Myth: Phil has made a convincing presentation against Soy.
Truth: Phil’s efforts have backfired and revealed that the anti-Soy movement is categorically incompetent.
Myth: Soy estrogens (isoflavones) are good for you.
Truth: Soy isoflavones are phyto-endocrine disrupters. At dietary levels, they can prevent ovulation and stimulate the growth of cancer cells. Eating as little as 30 grams (about 4 tablespoons) of soy per day can result in hypothyroidism with symptoms of lethargy, constipation, weight gain and fatigue.
GMO foods are one of the greatest modern inventions. Not sure why you think there’s a problem with them. We wouldn’t even be able to feed the current population of the world without them.
Farmers speak out: GMOs are a trap that Monsanto is using to take over agriculture: Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/033368_farmers_Monsanto.html#ixzz1XlCsmf21# Jeffrey M. Smith: The GMO Threat (Full Length • HD)Learn More: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPvkZv5MfRw
We don’t know very much about the human body and its proper diet because we cannot ethically perform experimentation on people. Much of what we do know was, unfortunately, drawn from the Nazis who had no such ethical compunctions.
You can take two groups of turkeys and feed them an identical diet removing one element, say copper, from B-groups diet and then see what they eventually die of. Perhaps they overhwelmingly die of heart disease. Now you know the effect of copper on them.
Can’t do this with humans. Thus, there’s a massive epistemological problem when trying to argue diet in human beings. You say soybeans are full of “toxins” yet it’s a well known fact that many chemicals can be considered medicines OR toxins depending on the dosage you’re given. Medicines are always a low enough dose to do something beneficial, and toxins are an overdose.
I’ll tell you when our medical epistemology will finally come in line with what we need to have surety on diet factors, it’s when we have computers powerful enough to simulate a human being on the atomic level. When we can simulate people accurately enough to basically simulate life, then we’ll be able to subject these non-persons to medical testing such as cannot be done on people, and we will learn more about the human biology and diet in the years after that than in all of human history up to that point. This will also be key for decoding how DNA works in totality, as a system.
Until then, it’s surprising how impotent studies have been in proving one thing or the other in diet.
Actually you can do controlled studies in humans. Its just that they’re really expensive and therefore can’t be run for very long times. The most accurate controlled studies are done in hospitals where patients’ diets can be recorded and managed, but these tend not to be very applicable to the general population (since the subjects are so sick somehow that they must be hospitalized).
But don’t even worry about the theory of controlled studies. Phil has totally ignored all of my controlled studies and continued to ejaculate his biased propaganda to reassure himself that his lifestyle choice is RIGHT and everyone who acts differently is wrong.
The best study we have, I believe, is Dr Weston A Price’s journeys around the world during the 1930’s, where he studied isolated tribes who demonstrated optimum health without the benefit modern medicine. Dr Price photographed them and took samples of their food.
He discovered they had TEN TIMES more fat soluble vitamins from the very nutrient dense foods our government tells us not to eat.
His book is available on Amazon and for free at this link:
Regarding GMO’s, Liberty is not only about freedom for corporations. It is also about my right to my own liberty and about the property rights of third parties.
When GMO’s taint the genetics of non-GMO farmers, without their consent, they breach that farmer’s property rights.
If the video posted above is correct, harm caused by BT corn which produces its own pesticides, which consumers ingest, which have harmed lab rats, then that breaches my right to my person and my right to my liberty.
When government gets inbetween and limits my ability to challenge Monsanto, then that is corporatism, it is tyranny, it is corporatist fascism. This is not liberty, it is tyranny.
To be free market is to be pro freedom for the interaction between consumer and producer. Presently, government is intervening in the market to block the proper labelling of GMO crops. To be pro that is to be against the market, is to be against what Mises stood for. Polls overwhelmingly show the US Public against GMO, and the government keeps pushing it. And note, corporate monopolies are not a product of free market capitalism, no, they are the product of inflation from the fractional reserve banking system. Mises, et al. believed that corporate monopolies could not exist under sound money, but that in their place would be a thriving market place of choice and balance between producers and consumer demand.
