Talk:The China Study

WebMD coverage of The China Study

Just wondering if you guys can use this: www.msnbc.com/news/916555.asp I'm not familiar enough with The China Study article on Wikipedia, just working on a semi-/remotely-related article.

Additions

I am currently finishing up this book. As I indicated in my addition, I feel the title is a trifle misleading for the reason cited. Despite the title, the book reviews a substantial volume of past studies. If anything, these take up the bulk of the discussion. The whole idea of the book, as is clear from the book, is its placement within the context of the past scientific literature. This much is immediately clear, I think, to anyone who has read the book.

The second issue is controversy. The authors are aware that their findings will be controversial, and discussion of the hows and whys of this controversy occupy a substantial portion of the book. Saying that one's opponent in a controversy is motivated by a desire to protect his interests is, of course, often used as a kind of ad hominem ploy. The trouble is, what if that happens to be the case? It is reasonable to say that it often is true in the world of public policy and information which can affect the actual financial interests of particular interest groups. Were that not so, there would be no lobbyists in Washington, including those which openly promote the interests of various industries and professions.

It is a key point of the authors that the public needs to be aware of this controversy and the reasons for it. Since that point occupies a major part of the book, it is, I believe, essential to a fair description of the nature of this book.

--Gunnermanz 15:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

One Sided

This article is too one-sided. It mentions that the book is controversial, but doesn't offer any rebuttals, or link to any anti-China Story resources. Dilvie 20:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

So add some if credible rebuttals exist. Be bold. :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.22.160 (talk) 07:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

This is the most POV article on wikipedia I've ever seen. Reading the discussion page is worse as the maintainer earnestly believes it's totally fine and that there is nobody disputing the claims made in the book when a quick google search would prove otherwise. 99.40.226.179 (talk) 19:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a book

I don't think it's the job of a book article to refute that book and I don't think it's one-sided to not put criticisms in this article. You should definitely start a "Criticisms of the China Study" article and even link to it from this one, but the idea that every article about an objective thing must take in both sides of the argument seems silly to me. Atomly 12:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

What's silly is mentioning a controversy, and failing to cover it in the article. Dilvie 19:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Added critical review link

I think it's reasonable (more so necessary) to criticize (or link to criticism) a book that claims to be controversial. The article is not developed enough to have an alternate page dedicated to criticisms. I added a link to a "Thumbs Down Book Review." The article is very reasonable about it's criticism. Wikipedia is a place where people start when looking for information. It should provide that information-- on both sides.

Also, I think the title of the article should be changed to "The China Study: Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss, and Long-Term Health," since the article is about the book, not the China Study itself. As the article develops, the page titled "The China Study" could be used for the study itself.

--Nate 08:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

My experience with Wikipedia is that it's considered standard practice to link to articles that are critical of the viewpoint expressed in the Wikipedia article matter. For example, take a look at the "External links" sections for Raw milk or Soy. As a result, I think the link to the Weston A. Price book review should stay. I just changed the link description to make it a little more clear what the link is about. SweetP112 23:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The "China Study" itself has a page at China Project. This appears to have now been linked into the "China Study" page. "Startling implications for Diet, Weight Loss and Long-Term Health" is clearly a subtitle (smaller font, etc.) rather than part of the title and Wikipedia article names do not include the subtitle. --Irrevenant [ talk ] 03:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I actually came to Wikipedia specifically to find criticisms of this book, but I am satisfied to have them in links, not in the article itself.

As to the critical review that is linked, I want to note that, according to the bio at the end of his review, Chris Masterjohn, that review's author, does not appear to yet have a degree in medicine and is "the creator and maintainer of Cholesterol-And-Health.Com, a website dedicated to extolling the virtues of cholesterol and cholesterol-rich foods." Although I realize that someone with such a background could have legitimate criticisms, I find some of his to be overbroad.

For example, he complains that Campbell criticizes protein but that he fails to mention "the cannibalism or the swollen bellies of children that accompanies the protein-starved diet of the New Guinea Highlanders." First, calorie-starved might be a better term for those children. I don't think Campbell would argue that children should avoid animal protein if they cannot get sufficient calories any other way. Second and more fundamentally, Campbell does not state that protein consumption should be eliminated as Masterjohn seems to imply, just that consumption of animal-protein should be reduced or eliminated. Vegetable protein, he argues, is more than an adequate substitute. Lucylawful 20:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Diabetes Link

There was a recent edit about this, so I'll ask the quesiton here. Doesn't the book claim a relationship between early exposure to casein and the development of type 1 (as opposed to type 2) diabetes? Some sort of autoimmune reaction, IIRC. I haven't looked at it in a while so I'm not sure. Frankg 20:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Too many quotes...

I put the quotefarm tag because more than half the article consists of quotes. It needs some major pruning.--Boffob 14:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

POV

It was noted more than a year ago that this article is "one sided". Nothing has changed. In fact it appears to be worse with some criticism having been removed. Since the article cites only one source--the book itself--it cannot be said to "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source." Unless, of course, no one has published anything critical of the author's findings, which is hard to believe but if that is the case then it calls into question the notability of the book. Incidentally, many of the section headings and paragraphs begin with "The authors ... ", which is just poor writing. --DieWeisseRose (talk) 08:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

(1) It has not been demonstrated that notable criticism of the book exists.

(2) The article is written with attribution of statements to the authors. Although the flow of the article suffers and I am considering how to improve the flow, this was done so that the article has NO POV at all.

I'm removing both of the tags.

