Atlas Soy-led: Ayn Rand's Take on the Soybean

Here are studies regarding the affect on testosterone, which relates well to my admittedly blaze comment about fried testicals, by which I meant that the male sex hormone system is overwhelmed by phytoestrogens:

1995
Keung WM. Dietary estrogenic isoflavones are potent inhibitors of B-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase of P testosteronii. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 1995 Oct 24; 215(3):1137-1144. The isoflavones diadzein, genistein, biochanin A and formononetin were found to inhibit enzymes that produce steroid hormones critical to reproductive and neurological function, particularly hormones that produce testosterone.

2000
Nagata C and others. Inverse association of soy product intake with serum androgen and estrogen concentrations in Japanese men. Nutr Cancer 2000;36(1):14-8. Researchers found lower testosterone levels and higher estrogen levels in Japanese men who consumed higher levels of soy foods.

2000
Habito RC and others. Effects of replacing meat with soyabean in the diet on sex hormone concentrations in healthy adult males. Br J Nutr 2000 Oct;84(4):557-63. Men consuming tofu instead of meat for 4 weeks had lower testosterone-oestradiol ratios as well as changes in other hormone levels. “Thus, replacement of meat protein with soyabean protein, as tofu, may have a minor effect on biologically-active sex hormones which could influence prostate cancer risk.”

2003
Wisniewski AB and others. Exposure to genistein during gestation and lactation demasculinizes the reproductive system in rats. Journal of Urology, April 2003 169:1582-1586. In order to determine the effects of exposure to phytoestrogens, researchers at the Johns Hopkins Children’s Center and the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health randomly assigned pregnant female rats to diets containing none, low and high levels of genistein–the major type of phytoestrogen in soy. The male offspring were thus exposed to genistein indirectly through maternal consumption during pregnancy and lactation. Female rats on the low-genistein diet received between 0.1 and 1.0 mg genistein per day while those on the high-genistein diet received between 6.4 and 23.6 mg genistein per day–somewhat equivalent to the exposure of mothers consuming small amounts and large amounts of soy. Male offspring of mothers on the high-genistein diet exhibited reproductive abnormalities and rats exposed to both the low- and high-genistein diets had shorter testes length, larger prostate mass and lower testosterone concentrations. The researchers also looked at adult sexual behavior of male offspring. Those exposed to both low and high doses of genistein were less likely to ejaculate after mounting female rats. Most interesting was the fact that males exposed to the low dose were less likely to mount and begin the process of intercourse than males whose mothers received the free or high-genistein diets. Thus, although adult sperm counts were not affected by exposure to genistein, the male rats exhibited “persistent demasculinization of the male reproductive system.” Ejaculatory behavior was significantly reduced by exposure to genistein. Most significant was the observation that “the low dose led to alterations in male development to a greater degree than the high dose.” This is consistent with other studies reporting “an inverted U-shaped dose response” in males exposed to low and high doses of estrogenic substances. What this means is that pregnant and nursing mothers should avoid all soy as even a low-dose exposure to genistein caused subtle but significant changes in sexual behavior in male offspring.

2003
Gardner-Thorpe D and others. Dietary supplements of soya flour lower serum testosterone concentrations and improve markers of oxidative stess in men. Eur J Clin Nutr 2003 Jan;57(1):100-6. In a study carried out at University Hospital of Wales, male volunteers ate three scones per day in addition to their normal diet for a period of six weeks. The scones were made either with wheat flour or soy flour providing 120 mg per day of isoflavones (about the amount contained in 3 cups of soy milk). Researchers noted “significant improvements in two of the three markers of oxidative stress” and concluded that "these findings provide a putative mechanism by which soya supplements could protect against prostatic disease and atherosclerosis. However, testosterone levels fell in the volunteers eating the soy but researchers did not stress this alarming finding in their conclusion.

2007
Goodin S and others. Clinical and biological activity of soy protein powder supplementation in healthy male volunteers. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2007;16:829–33. Twelve men 18 years or older were fed 56 grams of pure soy per day for 28 days. Over the 28 days the men experienced a 19% drop in serum testosterone.

