-57 votes

Meat and Dairy Cause Cancer (T. Colin Campbell)

Alarming speech by Dr. Campbell (the China Study), who actually grew up on a dairy farm himself but became a vegan after seeing the results from his own research: animal products and their link to cancer.

A practically lone voice crying in the wilderness, it seems, considering the popularity of the low carb diets and the high consumption of animal products in general. We (and I include myself as a cheese lover) only want to hear what we want to hear, but the truth always comes out sooner or later.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Philosophy implies reason.

Philosophy implies reason. Religion does not. Veganism is more akin to religion than it is to philosophy.

Nietzsche would disagree with that statement.

Philosophy is occasionally based in reason, but not always. Nietzsche was very opposed to the idea that reason should be the cornerstone of philosophy. "All philosophers are tyrannized by logic" he once wrote.


Cuimhnigh orm, a Dhia, le haghaidh maith.

Philosophy, the love of "wisdom"

It doesn't matters what Nietzshce, or anyone else says, our understandings are ours, and ours alone:
I can call an apple an orange and it is "true"... to me.
I can say vegan is a religion, and it is "true"... to me.

Unless ample evidence is given, then what is conveyed is simply an opinion, not factual.

What he said comes down to is an opinion - that a vegan lifestyle is unreasonable - and this opinion is stated with no reason provided why it's unreasonable.
Ironic, isn't it?

Opinions are silly like that.

My point was much narrower...

...that we ought to be careful how we employ the words "true", "logic", "reason", or "philosophy" and how we connect them in our statements. Philosophy doesn't imply reason or logic because in some cases it is explicitly hostile to it. That was my point.

Cuimhnigh orm, a Dhia, le haghaidh maith.


Maybe this will help you:

noun, plural phi·los·o·phies.
the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.

There's nothing inherently

There's nothing inherently wrong with religion... but reason on this for a little while...


The oxidation of fatty acids yields significantly more energy per carbon atom than does the oxidation of carbohydrates. The net result of the oxidation of one mole of oleic acid (an 18-carbon fatty acid) will be 146 moles of ATP (2 mole equivalents are used during the activation of the fatty acid), as compared with 114 moles from an equivalent number of glucose carbon atoms.

With a little reasoning, one can conclude fat is the preferred fuel. With a little religion, one can reject this simple fact of nature.

Not ironic that you'd commit the equivocation fallacy with the word unreasonable. Notice I never made any statement such as

- that a vegan lifestyle is unreasonable -

A religious lifestyle can be reasonable albeit based on faulty premises.


To quote: Not ironic that

To quote:

Not ironic that you'd commit the equivocation fallacy with the word unreasonable.

Now, please show where the equivocation fallacy was committed using the word unreasonable.

If this cannot be substantiated then it is my opinion the entire post containing the claim is devoid of meaning and will be seen simply a tangent and subsequently ignored.

Seeing as there was no intent on building a foundation for such a claim to begin with, I'm not holding my breath on this.

The oldest person (ever) was French, lived to 122

She ate meat, lots of olive oil (loads really), drank a quart of port wine per week, at 2.2lbs of chocolate per week, and ate meat.

The China Study was debunked because Campbell deliberately left out data on long lived "higher meat" consuming Chinese -- he left their region out because it "skewed" his data.

Also -- all the people in his study DID in fact eat meat, there were few vegetarians and no vegans impacting longevity in his study.

He IMAGINES it's the vegetarian side of the diet that increases longevity -- there's no science to it given that the oldest living people do IN FACT in some amount of meat.

One of the oldest Americans (near 110 years) said her secret was eating fried chicken every day, hahahahaha.

My wife's grandmother made it to nearly 100 and she was a wine, chocolate, and chicken eating machine.

Plenty of vegetarian "health" gurus have died of cancer and before the age of 80.

The scientific answer is "we don't know" what contributes to longevity; but it's more likely to do with a combination of good genetic stock and life-style and only moderately based on dietetical absolutism.

Even Older Still

The Buddhist monks of Tibet are on a strict diet of brown rice and some vegetables. Many of them have lived 130+ years.
The hear-say of americans eating deep-fried chicken and living 100+ years is interesting. Though, still just hear-say.

Complete and utter heresay -- show evidence of their ages!!!

Those dudes die in the 80's or 90's at best.

Why wouldn't they live long lives, they are taken care of by society, they never had the stress of child-rearing or "real" jobs.

You first

No, u.

x100They never worried about


They never worried about how many eggs or meat they ate. Whats obvious is that they didnt eat the highly processed and altered foods that are present today.

Do you know what libido is?

Do you know what libido is? It's not stamina, it's sexual appetite. This Du Pinhua also said she never ate meat until she turned 110. So she's not a vegetarian, and I could easily argue that meat got her to live her last decade. There have been no long-term studies of vegetarians. The way "science" is done today is to study many people for a short amount of time and apply that data to one person for a lifetime. It's completely retarded. Until "science" follows thousands of people from uterus to grave in a controlled lab study, your cited studies are just anti-omnivore fluff.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

To quote you...

...you said, "Show me a vegan who lives long. You can't."

So is 110 old? Sorry but you've been shown several examples. You'll see many more examples if you do a Google search.

