for experimentally determining which chemicals classify as carcinogens, places casein in the category of being the most relevant carcinogen ever identified.]
Second, this survey in rural China, based on a very unique population and experimental format (from several perspectives), resulted in the collection of an exceptionally comprehensive database that, to a considerable extent, permitted the testing of hypotheses and principles learned in the laboratory, both mine and others. By 'testing', I mean questioning whether any evidence existed in the China database to support a protective effect characterized by the nutritional composition of a plant-based diet. I was not sure what might be found but nonetheless became impressed with what was eventually shown.
The China project data afforded an opportunity to consider the collective interplay and effects of many potentially causative factors with many disease outcomes--the very definition of nutrition (my definition of nutrition is not about the isolated effects of individuals nutrients, or even foods for that matter). The China project encouraged us not to rely on independent statistical correlations with little or no consideration of biological plausibility. In the book, I drew my conclusions from six prior models of investigation to illustrate this approach: breast cancer, liver cancer, colon cancer (minimally), energy utilization/body weight control, affluent disease-poverty disease and protein vs. body growth rates. Using this strategy, I first inquired whether a collection of variables in the China survey (ranging from univariate correlations to more sophisticated analyses) could consistently and internally support each of these biologically plausible models and, second, I determined whether the findings for each of these models were consistent with the overarching hypothesis that a whole food, plant-based diet promotes health--I could not discuss much of this rationale in a page-limited book intended for the public.
Most importantly, I cannot emphasize enough that the findings from the China project, standing alone, do not solely determine my final views expressed in the book. That's why only one chapter of 18 was devoted to the China survey project, which is only one link in a chain of experimental approaches. I was simply asking the question whether there were biologically plausible data in the China database to support the findings gained in our laboratory, among others. Because of the uniqueness of the China database, I believed that 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 limiting our ability to detect an hypothesized plant-based food effect--thus making our final observations that much more impressive.
Third, in the book, we summarized findings from other research groups for a variety of diseases to determine the consistency of our model with their findings, according to my principles and concepts. One of the most compelling parts of this exercise was the fact that so many of their findings, although published in good peer-reviewed journals, had been and were continuing to be ignored and/or distorted, a very disturbing and puzzling phenomenon. This posed for me the question, why? My participation in extensive reviews of the work of others during my 20-year stint working on or as a member of expert committees gave me a particularly rich opportunity to consider these previously published studies. There still is, and for a long time has been, an intentional effort at various levels of science hierarchy to denigrate studies that speak to the more fundamental biology of plant-based diets. The fact that there has been resistance, oftentimes hostile and personal in the lay community, speaks volumes to me.
Fourth, and most importantly, there is the enormously impressive findings of my physician colleagues, which came to my attention near the end of the China project data collection period and which were showing remarkable health benefits of plant-based nutrition, involving not only disease prevention but also disease treatment (alphabetically: Diehl, Esselstyn, Goldhamer, Klaper, McDougall, Ornish, Shintani-and many others since the book's publication: T. Barnard, N. Barnard, Corso, Fuhrman, Lederman, Montgomery, Popper, Pulde, Schulz, Shewman). 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 mostly ignores these fundamental but highly consistent parts of my story. In that vein, I strongly believe that the findings of no single study in biology or even a group of similar studies should be taken too seriously until context is established. 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.

[jimbo2012]

B. The use of 'raw' univariate correlations.

In a study like this survey in China (ecologic, cross-sectional), univariate correlations represent one-to-one 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. 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 requirements.
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. 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 hidden agendas. We knew that taking this approach was a risk because there could be those who, knowing little or nothing about experimentation of this type, 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.
As I was writing this, I discovered this comment from a self-described professional epidemiologist (PhD, cancer epidemiology) on one of the blogs (A Cancer Epidemiologist refutes Denise Mingers China Study Claims due to incorrect data analysis - 30 Bananas a Day!)--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, she wrote the following for her (Denise's) blog, only then to see it quickly and mysteriously disappear.
"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 I'm impressed by your crude, and - at best - preliminary analyses, it is quite irresponsible of you 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 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. 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.

