Hi, this is Doctor Justin here. Today's talk is on the China study. I get questions about the study all of the time, is meat bad, will meat cause cancer, why do you recommend so much meat in your diets? So again let's talk about that. So the China study broke it up in a couple different areas. We have the China study book and the book is absolutely nothing, it's totally different and segregated compared to what the study and what Colin Campbell's research is. Just to keep that clear, so the book and the study are two different things. So first things first Colin Campbell's early research, he extrapolated that protein causes cancer by a rat study. What he found was that when protein levels where at twenty percent, cancer genes were on these rats will get cancer. Then next, when they decreased the protein down five percent, these rats would no longer get cancer. So he assumed, what we're seeing is cancer levels at twenty percent is gonna turn cancer genes on. Cancer levels at five percent actually turns them off. Well and the problem is he was basically giving these rats casein proteins, casein's found in dairy but in dairy, there's an anticancer protein known as whey. So normally we get exposed to these in nature we get both the same time. So the cancer effects of casein would be offset by the anticancer effects of whey. So in nature, we never get exposed to casein by itself. And I agree with Campbell, I'm not a big fan of casein protein. I think it can be very inflammatory and gut irritating. It's why if I were to recommend any dairy at all it would be raw unpasteurized dairy, where you're getting the enzymes and you're getting all of the protein in their healthy form along with whey. But, in general, I agree with him. My biggest beef with him is that the fact that you're not going to be exposed like that in nature and you can't go now and extrapolate will casein cause cancer at these levels, all meat causes cancer at these levels. You're extrapolating to the umpteenth degree, saying now grass fed meat. Now we're not even differentiating, is it organic, is it grass-fed, is it anti-biotic free, hormone free, was it fao gmo food, there's so many variables and factors and for him to say that, in my opinion, it's very unscientific. Because there are many different variable levels that effect the nutrient levels of the food. Is it grass-fed organic, how about lamb, beef, eggs, poultry, and fish, and to go and say that because the study with the casein and the rats show this, we're going to extrapolate that all cancer is caused by these proteins and that's just preposterous. The next research that Campbell did was different epidemiological studies. He gave different surveys through regions throughout China to fill out. And based on his data, he came up with a conclusion that animal products cause cancer based on these epidemiological research. Well, first thing's first, epidemiological research can only build a hypothesis. (I think, I propose) The big issue with this is that the fact that he has to now have a clinical trial to test this hypothesis. So what he's doing is he's coming up with epidemiological research that says one thing and he's saying, well that's it, it's conclusion. And it's not, the epidemiological research only now says we have to do a study now we have to do clinical trial to now support this and see if this comes out the way that we think it is based on our surveys. Denise Mengar did a great job on this, so feel free to go to rawfoodsos.com. She did 40 to 50 different pages on this to kinda breaking down all the data and the research and it doesn't even actually show exactly what he said. And if you go through her literature, she actually shows that grains are actually proven to be anti or actually pro cancer as well. Another scenario there as well. So cutting grains out of the diet can be an excellent thing to help produce cancer as well as your fine carbohydrates and sugar. So my beef is that fact that one we have to differentiate what kind of meats we're talking about; we talking about organic, grass fed, pesticides, chemicals, hormones. What's the quality, we have to differentiate, alright. And, two, we have to not throw the baby out with the bath water. Research, epidemiological research, first brings a hypothesis and now we have to test that in a feeding study. And that research has not been done. We have lots of people go around and this is their, essentially, foundation for all of their evidence for not eating meat lies upon. And if that's it, that lies on pretty shaky ground because epidemiological or anthropological data supported that many many centuries many thousands of thousands of years these people have been eating these healthy animal products. And my biggest thing is that we have to differentiate, is it full of chemical, is it full of junk, or feedlot animals, I don't support that. But I do support healthy animal products, grass fed meats, healthy chickens, healthy eggs, and an open environment cage free. All of that because when an animal is healthier it's going to produce healthier food. You cannot extract health from and unhealthy animal. So it's important that we give our animals as much love, health, air, as good as a life as possible and one bad day. And that's part of the circle of life and then we take their energy and nutrients, and we use it to rebuild ourselves. And, one day, we'll lie down for a slumber and our body will go back into the ground. That's the circle of life. So just differentiating, looking at the study here I hope everyone has a good view on my opinion and hopefully it make sense to everyone here. Thanks. Have a great day.