Hacker News Reader

Comment by getpost | Hacker News Reader

Denise Minger thoroughly critiques T. Colin Campbell's (seemingly incompetent) interpretation of the data in this study.

https://deniseminger.com/the-china-study/

EDIT: TCC's reply: http://www.vegsource.com/news/2010/07/china-study-author-col...

View on HN

Why should I trust Denise Minger over Colin Campbell?

I read Capbell's China Study and I'm definitely interested in counter points to his findings, but it seems like Minger is a food blogger (and recent book author) while the other is a biochemist with a long history in their field.

You shouldn't. Denise Minger does not know what she's analysing. And it's visible from the response.

TCC said multiple times that his study should have been a starting point for new research. Not as a definitive statement on what the optimal diet is.

You don't have to trust anything, she lays out relevant information from the original study with analysis. It's not conjecture when the info is there plainly to see. Reading studies isn't that hard.

The headline given by "vegsource" to the article on T. Colin Campbell's reply ("China Study Author Colin Campbell Slaps Down Critic") is unfortunate, since his reply is surprisingly detailed and collegial.

I think this would be excellent material for a medical statistics course. Fortunately, the raw data is available.

Do the data support the TCC's conclusions?

Are Denise Minger's critiques valid?

Harriet Hall from Science Based Medecine finds Denise Mingers critiques good and well researched: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-china-study-revisited/

But they are not. She didn't control any variables. She also didn't mention that TCC published several studies that go against the thesis of China Study, after he wrote the book.

There's definitely valid criticism of the epidemiological study model but Monger's sloppy data munging is not.

I let my biostatistician friend have a look at her critique ha wasnt impressed and commented om her blog. His comment was promptly removed.

Many comments criticising her statistical errors have been removed, which makes me draw the conclusion that she mostly just wants to sell books and write a popular blog than be att part of serious academic discussion.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com