For the sake of understanding the downside risk of using univariate correlations, I'll use this imaginary conversation involving a few correlations that Denise thought were relevant to her personal allergy to wheat, although many other examples from Denise's treatise could serve the same purpose.
Denise makes a point concerning a highly significant (but unadjusted) univariate correlation between wheat flour consumption and two cardiovascular diseases plus a couple other diseases. In doing so, she infers that wheat flour causes these cardiovascular diseases. She also makes the point that "none of these correlations appear to be tangled with any risk-heightening variables, either." And further, 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 pointed out on the Internet that this example 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.'
"But just a minute, I found some, and they're all highly statistically significant (p<0.01 to p<0.001)."
"Higher wheat flour consumption, for example, is correlated, as univariate correlations, with
lower green vegetable consumption (many of these people live in northern, arid regions where they often consume meat based diets with little no consumption of vegetables).
lower serum levels of monounsaturated fats (possibly increasing risk of heart disease?)
higher serum levels of urea (a biomarker of protein consumption)
greater body weight (higher risk of heart disease?)"
"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."
"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?"
"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 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. 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.
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. Does she really mean this?
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.
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:

[B]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:1720-1727; 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).

[jimbo2012]

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."
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 doing so, and except for a few denigrating remarks on our experimental animal research, she also ignores the remaining findings that I presented in our book. She seems not to understand what our laboratory research was showing. 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.
Also, as I already mentioned, she questions our omission of the Tuoli County data as if this was some sort of sleight of hand on my part (in addition to my comments above, I already explained this omission in one of my papers and on my preliminary blog). She over-interprets our very limited 'dairy' data which only includes 3 counties (of 65) that use a very different product from what we consider to be 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.
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. 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.

Just the facts

[lanemb]

Overall my approach is moderate. It is easier for me to eliminate red meat than to try and eat it in moderation. To this day I am amazed at the dramatic reduction it gave me. A coworker and his wife tried it and had good results but not as good as I had. I don't think there is one fix that fits all.

[TheVillageChicken]

Anybody actually reading jimbo's posts about Campbell's agenda driven "research"?

[Cisco Kid]

Anybody actually reading jimbo's posts about Campbell's agenda driven "research"?

I had my I-Pad read it to me as I worked.
I love that option.
I wish it had a better voice.

[Villager Joyce]

Anybody actually reading jimbo's posts about Campbell's agenda driven "research"?

I'm sorrry, jimbo. I did try. Unfortunately my Attention Defficit kicked in. :1rotfl:

[KayakerNC]

Anybody actually reading jimbo's posts about Campbell's agenda driven "research"?

I enjoyed the conspiracy of "Big Meat" & "Big Pharma". :popcorn:

[CFrance]

It's one of those posts, like the emails of two of my relatives, that if you want to be able to read it more easily, open a word document, copy and paste the post, enlarge the font, break up a couple of the paragraphs, and double-space between them.

(Following along with my finger smudges the laptop screen.)

[dbussone]

Did I miss something? I thought someone was posting a Christmas letter - you know, the kind you hate to get. ::jester::

[CFrance]

Did I miss something? I thought someone was posting a Christmas letter - you know, the kind you hate to get. ::jester::
... how my kids are so much better than yours.:evil6:

[Barefoot]

Anybody actually reading jimbo's posts about Campbell's agenda driven "research"?

I apologize. I think it was a question I asked VPL that triggered Jimbo's posts.
Yikes, that's a lot of info, too much for me to process at one sitting, I've never seen such lengthy posts.
I need a break from talk about The China Study.
Has anyone noticed the lovebugs are early this year?

[CFrance]

I apologize. I think it was a question I asked VPL that triggered Jimbo's posts.
Yikes, that's a lot of info, too much for me to process at one sitting, I've never seen such lengthy posts.
I need a break from talk about The China Study.
Has anyone noticed the lovebugs are early this year?
Yes. There were two drowned in the dog pool at DDRR today. You missed them because a certain dog was on top of them.

