Jo Yoshida wrote:

> Rex commented on a study on calcium absorbability:
>

[snip]


> ...unfortunately you would not do too well in Japan where
> direct challenges to authority (gov't, academia, police, crime
> syndicates, religion, etc) are frowned upon.

Are you saying the lord of the manor would sic the dogs on me?  What's so different
from this forum?


> On second thought, this trait would be a refreshing anomaly in that society (so
> many wish they could respect their convictions...but cannot), and if you had one
> other marketable feature you'd be a natural sensation there. I kid you not.

Well obviously I wouldn't be able to show people who have successfully farmed their
land, without destroying it, for 4000 years, much about growing things.  OTOH, I'm
starting to understand that the giant toxic chemical companies are gradually buying
off those who should be preventing the debasing.   If I wait a while, they may need
me.  :)

Are you aware that Japanese buyers come to this country and try to corner all the
truly nutritious soybeans (far less than 1% of the production) at prices in the
$20/$22 per bushel range.  Mind you that is in a market where junk (i.e. what's
used to make American 'food') soybeans are barely bringing $6/$7.  If that's not
related to dietary problems, I don't know what is.

All in all, I can't see why you think there is a fuss here.  All I'm doing is
finally airing the dark secret: a great deal of what's been said on this forum is
suspect, and maybe deserves discarding, because the quality factor was ignored.
For instance, shouldn't my questions about calcium precipitating in the wrong
places be obvious to any high schooler once they realize the semi-scientists and
everyday quacks don't have a clue?

Can not all here see that *all* milk semi-scientific studies are instant junk
because they fail to account for the wide variation in milk: 10 Brix (groan, Kirt)
in the average case to 20 (groan again) Brix in the best?  Besides, only if you
know how sick the cow is can you know how sick and harmful the milk is.  In my mind
this class of semi-scientific study sinks before it floats because you honestly
don't know what they tested.

This junk concept really applies when we come to the case of false gods like Bruce
("everything natural is toxic") Ames, who has *never* reported the quality of what
he 'tested'.  I'll save Silly Victor Herbert for ridicule another day.

So, no, I don't understand the fuss.  Once anyone of reason comprehends the vast
quality difference in fruit, veggies, meat, commodities, whatever, they come over
to my side---if there is a side.  After all, we're in this together and any bad
advice that flows out of this forum could---will---adversely affect others.  The
only people who could possibly hold back would be those with an agenda.

Regards,
Rex Harrill