Michael H 34 (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

The tags are a warning to readers and editors that there are unresolved problems with the article. You should not have removed them until the problems were resolved. The POV tag explicitly says, "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." I have replaced both tags and if you remove them again as you did the last time then I will report you as a vandal. --DieWeisseRose (talk) 22:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

There are no problems with the article. The article has NO POV. There is no possible dispute on this point. You may add notable criticism if you wish or you may ask that the article be deleted for lack of notability (it is a best seller), but I suggest that you have improperly added tags to this article. I ask you politely to remove them. Michael H 34 (talk) 23:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

I disagree and since we are at an impasse I will submit a request for comment. In the meantime, I am leaving the tags in place. --DieWeisseRose (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

RfC: POV & One Source

{{RFCmedia}} Is the article properly flagged for citing only one source and not fairly representing all significant viewpoints?

• Please see the POV section above for background on this dispute. I am requesting comments rather than a third opinion because editor Michael H 34 seems to be also removing criticism of the book by other editors (see here and here). --DieWeisseRose (talk) 05:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

For those who wish to make comments, please read the following:

The tags

• This article does NOT NEED more than one source because the article is about a book, and the article's title is the name of the book, The China Study. If the title of the article were nutrition, then the tag would be appropriate.
• The article does NOT NEED to include all points of view about nutrition. The title of the article is NOT nutrition. If the title of the article were nutrition, then the POV tag would be more appropriate. This tag is inappropriate.
• The article is written with attribution to statements and therefore the article has NO POV at all.

Criticism

Yes, I removed a section of the article that was NOT about the book at all. The section I removed was completely Original Research. Again, if the title of the article were nutrition, then including notable and reliable POV about nutrition would be appropriate, but the section removed was not notable and not reliable. Thus, the section removed was off topic, not notable and not reliable, and therefore I boldly removed it. The section removed was misrepresented on this discussion page as criticism of the book.

Criticism of the book is appropriate if it is notable and reliable. Users are free to add appropriate criticism. Criticism is NOT necessary if none exists. Do all articles without criticism merit a POV tag? I strongly suggest NO.

The Main Point

This article is NOT a forum for discussing nutrition. The title of the article is The China Study.

I am expanding this noteworthy article as a gift of my time and energy to Wikipedia. Michael H 34 (talk) 15:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

I get the impression the major issue is that the book's message is unconventional and controversial, but there is no mention of the controversy on the page itself. Frankg (talk) 18:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Michael H 34, your "gift of ... time and energy" does not make you unique nor does it entitle you to ownership of the article. It also does not change the fact that the article still only cites one source and represents only one point of view--essentially that of the authors. No one but you has suggested that the article is a forum for discussing nutrition. The article is about the book and, yes, even articles about books should have more than one source and include criticism. --DieWeisseRose (talk) 08:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

If you wish to add notable and reliable criticism of the book, please do so. If you wish to nominate this article for deletion because you believe that the book is not notable despite its being a bestseller, please do so.

However, it is improper to place these tags if no notable and reliable criticism is available. I do not claim to own the article. Please add the criticism, if you wish. Do not add original research though.

In addition, there is no "dispute" about the point of view of the article. The article has no point of view. The point of view of the authors conveyed through the article is attributed to the authors. Michael H 34 (talk) 00:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

You obviously have invested more time and energy on this article than I have. I don't understand why you don't find the "notable and reliable criticism" yourself. Are you really telling me than none exists? If so, what is your basis for this? I'm not going to go looking for it myself because I don't care to spend my time that way. But you have an obvious interest in the book and the article and so I don't understand what is keeping you from improving the article by including other sources and criticism. --DieWeisseRose (talk) 02:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, "being a bestseller" is not one of the criteria for notability. I have no great desire to have the article reviewed for notability but at present it doesn't seem to meet the criteria. So, why don't you just improve it? --DieWeisseRose (talk) 02:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• I think that I mostly agree with Michael H 34 on this. The article would benefit from a section of "criticism" or "reaction," but I do not agree with DieWeisseRose that the responsibility for writing the section lies with Michael H 34 simply because he is the article's most prolific contributor. The claims made in the article are meticulously cited, and beyond that, I know the claims are made in the book because I read it (I know that does not count for anything in an official sense, but I thought I'd throw it out there). The claims made in this book are controversial and I don't see why it would be hard to find criticism of it. But, like DieWeisseRose, I have little interest in finding it myself. I see no POV problem beyond the fact that no one seems to want to find an alternative POV and that is not the fault of anyone who has thus far added info to the article. The info removed by Michael H 34 was indeed not about the book itself, but about nutrition. I think he was right to remove it.--Hraefen ^Talk 03:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me first say that references citing the book itself is pretty silly. Cites should not be used in this fashion. No one will dispute that the authors claimed what they wrote in their own book. One might dispute the validity of the claims themselves, but that's another story. So I do believe all the references from the book should be gone (or at the very least, replaced by "Ibid, p. n" for all the entries after the first, it's improper style to give the full info (title, authors, etc) every time, and really clogs the reference section), unless there's actual doubt whether the book contains such claims.

Second, I have to agree with the POV tag. Overly long summaries (it's a pity the manual of style practically only covers plot summaries of works of fiction on that issue) are problematic to begin with. In the case of controversial essays like this one, with very little if any mentions of criticisms, such a long description comes out as either endorsement or publicity for the work summarized. The level of detail is not warranted, and no matter how many "the authors claim..." one puts, it still represents an extensive single point of view of the work, that of its authors. "The authors claim..." is not enough to make it neutral. Cut it short, by a lot (the best solution) or add similarly extensive criticisms (doable but tedious, as it will add to the unnecessary length and will just create more controversy).--Boffob (talk) 04:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

IMO (which you asked for :)), a factual description of the book's contents is not POV. There should, however, definitely be a comment somewhere to the effect that the author's claims are not universally accepted in the nutritional community. This may not be a general article on nutrition, but it is an article on a book that makes nutritional claims, and how the book is viewed within the nutritional community is relevant and necessary. Similarly, if the contents of the book run counter to orthodoxy in the field, that is relevant for mentioning in this article.