Phil, I’m generally a supporter of the Weston A. Price Foundation’s (WAPF) overall message. I agree with you in regards to your points about government’s interference in food.
I personally have not started much research on soy yet. However I know the government heavily subsidizes the soybean industry. I’ve seen people (such as the WAPF) who previously have provided me links to good sources of information on fats/carbohydrates put down soy. So I’ve been curious if they could provide similar good sources of information supporting their soy positions.
When I came across this thread on an economics site I love, I was really hoping I was going to see you post a series of direct sources to medical journal articles showing support for what you were stating. Instead I found you repeating the same set of links, sarcastic remarks, name calling, etc. Then finally you began flooding the thread with sections of WAPF’s Soy Myths brochure, post-by-post. Those kinds of “sources” might fly on mainstream liberal forums, but on Austrian/libertarian forums, not so much.
Sieben has repeatedly from the start simply requested direct links to medical journal articles supporting your statements. He even stated where you can find them, PubMed and Google Scholar. Preferably randomized controlled studies on humans, not simply correlation studies, or studies on non-human animals such as rats. Which mind you, the WAPF itself puts down using non-randomized-controlled studies all the time when someone presents them evidence they disagree with. Double standard, eh?
Randomized controlled studies are very simple, give Group A soy, give Group B something else, here’s what happened to Group A, here’s what happened to Group B…
These types of studies are done all the time, Sieben linked to several already in support of Soy, which you haven’t provided a rebuttal to yet (even though I found a few problems just glancing at them myself). But as he stated he simple linked the first 3 results for various search terms to demonstrate non-bias.
You’ve repeatedly provided 3 links when asked for “sources”.
Your first “source” was WAPF simply doing a search of the FDA’s Poisonous Plant Database for “soy”. The first result in that search talks about Phytoestrogens (something you brought up, interesting), the result cites “Cheeke PR (ed) Toxicants of plant origin. CRC Press. Boca Raton, Florida, 4(Chap 2), 23-51”.
Luckily a preview of that citation is available for free from Google Books…
http://books.google.com/books?id=zj7QX7u_xy8C&pg=PA38
In the “Effect on Humans” section it starts out saying, “There are no unequivocal descriptions of plant estrogens affecting human beings.” It later states, “It has been suggested that the lower level of breast cancer in women from vegetarian cultures may occur because they have a higher intake of phytoestrogens…” (breast cancer, another thing you brought up, interesting). Overall that citation was neither negative nor positive towards phytoestrogens in humans. Google’s preview ends when it starts talking about animals, but it seems to be leaning towards negative for animals, so maybe it’s a bad idea to eat soybean-fed animals? But humans eating it? That citation is useless.
Don’t have much time to go through the other 287 records on that page (a current search brings it down to 196, by the way). But the first one already has put me off.
Next you link to WAPF listing studies about dietary soy in chronological order… rat study, chicken, cows, rats, chickens, anecdotal evidence, anecdotal evidence, cows, turkeys, ugh this is getting annoying, ok maybe more modern research will be randomized controlled on humans… skipping to the bottom and moving up…
Cow study, simple correlation, simple correlation, simple correlation, simple correlation, ugh getting annoyed again…
Let me do a find on the page for “random” or “control”…
Nothing for “random”, 5 had “control” in them, lets see…
Chicken study, rats, simple correlation, rats, and finally not sure on the last one, Ginsburg J and Prelevic GM. Is there a proven place for phytoestrogens in the menopause?" Climacteric, 1999;2:75-78. That journal completely blocks access to even a simple abstract to non-members, but sure sounds like a simple correlation study.
Did I miss a gem on that page? Please point me to it, I beg of you.