So pick one Phil. Pick a god damn study and we’ll investigate it. Because the studies we already investigated turned out to be completely bogus.

If you don’t pick out a study, I’ll assume it means you just want to keep spamming your crap. You haven’t even read any of these studies either. So its like wtf that we have to read them.

Also, you’ll totally ignore any study showing the opposite. Why? Who the hell knows. Probably because you’ll get cognitive dissonance and your brain will release happy chemicals if you keep on spouting your garbage.

Btw phil, here’s a metastudy compiling results from almost 80 studies that shows no effect of Soy or Soy isoflavones on male reproductive hormones. So even though I’m basing my opinion off the aggregation of almost 80 studies, your opinion is somehow more valid if it is based on cherry picked studies, many of which are not even about Soy.

K.

Sieben, would you stop being abusive. I never said that your opinion is less valid than mine, I said that I disagree with you.

A) Telling you that you are wrong because the evidence SAYS you are wrong is not abusive

B) The question is which beliefs are valid, not what you go out and believe. But that’s cool I already knew you believed in fairies even if you can find zero objective evidence for them. The question is why you are still here on these forums preaching your faith to an intelligent community.

Rudeness does not require intelligence. The first words one learns in a new language are swear words.

And your meta study, talk about conflict of interest, here they are stated at the bottom of the abstract:

Unfortunately I cannot afford to download the study, it costs over $30. But this below is all I need to see:

J.H.-R while a doctoral student at the University of Minnesota received some minor funding from the Soy Nutrition Institute for work on this manuscript. G.V. has nothing to disclose. S.J.D. has nothing to disclose. W.R.P. has nothing to disclose. M.S.K. occasionally consults for the Solae Company. M.J.M. regularly consults for companies in the soy food industry.

Good job talking past me. Its SAD that the only thing you can latch on to is the fact that I called you names that correctly identified you as mentally deficient. Because as far as the actual topic goes, you are losing so badly its not even funny. You’re not even trying to rebut mountains of counterevidence. You’re just going to continue blowing your religious trumpet.

Here’s a hint - literally no one is listening to you. Its just me telling you that you’re off your rocker. You are making zero progress on these forums.

Bye?

So even though GV and SKD and WRP have NOTHING TO DISCLOSE, you think that ONE RESEARCHER who received MINOR funding invalidates the WHOLE study? And the fact that he VOLUNTARILY DISCLOSED HIS AFFILIATION is suspicious how? Hmm??? He’s TELLING you he got money from Soy companies. If he were going to LIE to you he would NOT tell you he worked for soy companies.

Jesus christ.

See this is the disadvantage of me focusing on a single study. Is that you can go through and nitpick everything wrong with it. See we’ve already gone and shown that your studies have much more egregious errors, like not even being about soy (lololololllol), but you just keep copypasting new studies.

Hey Sieben, hows about we agree t disagree?

I agree that we disagree. I think we disagree because I listen to evidence, while you just pick whatever is convenient for you and fits your cultural and psychological hangups.

I think you are dishonest for asking other people to take your faith-based opinions seriously. I think a lot of other things too, but you’ll just cry about it. Lets just leave it at you have severe mental problems and you can’t cope with failure (i.e. change your mind when presented with strong evidence).

Still just pasting large chunks of the WAPF web site I see. I’ll make a one-time exception and go over each study listed in your paste since there are a low number of them.

Martin PM and others. Phytoestrogen interaction with estrogen receptors in human breast cancer cells. Endocrinology 1978 Nov;103(5):1860-7.
This is basically a test tube (in vitro) study. They mixed together some cancer cells with some phytoestrogens, and reported that they interacted with each other. Full article isn’t available for free, but there’s no mention at all in the abstract that their study should be used to demonstrate an increased risk of breast cancer from intake of soy or any related items. And from what I can see, with good reason, since it doesn’t demonstrate that. This article was also referenced in some of the studies I previously referenced, such as the meta-analysis one… your response?

