Quote:
Originally Posted by CrescentMoonie
Forks over Knives is based on the China Study that has been completely dissected as comically bad research where the raw data doesn't support the bullshit that Campbell and others have profited off of for years[/url].
|
So you're citing a non-scientist blogger's analysis of the China Study as evidence that Campbell's work is invalid?
Campbell's response
Ignore the over-the-top intro at the top. For some reason, they felt it was necessary to talk about Campbell's epic slapdown of the blogger, rather than just post his response.
Edit: I tried copying Campbell's whole response, but something keeps making it disappear when I try to post it. So here is what a professional epidemiologist had to say about the blogger's analysis.
"Your analysis is completely OVER-SIMPLIFIED. Every good epidemiologist/statistician will tell you that a correlation does NOT equal an association. By running a series of correlations, you've merely pointed out linear, non-directional, and unadjusted relationships between two factors. I suggest you pick up a basic biostatistics book, download a free copy of "R" (an open-source statistical software program), and learn how to analyze data properly. I'm a PhD cancer epidemiologist, and would be happy to help you do this properly. While I'm impressed by your crude, and - at best - preliminary analyses, it is quite irresponsible of you to draw conclusions based on these results alone. At the very least, you need to model the data using regression analyses so that you can account for multiple factors at one time."