Re: Is Soy Safe?

 Meanwhile , soy causes cancer cells to grow more rapidly.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/sunday-telegraph/soy-cancer-warning/sto...

All of this information has been debunked numerous times in the past, including my last post on soy, which also addressed this misconception.

At particular risk are people suffering from hormone-dependent cancers, including breast and prostate cancer - the two most common types of cancer in Australia.

Accept for the fact that if these people understood phytoestrogens as well as flavonoids, which have phytoestrogen-like effects then they wold know that these are ESTROGEN ANTAGONISTS.  Unfortunately these are not medically trained people but rather reporters sensationalizing the story.

"There is evidence to suggest that women with existing breast cancer or past breast cancer should be cautious in consuming large quantities of soy foods or phyto-oestrogen supplements,'' a position statement from the Cancer Council says.

"Women with current or past breast cancer should be aware of the risks of potential tumour growth when taking soy products.

Let me try explaining this myth a different way.  One of the standard herbs used to treat cancers including breast cancer is  red clover blossom.  Red clover blossom contains not only the same two phytoestrogens found in soy, but two others as well.  Other many other herbs and foods routinely recommended to treat cancer are also rich in phytoestogens including flax seed (2.5 times higher than soy), broccoli and seaweeds.  In fact phytoestrogesn and/or flavonoids are found in every plant we eat.  So if they are not sensationalizing the story why are they not warning about eating all plan materials?  Again, here is a post with a partial list of foods commonly eaten that contain phytoestrogens:

http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=1445903#i

"The Cancer Council does not support the use of health claims on food labels that suggest soy foods or phyto-oestrogens protect against the development of cancer.''

Do they support anything that cures cancer?  After all a cure would mean they are out of business.  Same reason the American Cancer Society has such a long history of suppressing cancer cures.

Soy, which is present in soy beans, soy milk, tofu, tempeh and some breads, contains phyto-oestrogens that mimic the actions of hormones in the body.

Yes, with a strength that is about 200-400 times weaker than the body's own estrogens.  Although to do this they have to lock up the estrogen receptors, which blocks the stronger cancer promoting estrogens produced by the body and the even stronger xenoestrogens that can be up to 100,000 times stronger than the body's own estrogen.  This is a great example of how these reporters overlook these simple facts because they have no concept of what they are really writing about.  Just like people who don't have a clue about how phytoestrogens work in the body keep reposting the same debunked misinformation on soy, especially while ignoring the fact that phytoestrogens or similar acting compounds are found in ALL the plants we eat.  And animal flesh contain the animals own hormones, which are also hundreds of times stronger than phytoestrogens.  So what are people supposed to eat to avoid all real estrogens and the extremely weak phytoestrogens?  If all the paranoia being spread about phytoestrogens was true then we would all have been dead of cancer a long time ago.

This means it may interfere with cancer drugs such as Tamoxifen, which works by suppressing the female hormone oestrogen.

I found this to be the most interesting statement.  First of all they are wrong again.  Tamoxifen DOES NOT suppress estrogen, it is an estrogen blocker just like phytoestrogens.  Again an example of reporters reporting on things they have no clue about.  But as I pointed out earlier the only way phytoestrogens can have any effect on the body is by latching on to estrogen receptor sites.  When they do this they will pose a very weak estrogenic effect averaging 200-400 times weaker that the estrogens that they are at the same time preventing from locking on.  So use some common sense here for a second.  What do you think is safer to latch on to estrogen receptors activating them?  Phytoestrogens that are 200-400 times weaker than the body's own estrogen, the full strength body's own estrogens or the extremely powerful xenosestrogens?  They cannot all occupy the same receptor at the same time, so which would you choose Ruffneck?  And while answering this wold you prefer an estrogen blocker like Tamoxifen, which is well known for causing a variety of cancers, blindness and psychosis or naturally occurring phytoestrogens that block these same exact receptors without the side effects of Tamoxifen?

And one other question for you Ruffneck.  What do you recommend cancer patients eat and drink?