Finally you link to WAPF listing studies about Isoflavones in chronological order…
Oh no, we start off with a rabbit study, a herbivore. This page is even longer, this doesn’t look good, I’m going straight to the “random”/“control” searching…
Ah here we go, finally some “double-blind, placebo-controlled studies”, yay! Some of these studies contradict each other, they are mainly talking about using isoflavone supplements in the treatment of hot flashes, ugh… skipping head… yeah more supplement taking studies… yawn I got a headache now.
Again, did I miss a gem on that page? Please point me to it.
I’m going to go lay down now with an ice pack on my forehead, I’ll leave you with links to queries on PubMed and Google Scholar for “soy randomized controlled”, let me know what you find, thanks in advance…
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=soy+randomized+controlled
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=soy+randomized+controlled
Almost all the articles on westonaprice.org are jam packed with references. Like this one on the harm it causes to male reproductive organs. http://www.westonaprice.org/soy-alert/phytoestrogens-and-male-reproductive-development
Just because you folk don’t want to trawl through the articles doesn’t mean that I have to go through all the literature for you, its all there for you to look at, and as said, if you want to take the risk with processed, GMO soy in vast quantities as a replacement for grass fed meat, wild fish and pastured eggs, as if God and or our ancestors got it wrong all those millions of years, then really, do be my guest. I guess you can get a Darwin award if you achieve sterility?
References
- Biggs, John H. 1995. A Sea of Estrogens. Alive: Canadian Journal of Health & Nutrition, Feb95 Issue 149, 28-30.
- DeRosa C and others. Environmental Exposures that Affect the Endocrine System: Public Health Implications. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part B, 1998;1:3-26.
- Crocker C, in a lecture about the hypothalamus and pituitary, Biology 612, San Francisco State University, May 7, 2003.
- Moffat C, in a lecture about phenotypic sexual differentiation and determination, San Francisco State University, February 6, 2003.
- Norris, DO. Vertebrate Endocrinology, third ed, p 368.
- Prader A. The Prader Scale. Helv Paediatr Acta, 1954;9;231.
- Moffat C, in a lecture on the sensitivity and accuracy of the rat model in humans, namely that of androgens and estrogens, San Francisco State University, February 13, 2003
- Gill WM and others. Structural and Functional Abnormalities in Sex Organs of Male Offspring of Mothers Treated with Diethystilbestrol (DES). The Journal of Reproductive Medicine 1976;16(4):147-153.9.
- Ross RK. Effect of in-utero exposure to diethylstilbesterol on age at onset of puberty and on post-pubertal hormone levels in boys" Canadian Medical Association Journal, 1983;128(10):1197-98.
- Levy JR and others. The Effect of Prenatal Exposure to the Phytoestrogen Genistein on Sexual Differentiation in Rats. The Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine 1995;208:60-66.
- Flynn, KM and others. Effects of Genistein Exposure on Sexually Dimorphic Behaviors in Rats, Toxicological Sciences, 2000;55:311-319.
- Ferguson SA and others. Developmental neurotoxicity of endocrine disrupters: focus on estrogens. Neurotoxicology, 2000 Dec;21(6):947-56.
- Sharpe RM and others. Infant feeding with soy formula milk: effects on the testis and on blood testosterone levels in marmoset monkeys during the period of neonatal testicular activity. Hum Reprod 2002 Jul;17(7):1692-703; Strauss L and others. Genistein exerts estrogen-like effects in male mouse reproductive tract. Mol Cell Endocrinol 1998 Sep 25;144(1-2):83-93
- Husmann DA and Levy JB. Current Concepts in Pathophysiology of testicular undescent. Urology, 1995 August;46(2):267-276.
- Auger J and others. Decline in semen quality among fertile men in Paris during the past 20 years. N Engl J Med, 1995;332:281-285.
- Carlson E and others. Evidence for decreasing quality of semen during the past 50 years. Br Med J, 1992;305:609-613.
