As I said it's a self-imposed rule, by no means official, because otherwise we receive complaints - and there have been numerous complaints to the mods from the individual that objects to our discussions here, so in order to avoid all the hassle we try as much as possible to only provide links to reputable research. It doesn't mean we don't discuss other stuff - we just don't link to anything that isn't kosher. If you want to Lemongrove fine - but be prepared for the consequences!!
(You may not be aware but this thread was initially set up at Linda's suggestion - she suggested we start a discussion in the complementary section just for those that were interested in the subject, so that we didn't discuss diet issues on other threads, as they became so rancorous. So that's what we did - we stuck to our word - we didn't have to, but we did.)
So having imposed this discipline on ourselves for Linda's benefit, it did seem a little rich for Linda to start linking to non-reputable websites here. Even so I ignored it initially, but then she asked if I had read her links, so then I commented. After being told the work of Prof Campbell (or C******* as she styles him) was "rubbish" and "nonsense" it seemed only fair to have a right of reply.
Yes please make this a forum for reflective consideration of all research - sometimes the most obscure develops into something very significant. I really value the info shared on this thread and all the time some of you put into researching and sharing and it is a very important thread in my daily reading (and sometimes postings). As always, it's up to each of us to provide the source of the info and for individuals to then make their own judgements and we need to engage with analysis of the research itself and not take comments personally. I appreciate knowing the source since there is so much research out there to sift through and jointly we can help each other. I appreciate it when others raise other points and aspects as it helps me with my own interpretation and analysis - we all have different strengths so let's pull them together rather than use them to pull this thread apart - please...
You know what I had a terrible night last night. I barely slept a wink because I had femera/Bondronat induced aches and pains everywhere, and my seroma was hurting. I came on this thread this morning looking for some interesting discussions to take my mind off things, and instead of that have had to read all this sniping.
Cornishgirl, I understand your point, but there is no point keep pushing the point. At the end of the day it is up to individuals to accept or reject information.
Finty, I have never heard of this rule, and few of us have the scientific training or research skills to provide academic references. This is a cancer forum, where we're trying to support each other and provide snippets of information - we're not writing aademic dissertations for goodness sake.
Please everyone just lighten up, respect each others views, and stop playing the my academic is better than yours game.
Please may I remind you all of our Community Guidelines:
Our community guidelines
These guidelines aim to keep the Breast Cancer Care forum a friendly, welcoming, supportive space for people affected by breast cancer.
1) Be kind to each other.
Many people using the forum are going through difficult times. A few words of kindness can go a long way. Be especially nice to new posters – it can be very nerve-wracking to post on the forum for the first time.
Give each other the benefit of the doubt: it can be very easy to misinterpret other people’s comments, especially when read or written in haste. Sarcasm and humour are particularly easy to misunderstand.
Please don’t post comments just to annoy or inflame other users.
2) Celebrate difference and disagree respectfully
A wide range of people with very different experiences use the forum. Differences and debate are very welcome, but this is no place for personal attacks. Please make your points politely and respectfully. Equally, be prepared for people to disagree with you and try not to take it as a personal attack when it is not meant that way.
A couple of tips suggested by forum users:
- “Think before you submit” – if you disagree with a post, think it over before you post your response. Try drafting it first, then read it over to make sure what you’re saying is clear and respectful.
- “Attack the post not the poster” – that is, disagree with the points made, but don’t be rude about the person making the point.
Don't post any content that treats anyone unfairly because of their sex, sexual orientation, race, colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin, religion or philosophical belief, disability, gender identity/reassignment, marital status, family circumstance or age; or anything that is threatening, obscene or in any way offensive. Please do not swear or use terms that people find offensive.
Actually those that post here regularly do have a self-imposed rule about sticking to academic peer reviewed research, only because of Linda's frequent complaints about our discussions being unscientific nonsense - if anyone has linked to anything from just a website we have got a complaint from Linda, so we have tried very hard to keep the conversation limited to things for which there is actual evidence.
Regarding whether Campbell explains all the issues from the study in his book - the answer is absolutely not. Although the book is called The China Study (not his choice of title), only a small part of it discusses the chinese research and not in any depth. It only gives brief glimpses of his other research too - it really quite wide ranging and covers the work of others. It's really a summation of all he's learnt in his career, so any criticism of the research would need to refer to the original research papers, not the book, which makes no attempt to be thorough.
