Free Whole by T. Colin Campbell

the healthiestChinese people had cholesterol levels that would have been considered dangerously low in the United States.
    Further examination revealed that, for this Chinese range of 88-165 mg/dL, like the U.S. range of 155-274 mg/dL, lower levels of cholesterol were associated with increased protection from several cancers and serious related diseases. The Chinese population showed correlations between low cholesterol and health that could not be observed in the United States because almost no Americans had cholesterol that low. The Chinese range showed us that cholesterol of 88 mg/dL could be healthier than cholesterol of 155 mg/dL, a finding that simply could not have been gleaned from a study of a U.S. population.
    Another example of an outlier that led me away from “accepted wisdom” was our finding that casein, which for decades had been the most highly rated and respected protein, dramatically and convincingly promoted cancer. Even today, it is so heretical that no one wants to say the obvious—that casein is the most relevant chemical carcinogen ever identified. The implications of this heretical finding, like the implications of the exceedingly low blood cholesterol level in rural China, have been among the many hinges on which new doors of understanding opened on the relationship between nutrition and health.
    Interestingly, this effect of casein on cancer proved so heretical that even the researchers in India who first showed this effect in a far more limited study never wanted to acknowledge their finding for what it was. 9 They preferred to focus not on casein’s long-term effect on initiating cancer, but on the seemingly opposite effect casein had in quickly reducing the toxic effects of huge single doses of carcinogens. 10 (We’ll discuss these two effects in greater depth in Part II.) In other words, they ran away from the immense implications of their discovery by focusing on an insignificant detail.
    I’m glad I didn’t run because I have observed that giving some attention to unexpected observations that might otherwise be discounted or discarded can be unusually rewarding, especially if these observations are pursued to an explanation. My career began when I followed some outlier observations into murky territory, risking (and ultimately parting with) the pro-animal-protein beliefs of my childhood and early research career. When enough of these heresies accumulated, interconnected patternsbegan to emerge. Those patterns morphed into principles and then into full-blown theories, alternate paradigms that changed the way I saw the world. The rewards of living with heresies can be an exhilarating experience, well worth the costs of being considered a heretic.
    True, my social and professional collegialities changed when I began to speak of research findings that lay outside the norm. Skepticism and silence, to put it gently, became more common. Yet the rewards have been numerous, and I do not hesitate to encourage young people to follow the same path that I trod. (When they ask me, as many have, how they might be able to do what I do, I tell them very simply to never be afraid to ask questions, even ones everyone tells you are stupid. Just be prepared to use good science and logic when defending your perspective.)
    The view from the outside of a paradigm can be especially rewarding, and also meaningful, when it is considered within the context of everyday life. As time has passed, the odd and unexpected research observations collectively began to shape a new worldview for me. They seemed to be more and more connected. If this worldview touched on matters of life and death, that’s when personal passions arose, both pro and con. That’s when the boundaries of these paradigms sharpened and came into view.
THE FINAL (PARADIGM) FRONTIER: REDUCTIONISM
    Now that you have a taste of my encounters with rigid paradigms, it’s time to share what I’ve learned, from all this questioning, about the prevailing