Wow, this is amazing to me. For those of you who drink soy milk, if any, or eat soy products, here are some things you should look at. It amazed me, that's for sure! One thing's for sure, Soy is EXTREMELY bad for you.
I'll try to post it in a spoiler, but if that doesn't work, check out this link.
http://www.roex.com/articles_links/ATTACK OF THE KILLER BEANTHE CASE AGAINST SOY.pdf
By Elaine Hollingsworth
Research Director – Hippocrates Health Centre of Australia
TRUST US – IT’S GOOD FOR YOU…
To see, read and hear about it in most mainstream
and ‘alternative living’ media you’d think that the ubiquitous
soya bean and its derivatives are the most versatile,
natural, heart-friendly, health-improving, fat-preventing,
growth-promoting and generally loveable foods ever
grown on our good earth. A simple, easily-cultivated bean
which has been part of our diet since the dawn of civilization,
promising health and vitality to the lactose-intolerant,
the new-born, the aged, the menopausal, the frail, the
athletic, the health-conscious and just about everyone
else as well. It is given freely in the form of food-aid by
governments and charitable organizations to developing
nations and to those suffering the ravages of flood,
drought and famine.
It’s inexpensive, available everywhere, on its own or
as a vital ingredient in thousands of other food products,
such as our daily bread, cakes, confectionery, baby formula,
milk and meat substitutes, breakfast cereal,
sauces, snackfoods, pasta; it forms the basis of non-stick
cooking sprays. It is widely used in stockfeeds and petfoods.
Doctors, farmers, nutritionists, athletes, respected
companies whose household names have become part of
our culture, government authorities - all make a point of
telling us how safe and health-giving this wonder-food is
for us. It’s so good and harmless, they tell us, that it’s
often not even listed as an ingredient in many processed
foods. And even when it is we don’t mind; everyone
knows it’s safe. Our health watchdogs happily accept the
assurances given by companies who produce and
process it that it is "GRAS" – Generally Regarded As
Safe - so it must be.
Around the world, hundreds of millions of acres are
devoted to its cultivation, providing a secure cash crop for
millions of farmers who cheerfully pay a levy to the developers
of their genetically-modified strains to help some of
our biggest multi-national corporations spread the gospel
that "Soy is Good For You".
Too bad that for decades these same developers and
corporations have known of and deliberately suppressed
the evidence that prolonged ingestion of soy causes cancer
and countless other life-threatening illnesses,
destroys bone, creates havoc with the hormonal systems
of humans and animals alike, represses the sex drive
and, even if eliminated from our diets overnight, is so
entrenched into the food chain and the bodies of everyone
who has ever ingested it, that its adverse effects
would still plague the health of generations yet unborn.
The truth behind the blatantly commercial integration
of what I call the Abominable Bean into the Western diet
is a disturbing tale of fraud, corporate irresponsibility,
greed, bad science, public and media manipulation, corruption,
intimidation, political opportunism, suppression,
legal maneuvering, regulatory inaction and governmental
incompetence which makes the tobacco companies look
like Good Guys.
Find that hard to believe? Read on, dear reader, and
maybe after you’ve been acquainted with some of the
evidence for these assertions you’ll share my outrage
over the fact that not only is yet another proven lifeendangering
product allowed to be cultivated, manufactured
and sold in the first place, but that in this case its
producers and pushers have so successfully created their
own mythology around it that government regulators and
so-called health watchdogs have evidently buckled under
and given them virtual carte blanche to continue to misinform,
confuse and poison not only those who are sucked
into consuming their noxious products, but also everyone
who is unknowingly obliged to partake of this toxic time
bomb through its placement in all manner of basic foodstuffs
and in the feed of animals and poultry destined for
human consumption. Passive smoking is one thing;
forced feeding quite another.
WOULD YOU PUT YOUR NEWBORN BABY ON THE
PILL?
Since my interest in the promotion of safe natural
alternatives to many of the manufactured elements of the
Australian diet and medical treatment has become widely
known, I now receive a daily influx of desperate pleas for
help or accounts of terrible personal tragedies directly
connected to the use of soy. Some of them you’ll share
with me in this essay.
And, yes, I do hear from a few people who tell me I’ve
got it all wrong and send me reprints of magazine articles
quoting "solid scientific evidence" which "proves" how
wonderful and safe soy is for everyone, or assure me that
"Sanitarium wouldn’t sell it if it wasn’t OK". It doesn’t
seem to have occurred to them, or maybe they don’t
ATTACK OF THE KILLER BEAN! THE CASE AGAINST SOY
care, that almost all this ‘evidence’ and the ‘research’ on
which it is based has been published, and usually funded
by, the very same corporations who are producing and
selling the stuff. Or that they are perpetuating the "everybody
knows" urban myths so helpfully placed in appealing
editorial features liberally scattered through the pages of
mainstream media and, regrettably, repeated in many
health-oriented and alternative lifestyle publications that
should know better!
So, if you’re one of those who feels bound to harangue
me with the "well known fact" that Asian people have
thrived on soy for centuries, hold on to your pen for a
while and be prepared to learn just how wrong that particular
‘Furphy’ is. It’s one of the most widely-believed ‘scientific
facts’ touted by the proponents of soy – and one of the
best examples of how successful they’ve been in brainwashing
the public.
Far more distressing, and never mentioned in the producers’
‘solid scientific evidence’ are the tales I hear,
almost daily, from parents whose baby daughters have
commenced menstruation, developed pubic hair, underarm
odor and breasts from as young as two three, four and five
years of age. Or whose teenage sons are too embarrassed
to shower with their mates because they have
grown breasts of female proportions or because their genitalia
haven’t developed. True, such disasters do not befall
every child who is fed soy. But neither are they rare, isolated
or anecdotal instances. They are the documented,
widespread, frequent and in many cases predictable result
of hormonal imbalance caused by the assimilation of high
levels of oestrogen.
And where did the oestrogen come from? From the
baby formula and soy drinks fed to these unfortunate offspring
by their caring parents – often on professional medical
advice. Presumably the same source of ‘professional’
advice that apparently sees no contradiction in recommending
that the identical ingredient prescribed to
menopausal women to manipulate their hormonal levels
can be safely fed to newborn babies!
In simple terms, though obviously not simple enough
for some in the medical profession, feeding an infant soy
formula is the equivalent of giving it five birth control pills a
day.
The Swiss Health Service put it this way: "100gr of soy
protein has the oestrogenic equivalent of one contraceptive
pill", and there are numerous other studies published
since the early 1960s which confirm this undeniable fact.
Many enlightened scientists and medical professionals
argue that the continued use of soy in baby formula is a
form of genocide, since these effects have been known
and published within the scientific community for decades.
Try this for a vicious circle – drinking soy milk during
pregnancy can cause a failure to produce breast milk,
which then leads to feeding the baby soy formula. By far
the most distressing cases of soy damage that I have
heard personally are those of women who have drunk soy
milk while pregnant, and then fed their babies soy formula.
Often these women cannot restrain their tears when
describing the dreadful health problems their children suffer.
They keep repeating to me, "I didn’t know, I just didn’t
know; the doctor told me to drink it for my bones and to
feed baby the soy formula".
The multinational Nestlé Carnation corporation is a
major soy advertiser. You may remember them as the
company which brought infant formula to third world countries,
discouraging breast feeding and killing, according to
the World Health Organisation, one and one-half million
babies each year. Well, they're still at it, shamelessly flogging
their soy milk formulas in spite of all the evidence that
it is deadly. Apart from the ravaging of delicate hormonal
systems, serious gastrointestinal disturbances suffered by
babies on soy formula are now commonplace.
Surely cases such as these alone should have been
sufficient for the use of this killer bean to be outlawed
years ago, at least in baby formula? And even if the regulators
are not prepared to act, despite all the well-known
and easily accessible compelling evidence, how can it be
that physicians are still prescribing soy formula – and do
you wonder that my website is called http://www.doctorsaredangerous.
com? Unfortunately, outrageous and preventable
as are these crimes against infants, they are only the tip of
the iceberg. The bad seed within the Killer Bean has no
regard for the age or gender of its victims.
SO WHAT’S WRONG WITH IT?
