In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
>
> > The consensus is that aluminum is related to senility and Alzheimer's.
>
> According to whom? According to NIEHS this link has not been established.
>
> "Epidemiological studies attempting to link AD with exposures in drinking
> water have been inconclusive and contradictory. Thus, the significance of
> increased aluminum intake with regard to onset of AD has not been
> determined."
> http://www.niehs.nih.gov/external/faq/aluminum.htm
>
> > Further, it is the US that statistically has higher rates of these two
> > issues than Japan. The Japanese scientists concur from the Alzheimer's
> > research on the likely causes for the illness and senility. The general
> > diet of the Hawaiian Island is closer to mainland USA than mainland
> > Japan.
> >
> > On what rational basis would you argue that one should look at soy
> > products to explain senility and Alzheimer's in this population which
> > already is experienced in higher levels in that nation?
>
> On what rational basis would one *not* look at soy products, or any other
> factor for that matter?
>
> > Further, what historical factors related to Hawaii and Japan might
> > foster a bias against a Japanese lifestyle by those who are identified
> > as Japanese and living in this island chain? I find it odd that a study
> > designed to determine the effects of soy or brain aging would be limited
> > to males and Japanese males in this geopolitical area.
>
> It seems highly reasonable to me to use a study group that shares many
> attributes, that way differences in lifestyle and other factors can be more
> easily be isolated. If you used some mainland people, females, or people
> with other basic differences, then differences in diet would form less
> conclusive evidence.
>
> > Based on the post
> > that was made to the usenet group this week, I further take issue with
> > the methodology of what is labeled as a long term study that relies on
> > interpretations of spouses not empirical evidence.
>
> I didn't read that. Maybe it *is* a weakness in those findings.
>
> > I find it further interest that there are also studies that indicate soy
> > is a means avoid Alzheimer's. Further, there do seem to be studies that
> > women who eat soy have lower rates of Alzheimer's.
>
> Maybe soy effects men and women differently.
>
> > Given these are the "experts" can you offer some rational explanation
> > for pursuing brain again/alzheimer's and a) soy, b) to the exclusion of
> > women and c) within this specific population.
>
> See above.
>
> > To further my own confirmation bias, I can see some evidence that this
> > is consistent with my position that western researchers want to find
> > evidence to support a western diet -- and lo and behold their
> > conclusions did just that.
>
> Maybe some of them do, depending on who pays them. I would add that
> vegetarian advocates are quick to point out weaknesses in the methodolgy of
> this particular research. Here is an example
> http://www.vnv.org.au/Nutrition/SoyFoods.htm. So obviously more confirmation
> bias at work there.

The net result of this conversation is that is a lot of information the
contradicts. To accept any information on the brain aging and senility
is then a choice.

Oddly, each of the results confirming or negating the opinions is done
by "experts".