Yeah that was some pretty nice stabbing. I do love a good stabbing.
I kind of always took the China Study's (the book's) purported statistics and correlations to be valid on their face, because even if they were it still doesn't mean a thing. You can't use epidemiology to prove a positive causation. We see this in world-wide epidemiology. Meat is a marker of affluence and so is sugar. They will usually correlate nicely and yet we have no way of isolating our variables. And that's when I ask for some sort of mechanism or plausible explanation but all I get are more correlations or perhaps some obscure low-grade metabolic dysfunction (palmitic acid causes leptin resistance!!1) sort of thing. But if their statistics were blatant cherry-picked miss-representations I guess that is that. But that was that already. No doubt this will have no relevance convincing militant vegans of anything. Especially ones who bought and read the book, admitting that a book you've put time into studying is complete bs is hard enough in the absence of ideological vegan dogma.
Kurt Harris' take was my favorite.
Stabbing conventional wisdom in its face.
Anyone who wants to talk nutrition should PM me!