[graciegirl]

I have done my own China Study. I may have brought too much. A 16 place set of Christmas China, Ten place set of "nice" china and ten places of everyday as well as the purple stoneware. I love to set a pretty table.

AND lots of tablecloths and napkins too...and chargers.

[blueash]

Raw food and paleo dieters 'at risk of a dangerous obsession with nutrition' | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3033325/Why-healthy-eating-new-eating-disorder-Raw-food-paleo-dieters-risk-dangerous-obsession-nutrition.html)

Take your online test to see if you have orthorexia nervosa here:

Orthorexia nervosa - when healthy eating is no longer healthy (EUFIC) (http://www.eufic.org/article/en/artid/orthorexia-nervosa/)
•Do you spend more than 3 hours a day thinking about your diet?
•Do you plan your meals several days ahead?
•Is the nutritional value of your meal more important than the pleasure of eating it?
•Has the quality of your life decreased as the quality of your diet has increased?
•Have you become stricter with yourself lately?
•Does your self-esteem get a boost from eating healthily?
•Have you given up foods you used to enjoy in order to eat the ‘right’ foods
•Does your diet make it difficult for you to eat out, distancing you from family and friends?
•Do you feel guilty when you stray from your diet?
•Do you feel at peace with yourself and in total control when you eat healthily?

Yes to 4 or 5 of the above questions means it is time to relax more about food.
Yes to all of them means a full-blown obsession with eating
healthy food.

[Barefoot]

I have done my own China Study. I may have brought too much. A 16 place set of Christmas China, Ten place set of "nice" china and ten places of everyday as well as the purple stoneware. I love to set a pretty table. AND lots of tablecloths and napkins too...and chargers.

:mademyday:

[pbkmaine]

:mademyday:


Me too!

[shcisamax]

I, personally, am convinced our food supply is the reason for the increase in health problems ranging from heart disease to allergies and more. We simply didn't tinker with food 100 years ago. The land was natural where produce was grown and cattle ate and it wasn't controlled by large corporations looking for ways to swell profit and lower costs. Whether it is meat with added hormones, antibiotics etc. to gmo issues with built in pesticides, to preservatives and colors, to imitation "stuff" or sodium packed, our bodies are being pushed to metabolize non food substances.

[graciegirl]

I, personally, am convinced our food supply is the reason for the increase in health problems ranging from heart disease to allergies and more. We simply didn't tinker with food 100 years ago. The land was natural where produce was grown and cattle ate and it wasn't controlled by large corporations looking for ways to swell profit and lower costs. Whether it is meat with added hormones, antibiotics etc. to gmo issues with built in pesticides, to preservatives and colors, to imitation "stuff" or sodium packed, our bodies are being pushed to metabolize non food substances.

I respectfully disagree. Genetic changes cannot be passed from species to species. If the caveman ate lettuce of some sort, the lettuce has probably changed drastically genetically over the years. If you eat a chicken who has inherited an autosomal dominant genetic trait you can't be affected by it or harmed from it. People are quick to not understand how genetics work and what gene therapy and gene manipulation can and cannot do.

I strongly support stem cell research and did so when they used aborted fetuses which Thankfully is no longer necessary. Genetic research is the way to solve some of the most horrendous diseases that affect mankind.

Smoking is much more an issue to worry about than Monsanto. Noxious by products from people and industry and cars. That to me is another unsolvable problem. We will eventually kill our planet but hopefully by that time, the human race will have been able to find another to move to and effect the move. Greenies can worry and fuss and do small things, but they are not going to get much done. We aren't going to negate or reverse the industrial revolution.

There is always hope and our decent human brains. Some one of us, long after we are gone will figure it out.

Sermon for the day. My views only. As I get older I am overwhelmed by ignorance; mine and the worlds, so many more questions than easy answers.