I am not a scientist, nor will I subject you to a long
technical dissertation, but a basic understanding of the
physiology of the soy plant and its subsequent processing
is helpful in understanding why the bean is far from being
the ‘white knight’ its producers and proponents would have
us believe.
Few people are aware that aluminum is one of the
most prevalent minerals in soil, but it doesn't affect most
crops. The soy plant, however, has an affinity for aluminum,
which it extracts from the soil and concentrates in
the beans. This contamination is exacerbated by the aluminum
tanks used in the acid wash to which soy is subjected
during processing. Inevitably, traces of aluminum
from both sources are absorbed into the body through the
consumption of soy.
Soy milk contains 100 times more aluminum than
untreated cow’s milk. And, while on the subject of socalled
soy milk, have you ever seen a soy cow? You cannot
milk a soy bean; in order to obtain that pure-looking,
inviting stream of white liquid pictured so appealingly in
the ads, many processes are needed. It is necessary to
grind the beans at high temperature, and then extract the
remaining oils with dangerous solvents, some of which
remain in the meal. Then the meal is mixed with an alkaline
solution and sugars, in a separation process designed
to remove fiber. Then it is precipitated and separated,
using an acid wash. At each stage of processing a tiny
amount of poison remains within the soy. Government regulators
say it's so small an amount that it doesn't count. I
wonder who told them that? And why don’t they take
notice of the scientists who say it does count, due to its
accumulation in the body over long periods of soy ingestion?
Are you really happy to accept the manufacturer’s
assurance that it’s safe to eat a tiny amount of poison
each day, perhaps several times a day, until you have a
serious health problem?
During my research I came across twelve chemicals
that are added after these processes, most of them unpronounceable,
and the majority known to be dangerous, if
not deadly. I won't bore you with the names but, trust me,
you wouldn't want them anywhere near you, much less in
your body.
It’s also worth mentioning here that a by-product of soy
processing is a form of lecithin. Unlike the naturally-occurring
variety which is found in free-range eggs, nuts, seeds
and avocados, this by-product is always rancid, and is
extracted from the sludge left after the oil is removed from
the beans. It contains high levels of solvents and pesticides.
And guess what? Rather than consign it to the toxic
waste dump where it belongs, the manufacturers have
instead created another hugely-profitable market for it as a
‘healthy’ food additive. Among its delightful qualities is the
ability to induce severe joint pains (often mistaken for
arthritis), and serious gout. (During many years as a natural
health advocate, I have counseled countless people
who thought they had incurable arthritis. Their doctors prescribed
strong drugs, without discussing improvement
through diet. All reported cessation of symptoms after quitting
soy, and/or lecithin; but it requires time, and lots of
water).
But back to the bean. Putting in additional poisons is
bad enough, but the killer bean hardly needs them to
accomplish its deadly purpose. It is already riddled with
potential carcinogens and lots of other plant chemicals
guaranteed to wreak havoc within the human body! Yet in
the face of overwhelming evidence of catastrophic effects
resulting from their prolonged ingestion by humans and
animals, the soy pushers continue to assert the exact
opposite – that all these things are not only harmless but
are actually good for you.
At the root of the problem (no pun intended) is the fact
that the soy bean contains numerous phytoestrogens – a
descriptive name for plant chemicals having oestrogenic
(oestrus-inducing) effects. They occur in nature to help
regulate animal breeding cycles and, in synthetic form, are
used in farming for the same purpose. The ubiquitous birth
control pill is, of course, the human synthetic version. At
high dosage or over long periods phytoestrogens become
anti-oestrogenic. Much higher doses are used in
chemotherapy to kill cancer cells.
The class of chemical compounds called phytoestrogens
contains dozens of sub-classes, such as coumestans,
isoflavones, lignans and sterols, each of which contains
further sub-classes. Soy contains many isoflavones,
including the sub-classes genistein, coumestrol and
daidzein.
Scientists have known for years that isoflavones in soy
products can depress thyroid function, causing autoimmune
thyroid disease and even cancer of the thyroid. As
far back as the 1950s phytoestrogens were being linked to
increased cases of cancer, infertility, leukemia and
endocrine disruption.
Charlotte Gerson, of the Gerson Cancer Clinic in the
USA, has published detailed research proving that the
phytoestrogen genistein is more carcinogenic than DES
(Gerson Clinic: Cancer Research, June 1, 2001 - 61 (11):
4325-8). Few would be unaware of the death and misery
that particular drug inflicted on countless women and their
daughters.
Dr Gerson also wrote the following in the Gerson
Healing Newsletter : "Soybeans contain hemagglutinin, a
clot-promoting substance that causes red blood cells to
clump together. These clustered blood cells are unable to
properly absorb oxygen for distribution to the body’s tissues,
which can damage the heart". In his classic book, ‘A
Cancer Therapy - Results of 50 Cases’, (p. 237)
Charlotte's late father, Max Gerson, MD, put soy and soy
products on the forbidden list of foods for Gerson Therapy
patients.
No less an authority than the US Department of Energy
Health Risk Laboratory has published research showing
that isoflavones in soy act in the same way as the outlawed
insecticide DDT to cause breast cancer cells to multiply.
In 1988 a Taiwan University team led by Dr Theodore
Kay remarked that for more than half a century soy has
been known to cause thyroid enlargement, especially in
women and children.
Dr. Mike Fitzpatrick, a respected toxicologist who is at
the forefront of the New Zealand campaign against soy,
wrote a paper in 1998 citing much of the published work
on the dangers of soy isoflavones, which he submitted to
the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This paper
was also published in the Price-Pottenger Nutrition
Foundation Journal under the title ‘Isoflavones: Panacea
or Poison?’, and subsequently as ‘Soy Formulas and the
Effect on the Thyroid’ in The New Zealand Medical Journal
(February 2000). It is long, detailed, and frightening.
Here are just some of the things he has to say: "The
toxicity of isoflavones to animals first raised the awareness
of the scientific community to the fact that soy isoflavones
are endocrine disruptors... There have been profound negative
endocrine effects in all animal species studied to
date".
In plainspeak, this means that your glandular system
can be damaged by soy, and if your glands don't function
properly, your health will suffer drastically. There is more:
"Soy isoflavones increase the risk of breast cancer...Soy
isoflavone disrupts the menstrual cycle during, and for up
to three months after, administration... Dietary concentration
of genistein may stimulate breast cells to enter the
cell cycle... Concern was expressed that women fed soy
protein isolate have an increased incidence of epithelial
hyperplasia".
With these and numerous other credible studies warning
women of the adverse effects of prolonged consumption
of soy, how, in all conscience, can Australian household
brands like Herron, Novogen and those self-proclaimed
icons of good health, Blackmores and Sanitarium,
continue to promote the use of soy and isoflavones
extracted from soy as ‘tonics’ for middle-aged women in
menopause? Or health professionals endorse claims that
soy is a safe, natural alternative to HRT. What they are
pushing is neither safe, nor natural and they should be
ashamed for suggesting that it is either.
Phytic acid is another jolly little part of the abominable
bean’s makeup – and also totally destroys the credibility
of the manufacturers’ claims that soy products are a good
source of calcium and help prevent osteoporosis.
Because soy contains more phytic acid than any other
grain or pulse, and because phytic acid impairs absorption
of all minerals, especially calcium, soy actually strips your
body of calcium.
The enzyme inhibitors in soybeans block trypsin and
other enzymes essential for good health. This can produce
serious gastric distress, reduced protein digestion,
and chronic deficiencies in essential amino acids.
WHERE’S THE EVIDENCE?
All the foregoing, and more, are well-documented, and
have been available for many years, with new evidence
becoming available almost every day. I am more than
happy to supply detailed references for the papers and
extracts on which I have drawn for this article, but in the
interests of length and clarity will not include all of them
here.
For reasons I will explain shortly, some of this ‘subversive’
material has not achieved wide circulation, being the
work of corporate-neutral or independent scientists, who
are not in the pay of the multinationals, and who are as
voices in the wilderness. Their papers often appear only in
esoteric professional journals, or ‘alternative’ publications,
such as the Australian Nexus Magazine which also publishes
editions in the UK and US, who have been courageous
in pursuing a ‘publish and be damned’ policy by
enabling publication of arguments against the lies of the
big corporations.
