I would tend to agree with you in a better world.  I would rather not feel
that it is necessary to disregard, or at least suspect, information based
upon its' source.  But from what I've seen as regards the objectiveness of
mainstream nutrition information, health information, and pharmaceutical
information, I see no way to separate the information from the source.
 There seems to be an awful lot of information that is paid for by the very
group which stands to profit from a favorable finding, information that is
blindly accepted as fact by the majority.  (We, better than anyone else,
should know that.)  I think it's naive to think that researchers are going
to be completely objective (or even be able to be) in that type of
situation.

There may not be enough information on soybeans to determine health risks.
 However, it would appear that no matter what, they need processing in
order to be edible.  This rules them out as far as this diet is concerned.

Take care,
John Pavao

----------
> Err, if Mr. Weingartner didn't say that soybeans were safe and healthy,
> wouldn't he be out of a job?  I'll only consider data from someone with
no
> vested interest in the outcome of the research.

This is called the "genetic fallacy" in logic.  That is,
reasoning that rejects claims according to their source rather
than their merits is fallacious.  The facts of Mr. Weingartner's
employment do not count against his claims.  Unfortunately, there
may not be enough data to decide about the health risks of
soybeans.