I don't think criticism is necessary for NPOV, but the context is important. IMO, the POV tag should go, but the Single Source tag should stay until a few more sources can be found. I agree that it isn't Michael's personal responsibility to hunt down other sources, though. --Irrevenant [ talk ] 03:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

No one has suggested that it is Michael H 34's "responsibility" to improve the article. I simply asked why he doesn't do that since he has demonstrated a keen interest in the article and I expressed puzzlement that he has not done so. But I agree he has no duty or repsonsibility to do so and have never suggested otherwise.

Some of the external links demonstrate that other viewpoints about the book exists. By Wikipedia's standards, an article is POV if it does not "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source." If such viewpoints about the book exist then the article is, ipso facto, POV since at present only the authors' viewpoints are represented. If no such viewpoints exist then there is clearly a problem with the notability of this article.

Hraefen writes "The info removed by Michael H 34 was indeed not about the book itself, but about nutrition." I provided two diffs at the beginning of this section. I think the other editor(s) were trying to highlight a contradiction in the book's claims about the thermic effect of food and I question whether Michael H 34's edits were appropriate. --DieWeisseRose (talk) 11:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all for your comments.

I disagree with Boffob, who suggested that it would be preferable for the article to provide less information in order to avoid the presentation of a POV. "The authors claim..." IS enough to make the article neutral. The information provided by the article CAN include a POV as long as it is attributed and thus not the POV of the article. I agree that the use of Ibid would be preferable, but this would be problematic if another user wished to add an alternate citation just prior to the Ibid footnote.

The authors' viewpoints are presented. There is nothing wrong with this. The article is neutral and the authors' viewpoints are attributed to the authors.

I ask that the tags be removed while (other) editors add notable and reliable criticism of the book if they wish, and/or nominate the article for deletion. Michael H 34 (talk) 05:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

• I agree with Irrevenant: the POV tag should go and the single source tag should stay. I still find no problem with the deletion Michael H 34 made concernng thermic effect. I also wondered the accuracy of this claim while reading the book, but the cite provided by the author of that info was not addressing The China Study directly, therefore I think it fits the description of OR. And we have now officially spent more time talking about this than we have spent fixing this "problem." --Hraefen ^Talk 05:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Thank you for your comments. Best wishes, Michael H 34 (talk) 05:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

To everyone who thinks the POV tag should go: Does the article "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source"? --DieWeisseRose (talk) 08:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This article (about a book) has no POV, so how can a POV tag (about nutrition) be appropriate? Michael H 34 (talk) 15:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

• I notice that you didn't answer my question, you simply fall back on the same irrational argument you have been making all along. In any case, I'll show you the courtesy of answering your question. The POV tag is appropriate because the article does not seem to "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source." Further, the POV tag is not "about nutrition" and never has been. --DieWeisseRose (talk) 03:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Although it is your opinion that the article does not seem to fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source", this is an inappropriate standard for adding this tag, and it is not the consensus opinion. It is inappropriate to imply to the reader that any article, but especially one that does not have any POV at all, does not fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, simply because no editor has yet added notable and reliable criticism. It is possible that no such criticism exists, and yet the POV tag remains. Please add notable and reliable criticism of the book if you wish, but please remove the POV tag. Michael H 34 (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

• • • Feel free to submit this dispute for informal or formal mediation but the POV tag stays until the article can be said to "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source."

NPOV says: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and, as much as possible, without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors. " --DieWeisseRose (talk) 19:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• The one source tag can stay because, well, it's true. The NPOV tag should go though, because just because there is one source doesn't mean the article is NPOV. NPOV is based on how the information is presented, and the information here doesn't advocate, it only reports. Any balanced article should have more than one source, since the article should not only be about the book, but the book's impact, the response from the readers and critics, it's sales history, etc... and these are facts that cannot be gotten from the book alone. However, as already mentioned, this is not Michael H 34's responsibility; Wikipedia is a group effort, and anyone can contribute only what interest's them if they want to (as long it is verified and notable).--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 13:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for this comment. Best wishes, Michael H 34 (talk) 17:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Michael H 34

I don't think an article can be claimed to be NPOV when the editors watching the article repeatedly remove information critical of the book. The article is about the book, not a summary of the book; it should mostly be referenced to reviews, positive and negative, and not to the book itself.Warren Dew (talk) 19:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Critical information is welcome, but factually incorrect information that is not sourced should not be added to the article. Michael H 34 (talk) 22:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Possible material for a criticism section

I found this essay (http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/China-Study.html) and it seems like a good candidate for starting criticism section because it addresses the book directly. What do y'all think? I wrote this short paragraph based on the essay. --Hraefen ^Talk 09:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Chris Masterjohn authored an essay critiquing Campbell's conclusions in The China Study and it appeared in Wise Traditions, the quarterly journal of the Weston A. Price Foundation. He says the conclusion that a high-protein diet is conducive to the formataion of liver cancer in people exposed to aflatoxin is flawed because it does not mention "whether the best-fed Pilipino [sic] families ate the many staples of modern affluent diets like refined breads and sugars." He also feels that Campbell's conclusions about casein are flawed because "pasteurization, low-temperature dehydration, high-temperature spray-drying (which creates carcinogens), and fermentation all affect the structure of casein differently and thereby would affect its physiological behavior" He also thinks that even if his conclusions about casein are correct, "any effect of casein... cannot be generalized to other milk proteins, let alone all animal proteins."