Petrakis NL and others. Stimulatory influence of soy protein isolate on breast secretion in pre-and postmenopausal women. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1996 Oct;5(10):785-794.
Uhh… this is the exact study I went over in detail in one of my previous posts? Again, did you read a single word of my post, did you read a single word from a single study of that post? You have yet to address a single detail of that post, or even the overall post. Again, here’s the link, maybe you overlooked it.

Dees C and others. Dietary estrogens stimulate human breast cells to enter the cell cycle. Environ Health Perspect 1997 Apr;105 (Suppl 3):633-636.
Ah, a 1997 report about cells entering the cell cycle; this must have been the study they actually meant reference in my detailed post on the previous study. That would explain the 1996/1997 difference I noted. Anyways… uhh, ouch… this study actually contradicts the previous study pretty much, and your claim about high doses. “Genistein, a dietary estrogen, inhibits the growth of breast cancer cells at high doses but additional studies have suggested that at low doses, genistein stimulates proliferation of breast cancer cells.” Hmm ok, so, too little of a bad thing is bad, too much of a bad thing is… good? Ok whatever, let’s see why… ahh this is just more test tube garbage. Ok so low dose makes the cells do “bad things”, conclusion… eat more soy so you get a high dose? I’m sorry, which side of the issue are you trying to provide evidence for again…?

Wang C and Kurzer MS. Phytoestrogen concentration determines effects on DNA synthesis in human breast cancer cells. Nutr Cancer 1997;28(3):236-47.
Ugh, another test tuber, and again another study indicating high doses are preventive if anything. Are you actually reading a word in the studies you’re semi-referencing via WAPF?

Connolly JM and others. Effects of dietary menhaden oil, soy, and a cyclooxygenase inhibitor on human breast cancer cell growth and metastasis in nude mice. Nutr Cancer 1997;29(1):48-54.
Oh no, a mouse study, not these again… woohoo “nude mice”!

Wang C and Kurzer MS. Phytoestrogen concentration determines effects on DNA synthesis in human breast cancer cells. Nutr Cancer 1997;28(3):236-47.
Ah here we go, finally something, in this study they say that-- hey wait a minute… this is the same exact study 2 spots up.

Anderson D and others. Effect of various genotoxins and reproductive toxins in human lymphocytes and sperm in the Comet assay. Teratog Carcinog Mutagen 1997;17(1):29-43.
Sperm?.. what the… in a breast cancer study? Impressive.

SM and others. p53, mutations, and apoptosis in genistein-exposed human lymphoblastoid cells. Mutat Res 1998 Aug 31;405(1):41-56.
Another test tuber, and how it relates increasing your chances of breast cancer is beyond me.

Habito RC and others. Effects of replacing meat with soyabean in the diet on sex hormone concentrations in healthy adult males. Br J Nutr 2000 Oct;84(4):557-63.
Adult males… sex hormones… testosterone… prostate… what the hell? Seriously, did you have your eyes closed while you were copying and pasting?

Ugh, I’m taking back your one-time exception, there was more than I thought. It’s obvious you just copy and pasted a big chunk of the WAPF web site again. A chunk you apparently didn’t even look at since a lot of it isn’t even about breast cancer.

Make your next post very simple, please. Link to just one study that supports your claim that “soy intake increases your chance of getting breast cancer”. Preferably a randomized controlled study on humans… living humans… their entire body intact… not just some of their cells sprinkled in a petri dish.

Oh and try to avoid referencing studies I’ve already addressed in previous posts, how about just responding to them instead.

Sieben,

You seem to think telling a debate opponent they have “severe mental problems” is not an insult. It is.

Cross the line again and you’re gone for a month. So please, don’t even approach the line. If the only way you can do that is by discontinuing your back-and-forth with Phil, then I advise you do that.

Rules are rules Sieben. Quality contributions don’t exempt you from them.

