Nina's is different. Campbell's was trying to prove what you should eat; Teicholz' followed the history of the science to see where it went. The difference is subtle, but significant. Based on what I've seen and read of Campbell, I think he would expect his work to be the last word on nutrition; I think Teicholz would see hers as a beginning.
I recognize my own bias here, though. I think there are serious flaws in the China Study where Campbell reached beyond where the science illuminated. Teicholz isn't trying to prove a conjecture in the same way, so she isn't forced to do that (I think Robert Ludtig and David Perlmutter both did the same thing, so it's not just a function of vegetarian or not).
Edit: I say read them both and decide for yourself. Don't accept either of their conclusions, but follow the science they reference and evaluate it for yourself.
It's funny, but not surprising, to see the "I love science" crowd on HN so eagerly buy into the "all scientists have been wrong about heart disease" myths propagated by journalists like Gary Taubes and later by Nina Teicholz.
Here are some reviews of Nina Teicholz's shoddy work.
But Teicholz just follows in Gary Taubes' footsteps. See the numerous problems with that journalist's interpretation of health and dietary science beginning here:
I recognize my own bias here, though. I think there are serious flaws in the China Study where Campbell reached beyond where the science illuminated. Teicholz isn't trying to prove a conjecture in the same way, so she isn't forced to do that (I think Robert Ludtig and David Perlmutter both did the same thing, so it's not just a function of vegetarian or not).
Edit: I say read them both and decide for yourself. Don't accept either of their conclusions, but follow the science they reference and evaluate it for yourself.