You can disagree with studies without stating they are fake. We both agree that more studies are required, but that does not make my hypothesis invalid.
Analysing isolated tribes of various genetics, including of white Gaelic descent has nothing to do with xenophobia PLUS, vegetarianism and veganism are ideas, with nothing to do with race. In addition, not once here have I actually mentioned veganism or vegetarianism. So your claims of xenophobia are total strawman arguments.
Many of them are fake. Or did you miss the part about where you used evidence from a Tree’s bark to try and prove that soy was toxic?
No. We don’t need more studies. It would be nice, but there is sufficient evidence on the table right now to show you are wrong. And since you totally ignore all the studies showing you you’re wrong, there’d be no point doing further study anyway. You wouldn’t listen.
The xenophobia is in how you employ your philosophy. To accuse everyone who doesn’t think like you of being from the government is totally insane and xenophobic.
I never said race. You are projecting this because you’re illiterate.
OH YEAH You’re not anti-vegan, you’re just anti-soy and anti-plant proteins. Lol.
Test tube type studies have their place, and it’s mainly to guide future research. Yes, it does suggest it “should be looked into”, I 100% agree. But that’s not what you were saying, you were saying “soy will fry your testicles and increase your chances of breast cancer”.
As Sieben pointed out, the very type of studies you are using to make soy look bad were used to make saturated fat look bad. For every “soy is bad” study there’s probably a million “saturated fat is bad” ones.
Humans are a tad bit more complicated than a couple of cells sprinkled in a petri dish, some color changing chemical strips, or even “nude mice”. Nude mice are basically genetic defects that have practically no immune system, nice analogy for humans.
Again, I’ve already specifically addressed several of the studies you listed, such as Craig Dees 1997; did you read what I wrote?
Here’s some simple steps…
1.) Question: Is soy bad?
2.) Observation: US diet increases soy consumption, health problems increase.
3.) Hypothesis: Increasing soy in your diet will increase your risk of health problems.
4.) Experiment: Perform cheap and easy to do tests in test tubes, on mice, etc.
5.) Still seeing a problem? Experiment: Do some randomized controlled studies on humans.
Can you get me a step 5 study, please? Just one. So far all the step 5s I’ve found have concluded the opposite.
“oops, it wasn’t the soy, it was the pesticides” “oops, it wasn’t the soy, it was the trans fat from partial hydrogenation” “oops, it wasn’t the soy, it was…”
There’s lots of step 4 studies showing saturated fats are bad. If you want to exclude soy from your diet because of a step 4 study go ahead, but to be consistent, you should also exclude saturated fat. Oh and fats in general, and proteins, and carbohydrates. You should pretty much exclude everything, aka don’t eat.
Remember, correlation does not imply causation.
As for your mentions of Ayn Rand, an objectivist; you do realize you’re at the Mises Institute, right? A subjectivist place. While we definitely share lots of similar views on things, our reasons for getting there are different, very different, pretty much opposite. And who cares what Ayn Rand thinks about a particular issue? Did you expect to see everyone here jumping up and down going “Oh my, Ayn Rand said X about Y?!?! Why wasn’t I told about this sooner?!” You seem to like to appeal to authority a lot.
Did you get to look at the passages from Kaayla’s book that I posted?
Regarding Ayn Rand, I was seeking a discussion about her approach, rather than appealing to authority. I enjoyed reading the book and see amazing foresight from what she wrote. Indeed, as she predicted, government is supporting “project soy bean”.
A quick note on rat/animal studies. If something doesn’t happen in rats, it usually won’t happen in humans. If something does happen in rats, it may happen in humans. For example, animals carry significantly more “brown” fat than humans. So weight loss drugs that act on brown fat receptors cause amazing weight loss in rats but really negligible weight loss in humans.
So I’m personally pretty secure about animal studies telling me what won’t work, but the opposite isn’t true. As far as I know this phenomenon hasn’t been studied or at least phrased this way in the literature; its based mostly off personal experience.
I read your snippets from the book. Unfortunately I don’t have a copy of her book yet (planned on getting it).
Several referenced studies I’ve already previously addressed, do you have a response to them?
I agree. Which is why I said in step 4 do some animal studies, step 5 “still see a problem?”, do human studies.