davecole wrote:So really what you are saying is that Taubes the journalist
journalist, you missed that bit out. Taubes studied applied physics at Harvard and aeronautical engineering at Stanford. He knows more than a little about science.
davecole wrote: says that The China Study is rubbish,
Not in GCBC, no he didn't. He does in an interview where he's asked about it but the China Study is not addressed in GCBC at all, primarily I suspect because it's not peer reviewed maetrial.
davecole wrote: so therefore it is rubbish.
No. Because there's a massive body of evidence that eating meat is good for you. Whole populations live to a good age in rude health eating meat and, crucially, not eating grains.
davecole wrote:Scientists have a long history of being wrong,
Yes, they do. That's the nature of science. I'm surprised you find that so hard to accept. Simple illustration, everyone used to believe the world was flat.
davecole wrote: but journalists are better at understanding and interpreting science.
I didn't say that at all. I said I trust Taube's work. I didn't say I trust journalists' work. There's a difference.
davecole wrote:I only mentioned Minger because she is the one that pops up most frequently when you search on the internet for critiques of The China Study. I was not aware that your sole source of argument against the study and book was a book written by a journalist.
journalist. A well qualified one.
You brought up Minger, no one else. I couldn't give to sh1ts about her or her work. It's a furphy you've thrown in.
I didn't say it was my sole source, however if you ever take the trouble to read the book (which I don't think you will because it will invalidate everything you believe about vegetarianism and you're too afraid to go there) you'll understand that knowledge of Minger's work isn't necessary to just laugh at the idiocy that is The China Study.
In this particular subject you have no objectivity. It appears to me that you are willfully misrepresenting what has been written. It's obviously worthless engaging with you any further. If you do ever read the book and you have criticisms of it, then it may be worth having further conversation.
Now excuse me while I chow down on a nice, juicy, grass fed steak.
Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . .