|Topic Review (Newest First)|
|Topic Review (Newest First)|
|06-16-2011 09:40 PM|
|sequoia||The thing is, the human evidence largely supports what was discovered by testing on the animals. It adds up and makes sense. Also, Campbell is not an ethical vegan.|
|06-16-2011 09:08 PM|
|SonicEarth||I don't doubt at all what is presented in The China Study. Dr. Campbell did extensive research over 30 years in rural Chinese humans and still found the same links between consumption of animal-based products and incidence of heart disease, cancers and diabetes.|
|06-15-2011 09:57 PM|
|Photojess||^^^right. This happens to be one of the best human repeated rat study ever, I think. To be able to replicate an animal study, with such an awesome clear outcome, was just what was needed. I too am sorry that animals had to be put through it, but it lead to a human study, that gave very clear and concise evidence about cancer, heart disease, and probably diabetes too.|
|06-15-2011 09:46 PM|
yeah he tests on animals. I don't think people can deny that animal testing has some medical value, but it's not an absolute either and doesn't replace human trials. It's one part of many. Is it wrong? That's a debate itself, I think it is overused and there are many trials done that aren't really of much value.
not sure what your question is. He never claims to be vegan. He just eats a plant-based diet for health reasons. He doesn't talk about morals in the book nor does he suggest that animal lives are equal to humans.
|06-15-2011 07:21 PM|
Originally Posted by AdamLayish
To start out, I haven't finished the book, however I have started it, and I have read info on it on other sites. T Colin Campell tested on animals, and us vegans say animal testing is ineffective. I realize Campell did do tests on people, that is why its called the China Study, but many of the tests were done on animals. We think that animal testing isn't effective, and I don't think it is, but I don't think we can have it both ways. Someone, please prove me wrong
I can't help but wonder if people who think this even know what the China-Oxford-Cornell Diet and Health Project even was.
|06-15-2011 06:58 PM|
Every living creature is different. Not all humans react the same to things. That's why a teenager can die from eating peanut butter but George Burns lived to be 100 years old while drinking and smoking cigars. The further you get away from a species, the less accurate testing becomes. So, animal testing isn't really effective. It's a starting point for companies.
I read The China Study and I believe it. Campbell was objective (and he not vegetarian or vegan when he started his research). He based his research on a study done by an Indian researcher who came up with puzzling results. At the time, no one doubted whether dairy was healthy. But that Indian researcher's results went against conventional thinking. Campbell's research spanned the globe and came up with the same results every time. And it was in line with the Indian researcher's conclusions. And that was for all species, human and otherwise.
Everyone knows that vegetables are healthier than meat and dairy. Even omnis will admit to this. No one denies it. No doubt that someday, someone will collect statistics about vegans, vegetarians, omnis and gluttonous meat eaters and put together a chart with quality of life and length of life results. But vegans have been scarce until recent years, so I don't think there has been a lot of data on them. I think they would fare the best out of the four.
|06-15-2011 06:34 PM|
|AdamLayish||To start out, I haven't finished the book, however I have started it, and I have read info on it on other sites. T Colin Campell tested on animals, and us vegans say animal testing is ineffective. I realize Campell did do tests on people, that is why its called the China Study, but many of the tests were done on animals. We think that animal testing isn't effective, and I don't think it is, but I don't think we can have it both ways. Someone, please prove me wrong|