Guest guest Posted November 4, 2003 Report Share Posted November 4, 2003 there are extensive threads on this article in the archives. it's not that soy is necessarily *bad* (that probably depends on the effects of phytoestrogens, which may be good in some cases and not others), but that it's not especially *good*, and that many instances of soy foods are very bad (processing, breed). soy is potentially a good, medium-quality food, but could never be a high-quality food. keep in mind that many cultures thrive with large percentages of medium-quality food. that's my take at least. mike parker --- In , <karenr@c...> wrote: > On a homeopathy email list the subject of pre-pubescent syndrome came up > (kids becoming physically mature way too early). Then the subject of soy > formula came up. In response, someone posted this pro-soy article that > refers specifically to the WAPF articles on soy. > > http://www.foodrevolution.org/what_about_soy.htm > > At first glance, it looks like it's filled to the brim with errors. I can't > get into this in any depth, but I also don't like to see it go > unchallenged. If someone here really wants to take a crack at it.... ! > > > - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 4, 2003 Report Share Posted November 4, 2003 I've seen Robbins' article before and certainly am familiar with his " agenda " . Unfortunately Fallon, Enig and Robbins have all committed the greatest of sins as far as I'm concerned when it comes to public leadership. That sin being ample amounts of what I'd call intellectual dishonesty in an effort to either further their agenda or themselves. While the latter appears to be unattributable to Fallon and Enig, Robbins is easily convicted of both IMHO. So while certainly I am a " fan " of Fallon and Enig I am bothered by this practice they've taken up and I'm sure they've done it in an effort to provide some balance " to the other side " . While I understand it I do feel it is the " low road " in spite of the fact that it is the NORM in modern day scientific debate. In the end I certainly come out on the F/E " anti-soy " side however they are also right in stating that " Soy is (in fact) NOT hemlock " . and I'm rather certain that Robbins probably makes this point to a degree in his rebuttal. Nonetheless this is a hard piece to rebutt because of the means being used on both sides. The biggest difference of all I suppose is that F/E are making a position that has readily documented merit, without need for the lengths they go to prove it. Robbins on the other hand makes a position that has no documented merit at all. An example of his honesty of convenience is his 'complete dismissal' of animal studies and yet he's happy to use them if the demonstrate anything favorable to his position or fame. I'm realizing this post is pointless in that I am not answering your question , I apologize for my rant and will now shut up. DMM > On a homeopathy email list the subject of pre-pubescent syndrome came up > (kids becoming physically mature way too early). Then the subject of soy > formula came up. In response, someone posted this pro-soy article that > refers specifically to the WAPF articles on soy. > > http://www.foodrevolution.org/what_about_soy.htm > > At first glance, it looks like it's filled to the brim with errors. I can't > get into this in any depth, but I also don't like to see it go > unchallenged. If someone here really wants to take a crack at it.... ! > > > - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 4, 2003 Report Share Posted November 4, 2003 Mike and Mike, Thanks for your thoughts.. I'm not sure if I want to get involved on the other email list, but this does help me to get a more balanced view of what's going on with these debates. It's frustrating for me with my interest and mental energy charging ahead without enough physical energy backup, so I kinda have to limit my involvement in these conversations. But I appreciate the good reads. At 06:50 PM 11/04/2003 +0000, you wrote: > I've seen Robbins' article before and certainly am familiar >with his " agenda " . Unfortunately Fallon, Enig and Robbins have all >committed the greatest of sins as far as I'm concerned when it comes >to public leadership. That sin being ample amounts of what I'd call >intellectual dishonesty in an effort to either further their agenda >or themselves. While the latter appears to be unattributable to >Fallon and Enig, Robbins is easily convicted of both IMHO. > >So while certainly I am a " fan " of Fallon and Enig I am bothered by >this practice they've taken up and I'm sure they've done it in an >effort to provide some balance " to the other side " . While I >understand it I do feel it is the " low road " in spite of the fact >that it is the NORM in modern day scientific debate. > >In the end I certainly come out on the F/E " anti-soy " side however >they are also right in stating that " Soy is (in fact) NOT hemlock " . >and I'm rather certain that Robbins probably makes this point to a >degree in his rebuttal. > >Nonetheless this is a hard piece to rebutt because of the means >being used on both sides. The biggest difference of all I suppose >is that F/E are making a position that has readily documented merit, >without need for the lengths they go to prove it. Robbins on the >other hand makes a position that has no documented merit at all. An >example of his honesty of convenience is his 'complete dismissal' of >animal studies and yet he's happy to use them if the demonstrate >anything favorable to his position or fame. > >I'm realizing this post is pointless in that I am not answering your >question , I apologize for my rant and will now shut up. > >DMM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.