If the Masterjohn information is considered notable and reliable, then I suggest that ",a non-profit group that provides information and advocacy in support of the consumption of raw milk and foods high in animal proteins." be added to the first sentence in order to provide information about the Weston A Price Foundation. I also suggest that because Campbell's information about aflatoxin and liver cancer in Phillipino children is currently not included in the article, to include this information in the section on criticism could be confusing to the reader. Best wishes, Michael H 34 (talk) 16:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

I'm curious to see if Michael H 34 will accept Masterjohn's stuff on The China Study as a reliable source. I'm not sure I would. He has published peer-reviewed articles on nutrition and other articles in Wise Traditions. But everything he has written on TCS appears to self-published on his own web site.

In any case, some more fundamental criticisms by Masterjohn occur in this paragraph (emphasis added):

Only 39 of 350 pages are actually devoted to the China Study. The bold statement on page 132 that “eating foods that contain any cholesterol above 0 mg is unhealthy,”5 is drawn from a broad—and highly selective—pool of research. Yet chapter after chapter reveals a heavy bias and selectivity with which Campbell conducted, interpreted, and presents his research.

--DieWeisseRose (talk) 08:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)--DieWeisseRose (talk) 08:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It is appropriate to include notable and reliable criticism of the book. The criticism should be attributed to the critic, and information about the critic should also be included.

For example, if Masterjohn's criticism is considered notable and reliable (I should not be the one to make this decision), then Masterjohn's qualifications to be a critic and information about the publisher of the criticism should be included along with the criticism. Michael H 34 (talk) 15:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

This study does need some criticism, but the Masterjohn webpage is not it; none of this information has been published in peer-reviewed journals, and Masterjohn doesn't appear to have any credentials related to nutrition or medicine. I'm going to remove the reference to Masterjohn. Interested in hearing others' thoughts. Rocko1124 (talk) 17:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I came here specifically looking for information on the China Study itself and links to articles which discuss arguments supporting and refuting the claims made in the book. There seems to be some dissension over whether or not such links should exist since this page merely discusses the book and therefore is primarily quotes and information directly from the book. I think there needs to be a separate page discussing the study itself, with criticisms and articles from outside the book itself. Perhaps a "Discussion of the China Study" page in addition to this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.209.219 (talk) 07:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Nominated for Deletion

I have proposed nominated the article for deletion on notability and fringe theory grounds. --DieWeisseRose (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

--DieWeisseRose (talk) 21:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I also disagree that this article should be deleted. This is not a fringe theory since it is about a popular book, and on top of that the book is based off of published and verifiable scientific research and papers. There is a debate about the content of the book, but the answer should be to include a criticisms section, not deleting the article entirely. The article also needs to be cleaned up and cite different sources, but again, it should be revised, not deleted.

As for notability, just perform a google news archive search and you will find plenty of articles by major newspapers discussing the china study.

I disagree that this article should be deleted. For the following reasons:

1. The author is a well respected scientist in the topic of this book: "T. Colin Campbell, who was trained at Cornell (M.S., Ph.D.) and MIT (Research Associate) in nutrition, biochemistry and toxicology, spent 10 years on the faculty of Virginia Tech's Department of Biochemistry and Nutrition before returning to the Division of Nutritional Sciences at Cornell in 1975 where he presently holds his Endowed Chair (now Emeritus)." [1]
2. The results of this epidemiological study are considered to be controversial, for the most part, because it contradicts what the meat and dairy industry, USDA and others promote as a healthy diet for Americans, aka the "standard American diet" -- a diet which most people agree can lead to heart-disease, diabetes, obesity, cancer, etc.
3. "The China Study" is part of the Google Books collection[2]. Why would Google include a fringe theory book? If it's good enough for Google to host the entire book for free, shouldn't it be good enough for a one page article in wikipedia?
4. I've read this wikipedia entry on "The China Study", and I'd love to rewrite it completely then simply delete what exists.

--Thomas.vandenbroeck (talk) 07:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Dubious

T. Colin Campbell is not listed as "Director of The China Project" on the China Project web site or on his Cornell bio. To my knowledge, his book and associated web site is the main source of the claim that he is the Director. --DieWeisseRose (talk) 00:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Dubious? I don't see on that link that he is the director. But maybe you should try following the 'publications' link and searching for 'campbell'. His name comes up in basically all of the publications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.106.224.20 (talk) 00:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

So, what is your point? --DieWeisseRose (talk) 00:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

My point was it is reasonable to trust the book when it says he is director. Anyways, that is irrelevant since I took a look at the cornell bio page you linked and found this:

"Organized and directed a multi-national project responsible for nationwide surveys of diet, lifestyle and mortality in the People's Republic of China (1983-present)"

Looks like that clears things up, doesn't it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.52.218.45 (talk) 03:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Not hardly. It is not clear that the China Project is even active any more and a reference on a bio page that perhaps Campbell controls is hardly more compelling than Campbell's self-serving claims in his book and associated web site. Why isn't he listed as the Director on the Project web site? --DieWeisseRose (talk) 05:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The question of why he isn't listed on a particular website is irrelevant. Michael H 34 (talk) 05:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

It is very relevant when it is the web site of the project he claims to be the Director of. --DieWeisseRose (talk) 05:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I added a reliable source for T. Colin Campbell's position with Cornell and his status as "one of the directors" of the China Project. Michael H 34 (talk) 17:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

Way dubious. this article smacks of dubiousness. talks all about cholesterol and does not even mention good cholesterol vs. bad cholesterol (ie. LDL and HDL ) Secondly, a study of 220 million people or something like that, is just riiidiculous to begin with. (my emphasis on riiidiculous.) think about Nielson ratings. you get a statistically representative sample of the entire American TV watching population from only a few thousand people. This 'article' throws up more red flags than i care to mention. What about the Inuit (eskimos) who subsist on virtually nothing but whale blubber? are they dying left and right of all these diseases? i digress.