- Sharpe RM and Skakkebaek NE. Are Oestrogens Involved in Falling Sperm Counts and Disorders of the Male Reproductive Tract? The Lancet, 1993 May 29;341(8857):1392-1395.
- Fisch H and Goluboff ET. Geographic variations in sperm counts: a potential cause of bias in studies of semen quality. Fertility and Sterility, 1996 May;65(5): 1044-1046
- Fukutake M and others. Quantification of Genistein in Soybeans and Soybean Products. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 1996;34:457-461.
- O’Donnell L and others. Phyto-estrogens and Infant Formulas. Endocr Rev 2001 Jun;22(3):289-318; Sharpe RM and Skakkebaek NE. Are Oestrogens Involved in Falling Sperm Counts and Disorders of the Male Reproductive Tract? The Lancet, 1993 May 29;341(8857):1392-1395.
- Irvine CH and others. Phytoestrogens in soy-based infant foods: concentrations, daily intake, and possible biological effects. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med 1998 Mar 217:3 247-53.
- Damgaard IN and others 2002. Impact of Exposure to Endocrine Disrupters in utero and in childhood on Adult Reproduction. Best Practice & Research Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism 2002:16(2):289-309.
- Rabat, Maria. Plant Estrogens. Vegetarian Times July 2002, Issue 299, 53-56.
- Strom B and others. Exposure to Soy-Based Formulas in infacy and Endocrinological and Reproductive Outcomes in Young Adulthood. Journal of the American Medical Association, 2001 Nov 12;286(19):2402-3.
- Setchell and others. Exposure of Infants to Phytoestrogens from Soy-based infant formula. The Lancet 1997;3530(9070):23-27.
- Rivas A and others. Evidence for Importance of the Androgen-Estrogen Balance. Endocrinology 2002;143(12):4797-4808.
- Biggs, John H. 1995. A Sea of Estrogens. Alive: Canadian Journal of Health & Nutrition, 1995 Feb, Issue 149, 28-30.
Oh, and here’s another thing. Sieben start this discussion off stating that Kaayla Daniel is fat, when infact she looks fantastic in that photo, and I’ve been very reserved, because Kaayla happens to be a personal friend of mine.
What is it with these double standards, why can’t folk just look into what I’ve said and actually respond to specific claims made by WAPF? So far, not one of the statements I’ve made about soy has been specifically countered, yet I am the one being unscientific?
But as said, you, yourself and your body are your own personal human experiment, and you can choose to disregard this info or look into it for the sake of your health and projeny or, throw the dice and maybe win a Darwin award.
Phil, you have not read any of the “references” you cite. You are essentially making a faith based argument at us. If you actually looked for controlled studies done, you would find very few supporting your viewpoint. I.e. epidemiological studies and lectures are not the same thing as controlled studies. But to understand the difference, you would have to be literate. You’re not. Its a joke.
Oh, and no one else’s evidence counts but your’s apparently. Because even though I cited studies at you, you ignored them because they tell you you are wrong. Good job retard.
And another thing. None of you have bothered to analyse why Ayn Rand values an honest beef burger relative to a soy alternative. Nobody has looked into how true, honest products better express obectivist values relative to pseudo alternatives pushed by government and fractional reserve banking, inflation funded corporate monopolies.
Sieben, you have not presented a scientific study which specifically counters any of the points I’ve made, so I have nothing to respond to. Do you really think I can write a treatise on soy, covering all points, on this forum? No, you can go counter something and then I can look into analysing that.
Kaayla wrote a book hundreds of pages long on soy, and that kind of work takes months and months. You are being totally unreasonable whilst failing to meet up to the expectations you place upon me.
And for the benefit of those on this forum Sieben responded to an instant message from me by telling me to F-off. Very cute.
Oh. The iliteracy. I cited a study at you that addressed the issue of breast cancer. Too bad.
Also if people’s testicals were frying, you can be sure it would be included in the abstracts. Its not.
