>  If it happens to fit into an
> ideology or viewpoint, that is fine, but it should not be mistaken
> for objective evidence of any sort that should guide your food
> choices.

In this case I am happy to let a study of this magnitude (a test population
of something like 5,000 as I recall) help to guide my food choice *not* to
make an exception from paleo in pursuit of the many known health benefits of
soy.

I reason that my decison-making processes should reflect the fact that while
I am not an absolutist like some here, I am generally convinced of the
veracity of paleodiet theory. So then given that I am a paleodiet theorist,
and given that soy is disqualified by default by virtue of it being
non-paleo, I should give considerable weight to any evidence that confirms
the disqualification of soy. This method of reasoning puts my paleodiet
biases up front and on the table, which is where all biases ought to be.

I am looking at brewer's yeast right now through the same paleo-diet prism.
I would like to include brewer's yeast in my diet but it is disqualified by
default by virtue of it being (supposedly) non-paleo. I will therefore give
considerable weight to any evidence against brewer's yeast in my decision to
make or not make an exception to strict paleo in the case of brewer's yeast.

-gts