By the way, I can’t believe you’re acting like this. It’s like you’ve completely reverted back the impotent, unpersuasive rage of your pre-Retopper-debate days. It’s such a shame, because for a long time since then, you’ve been a self-possesed, razor sharp, devastating debater. Now look at you. You’re frothing at the mouth over the nutritional value of soy.

Lets try a reductio. If someone believes X in the face of overwhelming countevidence and reasoning, then they probably have a mental problem. Am I not allowed to point out that they probably have a mental problem? Even if its causing all the horrible stuff they’re writing and thinking?

Except its up to humans to make and apply the rules. So this isn’t a matter of objectivity; its a matter of you and the other mods deciding that you don’t want spades called spades on these forums. Do whatever you want but don’t pretend its objective. “Rules are rules”. Yeah thanks.

I’m not interested in not-dissapointing you. I totally disagree with your masochistic “only touch the arguments” approach.

And if you find it unpersuasive, thats your problem, not mine. Its kind of ironic that you’re asking me to look past my opponent’s horrible personality disorder and find only his arguments, when you can’t do the same with me. I mean, look at the content of my arguments. If you’re distracted by “namecalling”, whats wrong with you?

Its actually not Soy, Danny. Be fair. I’m “frothing” over the fact that Phil is literally lying through his teeth with a straight face and trolling these forums to promote his xenophobic religion.

Its like, how stupid and dishonest does someone have to be before I’m allowed tell them they’re stupid and dishonest? Because once you’ve gone back and forth a couple of times, it becomes apparent that the method of “sticking to the arguments” will not work. It will not change their minds OR shut them up. The only thing left to do is identify the problem at its source - mental defect. This is a necessary condition for progress, and there are many possible outcomes. But the usual outcome is that if someone is in fact totally incompetent, and you point it out, they tend to go on the defensive…

I mean Phil went on the defensive right? At one point he was saying “well I don’t have to have evidence for my claims because I’m not a scientist”. How funny is that? He’s admitting that he can’t defend his position because he’s not competent enough. GAME OVER. You’ll notice that literally no one is listening to him, and Stewart is actually talking to me in spite of my treatment of Phil. There are other people talking to me in other threads about similar topics… It doesn’t look like anything I’ve done has backfired. It looks like people recognize that Phil has all these problems I accuse him of having, and that they realize I am actually looking to have a principled discussion.

This is just you projecting your distaste for verbal violence on to the community. I can’t stop you cus u haz da banhammar, but that’s what you’re doing.

Sieben, you’re just feeding the troll. Let Phil’s thread die. Not like he’s persuading anyone. He’s a true believer, and you should know better than to engage with such. Point out his contradictions and move on.

Ironic, that Sieben finally talks about objectivism, which was the original subject of this conversation. Not one person has yet discussed why Ayn Rand found that counterfeit foods made from soy contradict her objectivist values.

And claiming xenophobia? I’ve been stating how wisdom from isolated tribes, many of which are black, are superior to the junk being promoted by the US Govt and our mega corporations which are funded by fractional reserve banking.

Hey Stuart. Sure, some of those studies are using test tubes. So what. I’m not saying that more studies are not required. But. the greatest study we have, which cannot be denied, is that people in the west are suffering an epidemic of degenerative disease. This is clearly something to do with changes in our diets, so it is really very likely that one of the main new crops, not seen in USA before recent times, soy, maybe that has an impact. So if you have animal and test tube studies showing this, and doctors being concerned about phytoestrogen count in patients, maybe that suggests that this should be looked into.