References

Since most are from the book itself (again, I don't think that's proper, unless there is question whether the author(s) made the statements in the book or not), can't the subsequent ones be reduced to "Campbell, page x" (or something to that effect)? It really is not good form to have the same book listed completely each time. ETA: consider the notes and references section of Foie gras for example. It's a much nicer way to approach repeated entries.--Boffob (talk) 03:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, since no one bothered to do it, I finally took care of it.--Boffob (talk) 19:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine

I'm advocating that a separate article for the author of this study should be restored. What is your view? Vapour (talk) 01:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

A separate article on the author should only exist if the author article contains different information than what is covered in this one, provided the author passes the notability guidelines for WP:BLP. Also, I had to undo your last edit, because your "reference" was a link to a google news search, which fails to meet the external links guidelines and the citations guidelines.--Boffob (talk) 13:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

A separate article is fine if the author is notable enough. Prima face evidence as someone who has been cited many times in the media, based on his considerable research and findings, it's probably the case he is noteworthy enough for his own entry for the main author. But someone with the time to create such an entry (an entry whose references show notability), needs to do that..--Harel (talk) 02:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Weird sentence

Somebody fix this sentence: "They also report that the counties in China with the highest rates of some cancers were more than 100 times greater than counties with the lowest rates of these cancers." Offhand, it seems to say that these specific cancers were more common in very large counties.. (?) Muad (talk) 07:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Re-raising one-sidedness issue

I have no strong opinions on the book (in fact, I only heard of it today), but I went through the entire article waiting for criticism of the theory, so that I could make a preliminary judgement of whether it was worth pursuing. The lack of such criticism left me disappointed.

I note in particular that I have read a great number of articles (WP or otherwise) discussing similarly controversial theories, and considering that these almost invariably contain statements ranging from "the scientific community is split" to "main-stream science has been highly critical" (with corresponding lengthier explanations), I am highly surprised to not see any such comments here. If no such criticism exist then this would be truly remarkable---and well worth mentioning. (Then again, if no such criticism exist, I would almost certainly have heard of the study or its ideas repeatedly by now.)

I hasten to stress that controversy is not the same as faultiness: A theory can be highly controversial, even condemned, without necessarily being faulty. Note e.g. some early reactions to the theories of Darwin and Einstein, or the disputes around "The Bell Curve". 188.100.194.167 (talk) 17:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll see if I can draft a "Criticisms" paragraph. (Was one previously added and purged?) A stylistic nit: repeated use of "the authors. . . " gives it the appearance of a first draft. Mark Underwood (knowlengr) 17:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowlengr (talk • contribs)

I also just heard of the book today. Checked the article, noticed it was one-sided, started a Criticism section, then came to the talk page, to find that one has been expunged (?) Apologies if I should not have done so.Weavehole (talk) 09:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)weavehole

Updating Plant-based diet link to actual wiki page

All the links for "Plant-based diet" redirect to vegetarianism, however there is an actual Plant-based diet wiki page. I would like to update these links so that they redirect to the proper page. --Thomas.vandenbroeck (talk) 22:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding removed George Mann quote- it was edited disingenuously and taken horribly out of context

Here is the full quote:

ATHEROSCLEROSIS IN THE MASAI1

GEORGE V. MANN, ANNE SPOERRY, MARGARETE GARY and DEBRA JARASHOW Mann, G. V. (Vanderbilt Univ. School of Medicine, Nashville, Tenn. 37203), A. Spoerry, M. Gray, and D. Jarashow. Atherosclerosis in the Masai. Am J Epidemiol 95: 26–37, 1972.–The hearts and aortae of 50 Masai men were collected at autopsy. These pastoral people are exceptionally active and fit and they consume diets of milk and meat. The intake of animal fat exceeds that of American men. Measurements of the aorta showed extensive atherosclerosis with lipid infiltration and fibrous changes but very few complicated lesions. The coronary arteries showed intimal thickening by atherosclerosis which equaled that of old U.S. men. The Masai vessels enlarge with age to more than compensate for this disease. It is speculated that the Masai are protected from their atherosclerosis by physical fitness which causes their coronary vessels to be capacious.

atherosclerosis; autopsy; cholesterol; coronary artery disease; diet; exercise

1 From the Nutrition Division, vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee 37203 (G. V. Mann and D. Jarashow), and the Aftrican Medical and Research Foundation, Nairobi (A. Spoerry and M. Gray). Reprint requests to Dr. Mann. (From the Nutrition: The Great Diet Debate

Minger material

The Minger material looks good to me, but I know nothing about this field. Our normal rules for source reliability require some sort of third-party validation of the quality, e.g. publication in a peer-reviewed journal, publication by a recognized authority, etc. What evidence do we have that the Minger material is reliable? --Macrakis (talk) 18:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You will not find any third party validation of the quality of Minger's work. However, you may find the response to her critics by Campbell himself here : http://www.vegsource.com/news/2010/07/china-study-author-colin-campbell-slaps-down-critic-denise-minger.html --Kasui84 (talk) 13:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Minger "looks good" and "Campbell replied" is not enough to count as "scientific" or "peer-reviewed". This entire thing is a large scale scam going on right now. Denise Minger is allegedly a private fun blogger, without any scientific background whatsoever. Her "papers" have no scientific weight or credibility whatsoever. She is not credible in any way, she is a completely random private blogger, writing allegedly about her "raw foodie experiences". I so far removed of all the data concerning the "Minger" scam. 92.231.86.66 (talk) 00:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow, biased much? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.99.170 (talk) 18:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe Minger’s analysis would be sourced through Dr. Harriet Hall’s article at Science Based Medicine : http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=6092

