I tend to believe him, but it's just too depressing reading about all the foods that are not good for me but that I love. Maybe another time I'll get through it.

This book had some interesting information, but he seemed to harp on the same points many different ways, such as how the powers that be in food and other commercial enterprises are so money hungry that they are harming us for their profit. I got the message early on and really didn't need the numerous examples and restatements. Other than that, he made some good points. ( )

Excellent explanation of why plant-based diets have yet to hit the mainstream big time. Knowing what I know from reading numerous books and seeing numerous films on the subject, I sometimes wonder why the media is so silent about the benefits of a whole foods, plant-based diet (referred to as a WFPB diet by Dr. Campbell). According to Campbell, there are two primary reasons his work and others are ignored by the mainstream press:

1. The type of research that has been done to show the remarkable effects of eating a WFPB diet is what Campbell refers to as "wholistic". The scientific community is, in general, convinced that the only type research that is worth paying attention to is "reductionist" - research into one element, looking for one effect. Campbell shows us why this approach, while valuable, cannot ever address nutrition adequately. The way our bodies metabolize food is incredibly complex, relying on the interactions of many different systems, and dependent on many variables. A reductionist approach can never see this. It is impossible to take one small nutrient from one whole food and learn what it really does, because it does its work in combination with other nutrients and as part of a large system.

Campbell's scientific background means that he understands how research is done and how awards are granted to research projects. Because the reductionist method is preferred, funding is rarely available for other types of research. Campbell has experience as a researcher, as a teacher, and as a member of panels that award grants. He has seen the system from the inside out.

2. Corporations control what we learn. Corporations are large funders of the non-profit disease-centered organizations, like the American Cancer Society. These organizations, usually led by well-meaning persons who genuinely want to help those with these diseases, are given a lot of "help" by the corporations who offer them large donations. Corporations are involved in research grants as well. Corporations have great influence over our national governmental organizations, like the National Institutes of Health, through their lobbies and other means. It is difficult not to be influenced by the meat,dairy, and pharmaceutical industries, even for those who think they are not.

Further, our media is not doing its job. It is meant to be the "fourth estate" - the independent monitors. But too often reporters, most of whom have little scientific training, buy press releases from governmental and NGOs whole hog. In a recent case, the National Cancer Institute issued a press release that cancer rates had gone down, that there was a big drop. There was a media frenzy, reporting that the "war on cancer" was working. Oddly, nobody thought to ask a critical question: what does "big drop" mean? It was a drop of less than one percent. With lazy and uninformed media toeing the line, what hope is there for the rest of us?

One hope is that we ask the questions ourselves, that we not accept the spoon-feeding offered. Campbell believes that the top-down method will not work here: a revolution needs to start with us. First, adopt a WFPB diet. Influence others to do the same. Read the relevant books. This revolution may eventually be televised. ( )

I tend to believe him, but it's just too depressing reading about all the foods that are not good for me but that I love. Maybe another time I'll get through it.

Filled with exhaustive examples of corruption and cover ups, yet dearth particulars supporting the "Whole nutrition." The book indeed covered it some, but dwelled much more on addressing biases and criticisms rather than supporting it's own conclusions. ( )