[graciegirl]

Raw food and paleo dieters 'at risk of a dangerous obsession with nutrition' | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3033325/Why-healthy-eating-new-eating-disorder-Raw-food-paleo-dieters-risk-dangerous-obsession-nutrition.html)

Take your online test to see if you have orthorexia nervosa here:

Orthorexia nervosa - when healthy eating is no longer healthy (EUFIC) (http://www.eufic.org/article/en/artid/orthorexia-nervosa/)
•Do you spend more than 3 hours a day thinking about your diet?
•Do you plan your meals several days ahead?
•Is the nutritional value of your meal more important than the pleasure of eating it?
•Has the quality of your life decreased as the quality of your diet has increased?
•Have you become stricter with yourself lately?
•Does your self-esteem get a boost from eating healthily?
•Have you given up foods you used to enjoy in order to eat the ‘right’ foods
•Does your diet make it difficult for you to eat out, distancing you from family and friends?
•Do you feel guilty when you stray from your diet?
•Do you feel at peace with yourself and in total control when you eat healthily?

Yes to 4 or 5 of the above questions means it is time to relax more about food.
Yes to all of them means a full-blown obsession with eating
healthy food.


This is such an important piece of information, but obsessed people cannot and will not recognize their obsession.

[dbussone]

Raw food and paleo dieters 'at risk of a dangerous obsession with nutrition' | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3033325/Why-healthy-eating-new-eating-disorder-Raw-food-paleo-dieters-risk-dangerous-obsession-nutrition.html)

Take your online test to see if you have orthorexia nervosa here:

Orthorexia nervosa - when healthy eating is no longer healthy (EUFIC) (http://www.eufic.org/article/en/artid/orthorexia-nervosa/)
•Do you spend more than 3 hours a day thinking about your diet?
•Do you plan your meals several days ahead?
•Is the nutritional value of your meal more important than the pleasure of eating it?
•Has the quality of your life decreased as the quality of your diet has increased?
•Have you become stricter with yourself lately?
•Does your self-esteem get a boost from eating healthily?
•Have you given up foods you used to enjoy in order to eat the ‘right’ foods
•Does your diet make it difficult for you to eat out, distancing you from family and friends?
•Do you feel guilty when you stray from your diet?
•Do you feel at peace with yourself and in total control when you eat healthily?

Yes to 4 or 5 of the above questions means it is time to relax more about food.
Yes to all of them means a full-blown obsession with eating
healthy food.

Thanks for posting this. I read it the other day but decided not to mention it. I'm trying to lower my aggravation level.

[KayakerNC]

Raw food and paleo dieters 'at risk of a dangerous obsession with nutrition' | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3033325/Why-healthy-eating-new-eating-disorder-Raw-food-paleo-dieters-risk-dangerous-obsession-nutrition.html)

Take your online test to see if you have orthorexia nervosa here:

Orthorexia nervosa - when healthy eating is no longer healthy (EUFIC) (http://www.eufic.org/article/en/artid/orthorexia-nervosa/)
•Do you spend more than 3 hours a day thinking about your diet?
•Do you plan your meals several days ahead?
•Is the nutritional value of your meal more important than the pleasure of eating it?
•Has the quality of your life decreased as the quality of your diet has increased?
•Have you become stricter with yourself lately?
•Does your self-esteem get a boost from eating healthily?
•Have you given up foods you used to enjoy in order to eat the ‘right’ foods
•Does your diet make it difficult for you to eat out, distancing you from family and friends?
•Do you feel guilty when you stray from your diet?
•Do you feel at peace with yourself and in total control when you eat healthily?

Yes to 4 or 5 of the above questions means it is time to relax more about food.
Yes to all of them means a full-blown obsession with eating
healthy food.

Do you feel you must constantly preach to the ignorant masses because you have the revealed diet TRUTH?

[CFrance]

I respectfully disagree. Genetic changes cannot be passed from species to species. If the caveman ate lettuce of some sort, the lettuce has probably changed drastically genetically over the years. If you eat a chicken who has inherited an autosomal dominant genetic trait you can't be affected by it or harmed from it. People are quick to not understand how genetics work and what gene therapy and gene manipulation can and cannot do.

I strongly support stem cell research and did so when they used aborted fetuses which Thankfully is no longer necessary. Genetic research is the way to solve some of the most horrendous diseases that affect mankind.