Nevertheless, through the efforts and dedication of
many enlightened, qualified, courageous, independent
and highly-respected scientists, researchers and medical
practitioners, it has been possible to unearth volumes of
credible research and evidence which demonstrates clearly
the criminality of the actions of companies, spearheaded
by the mighty Monsanto Corporation, whose genetically-
modified cultivar is the prime source of all this misery.
LIES, DAMN LIES AND PRESS RELEASES
Bringing the covert actions of the soy industry into the
public arena has been an undertaking of truly David and
Goliath proportions. The public relations machine extolling
the virtues of soy has been global and relentless. It has to
be - there are at least 100 million acres of soy under cultivation
in the United States alone, much of it genetically
engineered. In Australia it is estimated that about 50,000
acres are being cultivated. Displaying the kind of ingenious
duplicity which even Machiavelli would surely
applaud, and conscious of the public unease regarding
genetically modified foods and the trend towards organically-
grown produce, Monsanto Corporation has 45 million
acres of genetically modified soybeans growing in the
United States. American law permits these crops to be
mixed with a small amount of organic soybeans, and the
resultant combination may then be labeled organic! And
you still think the government wouldn’t let them lie to you?
With these levels of production at stake a market must
be found, increased and maintained. To this end,
American soya bean farmers contribute approximately
US$80 million per year to finance what is one of the most
effective propaganda campaigns ever known to the
Western world. The resultant high-powered publicity blitz
ensures that ‘news’ stories about soy's benefits are everywhere,
reinforced by multi-million dollar advertising campaigns.
Thumb through any popular women’s magazine, read
the newspapers, watch the television commercials and
count those for soy drinks alone. Soy producers, processors
and manufacturers spend billions of dollars advertising
the ‘goodness’ of their products. The economics of the
mass media ensure that such expenditure guarantees the
regular placement of news and feature items extolling the
claimed health benefits of soy. The same economics also
guarantee that the chances are minimal of any extensive
publicity being given to reports of tragic cases such as
those mentioned earlier, and the dire warnings of hundreds
of corporate-neutral scientific and academic
researchers. What media mogul is going to risk offending
the Goose that lays these particular Golden Eggs by
appearing to question the worth of the product or the truth
of the ads?
Sure, occasionally a report of adverse scientific findings
or medical evidence may be too newsworthy to be
ignored and find its way into the inside pages. No problem;
in the interests of balanced reporting, the manufacturer
will receive their Right of Reply and has an army of
in-house or retained ‘independent’ experts ready with a
rebuttal. Even if the rebuttal is unsubstantiated, or based
on limited or inaccurate research, it will be published and
we’re all expected to drink up our soy milk and go back to
sleep. Believe me, this industry has secured the services
of some of the best scientific prostitutes money can buy.
And if that doesn’t work, the usual ‘Plan B’ is simply to
attempt to discredit the whistleblower.
But it’s not only the media who bear responsibility for
helping the soy industry carry out this mass-manipulation
and brainwashing. Most of our health professionals appear
so busy, or so unconcerned, that even if they were prepared
to question what you’re told in the glossy handouts
the suppliers give them to hand to you if you ask for information,
they probably wouldn’t consider it worthwhile.
Consider the words of Dr Raymond Peat, the noted
endocrine physiologist at the University of Oregon who
was one of the first to blow the whistle on the dangers of
HRT, years before it finally made headlines:
"There is a distinct herd instinct among people who
‘work in science’ which makes it easy to believe whatever
sounds plausible, if a lot of other people are saying it is
true. Sometimes powerful economic interests help people
to change their beliefs. For example, two of the biggest
industries in the world, the oestrogen industry and the soy
bean industry, spend vast amounts of money helping people
to believe certain plausible-sounding things that help
them sell their products."
We could add to that the tendency for people to believe
what they want to believe. Especially when it’s comforting,
reassuring and comes from ‘someone who knows’.
NONE SO BLIND AS THOSE WHO WILL NOT SEE
Which brings me to my well-intentioned but badly misled
critics mentioned earlier. Those who are so offended
that I should dare to question the masses of ‘independent
scientific research’ extolling the virtues of their favorite
health-giving food. Or that I should choose to dismiss the
‘well known fact’ that people in Japan practically live on
soy and don’t suffer from any of the problems I go on
about.
Many of the subjects I debate with students during my
lectures at Hippocrates Health Centre and at public speaking
engagements are controversial. There are always
some who disagree, but they accept these findings when
presented with evidence. The soy controversy, however, is
another matter, and some simply can't accept what I say.
Their arguments always center on their perception that
‘everyone’ says soy is good; they’ve read glowing press
releases on soy; listened to what health professionals have
told them; and surely there’s no question about the ‘fact’
that Asian women do so well on soy food and have few
problems with menopause or osteoporosis.
These arguments are so fallacious and so dependant
on what the world’s most effective commercial publicity
machine would have us believe that it’s hard to know
where to begin. But here goes.
To begin with, soy does not comprise a major part of
the Japanese, or any other Asian diet. And it is likely that
very little of the domestically produced soy is grown from
the genetically modified cultivar which dominates the
Western market. In any case, except in poverty and during
times of famine, Asians consume soy in tiny amounts - 7 to
8 grams per day - and most of this has been fermented for
from 3 to 5 years to remove the toxins. The fermentation
process also reduces the growth depressants in all soy
products, but does not remove them entirely. The
Japanese eat a small amount of tofu and miso as part of a
mineral-rich broth, followed by meat or fish, which offsets
some of the dangers.
Dr. Raymond Peat and others have shown that tofu (a
soy derivative) consumption is associated with dementia.
In a major US study, eight thousand Japanese-American
men from Hawaii were assessed for mid-life tofu consumption
and its relation to brain function and structural
changes in later life. Researchers performed radiologic
brain neuro-imaging, extensive cognitive function studies,
and post mortem follow-ups. Among the subjects of the
study, an increased level of tofu consumption was found to
be associated with indications of brain atrophy and cognitive
impairment in later life. They even found, at autopsy,
swelling of the brain cavities and a decrease in brain
weight among heavy tofu eaters. This study was reported
in ‘The Journal Of The American College Of Nutrition’, April
2000, and reprinted in Dr. William Campbell Douglass'
‘Second Opinion’ Newsletter.
Whilst on the subject of soy consumption in Asian
countries, one real and bitter truth that does not appear in
the producers’ handouts is that in parts of China where the
people are too poor to get other forms of protein, their
intake of soy has created, according to scientists who went
there and studied the situation, 100 million cretins. This
has occurred due to the goitrogens in soy, which, as we
have seen, depress the thyroid gland and can create brain
damage. New Zealand toxicologist Dr Mike Fitzpatrick
says, "An epidemiological study in China has shown that
high soy intake is not protective against breast cancer.
There have been several similar studies, which have refuted
the theory that soy helps prevent breast cancer".
Furthermore, Asians, unlike Westerners, do not guzzle
soy protein isolate as a milk substitute. Milk is not a part of
their culture.
So how do these ‘myths’ originate? In recent years,
several studies have been published regarding the soybean’s
effect on human health. Thanks to the power of the
well-oiled PR machine, the most widely-published results
are those of the studies underwritten by various factions of
the soy industry. Not surprisingly, they are always overwhelmingly
in favor of soy. The primary claims about soy’s
health benefits are based purely on bad science. Although
arguments for cancer patients to use soy focus on statistics
showing low rates of breast, colon and prostate cancer
among Asian people, there are obvious facts being utterly
ignored.
While soy-funded studies boast that Asian women suffer
far fewer cases of breast cancer than do American
women, they neglect to point out that these Asian women
eat a diet that is dramatically different from that of their
Western counterparts. The standard Asian diet consists of
more natural products, and greater amounts of vegetables
and more fish. Their diets are also lower in chemicals and
toxins, as they eat far fewer processed foods. It is likely
these studies are influenced by the fact that cancer rates
rise among Asian people who move to the U.S. and adopt
American diets. Ignoring the remarkable diet and lifestyle
changes, to assume only that reduced levels of soy in
these American-Asian diets is a primary factor in greater
cancer rates, is bad science.
As for the osteoporosis/menopause protection myth, it
is absurd to infer that soy protects Asian women. Their
habits and diets, as mentioned above, containing little junk
food, are totally different from those of Westerners.
