Haha - Va~Goth~UK - my name's not Brianna, just Hannah, but I'll keep it in mind.
It's called The China Study because he did most of his nutritional research with people in rural China. He also did some studies in the Philippines and Taiwan, so it's not entirely based in China, that's just where the vast majority of his studies were done.
I admit I haven't done much reading since my last post (my senior honors thesis is due Monday), and certainly haven't gotten around to looking at the articles. But I'm interested in things like experimental design, like what controls were used, whether the studies were "blind" or "double blind" (i.e. did the researchers know which test subjects had which diet, so that they could subconsciously cherry pick data that supported their hypotheses), and their thoughts about why animal protein is carcinogenic while plant protein is not. And like I said, I'm still only about 60 pages in so maybe this is addressed in the book. But I don't know, I have a hard time believing that any results as dramatic as his wouldn't be getting a lot more press - if his results are accurate that is. I mean, come on - I don't care how much power the meat industry has, if you demonstrate that a certain diet causes a 100% reduction in cancer rates, that is BIG NEWS. So basically I'm just surprised we haven't heard about his study, and I'm curious to see if I can find some error in his reasearch or something that would cast doubt on his results.
An analogy - one of my mom's friends gave her a book for me to look at, she was curious what I thought about it. It was basically some guy with no scientific background who claimed that water had a "memory" - if you took a bottle of water and wrote a word like "love" on the outside, it would make pretty water crystals, and if you wrote the word "hate" on the outside, it would make ugly or not fully formed crystals. His book was full of pictures supposedly demonstrating this - so my mom's friend was spending a ton of money on this special water that I guess was supposed to be....happier? Or something. Of course there were tons of problems with his methodology and it was a completely ridiculous proposal, but you wouldn't know that just from reading the book.
Anyway, my point is, scientific works are tough to evaluate - you have to really understand exactly how every experiment was carried out in order to fully trust the results. If all the science in The China Study is valid, then it's some pretty phenomenal stuff, and the book is really well-written for communicating his results to a general audience. If it's not valid - well, then the book is un-detailed enough that he can get away with making this spectacular claims because you don't really know how he's getting his data.
Sorry, that was a really long-winded response. Hopefully I'll have the time soon to look into his other articles in more detail - and I really do hope he's right, it'd be awesome to know that being veg cures cancer!