Smoking is much more an issue to worry about than Monsanto. Noxious by products from people and industry and cars. That to me is another unsolvable problem. We will eventually kill our planet but hopefully by that time, the human race will have been able to find another to move to and effect the move. Greenies can worry and fuss and do small things, but they are not going to get much done. We aren't going to negate or reverse the industrial revolution.

There is always hope and our decent human brains. Some one of us, long after we are gone will figure it out.

Sermon for the day. My views only. As I get older I am overwhelmed by ignorance; mine and the worlds, so many more questions than easy answers.
I respectfully disagree with your respectful disagreement! What is put onto and into our food has been proven to be detrimental to our health, and Monsanto has been proven to lie about the extent to which some of its chemicals gets into/onto our food.

here's one link, but there are many others. The Horrific Truth About Monsanto's Roundup Herbicide (http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/06/09/monsanto-roundup-herbicide.aspx)

As for giving up on "saving the earth" because we can't do anything about it, that attitude is very problematical to me. I would hate to have to explain that to my 13-month-old grand-niece, whom I just met and fell instantly in love with last week.

Never say never, is how I feel about it.

[graciegirl]

I respectfully disagree with your respectful disagreement! What is put onto and into our food has been proven to be detrimental to our health, and Monsanto has been proven to lie about the extent to which some of its chemicals gets into/onto our food.

here's one link, but there are many others. The Horrific Truth About Monsanto's Roundup Herbicide (http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/06/09/monsanto-roundup-herbicide.aspx)

As for giving up on "saving the earth" because we can't do anything about it, that attitude is very problematical to me. I would hate to have to explain that to my 13-month-old grand-niece, whom I just met and fell instantly in love with last week.

Never say never, is how I feel about it.

I think how we feel about a lot of things has to do with how we look at things politically.

I like dogs CFrance. And I love yours.

[graciegirl]

Raw food and paleo dieters 'at risk of a dangerous obsession with nutrition' | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3033325/Why-healthy-eating-new-eating-disorder-Raw-food-paleo-dieters-risk-dangerous-obsession-nutrition.html)

Take your online test to see if you have orthorexia nervosa here:

Orthorexia nervosa - when healthy eating is no longer healthy (EUFIC) (http://www.eufic.org/article/en/artid/orthorexia-nervosa/)
•Do you spend more than 3 hours a day thinking about your diet?
•Do you plan your meals several days ahead?
•Is the nutritional value of your meal more important than the pleasure of eating it?
•Has the quality of your life decreased as the quality of your diet has increased?
•Have you become stricter with yourself lately?
•Does your self-esteem get a boost from eating healthily?
•Have you given up foods you used to enjoy in order to eat the ‘right’ foods
•Does your diet make it difficult for you to eat out, distancing you from family and friends?
•Do you feel guilty when you stray from your diet?
•Do you feel at peace with yourself and in total control when you eat healthily?

Yes to 4 or 5 of the above questions means it is time to relax more about food.
Yes to all of them means a full-blown obsession with eating
healthy food.


Now back to this.

[manaboutown]

I respectfully disagree. Genetic changes cannot be passed from species to species. If the caveman ate lettuce of some sort, the lettuce has probably changed drastically genetically over the years. If you eat a chicken who has inherited an autosomal dominant genetic trait you can't be affected by it or harmed from it. People are quick to not understand how genetics work and what gene therapy and gene manipulation can and cannot do.

I strongly support stem cell research and did so when they used aborted fetuses which Thankfully is no longer necessary. Genetic research is the way to solve some of the most horrendous diseases that affect mankind.

Smoking is much more an issue to worry about than Monsanto. Noxious by products from people and industry and cars. That to me is another unsolvable problem. We will eventually kill our planet but hopefully by that time, the human race will have been able to find another to move to and effect the move. Greenies can worry and fuss and do small things, but they are not going to get much done. We aren't going to negate or reverse the industrial revolution.

There is always hope and our decent human brains. Some one of us, long after we are gone will figure it out.

Sermon for the day. My views only. As I get older I am overwhelmed by ignorance; mine and the worlds, so many more questions than easy answers.