Further, they rarely smoke or drink alcohol, and have not
replaced vitamin D-containing butter with the damaging
soy oil margarine so popular with misguided Westerners.
Need more evidence of the soy producers’ dominance
of what you can read about their product? A widely circulated
article, written by Jane E. Allen, Associated Press
Science Writer, entitled ‘Scientists Suggest More Soy in
Diet’ , cites numerous speakers in the course of a symposium
discussing the probable advantages of soy under the
topic, ‘Health Impact of Soy Protein'. Their deliberations
are still widely quoted as proof of soy’s beneficial effects.
Interestingly, the article also states that the $50,000 symposium
was underwritten by Protein Technologies
International of St.Louis, a DuPont subsidiary that makes
soy protein! How’s that for impartiality?
Other popular arguments in support of soy state that
fermented soy products like tempeh or natto contain high
levels of vitamin B12. However, these supportive arguments
fail to mention that soy’s B12 is an inactive B12
analog, not utilized as a vitamin in the human body. Some
researchers speculate this analog may actually serve to
block the body’s B12 absorption. It has also been found
that allergic reactions to soybeans are far more common
than to all other legumes. Even the American Academy of
Pediatrics admits that early exposure to soy through commercial
infant formulas may be a leading cause of soy
allergies among older children and adults.
And while on ‘Furphys’, one persistent critic tells me
that he "knows for sure" that allowing the bean to sprout
removes all the toxins. He remains unconvinced by the scientific
evidence that shows that sprouting allows genistein
to metamorphose into coumestrol, which happens to be 30
times more oestrogenically potent!
A while back, as information regarding the dangers of
soy started leaking out, the public relations machine went
into overdrive, churning out stories about how the ‘baddies’
known to be in soy are removed during processing. This is
a complete untruth, which has been refuted by many studies,
yet is fervently espoused by the soy adherents. As
described earlier, processing actually adds more deadly
ingredients to an already potent toxic cocktail.
There are many more ‘truths’ that the pro-soy lobby will
trot out as the answer to just about any health concern,
and if you still believe the claim that taking soy will improve
hormonal health in men and women, consider this. Eating
soy in order to promote hormonal health is not only dangerous,
it is futile, as reported in Nexus Magazine:
"Celibate monks living in monasteries and leading a vegetarian
lifestyle find soy foods quite helpful because they
dampen libido".
WATCHDOGS OR LAPDOGS?
In developed countries such as the USA, Canada,
Australia and New Zealand, governments have established
statutory bodies with the power to ensure the safety of proprietary
food and drugs made available to the public.
Sadly, as far as the marketing of soy is concerned, the
FDA in the US and the Australia-New Zealand Food
Authority, ANZFA, have both displayed a willingness to put
the commercial interests of manufacturers ahead of those
of the consumers, even to the extent of falsifying data or
withholding commercially unpalatable information.
In our own region, one recent extraordinary and blatant
case of deliberate government deception has come to light
– and been totally ignored by the media. It concerns, once
again, the use of soy in baby formula, and should be considered
carefully by anyone who is still under the impression
that "They wouldn’t be allowed to sell it if it wasn’t
OK".
In March 1999, ANZFA prepared a document with the
catchy title, "An Assessment of The Potential Risks to
Infants Associated with Exposure to Soy-Based Infant
Formulas".
In Section 3.1, Hazard Identification, some potential
hazards are listed:
3.1.2 Stimulation of oestrogen-sensitive tissue; Infertility;
Sexual differentiation; Sexual maturation.
3.1.3 Neonatal brain development.
3.1.4 Thyroid alterations: Immune responses.
5.1.1 Dietary exposures: An exposure to hormone levels
240 times higher than breast milk.
6.0 Risk Assessment: "It is clear that phytoestrogens
pose a potential hazard to the consumer of soy foods".
The signatories to this document included the Chief
Toxicologist, Dr Luba Tomaska, together with Dr Fiona
Cumming (ANZFA), Dr P Tuohy of the New Zealand
Ministry of Health, and five academic experts in food safety
from both Australia and New Zealand. Among the
authoritative references examined by this committee was
a 1999 assessment from a US Federal government laboratory,
‘Anti-thyroid Isoflavins From Soybean: Isolation,
Characterisation and Mechanism of Action’, which examines
50 years of medical reports of thyroid harm and
describes how it occurs.
The committee’s final report was clear and unambiguous
in its conclusions that the inclusion of soy in infant formula
was potentially hazardous.
Yet, in May 2002, this same body, ANZFA, prepared a
document for the signatures of all the Health Ministers of
the Australian States and Territories and for the Australian
and New Zealand Federal Health Ministers, setting standards
for infant formulas which contained no hint or mention
of the hazards detailed in their own expert committee’s
Risk Assessment document.
Following ANZFA’s recommendations, all these health
ministers, presumably unaware of the hazards which
someone in ANZFA considered not worth bringing to their
attention, signed the document. The result is that the
agreed Standard for the composition of infant formula sold
in Australia and New Zealand, now approves the inclusion
of ingredients which its own expert committee (as well as
many other authorities) have labeled severely detrimental
to health.
Such approval flies in the face of Australian food safety
and practice laws and puts our children at risk of permanent
endocrine disruption and infertility.
But it gets worse! Australian politicians, spurred by
worried constituents who were questioning the inclusion of
soy in baby formula, are asking ANZFA for more information.
The Authority’s standard response is unbelievable –
and a barefaced lie:
"…there is no evidence that exposure of healthy infants
to soy-based infant formulas over 30 years has been
associated with any demonstrated harm".
Isn’t it good to know that we have such honest and ethical
watchdogs to safeguard our children’s health?
SPEAK OUT AT YOUR PERIL
Many of those who have dared to speak and act
against the industry and its political protectors have suffered
both physically and financially as a direct result. The
story of a New Zealand couple, Valerie and Richard
James, who have now devoted their lives to exposing the
evils of this trade, is worthy of honorable mention. Much of
the suppressed research and evidence has been brought
to worldwide attention through their single-mindedness
and courage, and they have been a great source of inspiration,
advice and information to me and to many others in
our efforts to spread the word.
I first became aware of the James’ work from an article
in Nexus Magazine . Breeders of tropical birds, the couple
had been alerted to the genetic effects of soy when they
switched to bird feed which was based on soy protein –
with disastrous results; "deformed, stunted and stillborn
babies and premature deaths among females, with the
result that the total population in the aviaries went into
steady decline". They then realized that many of the
symptoms suffered by their birds were similar to the symptoms
suffered by their children, who had been fed soy formula.
Understandably, they were deeply disturbed by what
soy had done to their children and their birds, and enlisted
the aid of toxicologist Mike Fitzpatrick, PhD, whose work
is detailed elsewhere in this essay. Together they formed
an alliance to investigate and expose what big business
and government preferred to hide.
While preparing the sixth edition of my book, I rang
Valerie and Richard in Whangarei, New Zealand, to introduce
myself and ask a favor. I needed a paragraph on the
reaction of the soy industry and the New Zealand
Government to their nine-year crusade against feeding
babies soy formula. As Richard said, "It's impossible to
compress years of fear and a constant feeling of menace
into a paragraph". So they sent me, instead, a huge envelope
stuffed full of the most horrifying information, which
instilled in me a feeling of menace which remains with me
to this day.
Even I, with my knowledge of cosy industry/government
connections, was shocked by what I read. The
James’ enclosed a copy of the painstakingly-researched
scientific proof they had presented to the government.
This document is so damning that I was astonished they
had been unable to persuade the government to even
consider the problem. They enclosed hair-raising details of
industry/government threats, lies from officials who were
and are protecting the soy industry, and details of careers
that were destroyed, grants withdrawn, and research
papers censored or not published.
The pressure on one of the scientists with whom they
worked was so great that his assistant suffered a nervous
breakdown and had to flee the country. Probably the worst
of all is that their government was and still is prepared to
go to any lengths to protect the soy industry and their
multi-billions in annual profits. Even their Federal Health
Minister was firmly aligned behind the baby killers!
As they have become recognized as serious threats to
the continued dominance of the pro soy lobbyists, the
James’ have faced all manner of threats, personal vilification
and legal actions. Their own government actually
allowed a soy producer to use government-funded Legal
Aid to sue the James’ for telling the truth about their product!