I think Finty was probably just suggesting that you would pack more of a punch if you can cite reliable academic sources Linda.
The problem is that there is a paucity of rebuttals because
most scientists in this field have got better ways of spending their time and research dollars than faffing round unpicking the wretched China Study and the ramblings of Mrs P the geologist.
They are churning out bonkers theories and halfcocked studies faster than people can dismantle them.
Molly (lifelong vegetarian/vegan and cancer patient.)
Cornishgirl, please don't get upset. I understand your concern that people may be influenced to embark on potentially harmful diets, and it's great that you give the opposite view, so that people can make a more informed decision. There is no rule about only posting academic studies (if there was I doubt anyone would post or bother to read), and you are perfectly entitled to post information that you feel is relevant. All I would say is that the examples you gave are too lightweight to really be taken seriously (and I think that was what Finty was really getting at).
As I said earlier, at the end of the day, all you can do is give your view, hope that people agree, but if they don't it's their choice.
Linda - other views are definitely allowed. However, we do need to distinguish between what is an academic argument and what is someone's personal view. As I see it, this thread was set up with the aim of being about research rather than just some person's view on the internet about diet.
It is to my mind, extremely dangerous if we just take the view of some person or organisation about diet who has not conducted serious, academic research. That's why most of the references are to Pubmed.
I do also feel though it is dangerous to discredit an academic's work based on someone's view on the internet. It is much more useful, at least to me, to see an alternative academic opinion rather than someone's blog.
I think the comments in your last post are very disrespectful indeed. Elinda x
BCC have acknowledged the comments made in cornishgirls last post and wish to let you know that anyone can make a formal complaint. If you do want to make a complaint please email the moderates at
and the complaint will be passed to the appropriate department.
I dont have the time to reply to the scarcastic comments on this thread as i have to go to work , but the idea that this thread has a "rule" that it sticks to academic research that is published in peer reviewd publications is laughable,quite frankly this thread promotes dangerous material and advice to people who have breast cancer and im not sure why to be honest BCC allows some of the comments on here , other threads on this forum are pulled up for behaviour towards other posters that is rude,scarcastic and deorgortory so why not this one?
I wasnt awear that any particular member "Owned" this thread and decided WHO or What may be posted on it, this thread isnt about diet research and breast cancer its about cherry picking studies to suit individuals opinions,it is a hotbed of dangerous promotion and encouragement of unsubstanciated quack theorie , Yes i DO feel strongly about wacky promotion , maybe this thread needs to change its name.
I cant be bothered anyomore, i dont have to put up with this bolsy bulling behaviour from people who think they know it all and own this forum.
If others and BCC think this is acceptable behaviour to another member then i shall aire my concerns higher up,ive had enough, the attitudes on here by some of you are disgracefull.
What would be nice to see instead of various internet bloggers picking the China Study apart with a view to discrediting everything, is for a group of academics of a similar level to Dr Campbell going through and pick out what they think is valid and what they think is questionable. This could then be the basis for further research.
It does seem that in the States in particular, anything new leads to some form of extreme reaction ie. it's the complete bible to live our lives by or it's pure and utter nonsense.
That's an interesting article and worth reading. However, as with all things it needs unpicking I suspect. She says for example that Dr Campbell doesn't explain the high incidence of stomach cancer in China. This is from his website on just that subject:
As I haven't read the book yet, it's hard to comment about it. I suppose what might be happening is that he hasn't put every single thing he's looked at in his book only what he's actually researched. So therefore others are picking up on things he hasn't researched and therefore not explained and he has responded since.
As we all know, it's far easier to pick hole in someone else's research and conclusions than to come up with new theories etc. Elinda x
Finty and Cornishgirl, if I may interject. Although I haven't actually read the China Study yet, I know that theories are seldom perfect, so there is little point in taking a stance and arguing. For example when I was first diagnosed, I was told that the orthodox view is that metastatic cancer is incurable, and not treated curatively. I did my research and found this is not the view everywhere. Now if I posted the information I have read and acted on, many people would say I am a fool, and bombard me with counter evidence. At the end of the day though none of us can prove our respective approaches are right. All we can do is make up our own minds, express our views and hope others agree (but accept that they might not).