I believe Dr. Harriet Hall’s criticism that has been deleted should be re-instated as well, and criticism from her second article should be included as well. Dr. Hall is considered an expert at detecting bad science (see her wiki entry – she is a columnist and editor at various magazines.) While Science Based Medicine where the China Study critique was published is an online website, it does have an editorial board of medical and scientific experts; it is not a self-published blog. Dr. Hall has published extensively in professional magazines such as Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine, Skeptic, and Skeptical Inquirer (and even had her own column in Oprah Winfrey’s magazine.) She even has her own wiki entry.

The inclusion of Dr. Hall would also maybe warrant the inclusion of Denise Minger’s critique because Minger’s analysis was utilized heavily in Dr. Hall’s 2nd article critiquing The China Study (see link above). Minger’s analysis would be sourced through Dr. Hall’s article. Again, Dr. Hall is an expert at analyzing phony science, and she had no problems with the Minger analysis. As an expert and impartial arbiter, she found Minger’s analysis better than Campbell’s of the very same data, and that should be worthy of a mention. Cccpppmmm (talk) 13:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Advocacy, Not Science - Unscientific Opinion?

I suggest removing and/or replacing Michael Eades unscientific opinion since: 1) it has not been directed at any specific "obfuscation" and is instead a generalized statement, 2) it offer no scientific critique, 3) it may be more of a flamboyant opinionated hyperbole ploy for a link to his own blog post, 4) this space if used correctly seems better served with factual scientific based responses and criticism.

Current text that I'm suggesting to be removed or replaced: "One such critic, physician and author Michael Eades wrote, "The China Study is a masterpiece of obfuscation. It is obfuscatory in so many ways it could truly qualify as a work of obfuscatory genius. It would be difficult for a mere mortal to pen so much confusion, ambiguity, distortion and misunderstanding in what is basically a book-length argument for a personal opinion masquerading as hard science." [39]

I would urge anyone with a grasp of statistics to look at Denise Minger's analysis of the China Study data (http://rawfoodsos.com/). DM even offers a basic stats refresher on her site! Regardless of her scientific background, little has been offered by way of criticism that detracts from her grasp of mathematics and the robustness of her work. Her work does not discredit TCC but it does call in to question how robust HIS statistical analyses of the data are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.87.143.3 (talk) 16:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Correlation is Not Causation - Quote is out of context

I suggest honestly presenting the full context of the paragraph rather than the current out-of-context quotes. Here is the remainder of the book quote paragraph on page 107 (most of which is actually copied onto Michael Eades website http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/China-Study-page-107.jpg), which if read in full presents Dr Campbell's message very differently than Micheal Eads extracted piece.
"Absolute proof in science is nearly unattainable. Instead, a theory is proposed and debated until the weight of the evidence is so overwhelming that everyone commonly accepts that the theory is most likely true. In the case of diet and disease, the China Study adds a lot of weight to the evidence. Its experimental features (multiple diet, disease and lifestyle characteristics, and unusual range of dietary experience, a good means of measuring data quality) provide an unparalleled opportunity to expand our thinking about diet and disease in ways that previously were not available. It was a study that was like a flashlight that illuminated a path that I had never fully seen before."--Jdmumma (talk) 06:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Micheal Eads original quote: "On page 107 of The China Study, Dr. Campbell writes: 'At the end of the day, the strength and consistency of the majority of the evidence is enough to draw valid conclusions. Namely, whole plant-based foods are beneficial, and animal-based foods are not.' Then one inch below (literally) he writes the following: 'The China Study was an important milestone in my thinking. Standing alone, it does not prove that diet causes disease.' So, the China study produces valid conclusions as to causality, i.e., 'whole plant-based foods are beneficial, and animal-based foods are not.' Yet the China study 'does not prove that diet causes disease.' Say what?" [42] --Jdmumma (talk) 06:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Removed criticism

I suggest we delete ANY criticism of this work immediately. Wikipedia has a duty to protect this important book/study. Conflicting studies should be expunged. Articles or quotes from conflicting Doctors need to be deleted or at least make sure you remove 'Dr.' from their name as to discredit.

Excellent work everyone! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.173.223.44 (talk) 19:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you serious? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.170.10.178 (talk) 22:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

This is pretty sad. The people who've removed all the criticism references from this article should be ashamed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.58.120.11 (talk) 01:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

If you have to be dishonest about suppressing dissent, then your material must not be factual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diafono (talk • contribs) 06:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Copied from SlimVirgin talk

your comments on my deleted post on China Study

Hi SlimVirgin,

Re: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:76.75.115.179&redirect=no">your comment</a>

You wrote:

Hi, your edits to this are what we call original research. You need to find a reliable source who says exactly what you are saying. You can't extrapolate from original data. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

In this case I disagree. I am not extrapolating from or processing the original data, I am _quoting_ the original data! In science, if Campbell's book says "+" and the raw China study data says "-" then quoting the discrepancy is all it takes to either invalidate a particular aspect of the book or at least force some revaluation.