The James’, of course, had to fund their own crippling
legal defense. Despite this, and with increasing public
support, they are preparing to lead a class action against
Monsanto and others on behalf of thousands whose lives
have been affected by the Killer Bean.
Visit Dr Fitzpatrick’s website:
http://www.soyonlineservice.co.nz , and you will be able to see
not only the mountain of credible evidence he and the
James’ have assembled against the actions of the multinationals,
but also get a sense of some of the lengths to
which their detractors will go in their attempts to discredit
them. This courageous couple are being pilloried for trying
to save millions of babies from the crippling effects of soy
formula! They should be thanked, instead of being sued
and threatened. It's not only depressing, it’s outrageous.
It would seem that there is no way decent people can
win against the multinationals when these corporations
are backed by governments.
TRUTH WILL OUT
But maybe there is hope yet. Slowly, and despite the
power of the vested interests and the complacency and
laissez-faire attitude of governments, the truth is beginning
to emerge. The US Congress is now taking seriously a
plethora of complaints and legal actions being instituted
against Monsanto on behalf of millions of Americans
whose lives have been ruined through the corporate greed
of this legalized drug pusher. This is largely due to the
Weston A Price Foundation, a Washington public interest
charitable organization, conducting an unrelenting political
lobbying campaign in Congressional Committees. In addition,
the prestigious Georgetown University has sponsored
a national forum on the food supply, with emphasis on the
potential liability of soy products, to be held during the
(US) Fall of 2002. The Environmental Law Forum of the
Georgetown Law School has specifically asked the
Weston A. Price Foundation to prepare a brief on the
legality of soy foods.
In other countries, notably Australia and New Zealand,
as well as the USA, class actions are being mounted
which will finally make public the human toll and the extent
of cover-up, falsification, manipulation, harassment,
threats and other illegal activities undertaken by powerful
multinationals in order to maintain the multi-billion-dollar
profits generated by this innocuous-looking, genetically
modified and deadly poisonous bean.
And a ray of hope is coming from another, perhaps
surprising, direction. Some of soy’s most vocal supporters
are now having cause to reconsider their stance – and
their beliefs. As I have indicated throughout this essay, the
adverse effects of soy often take years to manifest and
are no respecter of persons. It was therefore with mixed
emotions that I recently learned that two prominent advocates
of the ongoing use of soy, American MD Christiane
Northrup and Australian naturopath Nancy Beckham have
both been diagnosed with health problems directly related
to excessive soy intake: hypothyroidism and osteoporosis.
Paradoxically, Dr Northrup still denies that soy has anything
to do with hypothyroidism, despite the clear evidence
to the contrary, and continues taking her soy preparation
every day.
Nancy Beckham has always dismissed the idea that
soy contributes to osteoporosis, because she claims to
"successfully" use soy milk in her treatment protocols for
osteoporosis in her Sydney clinic, and is well-known for
her published responses to the anti-soy articles written by
Sally Fallon, MA, president of the Weston A Price
Foundation, and the highly-respected authority on nutrition,
Mary Enig, PhD.
I can only wish them well, even in their apparent state
of denial, and leave you with the words of another victim
of soy-induced hypothyroidism, courageous US dietitian
Joyce Gross, MA, RD, LD/N, who recently sent the following
email to her own patients and friends:
Nutritionist Joyce Gross' e-mail to friends and patients
(used with permission)
Hi everyone (especially the women)
Some of you may remember that last year I was touting
soy along with the rest of the medical profession
regarding their beneficial effects. I was consuming soy for
their phytoestrogen effect to alleviate menopausal symptoms.
I was duped like so many other non-suspecting consumers.
I have developed Hashimoto's Disease or acute
Hashimoto's Thyroiditis which is an acute autoimmune disease
that affects the thyroid gland. (In basic terms this
means that my thyroid is attacking itself and I can no
longer produce thyroid hormone.) My initial symptoms
included things like severe joint pain especially in my
hands, "trigger" finger(s), carpal tunnel syndrome, excessive
weight gain (I gained about 25 lbs. in 3-4 weeks
which, of course, when you are a Registered Dietitian you
can calculate how many calories you are taking in and it
just doesn't correlate with the amount of weight one is
gaining), chronic fatigue syndrome, a "brain fog", depression,
among others. (Classic symptoms of hypothyroidism
are that you gain an unexplained amount of weight in a
short period of time and that your hair falls out).
It took almost 4 months before everything was figured
out (by me) and it was not really diagnosed properly by
my physicians. About 3-4 months after I initially started the
soy supplement I had been taking (now this would also
include any soy isoflavone pills you may be taking as
well), I developed a "hyper" state, where my resting pulse
rate was 125, and I was having 100's of palpitations a day.
Of course, so many of the symptoms I mentioned above
can be related to so many other diseases or conditions
(especially menopause and when you've never been in
menopause before - how does one know what is normal
and what is not?) but of course, when the "heart" thing
started, this got me to a cardiologist and fast. I didn't know
if I was having a heart attack or what.
The only thing I could think of as I was waiting for the
cardiologist to call me back that I had done differently was
the soy. So I went onto ‘Google’, put in "toxic effects of
soy", and thyroid disease (especially hypothyroidism) came
up. Well, I 'm saying to myself, "that doesn't make sense".
How can I be hypothyroid with a resting pulse rate of 125!
So, it's in the back of my mind but I'm thinking it's not feasible.
Anyway, I go to the cardiologist, have all kinds of
tests, echocardiogram, Holter monitor on for 24 hours, etc.
I am told that "there's nothing wrong with you. Go home
and take your estrogen and you'll feel better." Well, I won't
tell you how angry that made me. I insisted that there was
something wrong with me and told the doctor to have my
labs faxed to me and I would look for another doctor to
help me. When my labs came through my fax machine, I
almost fainted. They did a TSH (the indicator for thyroid
disease) and it was elevated! (which means that I had an
underactive thyroid).
Later on, after researching this thing to death, I found
out that my symptoms of the "hyper" state are sometimes
quite common and many women wind up in the emergency
room as a result. Apparently, in Hashi's, just before your
thyroid stops working completely, it can go "haywire" and
put you into a hyper and hypo state. It has taken 8 months
now for me to start feeling better. Adjustments in thyroid
medication take some time and I have finally been losing
weight, have no more carpal tunnel syndrome, etc.
So, this brings me to my word of caution. If any of you,
or your wives, are taking soy product, isoflavone pills or
homeopathic-type menopausal products, please be careful.
I have since found out that Hashi's can take 8 years to
diagnose (we don't build up the antibodies overnight to it)
and from an email that I sent out to a few of you the other
day, I know that some of you are also hypothyroid. There
are tons of websites to go to for more information or email
me if you are affected by this and I will be happy to help
you find some. The soybean industry is a multi-billion dollar
industry in this country so they are trying to keep this
quiet, even though there have been doctors in the FDA
who have written position papers regarding the dangers of
soy.
Just before I started writing this note to you, I received
an email from a woman in the United Kingdom who is
interested in my testimonial along with many others. She is
a consumer representative on a government committee
which is looking into health concerns over phytoestrogens.
I have also been in touch over the past several months
with people in New Zealand who are also "on the bandwagon"
regarding the dangers of soy. They have several
documented animal studies showing the ill effects of soy.
With so many new products coming out containing soy,
and the continued "touting" of it as a major benefit, more
and more women are going to become hypothyroid. I am
currently working as a nutrition expert in treating depression,
bi-polar disorder and substance abuse problems. I
can't tell you how many of the women who are admitted for
depression are also hypothyroid to the point now that the
medical doctor automatically first checks their TSH before
the psychiatrists even start prescribing their meds. If I hadn't
been so adamant about taking over my own health
issues last August, I could have very easily wound up
being a patient in my own hospital.
Menopause doesn't mean that we are supposed to be
depressed. Menopause is great, though I used to tell people
that was a whole lot of crap several months ago.
If you are having any of the symptoms mentioned
above, don't assume it’s the menopause. It is estimated
that there are about 10 million women out there who have
hypothyroidism and don't know it. Are you one of them?
Have your TSH level checked every few years and if you
are taking soy, you may want to give serious consideration
to stopping it.
