Re: Soy:Weston A Price Fondation Tragedy and Hype

 opinions may differ here on the benefits or otherwise of Soy, but we should bear in mind that most all Soy is now Genetically Engineered and therefore harmful, as is the consensus with all GE foods, with the exception of companies who are behind their production.

As much as I dislike the concept of genetically modified, the fact that something is genetically modified does not make it inherently dangerous.  For example, Starlite corn did kill some people although this was only in people with severe allergic reactions to peanuts.  This is because it had a peanut gene spliced in to it.  But this did not make it any more dangerous than peanuts themselves.

Secondly, just because something is in one part of a plant this does not mean it is present in all parts of a plant.  How many people eat seedless watermelons?  Do you know what is used to induce the tetraploidy in the plants to get the plants to a sterile state?  The drug colchicine, which can cause severe liver damage.  So why aren't the people eating these melons all developing liver failure? Because the colchicine does not end up in the fruit.  So do you have any real evidence that the pesticides from GMO soy end up in the soybeans?  I don't mean from newspaper articles or website articles like so many of your links below that are not studies as claimed.

Your disagreement with Mercola and other health professionals/bodies on their stance with Soy, would be better served by taking issue with them rather than the messengers of their findings.

Sounds to me like one of those you only feel people should be allowed to post if you agree with what they are posting.  Otherwise, why no comment to the other poster about taking up the issue with the makers of GMO soybeans and manufacturers using it instead of the people here on Curezone?

You and a few others here may not care to hear about the real facts about soy.  But you do not speak for everyone.  There are plenty of people here on Curezone who do not rely on propaganda sites for their information.  They prefer credible sites because they are interested in the truth about things, not myths.  So I post mainly for these people.

It is also hardly likely that they have a hidden agenda against soy as you claim, with the Weston Price Foundation and their allegedConspiracy with the meat and dairy industry.

Ironically if this was about someone bad mouthing a supplement then there would be all sorts of hoopla about the conspiracy of the pharmaceutical companies to suppress alternative medicines.  But because it is the Weston Price Foundation, who is funded by the powerful beef and dairy industries that are threatened by the popularity of soy there could not be any conspiracy.  Sure!!!

Are you aware that in some states there are laws against making disparaging remarks about dairy?  And look at how the beef industry sued Oprah for reporting her feelings about beef.  And then there was the dairy farmer sued for stating his milk was free of bovine growth hormone (BGH).  The politicians later made doing so illegal since as they put it this implied that BGH-free milk was safer than BGH laden milk, which it is.  But again the beef and dairy industries have powerful lobbies and will do what they can to hide dangers and to squash their competition just like the powerful pharmaceutical industry.

Does Mercola have a concealed agenda with espousing propaganda against Soy? Hardly likely.

I don't much about Mercola's connection to the Weston Price Foundation.  But it is pretty interesting how his name comes up so often in the search engines for both, showing some clear connection.

But since you want to defend Mercola maybe you would like to explain why Mercola promotes meats and dairy that contain estrogens thousands of times stronger than the phytoestrogens in soy he claims are dangerous.  Or why he pushes flax seed as a health food  when it contains nearly 4 times the level of phytoestrogens as soy.  Or why Mercola ignores the fact that flax seed contains phytic acid that he claims is a anti-nutrient.  Or why Mercola lied about soy being high in oxalic acid.  Should I go on with a list of Mercola's lies and misrepresentations?  So again, what is Mercola's agenda and why does the Weston Price Foundation rely so heavily on his misrepresentations of the facts?

Your opinion is noted, but many qualified health professionals agree that unfermented soy is a danger to health for one reason or another,

This is a great example of how people misrepresent the facts.  Soy is almost always fermented and/or cooked before consumption.  Both fermentation and cooking reduce the goitrogenic activity from the phytoestrogens found in all plants, and destroy the enzyme inhibitors in soy rendering it safe.  But these facts are left out by people wishing to bash soy,  just like all the other facts about soy safety that they don't want to hear since they prefer anti-soy propaganda to facts.

and who have also relied on their conclusions from credible sources such as properly conducted studies: unless you would like to refute these.......................

How many of these links are nothing more than newspaper articles or propaganda site articles?  Hint, those ARE NOT studies!!!  For example, numbers 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12.............  ARE NOT studies!

And clearly you did not read the studies themselves since many support soy as healthy.  For example from your first referenced study:

"In human prostate cancer cell studies, genistein and its precursor biochanin A inhibit cell growth at relatively high concentrations (Peterson and Barnes 1993)."

And from number 26:

"Although toxicity or toxic factors are terms frequently used to refer to the antinutritional properties of raw soy products, such designations are unwarranted."

"Other observations further affirm the nontoxicity of raw soybeans, as well as of other soy products. "

Of course of lot of the actual studies are in other animals than humans.  And as I pointed out animal studies do not correlate to humans.  And your reference number 26 also verifies this fact:

"In man, 5-10% dietary sterols is absorbed, whereas up to 32% absorption occurs in rats (175). 

In your 43rd reference they state:

"Soybeans contain a number of anticarcinogens"

"Soybeans are a unique dietary source of the isoflavone genistein, which possesses weak estrogenic activity and has been shown to act in animal models as an antiestrogen. Genistein is also a specific inhibitor of protein tyrosine kinases; it also inhibits DNA topoisomerases and other critical enzymes involved in signal transduction. In vitro, genistein suppresses the growth of a wide range of cancer cells, with IC50 values ranging from 5 to 40 microM (1-10 micrograms/ml). Of the 26 animal studies of experimental carcinogenesis in which diets containing soy or soybean isoflavones were employed, 17 (65%) reported protective effects. No studies reported soy intake increased tumor development. "

I don't have time to go through all your references, but as we can see many are touting the positive effects of soy.  Maybe in the future when you decide to post references to back your opinion you will actually read them before posting them as "evidence"!!!