:BigApplause::BigApplause::BigApplause:

Gracie, you nailed it.

Agricultural foods sources have evolved for many reasons over literally millions of years. We do not chomp down on what the dinosaurs ingested. They have also been modified by humans for at least thousands of years. The wheat we enjoy today is not that of the Biblical era. Corn and potatoes also come to mind. Our domesticated cattle, pigs and sheep have been bred to what they are today. This will continue.

[CFrance]

I think how we feel about a lot of things has to do with how we look at things politically.

I like dogs CFrance. And I love yours.
And I love your cats--and you too! We do have our differences, though.:ho:

[KayakerNC]

here's one link, but there are many others. The Horrific Truth About Monsanto's Roundup Herbicide (http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/06/09/monsanto-roundup-herbicide.aspx)


Somehow, I don't find an article written by a medical fraud and huckster to be all that convincing.

[graciegirl]

And I love your cats--and you too! We do have our differences, though.:ho:

But both me and the world can see that you are a thoroughly good person and charming and smart and ethical and I just love you CFrance.

[shcisamax]

:BigApplause::BigApplause::BigApplause:

Gracie, you nailed it.

Agricultural foods sources have evolved for many reasons over literally millions of years. We do not chomp down on what the dinosaurs ingested. They have also been modified by humans for at least thousands of years. The wheat we enjoy today is not that of the Biblical era. Corn and potatoes also come to mind. Our domesticated cattle, pigs and sheep have been bred to what they are today. This will continue.

I am not speaking of genetic changes over time...I am talking about pumping drugs and chemicals into our bodies that we did not do 100 years ago. One hundred years ago, when you ate a cow or a chicken or an apple, that is all you were eating. Now you are eating all the drugs and protective chemicals that have been applied whether directly or in the ground. As for wheat, there is a theory which I am not knowledgeable enough to discuss, that offers modified wheat as the culprit behind all the gluten intolerant issues.

[CFrance]

Somehow, I don't find an article written by a medical fraud and huckster to be all that convincing.
Sorry. I didn't mean the huckster. I was referring to France convicting Monsanto of lying about Roundup.

[Villages PL]

I thought what was stated in a previous thread was that genetics trump nutrition where cancer is concerned. The China Study book is over ten years old.

The topic here is about (primary) cancer prevention. I'm not aware of anything in the field of genetics that promises to prevent cancer.

The Copyright date of The China Study is 2006. So what? Did you like it when you read it back in 2006?

[graciegirl]

[QUOTE=Villages PL;1045486]The topic here is about (primary) cancer prevention. I'm not aware of anything in the field of genetics that promises to prevent cancer.


HPV vaccines - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HPV_vaccines)

[CFrance]

The topic here is about (primary) cancer prevention. I'm not aware of anything in the field of genetics that promises to prevent cancer.

The Copyright date of The China Study is 2006. So what? Did you like it when you read it back in 2006?
The China Study was first published in the US in January of 2005. And the title of this thread is the China Study. So it is the topic here.

[Villages PL]

I view this as more user friendly than the extreme diet espoused by the China Study.

Food Pyramids and Plates: What Should You Really Eat? | The Nutrition Source | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/pyramid-full-story/)

You just promoted a "user friendly" diet, thereby telling people what they should eat. Welcome to the club.

[CFrance]

Would you like to play Scrabble, VPL?

[dbussone]

Would you like to play Scrabble, VPL?

You will need a three dimensional board for that game.

[Villages PL]

The China Study was first published in the US in January of 2005. And the title of this thread is the China Study. So it is the topic here.

The heading of this thread is, "The China Study: Nutritional effects are the same for all cancers"

So this thread is about the effects of nutrition on cancer and how the risk of cancer and mortality can be reduced.

The topic of nutrition is not the same as genetics.

[CFrance]

You will need a three dimensional board for that game.
Oh. Okay. I thought it might be a lesson in one-dimension.

[Villages PL]

Good book but old. Read it yrs ago

What's your preference now?