My guess is that a class action suit will eventually
develop out of all of this but of course, the way things work
it'll probably take a few years. I am going to be very actively
involved in this area over the next several months assisting
those groups and individuals who are publicizing this
health concern.
If any of you are or have been experiencing any of
what I've told you, PLEASE CONTACT ME!!!
And if you think you may have hypothyroidism, just go onto
‘Google’ and type in "symptoms of hypothyroidism" for
more information regarding the symptoms.
As always
Joyce
(Joyce Gross, M.A.,R.D.,L.D/N.)
© Elaine Hollingsworth, August 2002
The copyright holder grants permission for this article to be freely reprinted, copied
and circulated in its entirety, without alteration or editing, in the interests of widening
public knowledge. It is based on material published in Elaine Hollingsworth’s book,
"Take Control of Your Health and Escape The Sickness Industry", which also
includes details of many other common health risks and their natural alternatives.
The book can be ordered from this website, http://www.doctorsaredangerous.com.
For a copy of this article e-mailed to you in Word97 format please contact:
reprint@doctorsaredangerous.com .
For permission to quote extracts in press and electronic media, or for interviews with
Elaine Hollingsworth: publisher@doctorsaredangerous.com.
To express your interest in joining the Australian class action against soy producers:
soyaction@doctorsaredangerous.com.
.
For people who are lazy and don't want to read this full thing I'll summerize my findings, not only from this article, but research I've done on my own.
Small history lesson.
When soy was first grown, it wasn't grown to be eaten. It was planted in between crops. Why though? Soy was planted because it absorbes all the horrible crap in the soil so they would get a better crop for whatever their next crop would be. In short, when Soy is grown, all the stuff in the ground is absorbed into the beans.
Most people don't know, and this was stated in the article in the spoiler, but aluminum is one of the most dominant minerals in soil. It doesn't affect most crops, but the soy plant however does have an affinity for aluminum.
Fact: Soy milk contains 100 times more aluminum than untreated cow’s milk.
Other stuff that soy contains.
Commercials for soy always talk about how much protein you get from it, and how many minerals that are good for your body. However it has not so good stuff.
Soy Contains:
Phytic Acid: Which blocks the absorption of key minerals.
Enzyme inhibitors: Which interferes with protein digestion in the small intestine.
Goitrogen - substances that depress thyroid function and
may cause goiters
Hemagglutinin - a clot-promoting substance that causes
red blood cells to clump together.
So this is only a little bit of info. If you want, search google with Soy Sideeffects. You will get a whole list of things about how bad soy is.
-Speedpaws-
I'll try to post it in a spoiler, but if that doesn't work, check out this link.
http://www.roex.com/articles_links/ATTACK OF THE KILLER BEANTHE CASE AGAINST SOY.pdf
Research Director – Hippocrates Health Centre of Australia
TRUST US – IT’S GOOD FOR YOU…
To see, read and hear about it in most mainstream
and ‘alternative living’ media you’d think that the ubiquitous
soya bean and its derivatives are the most versatile,
natural, heart-friendly, health-improving, fat-preventing,
growth-promoting and generally loveable foods ever
grown on our good earth. A simple, easily-cultivated bean
which has been part of our diet since the dawn of civilization,
promising health and vitality to the lactose-intolerant,
the new-born, the aged, the menopausal, the frail, the
athletic, the health-conscious and just about everyone
else as well. It is given freely in the form of food-aid by
governments and charitable organizations to developing
nations and to those suffering the ravages of flood,
drought and famine.
It’s inexpensive, available everywhere, on its own or
as a vital ingredient in thousands of other food products,
such as our daily bread, cakes, confectionery, baby formula,
milk and meat substitutes, breakfast cereal,
sauces, snackfoods, pasta; it forms the basis of non-stick
cooking sprays. It is widely used in stockfeeds and petfoods.
Doctors, farmers, nutritionists, athletes, respected
companies whose household names have become part of
our culture, government authorities - all make a point of
telling us how safe and health-giving this wonder-food is
for us. It’s so good and harmless, they tell us, that it’s
often not even listed as an ingredient in many processed
foods. And even when it is we don’t mind; everyone
knows it’s safe. Our health watchdogs happily accept the
assurances given by companies who produce and
process it that it is "GRAS" – Generally Regarded As
Safe - so it must be.
Around the world, hundreds of millions of acres are
devoted to its cultivation, providing a secure cash crop for
millions of farmers who cheerfully pay a levy to the developers
of their genetically-modified strains to help some of
our biggest multi-national corporations spread the gospel
that "Soy is Good For You".
Too bad that for decades these same developers and
corporations have known of and deliberately suppressed
the evidence that prolonged ingestion of soy causes cancer
and countless other life-threatening illnesses,
destroys bone, creates havoc with the hormonal systems
of humans and animals alike, represses the sex drive
and, even if eliminated from our diets overnight, is so
entrenched into the food chain and the bodies of everyone
who has ever ingested it, that its adverse effects
would still plague the health of generations yet unborn.
The truth behind the blatantly commercial integration
of what I call the Abominable Bean into the Western diet
is a disturbing tale of fraud, corporate irresponsibility,
greed, bad science, public and media manipulation, corruption,
intimidation, political opportunism, suppression,
legal maneuvering, regulatory inaction and governmental
incompetence which makes the tobacco companies look
like Good Guys.
Find that hard to believe? Read on, dear reader, and
maybe after you’ve been acquainted with some of the
evidence for these assertions you’ll share my outrage
over the fact that not only is yet another proven lifeendangering
product allowed to be cultivated, manufactured
and sold in the first place, but that in this case its
producers and pushers have so successfully created their
own mythology around it that government regulators and
so-called health watchdogs have evidently buckled under
and given them virtual carte blanche to continue to misinform,
confuse and poison not only those who are sucked
into consuming their noxious products, but also everyone
who is unknowingly obliged to partake of this toxic time
bomb through its placement in all manner of basic foodstuffs
and in the feed of animals and poultry destined for
human consumption. Passive smoking is one thing;
forced feeding quite another.
WOULD YOU PUT YOUR NEWBORN BABY ON THE
PILL?
Since my interest in the promotion of safe natural
alternatives to many of the manufactured elements of the
Australian diet and medical treatment has become widely
known, I now receive a daily influx of desperate pleas for
help or accounts of terrible personal tragedies directly
connected to the use of soy. Some of them you’ll share
with me in this essay.
And, yes, I do hear from a few people who tell me I’ve
got it all wrong and send me reprints of magazine articles
quoting "solid scientific evidence" which "proves" how
wonderful and safe soy is for everyone, or assure me that
"Sanitarium wouldn’t sell it if it wasn’t OK". It doesn’t
seem to have occurred to them, or maybe they don’t
ATTACK OF THE KILLER BEAN! THE CASE AGAINST SOY
care, that almost all this ‘evidence’ and the ‘research’ on
which it is based has been published, and usually funded
by, the very same corporations who are producing and
selling the stuff. Or that they are perpetuating the "everybody
knows" urban myths so helpfully placed in appealing
editorial features liberally scattered through the pages of
mainstream media and, regrettably, repeated in many
health-oriented and alternative lifestyle publications that
should know better!
So, if you’re one of those who feels bound to harangue
me with the "well known fact" that Asian people have
thrived on soy for centuries, hold on to your pen for a
while and be prepared to learn just how wrong that particular
‘Furphy’ is. It’s one of the most widely-believed ‘scientific
facts’ touted by the proponents of soy – and one of the
best examples of how successful they’ve been in brainwashing
the public.
Far more distressing, and never mentioned in the producers’
‘solid scientific evidence’ are the tales I hear,
almost daily, from parents whose baby daughters have
commenced menstruation, developed pubic hair, underarm
odor and breasts from as young as two three, four and five
years of age. Or whose teenage sons are too embarrassed
to shower with their mates because they have
grown breasts of female proportions or because their genitalia
haven’t developed. True, such disasters do not befall
every child who is fed soy. But neither are they rare, isolated
or anecdotal instances. They are the documented,
widespread, frequent and in many cases predictable result
of hormonal imbalance caused by the assimilation of high
levels of oestrogen.
And where did the oestrogen come from? From the
baby formula and soy drinks fed to these unfortunate offspring
by their caring parents – often on professional medical
advice. Presumably the same source of ‘professional’
advice that apparently sees no contradiction in recommending
that the identical ingredient prescribed to
menopausal women to manipulate their hormonal levels
can be safely fed to newborn babies!
