Soy is bad, umkay.

domi

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
The following article is pseudo-science with fear-mongering thrown in. Soy seems to be an excuse to rant on homosexuality.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53327

A devil food is turning our kids into homosexuals
Posted: December 12, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

There's a slow poison out there that's severely damaging our children and threatening to tear apart our culture. The ironic part is, it's a "health food," one of our most popular.

Now, I'm a health-food guy, a fanatic who seldom allows anything into his kitchen unless it's organic. I state my bias here just so you'll know I'm not anti-health food.

The dangerous food I'm speaking of is soy. Soybean products are feminizing, and they're all over the place. You can hardly escape them anymore.

I have nothing against an occasional soy snack. Soy is nutritious and contains lots of good things. Unfortunately, when you eat or drink a lot of soy stuff, you're also getting substantial quantities of estrogens.

Estrogens are female hormones. If you're a woman, you're flooding your system with a substance it can't handle in surplus. If you're a man, you're suppressing your masculinity and stimulating your "female side," physically and mentally.

In fetal development, the default is being female. All humans (even in old age) tend toward femininity. The main thing that keeps men from diverging into the female pattern is testosterone, and testosterone is suppressed by an excess of estrogen.

If you're a grownup, you're already developed, and you're able to fight off some of the damaging effects of soy. Babies aren't so fortunate. Research is now showing that when you feed your baby soy formula, you're giving him or her the equivalent of five birth control pills a day. A baby's endocrine system just can't cope with that kind of massive assault, so some damage is inevitable. At the extreme, the damage can be fatal.

Soy is feminizing, and commonly leads to a decrease in the size of the penis, sexual confusion and homosexuality. That's why most of the medical (not socio-spiritual) blame for today's rise in homosexuality must fall upon the rise in soy formula and other soy products. (Most babies are bottle-fed during some part of their infancy, and one-fourth of them are getting soy milk!) Homosexuals often argue that their homosexuality is inborn because "I can't remember a time when I wasn't homosexual." No, homosexuality is always deviant. But now many of them can truthfully say that they can't remember a time when excess estrogen wasn't influencing them.

Doctors used to hope soy would reduce hot flashes, prevent cancer and heart disease, and save millions in the Third World from starvation. That was before they knew much about long-term soy use. Now we know it's a classic example of a cure that's worse than the disease. For example, if your baby gets colic from cow's milk, do you switch him to soy milk? Don't even think about it. His phytoestrogen level will jump to 20 times normal. If he is a she, brace yourself for watching her reach menarche as young as seven, robbing her of years of childhood. If he is a boy, it's far worse: He may not reach puberty till much later than normal.

Research in 2000 showed that a soy-based diet at any age can lead to a weak thyroid, which commonly produces heart problems and excess fat. Could this explain the dramatic increase in obesity today?

Recent research on rats shows testicular atrophy, infertility and uterus hypertrophy (enlargement). This helps explain the infertility epidemic and the sudden growth in fertility clinics. But alas, by the time a soy-damaged infant has grown to adulthood and wants to marry, it's too late to get fixed by a fertility clinic.

Worse, there's now scientific evidence that estrogen ingredients in soy products may be boosting the rapidly rising incidence of leukemia in children. In the latest year we have numbers for, new cases in the U.S. jumped 27 percent. In one year!

There's also a serious connection between soy and cancer in adults - especially breast cancer. That's why the governments of Israel, the UK, France and New Zealand are already cracking down hard on soy.

In sad contrast, 60 percent of the refined foods in U.S. supermarkets now contain soy. Worse, soy use may double in the next few years because (last I heard) the out-of-touch medicrats in the FDA hierarchy are considering allowing manufacturers of cereal, energy bars, fake milk, fake yogurt, etc., to claim that "soy prevents cancer." It doesn't.

P.S.: Soy sauce is fine. Unlike soy milk, it's perfectly safe because it's fermented, which changes its molecular structure. Miso, natto and tempeh are also OK, but avoid tofu.
 
Its alright if you want a good laugh, I suppose. Where do these people come up with this shit!

However the hormonal influence the fetus experiences whilst in the womb may have a bearing on a person's sexual orientation later in life. Thats my current idea on it, anyway. That nine months is an incredibly complex and mysterious time. That fact that life happens at all is nothing short of a miracle, imo. At least in 1 out of 4 pregnancies doesn't produce a baby.
 
My son was born at 23 weeks, the smallest child ever recorded at my hospital at 450 grams. What on earth does that bode for him. Those mysterious nine months were a mere 5 month to him. Isn't that amazing!!!! He is still in hospital now, born on the 19th of july and due on nov 12th. He now weighs 6 pounds and may be home for yule. I have worried about every aspect of his existence and quite frankly I don't care if he is gay or not. I love him. In those circumstances it is simply not possible to definre a diet, nature takes it's hold on everyone. Life IS emergent, where it can, it will. That is a miracle.

If I had the choice again I would not choose to recusitate though. (he officially was dead)
 
I just need to clarify that I do not regret my sons survival but the process to which he survived. It was so invasive and I was not really educated enough to know the best routes. I would choose mothers milk any day over soy or any nutriprem however, as it can never replace the goodness that the breast provides for a growing baby.
 
joejoeba, I'm happy to hear your son may be home by yule - that is wonderful - however, just so you know, soy could not make him gay.

Nope.

No way, no how, well, I mean.....realistically at least. ;) You probably know this and just made the statement 'I don't care if he's gay' as an aside of some sort - but just to clarify, I can assure you with 99.9% certainty (because 'nothing is impossible') that injesting soy would not affect sexuality. Granted - sexuality is much more probably a scale of experience as opposed to an 'on - off' switch - and there are a myriad of life experiences and genetic factors that may affect where upon that scale one falls - but - I think we can say with some certainty that soy could not affect sexuality.

