Sure, but I think references to medical literature are at least necessary. And there is very very few science/fact based references in your sentences.
I don't see any contradiction. When I say that in men too low and too high level of estrogens are harmful, it's not a contradiction. When I say that in the most breast cancers ER-alpha is activated, but that in some breast cancers ER-beta is activated, there is no contradiction.the findings are often contradictory (should be checked for bias or inadequate methodology or financial dependence, especially newer research,...) and you don't have an overview of what is going on with the food in question (like the virgin market push and regulatory manipulation mentioned above)ie.
And most part of what I wrote was not really an interpretation, it was a (simple) recapitulation of some facts. Moreover I think it's not necessary to have a complete overview and to be omniscient to see that among eg japanese women, who consume much soy and little dairy products, prevalence of osteoporosis is low. As it is not necessary to be omniscient to know that soy is consumed in Asia for ages, with no substantiated adverse effects. And there is no contradiction either.
Where is the facts-based proof of this affirmation ? What is so erroneous/false in what I wrote? All what I wrote was erroneous ? Only some parts ? Which parts exactly? And, again, where are the proofs ?your interpretation of the findings is erroneous
I agree. But do you think the Earth is flat because "authorities" have said to you since you was a child that it is spherical? No? So you trust abominable "authorities"... Moreover there always will be lobbies. Then, it depends on their strength. When a corpus of (a priori) serious (scientific peer-reviewed ) studies and immemorial findings are going in the direction of what the less strong lobby say (or the the direction of the less strong lobby's interests), contradicting what the strongest lobbies pretend, it is more plausible that these studies are true than false.- it is thus not surprising that even those in the medical community often have opposing or contradictory attitudes regarding common topics - obviously, the easy way out is to simply adopt views spread by the most powerful/influential authorities on the subject ones that are surely accompanied by sizable financial interest/support from the industry & co. (happens in all fields of human activity, not just medicine), so can you really trust these 'authorities'? based on their behavior in the past and a general lack of accountability, definitely not
"oestrogen like" are not oestrogen, period. Milk does contain true estrogens. And soy does not contain any estrogen at all. For example, soy isoflafoves do not have prothrombotic effect, as estrogens have. In fact soy isoflavones are named by scientists "phyto SERM" (selective estrogen receptor modulator). You can of course continue to name them "oestrogen like" if you prefer, but that proves nothing....soy isoflavones like genistein and diadzen, the oestrogen-like compounds found in soybeans.
What exactly means "poverty food"? In what sense ? Where is the proof that soy were "poor" in a nutritional sense ?Even China, where soy really is a poverty food
Moreover could really a food having positive effects in breast cancer correctly be described as a "poverty food"?
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22524810
There is always a context. The role of statistics tools used in studies is to reduce bias as far as possible (and sometimes to falsify data alas)again, missing context: to consume 'for how long', like this:
But here is an other (multiethnic 13 years long) study (among 46027 post menopausal women):
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22158125
And here are 3 meta analysis, so less context-dependent:
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23057338
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15945102
Soy consumption and prostate cancer risk in men: a revisit of a meta-analysis
Hypothyroidism! 2 tablespoons! One month ! Concerning a food widely consumed by Asian people on a daily basis since 10000 years! You spoke about "contradictions" and "bias" earlier, isn't ?In 1991, Japanese researchers reported that consumption of as little as 30 grams or two tablespoons of soybeans per day for only one month resulted in a significant increase in thyroid-stimulating hormone.
But there is an easy way to verify your assertion. If it is true, and as japanese people consume for ages much more than 2 tablespoons of soy per day on a long term basis, I conclude that hypo (or hyper?) thyroidism would have a high prevalence in Japan. Have you precise sources about that (except Fukushima's related cases of course)?
By the way, TSH varies widely even in the same individual. And increase in Thyroid Stimulating Hormone, even "significant" does not necessary mean true thyroid impairment: normal levels of TSH varies between 0.3 to 4.2mUI/l, so for example a "significant" increase from 1mUI/l to 2 mUI/l (a 2 fold increase!) may implies nothing concerning thyroid hormonal status (T3/T4/FreeT3/FreeT4).
In fact, soy isoflavones can inhibit an enzyme involved in thyroid hormone synthesis (thyroid peroxidase) but that has not translated into poor thyroid function (T3, T4 levels) in otherwise healthy individuals (those without pre existing thyroid disease and who have adequate iodine. intake). So additional factors appear necessary to cause thyroid malfunction: inadequate iodine intake, existence of other defects of hormone synthesis, additional goitrogenic dietary factors.
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11042097
Of course if you already have a thyroid disorder, soy consumption may be of concern. And more generally, for any health disorder, you can find foods that are of concern for this disorder.
Bookmarks