[Villages PL]

I have not read the book. I tend to read the scientific studies themselves rather than the articles about them.

As I have said many times, I believe in moderation in all things dietary. If you study the meta-data, they support a moderate physiological approach.

So you support the old "moderation" diet-slogan. If it's a real diet, how would you define it and what supporting evidence do you have?

[Villages PL]

Originally posted by Villages PL; The topic here is about (primary) cancer prevention. I'm not aware of anything in the field of genetics that promises to prevent cancer.


Originally posted by graciegirl; HPV vaccines - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HPV_vaccines)

That's not genetic, that's a vaccine.

[graciegirl]

That's not genetic, that's a vaccine.


Read it again. It would not have been developed without recent genetic research and the unlocking of the human genome..

[Barefoot]

So you support the old "moderation" diet-slogan. If it's a real diet, how would you define it and what supporting evidence do you have?

Definition of diet: "the kind of food a person habitually eats".
dbussone has said he believes in moderation in all things dietary.
Many people believe in moderation, and live very healthy and happy lives.
And I'm not talking about eating junk food in moderation.


Originally Posted by dbussone https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/images/talkofthevillages/buttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/medical-health-discussion-94/china-study-nutritional-effects-same-all-cancers-151215-post1044604/#post1044604)
I have not read the book. I tend to read the scientific studies themselves rather than the articles about them.
As I have said many times, I believe in moderation in all things dietary. If you study the meta-data, they support a moderate physiological approach.

[Villages PL]

Read it again. It would not have been developed without recent genetic research and the unlocking of the human genome..

Nothing in there about genetic research. Anyway, one vaccine does not trump living a healthy lifestyle. A healthy lifestyle doesn't include promiscuity.

[dbussone]

Read it again. It would not have been developed without recent genetic research and the unlocking of the human genome..

Gracie - you are correct as usual. I am including some of the genetic work done on HPV prior to the development of the vaccine. I have included the abstract and conclusions. Please read the last sentence of the conclusions. A link to the paper is found at the end of this post.

Public Health Genomics
Karger Publishers
Human Papillomaviruses: Genetic Basis of Carcinogenicity
Robert D. Burk, Zigui Chen, and Koenraad Van Doorslaer

Additional article information

Abstract
Persistent infection by specific oncogenic human papillomaviruses (HPVs) is established as the necessary cause of cervix cancer. DNA sequence differences between HPV genomes determine whether an HPV has the potential to cause cancer. Of the more than 100 HPV genotypes characterized at the genetic level, at least 15 are associated, to varying degrees, with cervical cancer. Classification based on nucleotide similarity places nearly all HPVs that infect the cervicovaginal area within the α-PV genus. Within this genus, phylogenetic trees inferred from the entire viral genome cluster all cancer-causing types together, suggesting the existence of a common ancestor for the oncogenic HPVs. However, in separate trees built from the early open reading frames (ORFs; i.e. E1, E2, E6, E7) or the late ORFs (i.e. L1, L2), the carcinogenic potential sorts with the early region of the genome, but not the late region. Thus, genetic differences within the early region specify the pathogenic potential of α-HPV infections. Since the HPV genomes are monophyletic and sites are highly correlated across the genome, diagnosis of oncogenic types and non-oncogenic types can be accomplished using any region across the genome. Here we review our current understanding of the evolutionary history of the oncogenic HPVs, in particular, we focus on the importance of viral genome heterogeneity and discuss the genetic basis for the oncogenic phenotype in some but not all α-PVs.