In simple terms, though obviously not simple enough
for some in the medical profession, feeding an infant soy
formula is the equivalent of giving it five birth control pills a
day.
The Swiss Health Service put it this way: "100gr of soy
protein has the oestrogenic equivalent of one contraceptive
pill", and there are numerous other studies published
since the early 1960s which confirm this undeniable fact.
Many enlightened scientists and medical professionals
argue that the continued use of soy in baby formula is a
form of genocide, since these effects have been known
and published within the scientific community for decades.
Try this for a vicious circle – drinking soy milk during
pregnancy can cause a failure to produce breast milk,
which then leads to feeding the baby soy formula. By far
the most distressing cases of soy damage that I have
heard personally are those of women who have drunk soy
milk while pregnant, and then fed their babies soy formula.
Often these women cannot restrain their tears when
describing the dreadful health problems their children suffer.
They keep repeating to me, "I didn’t know, I just didn’t
know; the doctor told me to drink it for my bones and to
feed baby the soy formula".
The multinational Nestlé Carnation corporation is a
major soy advertiser. You may remember them as the
company which brought infant formula to third world countries,
discouraging breast feeding and killing, according to
the World Health Organisation, one and one-half million
babies each year. Well, they're still at it, shamelessly flogging
their soy milk formulas in spite of all the evidence that
it is deadly. Apart from the ravaging of delicate hormonal
systems, serious gastrointestinal disturbances suffered by
babies on soy formula are now commonplace.
Surely cases such as these alone should have been
sufficient for the use of this killer bean to be outlawed
years ago, at least in baby formula? And even if the regulators
are not prepared to act, despite all the well-known
and easily accessible compelling evidence, how can it be
that physicians are still prescribing soy formula – and do
you wonder that my website is called http://www.doctorsaredangerous.
com? Unfortunately, outrageous and preventable
as are these crimes against infants, they are only the tip of
the iceberg. The bad seed within the Killer Bean has no
regard for the age or gender of its victims.
SO WHAT’S WRONG WITH IT?
I am not a scientist, nor will I subject you to a long
technical dissertation, but a basic understanding of the
physiology of the soy plant and its subsequent processing
is helpful in understanding why the bean is far from being
the ‘white knight’ its producers and proponents would have
us believe.
Few people are aware that aluminum is one of the
most prevalent minerals in soil, but it doesn't affect most
crops. The soy plant, however, has an affinity for aluminum,
which it extracts from the soil and concentrates in
the beans. This contamination is exacerbated by the aluminum
tanks used in the acid wash to which soy is subjected
during processing. Inevitably, traces of aluminum
from both sources are absorbed into the body through the
consumption of soy.
Soy milk contains 100 times more aluminum than
untreated cow’s milk. And, while on the subject of socalled
soy milk, have you ever seen a soy cow? You cannot
milk a soy bean; in order to obtain that pure-looking,
inviting stream of white liquid pictured so appealingly in
the ads, many processes are needed. It is necessary to
grind the beans at high temperature, and then extract the
remaining oils with dangerous solvents, some of which
remain in the meal. Then the meal is mixed with an alkaline
solution and sugars, in a separation process designed
to remove fiber. Then it is precipitated and separated,
using an acid wash. At each stage of processing a tiny
amount of poison remains within the soy. Government regulators
say it's so small an amount that it doesn't count. I
wonder who told them that? And why don’t they take
notice of the scientists who say it does count, due to its
accumulation in the body over long periods of soy ingestion?
Are you really happy to accept the manufacturer’s
assurance that it’s safe to eat a tiny amount of poison
each day, perhaps several times a day, until you have a
serious health problem?
During my research I came across twelve chemicals
that are added after these processes, most of them unpronounceable,
and the majority known to be dangerous, if
not deadly. I won't bore you with the names but, trust me,
you wouldn't want them anywhere near you, much less in
your body.
It’s also worth mentioning here that a by-product of soy
processing is a form of lecithin. Unlike the naturally-occurring
variety which is found in free-range eggs, nuts, seeds
and avocados, this by-product is always rancid, and is
extracted from the sludge left after the oil is removed from
the beans. It contains high levels of solvents and pesticides.
And guess what? Rather than consign it to the toxic
waste dump where it belongs, the manufacturers have
instead created another hugely-profitable market for it as a
‘healthy’ food additive. Among its delightful qualities is the
ability to induce severe joint pains (often mistaken for
arthritis), and serious gout. (During many years as a natural
health advocate, I have counseled countless people
who thought they had incurable arthritis. Their doctors prescribed
strong drugs, without discussing improvement
through diet. All reported cessation of symptoms after quitting
soy, and/or lecithin; but it requires time, and lots of
water).
But back to the bean. Putting in additional poisons is
bad enough, but the killer bean hardly needs them to
accomplish its deadly purpose. It is already riddled with
potential carcinogens and lots of other plant chemicals
guaranteed to wreak havoc within the human body! Yet in
the face of overwhelming evidence of catastrophic effects
resulting from their prolonged ingestion by humans and
animals, the soy pushers continue to assert the exact
opposite – that all these things are not only harmless but
are actually good for you.
At the root of the problem (no pun intended) is the fact
that the soy bean contains numerous phytoestrogens – a
descriptive name for plant chemicals having oestrogenic
(oestrus-inducing) effects. They occur in nature to help
regulate animal breeding cycles and, in synthetic form, are
used in farming for the same purpose. The ubiquitous birth
control pill is, of course, the human synthetic version. At
high dosage or over long periods phytoestrogens become
anti-oestrogenic. Much higher doses are used in
chemotherapy to kill cancer cells.
The class of chemical compounds called phytoestrogens
contains dozens of sub-classes, such as coumestans,
isoflavones, lignans and sterols, each of which contains
further sub-classes. Soy contains many isoflavones,
including the sub-classes genistein, coumestrol and
daidzein.
Scientists have known for years that isoflavones in soy
products can depress thyroid function, causing autoimmune
thyroid disease and even cancer of the thyroid. As
far back as the 1950s phytoestrogens were being linked to
increased cases of cancer, infertility, leukemia and
endocrine disruption.
Charlotte Gerson, of the Gerson Cancer Clinic in the
USA, has published detailed research proving that the
phytoestrogen genistein is more carcinogenic than DES
(Gerson Clinic: Cancer Research, June 1, 2001 - 61 (11):
4325-8). Few would be unaware of the death and misery
that particular drug inflicted on countless women and their
daughters.
Dr Gerson also wrote the following in the Gerson
Healing Newsletter : "Soybeans contain hemagglutinin, a
clot-promoting substance that causes red blood cells to
clump together. These clustered blood cells are unable to
properly absorb oxygen for distribution to the body’s tissues,
which can damage the heart". In his classic book, ‘A
Cancer Therapy - Results of 50 Cases’, (p. 237)
Charlotte's late father, Max Gerson, MD, put soy and soy
products on the forbidden list of foods for Gerson Therapy
patients.
No less an authority than the US Department of Energy
Health Risk Laboratory has published research showing
that isoflavones in soy act in the same way as the outlawed
insecticide DDT to cause breast cancer cells to multiply.
In 1988 a Taiwan University team led by Dr Theodore
Kay remarked that for more than half a century soy has
been known to cause thyroid enlargement, especially in
women and children.
Dr. Mike Fitzpatrick, a respected toxicologist who is at
the forefront of the New Zealand campaign against soy,
wrote a paper in 1998 citing much of the published work
on the dangers of soy isoflavones, which he submitted to
the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This paper
was also published in the Price-Pottenger Nutrition
Foundation Journal under the title ‘Isoflavones: Panacea
or Poison?’, and subsequently as ‘Soy Formulas and the
Effect on the Thyroid’ in The New Zealand Medical Journal
(February 2000). It is long, detailed, and frightening.
Here are just some of the things he has to say: "The
toxicity of isoflavones to animals first raised the awareness
of the scientific community to the fact that soy isoflavones
are endocrine disruptors... There have been profound negative
endocrine effects in all animal species studied to
date".
