Yes, he is backpedalling on fat but he still did not acknowledged his mistake on casein pointed out by Chris Masterjohn, the artifact of sub-lethal dosage of aflatoxins.
I think there is a certain point beyond which one's investment of time in correcting other people's errors produces a diminishing return. I think there is a point of diminishing return beyond which correcting errors of people like Dr. Campbell becomes counter-productive. Paper is patient.
"... When people come to see me, either in private or at a program, they come to see me as a health professional because they are not well. Usually they have advanced heart disease, diabetes, hypertension, cancer, auto-immune disease, etc etc and often they may have already had several by-passes, stents and/or even a stroke or two and are on multiple medications. In addition, these days, most are overweight and many are obese.
Many of them, as stated above, have already been following a plant-based/strong/perfect diet and/or vegan diet (some for years) and are coming to me because in spite of this, they are still not well. ..."
My comment: - I don't buy that argument! Why they don't just make a study to qualify what does constitute a 100% compliance to their low fat vegan diet of choice, in their mind? Is one cookie a week (99.9% compliance) a significant or an insignificant non-compliance? Is one portion of fish a week (98% compliance) significant? The onus of the proof lies on their territory, otherwise you wouldn't never know!
Why would they not carry out a comparative study with 90%,95% and 100% compliance? Would there be any difference?
Re: It was not Dr Campbell that shut down debate of had kicked anyone off his board.I suspect that was not Dr McDougalls doing and I doubt that he even knew about it until it was already done.But he does know about it now and could correct it.He does on occasion read this message board.
You are making an assumption of a "Good Emperor bad Advisors" type. I don't think so. It is much more likely that nothing happens there without the boss knowing and approving. It is his venue, if he made a mistake in his judgement then too bad. It is his problem.
JC - A different subject, how is your concentration and mental alertness? Do you find it more difficult to focus and concentrate?
No, not on whatever I eat. I wasn't doing well on the SAD nor on the low fat vegetarian diet.
I think JM was overdoing meat as most Atkins dieters tend to do, because Atkins never warned people about excess protein. Atkins probably never realised He will most likely do fine on the high fat low protein nutrition, with supplements or without, unless something else is wrong with him.
With the vegetarian diets like Pritikin's, we have now seen enough to conclude that it is fine for some but not all, probably 50% do fine and seem too liken it long term. The rest find it either intolerably unpallatable though not adverse, or impossible to maintain due to various adverse health effects. You can easily see this pattern in the mcd forum, in the health issues section. Similar is true for the low carb diets but probably not to the same extent, that is based on my partial observations, a fraction of people who would not or cannot tolerate Atkins diet tends to be much smaller than 50%, which can again be best attested by the stats from the low carb forums. Similarly there seems to be a dearth of adverse health effects reported in the low carb forums, especially striking is the lack of new heart attack cases. I cannot support the same observation from the low fat vegan forums, where new heart attack cases, uncontrolled t2 diabetes, as well as kidney and thyroid cases are not uncommonly reported.
Re: "There is something about the integrity of Dr Campbell,Dr Essee,and Dr McDougall that leads me to give serious consideration they may be right about protein and cancer"
I am afraid you may have lost your way. It is not an integrity that determines which theory is right, but the experimental observations. It has nothing to do with the personal integrity. Even if McDougall were "Mother Theresa" I would still double check his theory against the data and would discard it no matter how noble his personality. If it works for you then do it, but don't follow the guy just because you think he is honest. Besides, honest people with a personal integrity don't censor their debating opponents because they don't have to, and also they have nothing to hide! If they do then perhaps they aren't as honest as you think? Perhaps they have another agenda? That alone should make you think...
Barry Groves diet was not high protein, it was high fat! Campbell's casein-protein-cancer theory is not only incorrect but also irrelevant.