From what Finty has said, the China Study appears to make a very sound case, but I doubt this case is beyond criticism - so it's also interesting to read Cornishgirls comments. The only problem is that the critiques referred to by Cornishgirl are written by people who are too light weight, and mentioning them risks pooling ignorance, rather than increasing knowledge. One is a studying for a PhD in nutrition and advocates a high cholesterol diet (which raises questions about what he actually learned from his first degree), while Ms Minger (who seems a fairly bright young lady), lacks academic training, experience and maturity.
I have been looking to see if I can find any articles that expand the debate, but to be honest haven't had much luck. I did find a critique carried out by Dr Harriet Hall (see link below), which is slightly more academic, so it may be of interest (but how objective it is I can't say). For me the most interesting bit was in one of the comments that someone has posted where they detail specific criticisms of the the study design (you will need to scroll down quite a way to read it.
Article by Dr Harriet Hall
Linda on this thread we have had an informal rule that we try to only discuss academic research that has been published in peer reviewed publications. This stops the discussion veering off into the wacky - something I know you feel strongly about. Prof Campbell, as Emeritus Professor of Nutritional Biochemistry at a very prestigious university with over 300 peer reviewed research papers to his name, and a nearly 50 year career in nutrional research including conducting the most comprehensive study of health and nutrition ever undertaken, meets the criteria for discussion here quite nicely.
Susan Minger on the other hand is a 23 year old blogger and English graduate that changed majors 10 times, with no scientific credentials, who has never undertaken any research, has no understanding of the biological mechanisms she is pontificating about, and who has not submitted her work for peer-review, and had she done so, would not have had it published because it is laughably bad. It is riddled with fundamental errors that betray that she has no in depth understanding of statistics and failed to undertake the most basic regression analysis, and as a result, drew embarrassingly faulty conclusions. Had she submitted her work to peer review - her peers would be Catholic school teachers and professional sock puppeteers, because that is what she does for a living. I would ask you not to link to her work again on this thread - start your own thread if you admire her so much - but it simply can't be taken seriously. The fact that another blogger "Tynan" agrees with her is totally irrelevant - or is Tynan a scientific powerhouse?. Campbell had the good grace to respond to her - at length and very politely - I don't blame him for not continuing. She was unable to acknowledge her errors and falsely accused him of malpractice - she was lucky that he is gentle soul, as others in his position would have sued her.
Yes Lemongrove - that is Campbell's finding and I have not found any reason to doubt it. We eat much more protein in the west, most of it animal protein - as well as fat and sugar, much of the fat is in the animal protein. Protein consumed in rural in China is predominantly plant protein. He found that a low fat, whole foods, plant based diet had the lowest association with cancer and all the "western diseases".
Interestingly the Chinese actually eat more calories than Americans, even sedentary Chinese, yet maintain a low body weight because of the type of food they eat. But I would say although he found that casein was promoting cancer in all his experiments, he thinks that every aspect of diet plays a role - the mechanisms are very complicated.
Finty, I was just reading your earlier post about organic raw milk not being any better than non-organic pastuerized, and was curious about your comment that the problem is that milk is protein. Is that your own view, or is it the conclusion of the China Study? As you know, I have not read the China Study yet, but if it suggests that the we have a higher incidence of cancer in the west because we consume more protein, I would have to take issue. My understanding is that most calories in the average western diet come from fat and sugar, rather than protein.
Just a thought.
Very Interesting interview with Denise Minger for anyone who is interested.
“The China Study” is key to the argument that veganism is not only a healthy way to live, but may in fact be the healthiest. Vegan authorities swear by this book. People go vegan because of it. If “The China Study” were discredited, it would be a significant setback for veganism.
And that’s why some vegans don’t appreciate that Denise Minger, a 23-year-old former raw vegan, seems to have done just that.
Always eager to defend his life’s work from uppity pro-meat subversives, Campbell posted a short rebuttal via a vegan blogger. Denise spent her next turn on “The China Study: My Response to Campbell”. Campbell then penned a lengthier second response, which inspired Denise’s “The China Study: A Formal Analysis and Response”. So far Campbell has kept any further protestations to himself.