As far as libido, did you know that erectile dysfunction is one of the first signs of heart disease in men?
Watch this, where Rip Esselstyn talks about it:



Casein it turns out is what his experiments showed to be the culprit in fueling cancers in rats. I saw a more recent interview where he admits that it's not meat in itself but the particular protein that is mainly in dairy products. It's the stuff used to glue labels on beer bottles, it's really tenacious. In fact when it's in your arteries it takes a long time to go away. That is definitely not a good protein for you as his test show, but meat in itself isn't horrible as I also thought myself. After being vegan/vegetarian I had to go back to meat.

My friend realized recently

My friend realized recently that he may have a casein sensitivity. He takes grass fed butter and clarifies it himself now.

nutrient dense eating

nutrient dense eating
with dr. joel fuhrman

Youre free to eat what you

Youre free to eat what you want. Im not a vegetarian because im in tune to my body. My body craves meat and feels great when it gets it. It wilts when it doesnt get it. Im willing to bet those ultimately responsible for pushing vegetarianism/veganism/etc. are the biggest red meat eaters around.

Red and Processed Meat

Red and Processed Meat Consumption and Risk of Incident Coronary Heart Disease, Stroke, and Diabetes Mellitus

Conclusions— Consumption of processed meats, but not red meats, is associated with higher incidence of CHD and diabetes mellitus. These results highlight the need for better understanding of potential mechanisms of effects and for particular focus on processed meats for dietary and policy recommendations.

Everything is Backward, what is going on?

What is going on? I come to Daily Paul to read posts from people who question everything to be verified rather than simply living in absolutes and obeying. And somehow the topic that seems to vanquish all reasoning isn't anything about politics or law... it is about food??

All through government-funded public school and up to state-funded college my nutrition classes have been telling me to eat lots of meat, dairy, eggs, or whichever of the Big Agri is funding the course. The teachers never knew a lick of nutritional information, they just regurgitated what was in the books, praising everything Big Agri is throwing onto our plates.

It doesn't matter if it's grains or meat that's in question, EVERYTHING the gov-backed big corps are throwing at us is garbage to eat. Reading through these comments make me sick to my mental stomach because it's obvious we've fallen for the divide and conquer technique that's worked on us for so long on everything.

Go ahead and argue about Pepsi vs Coke, Google+ vs Facebook, or Big Agri grains vs Big Agri meat - those of us who can see, let us live by example and hope that is enough to get past these tricks.

Remember, an ounce of respect will be returned to you in many pounds.
Good luck!

With all the talk about who

With all the talk about who funded what study, how about everyone switch sides for a few weeks, and see how you feel? Experimenting with your diet is a lot of fun and you can test your willpower to change the way you live. I found my way by trying it out myself and I love finding new ways to do things. I've done everything from the standard american, to raw vegan, full paleo, primal, zero-carb, low fat/whole wheats, raw vegetables and fish, fad diets like only eating regular plain potatoes for a week, all kinds of stuff. Following the money will lead you everywhere, follow your gut- literally!

End The Fed!
BTC: 1A3JAJwLVG2pz8GLfdgWhcePMtc3ozgWtz

Wow lucky for me I don't like

Wow lucky for me I don't like milk and don't eat a lot of meat. I should live forever do you think my smoking a pack a day will hurt?

The china study was

The china study was manipulated for (leftist, environmentalist) ideological reasons. People NEED animal products to be healthy, and the data reflects this fact; vegans, and vegetarians, are more likely to develop cancer and disease, than those who consume animal products.

Do some research into the lies that have been told about saturated fat, and cholesterol.

Follow the money

Weston Price Foundation is funded by meat/dairy businesses. So naturally they're going to push animal products.

Colin Campbell not only got out of the dairy farm business when he saw the results of the China Study but he also LOST his government grants. Guess who advises the USDA and made sure he lost his government grants? You guessed it -- the meat and dairy industries.

Again, you find the truth when you follow the money.

The Weston A. Price

The Weston A. Price Foundation (WAPF) is a non-profit funded by its membership and grants. If they were funded by the "meat and dairy industry," why on earth would they advocate for small organic/grass-fed producers and not Tyson meats or Lucerne? Why would they pressure law makers to create legislation that legalizes the consumption of raw milk rather than legitimizing the system that is already in place and benefiting big industry?

Please do not spread misinformation. The WAPF is rife with good people who are doing wonderful things for small businesses and food freedom in our country. They have my full support.

Weston A. Price Foundation...

...is funded largely by ORGANIC MEAT and DAIRY businesses.

Follow the money (see who's funding the organizations, who sits on the USDA advisory board, and what industries fund studies that come out). While you're at it, look at the pictures of those pushing the foods (take a look at Sally Fallon, for example). You can't go wrong that way.

And who funds PETA? Zoos and

And who funds PETA? Zoos and horse meat operations? I don't think so.

Likewise, Monsanto and Tyson Meats don't support the WAPF. Businesses that are in alignment with their principles support them. What's wrong with that? Stop trying to find something diabolical about an organization that clearly exists to preserve food freedom, research important topics that the USDA and FDA refuse to, and encourage better health choices. Look at pictures? That's not any indication of anything.

From their website:

"The main sources of support for the Weston A. Price Foundation are the dues and contributions of its members. The Foundation does not receive funding from the government or the food processing and agribusiness industries. It does accept sponsorships, exhibitors and advertising from small companies by invitation, whose products are in line with WAPF principles. Current sponsors can be seen at the main page of Weston A. Price. The sponsors include meat and fish producers, as well as health product companies."

Do your research and take a hard look at your biases. Leave misinformation to the mainstream media.