It can, according to my doctor, increase estrogen levels - but linking that to sexuality is like linking fuel octane levels to the model car you drive - at least to my understanding. Of course I could be wrong - and this could be the latest blow to the humble soy bean - the most recent being it's dastardly role in the past life deaths of so many of our forum members.....
http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=4282


;)
 
Thanks for clarifying that !!! ho ho ha!

No I was just saying, that lipstick or none I am more concerned about survival and care than sexuality at this point!

And I don't think soy will affect that.

thanks :)
 
:D It's an Evil Soy conspiracy. This is so funny and ridiculous that I can't really believe that this article is not a joke.
Soy or soybeans origin is Eastern Asia. Soy products popularity came to us mainly from China. And China has the largest population on earth. Sounds really strange if all of them are actually gay :)
 
While this soy story seems to be another "fear factor," might it also possibly be a distraction? Isn't just about everything in the media these days?

I once read a study, several years ago, wherein an observation was noted that the Asian countries that consumed high quantities of soy in their diets were statistically significant in the presense of a largely physically diminuative population. Some research was conducted that indicated that the soy consumption, of both the mother during nursing and the consumption of soy by the infant after moving to solid food, in some way inhibited or retarded physical growth in the early years of development.

It was also noted in this study that after WWII the introduction and influence of the western dietary practices in these cultures were creating taller individuals. It was presumed that this was the result of a reduction of soy in the diet, particularly in the early years of growth.

Could increased soy consumption be generating smaller herd stock individuals? Might this be an unacceptable trait for "owners" of the herd? Might anti-soy fear stories in the media be a way of weaning the herd from these products?

I will attempt to locate this study, but I fear that it may be a cold trail.
 
Rabelais said:
While this soy story seems to be another "fear factor," might it also possibly be a distraction? Isn't just about everything in the media these days?

I once read a study, several years ago, wherein an observation was noted that the Asian countries that consumed high quantities of soy in their diets were statistically significant in the presense of a largely physically diminuative population. Some research was conducted that indicated that the soy consumption, of both the mother during nursing and the consumption of soy by the infant after moving to solid food, in some way inhibited or retarded physical growth in the early years of development.
Estrogen was or still is used as a growth suppressor for tall girls in the US and Australia. With soy being a phytoestrogen, I can see how the study about Asian population makes sense. Estrogen promotes growth in some tissues (breast) but suppress long bone growth. If estrogen is given too early long bone growth stops in a female. Over generations increasing soy would cause early long bone growth suppression and a decline in height over generations. The link to a news story about one such study here:
http://www.findarticles(dot)com/p/articles/mi_m0CYD/is_23_39/ai_n8581181.

A study showing that blocking androgen conversion to estrogen in boys result in growth. http://www.hus.fi/default.asp?path=59;404;9907;9908;10376;14174;14205

I wouldn't worry too much about soy and homosexuality.

As for estrogen in sexual differentiation, it masculinizes mammalian brain during early development (that is the genetic male brain), so go figure the whole idea about homosexuality. Yes, there are biological determinants. We are not even invoking the spiritual reasons or karmic choice here, though that plays a part too. It is not a deviance, contrary to what some idiots may say. Homosexuality is another aspect of the variety inherent in life. It just is for whatever reason. (now I am off my soapbox)

Female and male brains are both exposed to estrogen prenatally. The SR-Y gene found on the Y chromosome triggers testes development which in turn triggers testosterone production. In the brain testosterone is converted to estrogen. For females testosterone in ovaries is also the precursor to estrogen. It's just that it gets converted to estrogen there. The theory is that alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) binds estrogen in female brains to prevent it from acting on its receptors during early development. AFP expression is a function of having the gene for 'femaleness'-XX. Genetic females given SR-Y before a critical development point will grow testes (thought a bit smaller) and in all other sense and purpose be male since SR-Y products destroys AFP allowing estrogen to act brain cells of the developing male. With no AFP in males to block estrogen action in the brain you get masculinization. So there is estrogenic organization of brain areas involved in male sexual behavior-again not homosexual behavior but traditional male 'heterosexual' behavior.
BTW half of all genes involved in sperm production is on the X chromosome but we won't get into that.


The estrogenic effects in adulthood is slightly different since it only 'activates' behavior that the brain has already laid the pathway for during organization. At that point, estrogen activates the things associated with female puberty. In a male the 'female' wiring has to be there already if estrogen is going to activate 'female' or what some call 'homosexual behavior. Keep in mind prenatal estrogen would have already laid down 'male'' wiring in a male. So it ain't gonna happen with soy like some think. In some species, for example, songbirds estrogen also has activational effect on male social behavior. Adult males and females differ in the ratio of estrogn/testosterone.


If the female brain is exposed to too much testosterone OR estrogen without the 'protection' of AFP, the female is not so much masculinized, there are genetic instructions afterall, but de-feminized. Often this defeminization is attributed to testosterone, but again testosterone is aromatized to estrogen.


Even though I write all of that, the degree of AFP action in humans is still up for debate. I just asked my mentor this minute. A well established neuroendocrinologist BTW, she said: "There are multiple factors to consider with humans, don't accept everything published, even textbooks are wrong." Keep in mind that a lot of the studies that tell us about estrogen in mammals were done on rats. Based on my own studies with adult birds, it can effect social and sexual behavior in males by increasing "masculine" behavior. The change in male behavior in turn effects the famale by increasing her own feminine behavior which then alters her own hormonal profile. For humans, I am rather skeptical about estrogens in soy causing homosexuality.
 
Back
Top Bottom