But some vegans found Denise’s critique harder to dismiss. Tynan, the blogger who posted Campbell’s first response, was one of them — he abandoned veganism two weeks after reading her initial China Study entries."
i do not eat any cereal fibre at all, not one crumb. the only fibre i manage to get down, is the occasional banana or half of avocado, and the portion of cabbage or broccoli or some such veg in the evening.
After my op I suddenly started eating fruit, very strange, but that stopped after a few weeks and now I dont desire it at all.
Theres lots and fruit and veg around cos my husband likes it, but when i look at it, it leaves me cold so I cannot see the point.
Thanks Elinda - it is odd about the cereal fibre. I wonder what fibre they eat - I don't think white rice has any.
I'm going to change the subject here and post up a bit of new research which is one of my hobby horse topics - fibre!
It looks similar to something I've seen before but was published August 2011. Basically they conclude that the research suggests:
'consumption of total dietary fiber and fiber from vegetable and fruit was inversely associated with breast cancer risk'.
What is interesting is that they found no such association with cereal fibre.
Back to the chopping board everyone! (That's veg not each other!)
It's just that you asked several questions that were answered at great length in the book - a quarter of the book (90 plus pages) deals with the question about the medical establishment.
PLease dont accuse me of not reading the book finty because you are very much mistaken,like i think you are with many other things,you seem to like making crude assumptions and verbal attacks towards me because i challenge all these issues and instead of engageing in repectfull debate you clearly would rather resort to accusations and try to continualy discredit me and my posts.
There is another thread on here at the moment discussing why it is inperitive that EVERYONE on these forums are entiltled to their own views and opinion maybe it would be a reminder to everyone once in a while to respect that.
Please lets stop these personal attacks and lets get back to some respectfull debates.
The China Study was published in 2006. It took several decades after the association between smoking and lung cancer was first mooted in 1950 before anything changed - smoking was only recently banned in public places - 60 odd years later! So I'm not expecting there to be any changes on recommendations on diet and cancer in my lifetime - the information is there though for those willing to go looking for it.
The fact that you asked the question Linda betrays that you haven't read the book. The answer is in there.
Linda - I have to say I'm a bit taken aback that you hold with the views of Debra M***** given that she majored in English. Perhaps I'm wrong but I thought one of the reasons you didn't give Professor Jane P**** much credence was the fact she was a geologist?
I'm not saying that Professor C******* is right and Debra M***** is wrong, I've no view on either yet as I've not read what either have to say in any detail. Prof C*******, whatever any of us decide to think of the China Study, is hardly some crank. He is a professor Emiratus of Nutritional Biochemistry at Cornell University. That doesn't of course stop him from being controversial.
As I look for strong academic argument in the research I read, I also look for it in any counter arguments. I'd like to see something from someone of a similar academic level who has a scientific background. Elinda x
I posted a link in connection to C****** long response on my first post on the subject, so the vegan one is nothing new, but i do have a question for you are the medical profession also conducting a conspiricy ? because quite frankly im alarmed that all this "remarkable conclusive and shocking" evidence and conclusions from the China Study book (which is how old?)hasnt yet been implimented.
As i said its up to everyone to come to their own conclusions.
I'll send you a PM - is that OK? Don't want to derail the thread with chat about osteoporosis!
Hi msmolly - yes I do. I had a year on Zometa and then changed to Ibondronat. I imagine you are asking because of my comment about bone density. I had already been on Zometa for 9 months when my baseline measurement was taken - my density has continued to increase since then.
What conspiracy are you referring to? If you don't think the animal food industry tries everything they can to discredit Campbell, then I don't think you can, as claimed, have read his book. He details a long campaign against him and has the leaked documents to prove it. I linked to Prof Campbells very long and polite reply to Minger, that just happened to be on a particular website - ignore the website and just read his rebuttal.
Finty - do you take bisphosphonates of any kind? If so, do you mind me asking which ones you take? Thanks.