Actually you have your OWN points to substantiate. So when you say “Soy does X” the burden of proof is on YOU to show studies indicating that that is in fact what happens. You don’t. You can’t just make a bunch of point blank claims about Soy and then pretend like you’re correct without bringing evidence to the table.
And AGAIN, (and again you have not addressed this), the big lists of “references” are not acceptable. Not only have you not read them (because you’re illiterate, because you’re an ideologue), but they do not substantiate what you claim they do. They consist of studies about the bark of a particular tree that happens to contain “soy” in its name. They consist of anything BUT controlled studies. Its a joke to the tenth power.
I don’t think you can cover even a single point. Why don’t you prove that Soy fries your testicles (or whatever it was you meant by that particular claim)? Hmm? I look forward to your rat models being fed supraphysiological amounts of Soy, or cows being fed soy+pesticide and showing a 5% decrease in serum testosterone or something trivial.
You won’t get back to me. You never will. You are incapable of doing research. Everyone here wants you to use teh googolz and come up with studies. But all you can do is regurgitate the lists of bullshit studies your stupid WOAP propaganda website.
No. I want a god damn controlled study demonstrating a claim you make. I do not want you to write an entire book. You are so fucking dense.
Yeah you can fuck off with your copy pasted “please waste hours of your time watching propaganda from our small town whites-only organization”.
Phil, did you even read what I wrote? I went through most references on your dietary soy source one by one, thus the “rat study, chicken, cows, rats, chickens, anecdotal evidence, anecdotal evidence, cows, turkeys” part.
Did you read the part where I ackowledged government interference in the market, agreement with the overall message of the WAPF, etc?
Did you read where I mentioned studies showing soybean-fed animals have health problems and it’s a bad idea to eat soybean-fed animals? I personally agree a non-GMO, grassfed, high fat animal diet is good, and I’m basing that agreement on many randomized controlled studies I’ve read that support that.
Or more importantly, did you even read your own references??? Look at the very first and very last references you just pasted…
Notice a problem there? Besides the duplication, that “journal” is a non-medical magazine targetted towards consumers, Google it. The author listed is a “registered nutrition consultant” that sells vitamin supplements.
How about posting just 1 link to 1 randomized controlled study, rather than just copy and pasting big chunks of WAPF’s web site, and not even looking at what you are pasting, which is obvious when you see the 2 duplicate entries I pointed out.
Stew, you are wasting your time. Phil is an illiterate ideologue.
The long and short is that moderate Soy consumption simply doesn’t do anything. The phytochemicals are mostly “beneficial” in the form of antioxidents etc. The only phytochemicals that are potentially negative are phyto-estrogens, which exert a very mild (you can’t measure it) effect at physiological doses.
They bind weakly to estrogen receptors, so the effect would actually depend on how high your serum estrogen was. If a PE binds to a receptor INSTEAD of estrogen, then you get a decrease in estrogen effects. If a PE binds to a recepter when estrogen would not have (i.e. if you have low estrogen), then you have an increase in estrogen effects.
This is where all the crying about “frying your testicles” comes from. It is also where all the research into the therapeutic benefits of soy for post menopausal women comes from. It turns out that soy is basically never powerful enough to have any positive or negative therapeutic effect.
The long and short is that this aspect of Soy doesn’t particularly matter. Phil wants it to matter because he wants to scare you into eating like him and validating his culture and lifestyle. I am not telling anyone to eat or avoid soy. Wow. You’d almost think I was unbiased.
At least I now know why traditional conservatives are a dying breed and how liberals managed to take over society. At least they do tend to look after their bodies and environment, which is probably why they have been the ones capable of implementing their political programs.
And in response, I too have stated that moderate consumption of traditionally fermented, non gmo soy is fine. I actually purchased some organic, unpasteurized, fermented miso today from Source Foods, which is the only artisan soy fermented in Britain. But in the East, they don’t have more than about a spoon of it per day. Much above that, and the phyto-oestrogens will over time cause problems, particulary for men.