I've been a vegetarian for about 4 decades, though for most of that time I used dairy, so I suppose that will invalidate me for many here. I know Denise from the Give It To Me Raw website, and she is a reasonable, intelligent person who happens to be a health researcher as part of her writing career.

At least the doctor had the decency to treat her analysis with respect and apparently found enough intelligence in it to take the time to respond.

Many of the comments here remind me why I avoid vegan oriented websites, where the natives rally like the crazed villagers in the original Frankenstien movie, ready to burn at the stake anyone who tries to have a reasonable conversation with them that might question any of their dogmas.

Above I can see this in action, dozens heaping scorn and ridicule on her, without knowing much about her or passing on slanderous rumors. This is exactly the kind of modus that I frequently see from a minority of vegan activists that really set a bad stereotype of all vegetarians and vegans, and turn off any constructive dialog from vegetarians to carnivores.

The anger and spite demonstrated, without much research into her writing or other social presence, brings to question if these vegan types have much intellect or spiritual growth to show for their evolutionary diet.

As a matter of fact, an overall look at her comment on Price, from a link posted by a hostile commentator above, shows this qualification:

"That said, I think they push the animal products a little too hard -- further than what Price actually recommended after studying those isolated populations. One of the most robust groups he saw, the Gaelics, also ate the least amount of animal products... just fish, and no dairy or game meat. Yet the WAPF tends to recommend high amounts of meat/dairy/butter/cream/eggs etc. for good health, and they cherry-pick some of Price's findings to support that."

I find most of her comments on GITMR to be equally balanced and intelligent. She shows no bias in discussing either vegetarianism or omnivorism, and approaches both with an open-minded honesty.

Perhaps the reason she dared, as a layperson, to look into the China study, is because this book is often quoted by vegans on both GITMR and 30 Bananas a Day, the latter another bastion of vegan hysteria and hatred of omnivores.

Because GITMR is somewhat an open forum, without the latent angst and hostility of the aforementioned vegetarian sites, there are actually balanced, constructive dialogs between all food camps, and people that descend to innuendo and venting their hatred, justified or not, don't last long there and usually end up on 30BAD where lynchings such as the above comments are encouraged.

I'm disappointed in you vegetarians. There is much less chance of reaching omnivores with these kinds of juvenile mob diatribes, and I doubt if I will spend much time in this site unless I want some train wreck entertainment.

Unfortunately in the debates that go on in public forums, we lay people have to hack through scientific and medical writings and try and make some sense as commoners. To the uninitiated, these theories from the ivory towers of science often appear contradictory or obfuscating.

For example while people are railing about casein being such a stimulant of cancer, there are many other studies showing sugar as the primary food source of cancer, and many recommending eliminating all sources as a possible strategy for treating it. I'm not advocating this here, just showing how isolated factors can appear to prop up any argument.

The trouble with so called science and statistics is that even with accepted practices you can find a study to support almost any conclusion: wine is good for you/wine is bad for you; chocolate is good for you/chocolate is bad for you. These kinds of stories drop almost daily in the popular media, culled from peer reviewed scientific journals.

Guess what vegan activists... if you condone the emotional hate meltdowns like the above, you will probably repel all the curious omnivores like the ones writing above, and your message will stop at your own tiny population, never reaching the masses. I have met the enemy and it is us.

Ah, Denise -- the Michelle Malkin of the meat industry!

Mark, Spark's question is valid, in fact anybody's questions are valid, and he was quite reasonable. His question is interesting, and KEY to go from a somewhat informed omnivorous diet to an informed vegan/vegetarian diet, when Health is what is valued. I am vegetarian more because of my ethics than health, but some people are more interested in what diet would be optimal, not ethical. Plus defining well what an optimal diet REALLY is, its important regardless. A diet abundant with vegetables & leafy greens, herbs, Ancient grains (no wheat), some tubers & fruit, and supplemented with some quality animal protein and fat seems to be close to optimal, from what I've learned. Personally Im only interested in optimizing my vegetarian diet, but still itch to know what would be optimal, and what diets are best for treating & preventing illnesses like cancer. Steve Jobs didnt survive his cancer, and he was seemingly going with the Ornish approach (I am aware of the other problems that may have gotten in the way of sucessful diet/lifestyle intervention), now I would love to see someone that believes in a lower carb, meat, fat & plant rich diet, intervene with THAT diet and see if its more protective.