Finty that scorce is from a Vegan website,whos interest it is to promote this nonsense, Denise Minger doesnt eat dairy ,infact she is a "Raw Food" junkie,previously for many,many years a Vegan until in her own words it affected her health so badly.
Please.Please,Please can we just stop with the silly Conspiricy Theories.
People can read all the information thats widely available out there and come to their own informed and intellegent conclusions.
Or another view of Deborah Minger that is not quite so flattering:
Scroll down to the bottom for Professor Campbell's detailed response to Minger.
She didn't "obtain the original data" - Campbell published it so everyone could analyse it. What he didn't anticipate was that someone with insufficient statistical knowledge would misuse the raw data without understanding what they were doing. She performs no regression analysis - how could she, she's an English grad not a maths grad.
I am quite sure her critique did cause eruptions - the animal protein industry is desperate for good news - but that says nothing at all about the quality of her analysis, just that those with a vested interested will promote the opinions of those that can advance their interest. This is nothing new.
And she really is just a blogger - she holds no academic post and has no science training. She is however a professional sock puppeteer!
Very good Finty - LOL. My husband had a look of terror in his eyes when I mentioned the word vegan. I'd be more than happy to reduce my meat intake right down to say once a week. Apart from anything else it's so expensive. I had a lovely vegetable stirfry for lunch. The less meat I eat the more vegetables and pulses i use to replace it with.
Actually i think Dr C****** might disagree with you finty about your assumption that Denise Minger is just a "Blogger" and therefore her findings are not relevent,her exelent critque was enough to cause explosive erruptions accross the web and continues to do so today and she hasnt finished yet,her Formal Analysis and Response including citations along with the fact that she obtained the origional China Progect Data is compelling and i would encourage everyone to read it. Either way Denise Mingers critque was enough to spark a response from Dr C******and in part of his response to her Critque he says "Quote"
"I don’t have time to review every comment but did quickly scan the text. This analysis seems very impressive, especially given the writer’s young age with no training in nutritional science " later in his response he says
"I have no proof, of course, whether this young girl is anything other than who she says she is, but I find it very difficult to accept her statement that this was her innocent and objective reasoning, and hers alone. If she did this alone, based on her personal experiences from age 7 (as she describes it), I am more than impressed."
For anyone who "does" have an open mind and is the sort of person like me who perfers not to take anything at face value without looking at all the confounding factors and evidence first ,i would encourage you all to read Denises Minger Final Analysis of The China Study before comeing to your own conclusions.
PS.re all the previously quoted assumed factors already mentioned on this thread ,all of these factors have been fully explored in the Final Analysis.
Hi Carol - nice to see you here, and glad things are going well for you. How has your osteoporosis been since you gave up dairy? My bone density went up by about 4%.
Elinda - although Campbell does advocate completely giving up meat as an ideal to avoid serious illness, he acknowledges that reducing protein intake to 10% of calories will bring many benefits. So maybe you won't feel you need to go the whole hog (sorry, I know you enjoy your pork!).
Lemongrove - yes I did read the Bamlet link, or rather skimmed through it. It's worth watching. But what I've come to realise is that many, many substances when isolated can have some sort of anti-cancer effect, but when a whole food is consumed the effect can disappear or even be reversed by interactions with other elements. I suspect this may be the case with Bamlet.
In any case, it seems at total odds with the epidemiology data. The graph of 38 countries correlating fat intake and breast cancer mortality is a straight line - Thailand, El Salvador, Ceylon, Taiwan and Japan at the bottom with age adjusted rates below 5 per 100,000, and the Netherlands, Denmark, UK, New Zealand and Canada at the top with rates near and above 25 per 100,000. These figures would be hard to explain if dairy consumption was protective of breast cancer.
Lemongrove - I don't think what I do is that dissimlar from you then with the exception of dairy. I can't get past the fact that it has oestrogen and progesterone in it. I also limit my flaxseed to a tablespoon per day, go organic where possible, increase my vegetables and fibre.
I am bracing myself for the fact that I may want to go vegan after reading the China Study. As someone who loves their meat, I will need a lot of convincing to completely vegan. My copy is on its way from Amazon...
Hi, I don't come on this thread very often as I get information overload!! but the mention of Campbell's book caught my eye. I was given this book by a friend when I was DX ( March 2010). I read most of it and found it fascinating, but I am HER= so the referencea to Oestrogen don't apply. However, I drink very little milk, use soy milk to make porridge ect, mainly because I have osteoporosis and milk and cheese are acidic. I started going to a gym during chemo at the age of 62 and love it. have had 13th Herceptin yesterday and feel well most of the time.
Finty, I just mentioned the Maasai, as an example of the different perspectives. I wouldn't for a second recommend that we should adopt the Maasai diet - milk mixed with blood doesn't sound very appetising does it?
Did you get chance to look at the link I provided about Bamlet (the bovine equivelent of Hamlet). Be interested to read your opinion.
To be honest Elinda I do't have a clue where to start. All I know is there is a huge amount of conflicting views out there, and even with my critical thinking cap on, I find it impossible to work out what is worth taking on board, and what is just gimmicky clap-trap driven by financial or moral imperatives.
I suppose by conservative approach, I actually mean compromise. In other words rather than cutting something out,and potentially missing it's benefits, I buy a different version that omits the harmful elements. For example I now buy organic raw milk instead of un-organic pastuerized; free range organic fed chicken instead of poultry fed on hormone growth promoters; wild salmon instead of farmed salmon, that are routinely fed antibiotics. Similarly with flaxseed, I put a moderate amount into my home made bread, because then i get the benefit if there is any, without too much risk.
Maybe this approach is a bit of a cop out, but sometimes that is best.
I wouldn't base anything on the Maasai either - they seems to be unique in their reaction to food and are likely to have evolved a way to cope with an extreme diet. And in any case, they no longer follow that diet so I doubt if there is any modern evidence to support it. They also take extreme exercise - running up to 50 miles a day, which is likely to mitigate any adverse effects from their diet.
Susie and Jaspurr - I agree completely. I feel so much better. And my changes have been very gradual over a year and a half as I read more and refine my views. I only became vegan two weeks ago - so it's hardly been a knee jerk reaction.
Lemongrove - dietary change is a very personal thing, and I am not advocating anyone makes changes they are uncomfortable making. For me, as I know there is no downside to my diet changes, I can find no reason not to make changes because the potential benefits are so significant and as far as I am concerned the ability of milk to raise oestrogen levels is proven. Also, there are only two essential nutrient available from animals but not plants - Vit D (and B12 if you don't eat organic veg) - but thousands in plants that are not available in animal based food. So unless you adopt what Campbell calls a vegan junk food diet, there is no risk of being nutritionally worse off by giving up dairy. Anything in dairy that could potentially benefit cancer is available from other sources - if you believe the CLA claims, then mushrooms are as good a source. I really hope you do read and enjoy the book and look forward to discussing it with you.
I do see where you're coming from with this because it's hard to get a full picture (although I did think you were making a case for milk partly based on the Maasai but perhaps I got that wrong).
The problem I see is that we often assume that certain staples in our diet are more or less neutral in terms of health. Even worse, things like dairy are often promoted as being particularly healthy. Anything that is different is scrutinised to such a degree (such as soya) and yet I'd like to see the same scrutiny given to things like dairy in this country.
So where does that leave us with what to eat? You say about approaching changes conservatively but what is our starting point? Do we say that the usual wheat, dairy, meat etc in the Western diet are okay? Do you see what I mean?
No Elinda, and I'm glad you're not. The whole point is that we should be very cautious in making drastic changes without knowing all the various point of view. Even then, as most of us are not scientists we should approach changes conservatively
Also sorry if the link didn't work for you. Did they try to put you behind a pay wall? Try this one instead. http://mct.aacrjournals.org/content/9/1/24.long
From the limited amount I've read (I can't unfortunately access the link you put in Lemongrove), the Maasai tribe are something of an anomaly. I find it difficult to conclude that milk is safe to drink based on the fact that they drink a lot and don't have high rates of cancer.
What is the life expectancy of those in a Masai tribe? I have read 45 years for women and 42 years for men - although I can't find any research to back this up. If that's right then we know that most cancers start after age 50.
Secondly, the Maasai don't eat vegetables, yet I don't think we'd advocate that would we? They also probably exercise virtually continuously, something unlikely to happen much in Western cultures.