Key Words: Human papillomavirus, Cervix cancer, Evolution, Phylogeny
Evolution of the Association between Human Papillomavirus and Cervix Cancer
Although an infectious cause of genital warts was suspected in ancient times, interest in ‘wart virus’ research was only galvanized by the suggestion that human papillomavirus (HPV) was the long-sought sexually transmitted etiological agent of cervical cancer. In 2009, Prof. Harold zur Hausen was awarded the Nobel Prize for this innovative idea [1] and demonstrating HPV genomes in cervical cancer tissues [2, 3]. Confluence of idea and technology was enabled by recombinant DNA methods, the cloning of HPV genomes [4] and the use of molecular hybridization. This quantum advance was critical, since standard virologic methods such as serology were not readily available for HPV molecular epidemiological investigations. The free and widespread distribution of cloned HPV genomes by the Heidelberg group and the commencement of an annual international papillomavirus conference accelerated discovery and fostered a collaborative culture within the PV scientific community. Breakthroughs in understanding the molecular pathogenesis have and continue to revolutionize the screening, diagnosis, treatment and prevention of HPV-associated diseases. From a public health viewpoint, HPV has become the model for molecular medicine and how technology can be readily applied to global health problems.



Conclusion and Perspectives
HPVs are a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Characterization and classification of the large group of HPV types contributing to disease has provided important molecular tools for the medical community, resulting in novel diagnostic, screening and prevention strategies. Current studies demonstrate a viral genetic basis of pathogenicity derived from evolution of a common ancestor of all oncogenic HPV types. Nevertheless, understanding the exact genetic basis of HPV oncogenicity is highly complex and will require innovative analytic methods. Study of α-HPV genomics can serve as a model for non-recombinant genome evolution, genetic determinants of pathogenicity and application of genomics for therapeutics.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2835381/

[Villages PL]

Definition of diet: "the kind of food a person habitually eats".
dbussone has said he believes in moderation in all things dietary.
Many people believe in moderation, and live very healthy and happy lives.
And I'm not talking about eating junk food in moderation.


Originally Posted by dbussone https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/images/talkofthevillages/buttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/medical-health-discussion-94/china-study-nutritional-effects-same-all-cancers-151215-post1044604/#post1044604)
I have not read the book. I tend to read the scientific studies themselves rather than the articles about them.
As I have said many times, I believe in moderation in all things dietary. If you study the meta-data, they support a moderate physiological approach.

Evidently, the person I asked my questions of couldn't answer them so you jumped in, but your answer is unsatisfactory and incomplete.

[dbussone]

Evidently, the person I asked my questions of couldn't answer them so you jumped in, but your answer is unsatisfactory and incomplete.

I did answer it. I said I didn't read the book. I'm sorry if you find that response unsatisfactory - it is a response. That you find it unsatisfactory and incomplete is not my problem.

[Villages PL]

Read it again. It would not have been developed without recent genetic research and the unlocking of the human genome..

Gracie, you were wrong as usual. The link you provided contained nothing about genetics.

[graciegirl]

Nothing in there about genetic research. Anyway, one vaccine does not trump living a healthy lifestyle. A healthy lifestyle doesn't include promiscuity.

Yes there is, see here;

"He realized that HPV-DNA could exist in a non-productive state in the tumours, and should be detectable by specific searches for viral DNA.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HPV_vaccines#cite_note-CDC-HPV-Fact-3) He and others, notably workers at the Pasteur Institute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasteur_Institute), found HPV to be a heterogeneous family of viruses. Only some HPV types cause cancer.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HPV_vaccines#cite_note-CDC-HPV-2)
Harald zur Hausen pursued his idea of HPV for over 10 years by searching for different HPV types. [3] This research was difficult due to the fact that only parts of the viral DNA were integrated into the host genome. He found novel HPV-DNA in cervix cancer biopsies, and thus discovered the new, tumourigenic HPV16 type in 1983. In 1984, he cloned HPV16 and 18 from patients with cervical cancer.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HPV_vaccines#cite_note-CDC-HPV-Fact-3) The HPV types 16 and 18 were consistently found in about 70% of cervical cancer biopsies throughout the world.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HPV_vaccines#cite_note-CDC-HPV-2)"


Simply put, DNA is the carrier of genetic information.

AND although the virus is sexually transmitted that does not mean in order to get it you have to be someone's definition of promiscuous.

[Villages PL]

Originally Posted by dbussone; "....I believe in moderation in all things dietary. If you study the meta-data, they suppport a moderate physiological approach.

Here's the question again:

So you support the old "moderation" diet-slogan. If it's a real diet, how would you define it and what supporting evidence do you have?