72 December-January 2014
Cowspiracy
Review by Frank Armstrong
ENVIRONMENT
BOOK REVIEW
Stop Feeding Your
Cancer: One Doctor’s
Journey
Dr John Kelly
Pentheum, 2014
$13.99
A
DOCUMENTARY called ‘Cowspiracy’ is currently
doing the social-media rounds. In time it could
have an influence comparable to Al Gore’s ‘An
Inconvenient Truth’ as the devastating impact of ani-
mal agriculture and fishing is laid bare. ‘Cowspiracy’
takes aim at how prominent environmental organisa-
tions, including Greenpeace, fail to bring this number
one cause of climate change and biodiversity loss to
the public’s attention. The sources of funding for envi-
ronmental organisations are also questioned and the
powerful reach of the animal agriculture industries
highlighted.
Another Cowspiracy seems to operate in the medical
community where unwillingness to engage effectively
with the crucial importance of diet, especially the
observed benefits of plant-based approaches in terms
of longevity and incidence of pathology is apparent.
A host of epidemiological studies, notably the Oxford
Vegetarian Study in 1999, have shown that those on
plant-based or largely plant-based diets live longer and
have lower disease risk including of cancer.
Yet, despite this being well established in the peer-
reviewed literature, there are few peer-reviewed studies
on the link between cancer and diet.
In the absence of hard evidence those who advo-
cate plant-based nutrition as a form of treatment are
dismissed as charlatans. It’s a scenario that suits the
pharmaceutical industry that funds most research.
Recently John Kelly a Dublin-based general prac-
titioner of long-standing was inspired by T Colin
Campbell’s ‘The China Study’ to take matters into his
own hands and encourage cancer patients to adopt
plant-based diets. He developed an informal study of
cancer patients who he persuaded to adopt that diet, and
has just written a book about it. He claims: “Rigorous
adherence to the diet showed extraordinary results;
those who lapsed suffered relapses and declined in
health”.
December-January 2014 73
The Oxford
Vegetarian Study
in 1999, have
shown that those
on plant-based
or largely plant-
based diets live
longer and have
lower disease
risk including
of cancer
“
Kelly will be criticised for failing to incorporate peer
review in his methodology, leaving him and his work
open to the imputation of cherry-picking data for ide-
ological reasons. But there is no indication that Kelly
is an ethical vegan using the false promise of long life
to persuade people to stop killing animals. Indeed, at
one point he suggests that eating
fish does not have the same carci-
nogenic effect as consuming meat,
dairy and eggs.
Moreover Campbell himself
pointedly avoids describing him-
self as a ‘vegan’ preferring instead
to advocate a “whole food, plant-
based approach”. Campbell used
animals for laboratory experiments
which Kelly refers to in passing,
without comment.
Indeed the data which Kelly
finds so compelling are derived
from trials conducted by Campbell
using laboratory rats, in which two
groups were infected with cancer.
The first group was given a diet
comprising 20% animal protein.
They all promptly died. But the
second group was given a diet of
only 5% animal protein, and all
survived. Campbell performed
these experiments after observing a lower
survival rate among affluent human can-
cer patients who had diets high in animal
products compared to their impoverished
peers, in the Phillipines. In the laboratory
Campbell also found that vegetable proteins
did not promote cancer, even when eaten in
very large amounts.
Kelly might also have engaged with a
greater range of research in the field, nota-
bly a recent study by Dean Ornish showing
that the growth in the number of prostate
cancer cells was related to the consump-
tion of animal products. He could also have
explored criticisms of the ‘China Study’.
For his own cancer patients Kelly found
that “rigorous adherence to the diet showed
extraordinary results; those who lapsed suf-
fered relapses and declined in health”. Some
patients found the conversion too difficult,
and tragically died. He did though discover
that it did not have a beneficial effect on can-
cer of the pancreas for reasons he explores.
Surprisingly, according to Kelly: “The main obstacle
to patients given the diet on trial is the fact that no sup-
port has been forthcoming from the cancer specialists”.
Worryingly he notes: “When patients mentioned the fact
that they are considering the diet to their specialist they
are routinely told that they are wasting their time”.
Kelly attempted to bring the contents of the book and
his own research to the attention of specialists but was
rebuffed. He argues that: “The minds of cancer special-
ists were so cluttered with their pharmaceutical and
surgical obligations that they were unable to accom-
modate critical revisionary thinking”.
He also acknowledges that “Persuading patients suf-
fering from cancer to eliminate animal protein from
their food intake is especially problematic in Western
countries, where dairy and meat are very much a part
of the diet”. He admits to a paradox
where “the fact that our favourite
food is also the favourite food of
cancer cells doesn’t compute”. On
the other hand he also found that
many of his patients were perfectly
happy with the new regimen. This
coheres with Campbell observa-
tion that over time an individual’s
taste will change after adopting a
100% plant-based diet.
But Kelly still sees a place for
current cancer treatments. He
writes: “When my patients query
the value of medication in a gen-
eral sense I always remind them of
the time-tested benefits of sound
pharmacology”.
Of course if the state medical
authorities accepted the argument
that a whole-food, plant-based diet
is indeed the best healthcare policy
this would have huge repercus-
sions for the powerful agricultural lobby.
But Kelly warns Simon Coveney et al:
“change happens whether one likes it or not;
so, perhaps far better to be driving change
than burying one’s head in the ground like
the proverbial ignorant ostrich”. Irish agri-
culture may be producing increasingly
obsolete foodstuffs for sale in affluent,
educated countries that will be the first to
jettison them. Recently the huge American
healthcare provider Kaiser Permanente
adumbrated that: “Physicians should con-
sider recommending a plant-based diet to
all their patients”.
The Cowspiracy attests to the difficulty
for individuals even those in the healthcare
or environmental sectors to make profound
dietary change. Until individuals empa-
thise with the pain and suffering of other
animals this may well be insurmountable.
History suggests that simple taboos, such
as not eating meat on a Friday, are what pre-
vent people from eating particular foods, not rational
argument.
If you were to offer a hungry person human flesh most
would decline it. A dietary taboo such as veganism will
prevent an individual from countenancing consumption
of a dead animal or another animal’s secretion. Many
would not relish consumption of what they had them-
selves killed or even seen killed.
The pity is that mainstream environmentalists, die-
ticians and medical practitioners do not embrace this
conundrum, for the moment. •
Kelly will be criticised
for failing to incorporate
peer review in his
methodology, but there
is no indication that Kelly
is an ethical vegan using
the false promise of long
life to persuade people to
stop killing animals
“

Loading

© 2015 Village Magazine

Back to Top