I do think it's very interesting about their low cholesterol levels. Personally I'm not making any changes based on the Maasai tribe though, I'd need a lot more evidence first. Elinda x
I have completely changed my since March this year when I discovered B.C.. I don't think I am as experienced as some of you but rarely eat meat now eat loads of omega 3,veges,fruit, beans, pulses, nuts, organic when possible filter my water etc. I feel much better eat more and have lost weight. I also had clicky thumbs swollen knee joints and white spots on my skin/face all gone now. I also exercise new research (but has been thought of for ages), by Macmillian says 2 1/2 hours aroebic exercise a week decreases breast cancer returning by 40%.
Also read that taking the birth control pill at a young age can increase chances of breast cancer by 50% anyone else heard this? Research was done in 1987 and Doctor who did research was told to shut up! Interesting I think its full of estrogen.
Thank you for the interesting information Finty. From what you say it sounds like an interesting read, and I look forward to reading it.
I do have an open mind, and that is why I take what is known as a critical thinking approach to whatever I am told or read (and I know you do too Finty, as we have both approached our treatment options in a very similar way). The reason I posted was to say that there are many views on diet/lifestyle etc, and I think it is important to have all the information before making drastic dietary changes, that may not have any effect, or worse be harmful.
I appreciate that there are very sound grounds for reducing the consumption of dairy, but there are also reasons for including it. For example I know you will be aware of Hamlet in breast milk, but there is a study that suggests there is a similar component in cows milk (see link below). Also if you look at Dr George V Mann's study of the Maasai Tribe (whose diet consists almost exlusively of milk in one form or another), it is quite interesting that they have very low incidence of cancer, heart disease or diabetes (and like Campbell, Dr George V Mann is also a very eminent scientist).
As far as the consumption of dairy is concerned, I have opted to have raw organic milk because I feel it avoids the problems associated with non-organic pasteurized milk, while allowing me to benefit (if there are any benefits that is). Similarly, I now also put a moderate amount of ground flax seed in my home made bread, because if there is a benefit I would like it, but if there is a risk I am keeping it to a minimum.
At the end of the day, I think most of us on this forum are not scientists, so it is very difficult for us to judge the validity of all these competing claims. Without this knowledge, I personally think we should take a rather conservative approach to any dietary changes.
Link mentioned above:
I have just read through all the posts since mine yesterday...phew! I am finding Prof Campbell easy to read and convincing. I have read Jane Plants books and Leslie Kenton's and can only agree with you that I FEEL much better eating a plant/raw based diet and doing without the dairy. I don't feel like I am depriving myself and know that in doing this I will reduce my BMI - less fat, less stored toxins.
Anyway, I will soon know if it's making any difference or not when I have my next scan in November. AS far as I am concerned I am doing what makes me feel and look well and doing nothing that will be detrimental to my overall health, whether I had cancer or not.
If anyone would like to compare the credentials of Campbell and the bloggers described above - here is a brief bio of Campbell:
"T. Colin Campbell is an American biochemist who specializes in the effects of nutrition on long-term health. He is the Jacob Gould Schurman Professor Emeritus of Nutritional Biochemistry at Cornell University, and the author of over 300 research papers. He was one of the lead scientists in the 1980s of the China-Oxford Cornell study on diet and disease (known as the China Project), set up in 1983 by Cornell University, the University of Oxford, and the Chinese Academy of Preventive Medicine to explore the relationship between nutrition and cancer, heart and metabolic diseases. The study was described by The New York Times as "the Grand Prix of epidemiology."
Campbell joined MIT as a research associate, then worked for 10 years in the Virginia Tech Department of Biochemistry and Nutrition, before returning to Cornell in 1975 to join its Division of Nutritional Sciences. He has worked as a senior science adviser to the American Institute for Cancer Research, and sits on the advisory board of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. He is known in particular for research, derived in part from the China Project, that appears to link the consumption of animal protein with the development of cancer and heart disease; he argues that casein, a protein found in milk from mammals, is "the most significant carcinogen we consume."
He has been a member since 1978 of several United States National Academy of Sciences expert panels on food safety, and holds an honorary professorship at the Chinese Academy of Preventive Medicine.