Quote (tommyd323 @ Jul 26 2016 01:41am)
this is a well-written piece, and it's very good that The China Study is being challenged on details it may have fallen short on. it's the only way to move forward. there is a
lot of research, data, and analysis done in the study. it'd be scientifically unheard of for it all to be 100% on-point, being as first-edition-esque as it is (but being as we're all scientists here, you'd know that, right?).
anybody who claims The China Study is some sort of vegan gospel, or the end-all, be-all for universal nutrition is goddamn insane. on the other hand, anybody who will disregard the study for the points and counter-arguments brought up against it has no understanding of how the progressive nature of science, or science itself works.
unfortunately, google be damned, the points brought up here hardly invalidate the study. it merely suggests there is room for improvisation, and that is a very good thing.
The China Study has laid credible groundwork for lots of issues that need more analysis. or, as it says in the last paragraph of the page you linked: "The issues raised are important and deserve further study by unbiased scientists."
Quote (tommyd323 @ Jul 26 2016 02:30pm)
Correlation does not imply causation.
you do not make a strong argument by regurgitating a phrase that is entirely out of context, or by posting a link to the 2nd result on google when searching for "problems with the china study"
basically, you're a chump. pls go, tommyd323.
This post was edited by Wretch on Jul 26 2016 02:00pm