..in that I am veering off topic with that one, although if you were familiar with Price's work you would know that consuming dead, devitalized processed foods leads to many health problems, not just dental caries.
Easy to claim but much harder to prove. It is like all the people claiming that lack of oxygen causes cancer because Warburg said so. Problem is that lack of oxygen DOES NOT cause cancer and Warburg never claimed that. Yet this misquote keeps getting spread all because someone read it on the internet and it supports their agenda. So just because Price claims this or that does not mean it should be accepted as fact. For example a steak is dead yet it is not going to automatically cause disease.
And he showed that these foods caused changes for the worse within one generation...
Again let's see some real research we can review, not unsupported claims.
Of course his scope did not include processed soy because it did not exist at that time(at the scope or in the form it does today)..
And again processing does not automatically make something dangerous. Even broccoli as well as many other foods have to be processed in some way to render them safe. In the case of broccoli and its relatives they must be processed by cooking to inactivate their goitrogenic activity.
so yeah. I'm veering way o/t.
Now that I have your attention though, how about addressing this question. You have repeatedly referred to the "anti-soy" propagandists"? Who?
Let's see there is Mercola, and DQ to name a few. And there was some guy who used to argue that soy was dangerous all the time on my forum and would post faulty studies or from prpaganda sites to back his view.
And did you notice that I found lots of pro-soy propaganda under the guise of medical studies? Funded by monsanto, among others?
What makes you think they were funded by Monsanto? Do you have proof of this or is this just an assumption?
Hardly breaking news here on CZ... most of us are familiar with big pharma/food/agri/chemical business funding health "research".
I have seen this excuse used so many times here on CZ when some study contradicts false information people on CZ believe. Not every study is funded by big pharma, etc. If this were the case then how come I have been able to find so many pro-supplement studies?