I was wondering *why* the Price foundation would want to spread
adverse propaganda about soy. I cannot see that it would benefit them
in any way because people who like meat etc., will never give it up
for soy anyway. It must cost a lot to gather and publish all this
information and unless there was a huge monetary gain (which I can't
see) it would make you wonder why they bothered. Dr Mercola also says
soy is not healthy in the unfermented or un-sprouted form, and I can't
see that he would have an axe to grind, because *he* isn't involved in
the meat industry. On the other hand, I can see that they soy
industry would be *very* interested in discrediting something like the
Price foundation or Mercola for that matter, as they would have a lot
to lose wouldn't they? Anyway, as you say, it is good to have a look
at all sides and then make an informed choice, based on your own
conclusions. dee
On 21 Aug 2009, at 19:29, Indi wrote:
That's true, and also correlation is not causation.
However, I believe my point (debunking the anti-soy propaganda of
the Price
foundation) was made, and that was my goal. I'm not out to
evangelize, more
like out to debunk evangelists. :)
--
indi