Significant correlation factors for all relevant animal produce, except milk, (see page 215 of that paper ) have negative signs! Since the discrepancy is so evident then you do not need a peer review system to evaluate my assertion or my claims - I did not produce them! I am a messenger! No matter how many people I can get to peer-review and agree or disagree with my message, the "-" correlation factor will still remain "-" and it will still contradtict the book no matter what anybody would say! Minus is minus! The original raw China study data - already a peer-reviewed published work - basically speaks by itself - against the book! Why not let the numbers speak loud and clear on your wiki page! If my editing and formatting is not well constructed (I am learning) why not post the link and the number quotes by yourself! You have all the data linked! If you still require a formal peer-review acceptance, or feel there is a need to qualify it, you can publish it with a "disputed" qualifier added by you to my text, as you (wiki) often do in similar disputed situations.

Stan Bleszynski 76.75.115.179 (talk) 02:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Your analysis could be correct, but we have no way of judging it. That's why we ask for reliable published secondary sources. See our policy on primary and secondary sources at WP:PSTS, which is part of our No original research policy, something all editors are asked to abide by. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi SlimVirgin,

Re: "Your analysis could be correct, but we have no way of judging it. That's why we ask for reliable published secondary sources. See our policy on primary and secondary sources at WP:PSTS, which is part of our No original research policy, something all editors are asked to abide by. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)"

I am still a bit puzzled. It is of course correct as long as the China study data is correct! It is not my analysis, I only posted some raw correlations without amalyzing or processing anything! It is supported by the China study itself (you can check the reference link I posted, see page 215 therein). Besides, this is only a comment about a popular book entry, not a peer-reviewed publication! Stan Bleszynski 76.75.115.179 (talk) 22:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Stan, the point is that for every single thing we add to Wikipedia, we need a source who says exactly what we say. We are not allowed to draw any conclusions that the sources do not themselves draw explicitly. So if you want to add that material, you'll need to h ave a source who agrees with your analysis, or who agrees that the raw correlations you posted ought to be singled out the way you singled them out. That is, you cannot be a first publisher of that list of facts, or of that portion of the list of facts. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

China Study Edits

It seems pretty relevant to include the criticism that T. Colin Campbell, himself, has responded to publicly.

Why do you feel that these are not relevant to the article?

Last I checked, this was an encyclopedia. People come to the China Study page to learn about the China study. The fact that a blogger posted an in-depth analysis of the China Study and that it gained so much notoriety that Campbell himself responded to it seems like the kind of relevant information that should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.95.237.242 (talk) 19:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, a blogger isn't a reliable source for this kind of material. Our sourcing policy at WP:SOURCES explains when self-published sources are allowed. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Well if you read the section "Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves," you can clearly see reason to include the information about the China Study analysis and its relation to the China Study itself. It is not about refuting the claims of the China Study, it is about the criticisms and discussion that ensued among the author of the book and a blogger. How can you justify excluding these dialogues (or other dialogues) when the author himself addressed them? That, itself is an interesting and informational fact. It is a source about itself, it isn't a source for the article! You can't use the fact that it isn't peer reviewed to exclude it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.95.237.242 (talk) 02:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Self-published sources are sometimes allowed when the source is an expert in the field who has previously been published by third-party sources (but even then with caution). My understanding is that the blogger in question has no formal training in this area, and has not been published elsewhere, so that rules them out automatically. Sources don't have to be peer-reviewed, just published by someone other than themselves. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

This is not about self-published sources. It's about it being a source about itself. The fact that the author had these discussions about the book the wikipedia article is on is extremely interesting, and completely relevant to a 'criticisms' section. The citation is only as a source about the source itself! The fact that these discussions have taken place. It is not about citing information presented in the article. To me, it doesn't seem like you are understanding the difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.95.237.242 (talk) 03:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

A blogger has written criticism of a book. The blogger has no expertise, no qualifications, no publishing history in the field. That blogger is therefore not a reliable source for Wikipedia. It doesn't matter who has responded politely, whether the subject or the President of Yale. The source is not one that can be used on Wikipedia. An exception would be made if there were a real debate between the blogger and others that other reliable sources were commenting on it, but that's not the case here. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The blogger is not the source for wikipedia. The blogger is the source for information about the blogger and the dialogue! I feel like you're not understanding this point. I agree that as the entry was before, it is not acceptable, but if it were rewritten to be about the dialogue, then I would hope you would not remove that information. As it seems pertinent and completely in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.170.10.178 (talk) 22:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you connected to the blogger? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

No. I'm a PhD Student in Computer Science in Florida. I have no connection to any bloggers. I just have an interest in nutrition, and find the recent treatment of this article not very impartial. Reading the discussion for the article it's pretty clear that there is some kind of focused effort on the internet to rid the article of any mention of imperfections. I had read the article before and had come back to find the material I was looking for deleted and I was just trying to figure out why. Since that was part of the article that lead me to do further research. I just feel that others would benefit from knowing that the author has had back-and-forths with at least 3 people publicly about this book. One is a professor at Colorado State University. I learned more about "The China Study" from these back and forths than I did actually reading the China Study, ironically enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.170.56.157 (talk) 17:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The Campbell response was a polite one. He wrote that Minger was an English major with no background in the field. He wrote that her material is embellished with adjectives and subjective remarks. There is nothing about this exchange that makes it notable in Wikipedia's terms or a reliable source within our policies. Anything can act as a source about itself (the distinction you keep asking me to observe). I could write about me on my blog, then insist that an article about me be created, because I'm a source about me. The question is whether the source is reliable and the issue notable. You haven't shown the exchange to be notable, and the blogger is definitely not a reliable source within the definition we use on Wikipedia. If you want to add criticism of the book, or the study (separate issues), you need to find a reliable independently published source. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

China Study Edits

I believe Dr. Harriet Hall’s criticism should be included as well as the criticisim from her latest article on the subject http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=6092. Dr. Hall is considered an expert at detecting bad science (see her wiki entry – she is a columnist and editor at various magazines.) While Science Based Medicine where the China Study critique was published is an online website, it does have an editorial board of medical and scientific experts, and Dr. Hall has published extensively in professional magazines such as Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine, Skeptic, and Skeptical Inquirer (and even had her own column in Oprah Winfrey’s magazine.) She even has her own wiki entry.