OK. I have time now to show some links from Kaayla’s book, and these are edited paraphrases because I don’t have time to type it all out. I’m looking at generic cancer links here. Thinking back, I probably got confused with the known link between bisphenol-a and breast cancer, which is another source of estrogen mimicking compounds in our diet, apologies for that, because looking through the data, it appears that there is a groundswell of info about carcinogens from modern processed soy but not necessarily specifically breast cancer:


These are a couple of the stidies in the Soy and Cancer Chapter:

p380 Soy isoflavones - the plant estrogens in soy most often credited with cancer prevention - are listed as “carcinogens” in many toxicology textbooks, including the American Chemical Society’s 1976 Chemical Carcinogens. Over the years, soy isoflavones have been proven to be mutagenic, clastogenic, and teratogenic. In addition, the modern industrial soy rocessing techniques used to p=make soy protein isolate, textured vegetable protein and other modern soy products create toxic and carcinogenic residues. Finally, soybeans naturally contain goitrogens, allergens, protease inhibitors and other antinutrients and toxins that damage the digestive, immune and neuroendocrine system, putting consumers at increased risk for many health problems inluding cancer.

P382: "Estrogens exert dose dependen dual effect uon tumour induction and growth. High doses inhibit tumour development and suppress growth while physiological doses stimulate growth of human tumour cells: Setchell KDR, Borriello S{ Et al: Nonsteroidal estrogens of dietary origin: possible roles in hormone-dependent disease. Am J Clin Nutr, 1984, 40, 569-578

In 2001, the British Columbia Cancer Agency in Vancouver reported that ginistein and daidzein at high concentrations inhibit tumor growth and enhanced the effect of daidzein at high concentrations inhibited tumor growth and enhanced the effect of Tamoxifen in vitro . However, at dietary levels soy stimulated existing breast tumor growth and antagonized the effect of Tamoxifen both in vivo and in vitro. Accordingly, the agency warned that “women with current or past cancer should be aware of the risks of potential tumor growth when taking soy products.” De Lemos, MI “Effects of soy phytoestrogens ginistein and daidzein on breast cancer growth” Ann Pharmacother 2001, 35, 9, 1118-1121

P383: Likewise, Craig Dees, Ph.D. of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennesee came to the conclusion that “dietary estrogens at low concentrations do not act as anti-estrogens, but act like DDT and estradiol to stimulate breast cancer cells to enter the cell cycle.” Dees C. Foster JS et al. Dietary estrogens stimulate human breast cells to enter the cell cycle. Environ Health Perspect, 1997, 105 Suppl 3 633-636

A study found that soy might provide some protection from stomach cancer, but only if you are male, and that soy might provide some protection from heart disease, but only if you are female. Within the findings was a significant positive correlation between higher rates of colon cancer mortality and soy product intake. Nagata C. Ecological stidy of the association between soy product intake and mortality from cancer and heart disease in Japan. International Epidemiological Association. 2000. 29. 832-836.


Page 52: Traditional ferneting techniques ensure that soy products are almost never contaminated with aflatoxin, mycotoxins or dangerous molds or bacteria. Aflatoxins - a carcinogenic and toxic factor often found in moldy grains and peanuts - are not stable in soy sauce or miso.

One of three sources provided: Matsushima K, Yashoiro K et al. Absence of aflatoxin biu-osynthesis in koji mold (aspergillus sojae). Appl Micobiol Biotechnol, 2001, 55, 6, 771-7

This would seem to be true only of the old-fashioned products as aflatoxin contamination has been indentified recently as a major problem in moder (unfermented) soy and peanut roducts.

1 of 3 sources provided: Vietnam finds aflatoxin contamination in soy, peanut products. Vietnam News Briefs via NewsEdge Corpration 1/15/02 soyatech.com

Comment from Phil: Fermenting grains ensures that beneficial rather than pathogenic yeast does the fermentation. See Dr T Simonichi’s book about how he found candida albicans in most tumors he has treated.


P 129: “Heterocyclic amines are probably involved in the development of human cancer in the presence of other carcinogens, tumor promoters and factors stimulating cancer progression”. T. Sugimura of the Naturonal Cancer Centre Research Institute in Tokyo. HCA’s are formed in any pyrolyzed, protein rich food. Soy globulin, protein plus sugar under heat and pressure combine to form potent mutagens such as 20amino-9H-pyrodo (2,3-b) indole and 2-amino-3-methyl-9H-pyrido2,3-b) indole. Commercial soy sauce is rich another HCA. Nitrites increase the mutagenicity of HCA’s in foods, and vice versa and mutagen precursors isolated from nitrite0containing soy sauce have been idenfified as either tyramine or beta-carboline derivatives.

