Re: questioning Weston Price Foundation


capmack@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
"Selecting the best, un-baised, non-industry-marketting, studies is not
cherry picking. It is due diligence. Soy is a great example of the kind
of crap science there is out there that needs to be ignored for its
sheer marketting bent."

So you assert but fail to show specific support for each and every study
which doesn't agree with the pricees. The quality of the science not
who may have contributed support is the final determination untle and
except when specific fraud can be shown. I must confess however seeing
black helicopters circling around almost every school of agriculture at
major universites.

You guys will not let go of the conspiracy theorist accusation response
angle will you?

Look, there is no mystery in that industry pays certain researchers to
investigate certain specific questions. And if the results do not agree
woth their goals, the studies are stopped and/or not published. And any
studies funded by industry in this manner is suspect. Like it or not.

The soy industry studies are perfect examples of this
science/marketting.

You can resolve this conspiracy issue right here and now. Show me one
study, only one, that found something positive about soy that isn't
industry funded or where an author is not paid by the soy industry in
some way. Show me one completely independent study that shows something
positive about soy.


"Prices observations goes way beyond sugar and teeth. Read it and find
out."

I read his book, that reading was the basis for my observation of the
gross flaws in his "research". That he spoke of other things is
irrelevant, based on evaluation of the techniques and results and
analysis. His other notions can safely be tossed based on the science
alone, as I suggest above is the only measure of its validity.

Explain the biggest "gross flaw" in his research, or the top three. You
keep saying that you reject it, but you do not specify exactly what
point(s) you reject. Or what you base your rejection on. You are just
generally throwing generallizations at it. No specifics.

Look, this is a science group. How about making specific quantifiable
statements to back your assertions, or at least give us a url that
makes valid detailed points against Price that you agree with.

You make a lot of noise, but nothing coherently specific is being
communicated.

TC

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Soy-based shakes help lower weight, cholesterol
    ... by a completely independent researcher that is not affiliated with the soy ... industry or did not get funded by the soy industry. ... find one anti soy that is not the child of anti vegetarian ... Science advances by concensus. ...
    (sci.med.nutrition)
  • Re: Fruit-loops
    ... this appeal were industry paid deception agents hired to deceive by ... using fraudulent science. ... scientists based in Paris. ... Scientific Integrity in the Public Policy Process Semi-Final Program ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Can we trust science research?
    ... that is the way science does it. ... > The food industry does everything it can to keep selling its crap. ... facts and of the behavior of such industries and corporations ... immorality and evil of the highest order. ...
    (sci.med.nutrition)
  • Re: What is a scientist?
    ... |> science. ... Industry was the primary social ... Today, factories are being torn down, most are ... Kids can't climb trees in case they hurt themselves, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Avoiding Cancer-Linked Chemicals in Grilled Meats
    ... crap advice. ... (Street Savvy Science), ... of Science and a major pharmaceutical industry trade ... magazine Contract Pharma. ...
    (misc.health.alternative)