Read the criticisms and controversies section of the wikipedia article, it's a widely criticised study (perhaps not as much as Ancel Keys' study but close)

Also see here for a very thorough refutation: http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/08/03/the-china-study-a-formal-an...

You asked for a study. I gave you one. I guess that any study worth its time has criticisms and some that don't. Evolution is also criticized. I'm not comparing or equating them, just reminding you a criticism doesn't mean something is not right. Now I did read that wiki section and it is pretty short for such a "controversial" study.

First let me just say that my opinion is that I don't think there is anyone on this earth who knows for sure exactly what red meat does to humans and whether it is good or bad. I choose to believe the study for now.

Now I can start rationalizing why, and reputing Denise's reputings. Unfortunately I don't have time for this. I wish I could spend all my time talking about red meat (I don't) but I can't.

As a side note/joke - Denise is 25. I'm 25. I don't recommend anyone take any health advice from 25 year olds :)

The truth about Ancel Keys can be seen in the following video.

Primitive Nutrition 36: The Infamous Ancel Keys? Part I http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDwjkv1FW5g

Also, Denise Minger's "refutation" is hardly to be trusted. She even plagiarized this man's work on Ancel Keys. http://www.plantpositive.com/blog/2012/3/21/a-reply-to-denis...

The China study has been debunked, on numerous occasions.

My personal favorite:

http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fal...

You may want to read this before trusting Denise Minger's response to the China study. http://www.plantpositive.com/blog/2012/3/21/a-reply-to-denis...