The consistent presence of nitrites, glutamate and HCAs in heavily processed soy foods poses a triple (cancer) threat.


P 179: Most soy oils are sold as partially hudrogenated fat. In these trans fats you get a cis formation. They appear to the body to be like saturated fats so the body is easily fooled into incorporating these trans fats into the cell memrane. Theu stiffen the membrane whilst inhibiting enzuyme activity, block transport of nutrients and inhibit elimination of wastes. Text elsewhere in the book and in the WAPF website explain the role of trans fatty acids in cancer.


195: Beans are the most famous of the foods containing protease inhibitors. They have been linked to malnutrition, pancreatic disease, intestinal disorders and even cancer. Most foods with protease inhibitors rarely caused problems because they were rarely eaten every day and because cooking deactivates most of the protease inhibitors. The protease inhibitors in soybeans, howeve, are not only more nuerous but are more resistant to netralization and processing. The long fermentation used in traditional soy products will however deactivate these toxins, but of course most modern soy products are not fermented.


I want him to know that he’s all the things I say he is. And judging by the fact that you called him a “true believer”, it doesn’t look like my technique has backfired.

But yeah this thread has gone on for a while. Call me sadistic.

I used the word “objective” in the “ubiased” sense. I mean the fact that we would have to point this out… yada yada illiteracy.

Maybe she’s using it as a symbol to characterize a cultural movement associated with the subjection of man. I won’t deny that the culture surrounding soy is very anti-objectivist (in the Ayn Rand sense). See authors use things called “symbols” and “motifs” to represent concepts indirectly.

ISOLATED TRIBES. Sounds xenophobic to me. But the real sense in which I meant the word, if you can please interpret words correctly for once, is your aversion to modern groups. For example, the low fat crowd, the vegetarian/vegan crowd, etc. Its not that you have really good arguments or objective evidence against them, you are deathly allergic to them so much that you will believe literally insane dietary dogma just so you don’t have to be “like” them.

Well test tube studies aren’t apliccable to humans. But the studies are also in rats and other non-human animals. And then other studies don’t even study what you claim they study (Stewart pointed this out several times).

No you’re not. You’ve already made up your mind and you’re telling people without any sort of reservation that they will fry their testicles if they eat soy. And its not like you have a bunch of studies either; you have literally no studies that have any merit whatsoever.

Gee Phil, that’s not really a controlled study. Thats more of an epidemiological study. The same kind of epidemiological study can be used to indict saturated fats. Why is it okay for you to use epidemiology to push your stupid agenda but not for the low-fat crowd to use epidemiology to push their garbage?

A much simpler explanation is calories. See calories have been increasing too. And if you eat too many calories you get fat. I know I’m being totally radical and unscientific, but here’s a twin study showing that when you control for genetics, people get fat when you overfeed them.

I know. I’m sorry. Its a study. Controlled and stuff. But I guess if they had been eating an extra 1000 calories of saturated fat they might have gained no weight at all. Cus that’s how the human body works - it will just poop out fat that it doesn’t need, wasting precious energy in a world of intermittent famines.

NO PHIL. NO. BAD PHIL. You were claiming Soy has effects on the endocrine system. Mainly that it lowers testosterone. This is different from claiming that Soy will cause you to get fat. Do you have any studies showing this? As far as I can see, even your big list of fake studies does not even pretend to support this. So please, even if you are going to use totally bogus evidence, at least stick to asserting what your evidence says.

They have and the data suggests you are very wrong.

And oh. We’re not reading your TLDR copypaste from Dr. Insane. The same bully who uses a bunch of fake studies to push her cultural agenda. Sorry. In all fairness, you wouldn’t read it if we linked a similar piece from the USDA. Actually, you haven’t read one study we’ve linked period… hmm…