The inclusion of Dr. Hall would also maybe warrant the inclusion of Denise Minger’s critique because Minger’s analysis was utilized heavily in Dr. Hall’s 2nd article critiquing The China Study (see link above). Minger’s analysis would be sourced through Dr. Hall’s article. Again, Dr. Hall is an expert at analyzing phony science, and she had no problems with the Minger analysis. As an expert and impartial arbiter, she found Minger’s analysis better than Campbell’s of the very same data, and that should be worthy of a mention.

The China Study is just a diet book that has not itself undergone peer-review, and it might be an important criticism that the science is so shoddy that 23-year old English major can pick it apart. Dr. Hall, an expert in detecting phony science, definitely believes that The China Study is shoddy science. Cccpppmmm (talk) 19:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Any criticism is fine, indeed welcomed, so long as it has been published by a reliable, independent, secondary source, per WP:SOURCES. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Chris Masterjohn's criticism was published in Harriet Hall's first article, and Denise Minger's criticism was published in Hall's second article. Dr. Hall is a widely recognized authority on detecting quackery (she has her own wikipedia entry), so she would in fact be a reliable, independent, secondary source.

She wrote an article for Science Based Medicine where she discussed Masterjohn's critique of the China Study, and as an expert she concurred with his criticisms. She then wrote another article for Science Based Medicine where she discussed Minger's critique of the China Study, and as an expert she concurred with her criticisms.

As well as being a a writer and editor at various professional magazines concerning quackery, there is also precedent to her criticisms being used on wikipedia at entries for Healingherald.org, Trick or Treatment, Amen Clinic, Vitamin O, etc... Wikipedia already considers here to be a reliable source. In this case she is reporting the findings of Chris Masterjohn, Denise Minger, and others and adding her own expert analysis. It appears that Masterjohn's and Minger's analysis would be properly sourced via Dr. Hall

In addition, there is this: “The Relationship between Consumption of Animal Products (Beef, Pork, Poultry, Eggs, Fish and Dairy Products) and Risk of Chronic Diseases: A Critical Review” by Hu and Willett of Harvard School of Public Health states on page 16 that “the [China] study did not find a clear association between meat consumption and risk of heart disease or major cancers.” http://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2004/09/17/000090341_20040917140312/Rendered/PDF/296130Consumption0of0animals01public1.pdf

The China project data shows no clear association between animal products and disease, but in Campbell’s book The China Study he claims to have found multiple associations. The raw univariate correlations published in the China project monograph actually show that plant products such as carbohydrates, plant protein, and fiber are more correlated with disease than animal protein and fat. Campbell invented a new, “holistic” style of science where he can make the data say whatever he wants it to, and that has been much of the critique from Masterjohn, Minger, Hall and others – that what Campbell is doing is not real science.

Campbell is actually proud of his new holistic science, and promotes it on the front page of his website in the article called “Correlation vs Causation.” Here is a key quote:

“In summary, I agree that using univariate correlations of population databases should not be used to infer causality, when one adheres to the reductionist philosophy of nutritional biology and/or when one ignores or does not have prior evidence of biological plausibility beforehand. In this case, these correlations can only be used to generate hypotheses for further investigation, that is, to establish biological plausibility. If in contrast, we start with explanatory models that represent the inherent complexity of nutrition and is accompanied by biological plausibility, then it is fair to look for supportive evidence among a collection of correlations…”

He says quite clearly that the standard refrain of “Correlation is not Causation” no longer applies to his new holistic science that he used in the The China Study to condemn meat. The fact the he used a new apparently “magical” science opposed by probably 99% of other scientists should be worthy of a mention, even if not referenced in other sources. He fully and proudly acknowledges that he contradicts widely-held a priori scientific philosophy to be able to reach his conclusions, and there should be some statement in wikipedia acknowledging this.

The same paper by Hu and Willet above quotes Doll and Peto from a different paper (interestingly, Peto was the epidemiologist for the China project, though he had no involvement in Campbell’s book The China Study.)

“Trustworthy epidemiological evidence, it should be noted, always requires demonstration that a relationship holds for individuals (or perhaps small groups) within a large population as well as between large population groups. Correlation between the incidence of cancer in whole towns or whole countries and, for example, the consumption of particular items of food can, at most, provide hypotheses for investigation by other means. Attempts to separate the roles of causative and of confounding factors by statistical techniques of multiple regression analysis have been made often, but evidence obtained in this way is, at best, of only marginal value.”

The head epidemiologist that worked on the China project clearly would vehemently disagree with Campbell’s new holistic science that Campbell used in the book The China Study to condemn meat. Campbell didn’t even bother to get “marginal value” by performing multivariate regression or accounting for confounding variables (as Minger demonstrated) because his new holistic science is all about cherry-picking simple univariate correlations.

While Campbell is a career scientist and researcher, his newly adopted holistic science that he relied upon to write his book and continues to endorse is clearly considered to be pseudoscience by mainstream science. I think once Campbell has fully-endorsed pseudoscience as he has done on his own website and in the various rebuttals he has published to the critics The China Study, then any commentary from acknowledged experts on pseudoscience such as Dr. Hall should be included whether it is second-sourced or not. I also think wikipedia has a responsibility to specifically give real science a favored position over pseudoscience. Dr Hall said that Masterjohn’s and Minger’s were good critiques.