In plainspeak, this means that your glandular system
can be damaged by soy, and if your glands don't function
properly, your health will suffer drastically. There is more:
"Soy isoflavones increase the risk of breast cancer...Soy
isoflavone disrupts the menstrual cycle during, and for up
to three months after, administration... Dietary concentration
of genistein may stimulate breast cells to enter the
cell cycle... Concern was expressed that women fed soy
protein isolate have an increased incidence of epithelial
hyperplasia".
With these and numerous other credible studies warning
women of the adverse effects of prolonged consumption
of soy, how, in all conscience, can Australian household
brands like Herron, Novogen and those self-proclaimed
icons of good health, Blackmores and Sanitarium,
continue to promote the use of soy and isoflavones
extracted from soy as ‘tonics’ for middle-aged women in
menopause? Or health professionals endorse claims that
soy is a safe, natural alternative to HRT. What they are
pushing is neither safe, nor natural and they should be
ashamed for suggesting that it is either.
Phytic acid is another jolly little part of the abominable
bean’s makeup – and also totally destroys the credibility
of the manufacturers’ claims that soy products are a good
source of calcium and help prevent osteoporosis.
Because soy contains more phytic acid than any other
grain or pulse, and because phytic acid impairs absorption
of all minerals, especially calcium, soy actually strips your
body of calcium.
The enzyme inhibitors in soybeans block trypsin and
other enzymes essential for good health. This can produce
serious gastric distress, reduced protein digestion,
and chronic deficiencies in essential amino acids.
WHERE’S THE EVIDENCE?
All the foregoing, and more, are well-documented, and
have been available for many years, with new evidence
becoming available almost every day. I am more than
happy to supply detailed references for the papers and
extracts on which I have drawn for this article, but in the
interests of length and clarity will not include all of them
here.
For reasons I will explain shortly, some of this ‘subversive’
material has not achieved wide circulation, being the
work of corporate-neutral or independent scientists, who
are not in the pay of the multinationals, and who are as
voices in the wilderness. Their papers often appear only in
esoteric professional journals, or ‘alternative’ publications,
such as the Australian Nexus Magazine which also publishes
editions in the UK and US, who have been courageous
in pursuing a ‘publish and be damned’ policy by
enabling publication of arguments against the lies of the
big corporations.
Nevertheless, through the efforts and dedication of
many enlightened, qualified, courageous, independent
and highly-respected scientists, researchers and medical
practitioners, it has been possible to unearth volumes of
credible research and evidence which demonstrates clearly
the criminality of the actions of companies, spearheaded
by the mighty Monsanto Corporation, whose genetically-
modified cultivar is the prime source of all this misery.
LIES, DAMN LIES AND PRESS RELEASES
Bringing the covert actions of the soy industry into the
public arena has been an undertaking of truly David and
Goliath proportions. The public relations machine extolling
the virtues of soy has been global and relentless. It has to
be - there are at least 100 million acres of soy under cultivation
in the United States alone, much of it genetically
engineered. In Australia it is estimated that about 50,000
acres are being cultivated. Displaying the kind of ingenious
duplicity which even Machiavelli would surely
applaud, and conscious of the public unease regarding
genetically modified foods and the trend towards organically-
grown produce, Monsanto Corporation has 45 million
acres of genetically modified soybeans growing in the
United States. American law permits these crops to be
mixed with a small amount of organic soybeans, and the
resultant combination may then be labeled organic! And
you still think the government wouldn’t let them lie to you?
With these levels of production at stake a market must
be found, increased and maintained. To this end,
American soya bean farmers contribute approximately
US$80 million per year to finance what is one of the most
effective propaganda campaigns ever known to the
Western world. The resultant high-powered publicity blitz
ensures that ‘news’ stories about soy's benefits are everywhere,
reinforced by multi-million dollar advertising campaigns.
Thumb through any popular women’s magazine, read
the newspapers, watch the television commercials and
count those for soy drinks alone. Soy producers, processors
and manufacturers spend billions of dollars advertising
the ‘goodness’ of their products. The economics of the
mass media ensure that such expenditure guarantees the
regular placement of news and feature items extolling the
claimed health benefits of soy. The same economics also
guarantee that the chances are minimal of any extensive
publicity being given to reports of tragic cases such as
those mentioned earlier, and the dire warnings of hundreds
of corporate-neutral scientific and academic
researchers. What media mogul is going to risk offending
the Goose that lays these particular Golden Eggs by
appearing to question the worth of the product or the truth
of the ads?
Sure, occasionally a report of adverse scientific findings
or medical evidence may be too newsworthy to be
ignored and find its way into the inside pages. No problem;
in the interests of balanced reporting, the manufacturer
will receive their Right of Reply and has an army of
in-house or retained ‘independent’ experts ready with a
rebuttal. Even if the rebuttal is unsubstantiated, or based
on limited or inaccurate research, it will be published and
we’re all expected to drink up our soy milk and go back to
sleep. Believe me, this industry has secured the services
of some of the best scientific prostitutes money can buy.
And if that doesn’t work, the usual ‘Plan B’ is simply to
attempt to discredit the whistleblower.
But it’s not only the media who bear responsibility for
helping the soy industry carry out this mass-manipulation
and brainwashing. Most of our health professionals appear
so busy, or so unconcerned, that even if they were prepared
to question what you’re told in the glossy handouts
the suppliers give them to hand to you if you ask for information,
they probably wouldn’t consider it worthwhile.
Consider the words of Dr Raymond Peat, the noted
endocrine physiologist at the University of Oregon who
was one of the first to blow the whistle on the dangers of
HRT, years before it finally made headlines:
"There is a distinct herd instinct among people who
‘work in science’ which makes it easy to believe whatever
sounds plausible, if a lot of other people are saying it is
true. Sometimes powerful economic interests help people
to change their beliefs. For example, two of the biggest
industries in the world, the oestrogen industry and the soy
bean industry, spend vast amounts of money helping people
to believe certain plausible-sounding things that help
them sell their products."
We could add to that the tendency for people to believe
what they want to believe. Especially when it’s comforting,
reassuring and comes from ‘someone who knows’.
NONE SO BLIND AS THOSE WHO WILL NOT SEE
Which brings me to my well-intentioned but badly misled
critics mentioned earlier. Those who are so offended
that I should dare to question the masses of ‘independent
scientific research’ extolling the virtues of their favorite
health-giving food. Or that I should choose to dismiss the
‘well known fact’ that people in Japan practically live on
soy and don’t suffer from any of the problems I go on
about.
Many of the subjects I debate with students during my
lectures at Hippocrates Health Centre and at public speaking
engagements are controversial. There are always
some who disagree, but they accept these findings when
presented with evidence. The soy controversy, however, is
another matter, and some simply can't accept what I say.
Their arguments always center on their perception that
‘everyone’ says soy is good; they’ve read glowing press
releases on soy; listened to what health professionals have
told them; and surely there’s no question about the ‘fact’
that Asian women do so well on soy food and have few
problems with menopause or osteoporosis.
These arguments are so fallacious and so dependant
on what the world’s most effective commercial publicity
machine would have us believe that it’s hard to know
where to begin. But here goes.
To begin with, soy does not comprise a major part of
the Japanese, or any other Asian diet. And it is likely that
very little of the domestically produced soy is grown from
the genetically modified cultivar which dominates the
Western market. In any case, except in poverty and during
times of famine, Asians consume soy in tiny amounts - 7 to
8 grams per day - and most of this has been fermented for
from 3 to 5 years to remove the toxins. The fermentation
process also reduces the growth depressants in all soy
products, but does not remove them entirely. The
Japanese eat a small amount of tofu and miso as part of a
mineral-rich broth, followed by meat or fish, which offsets
some of the dangers.
Dr. Raymond Peat and others have shown that tofu (a
soy derivative) consumption is associated with dementia.
In a major US study, eight thousand Japanese-American
men from Hawaii were assessed for mid-life tofu consumption
and its relation to brain function and structural
changes in later life. Researchers performed radiologic
brain neuro-imaging, extensive cognitive function studies,
and post mortem follow-ups. Among the subjects of the
study, an increased level of tofu consumption was found to
be associated with indications of brain atrophy and cognitive
impairment in later life. They even found, at autopsy,
swelling of the brain cavities and a decrease in brain
weight among heavy tofu eaters. This study was reported
in ‘The Journal Of The American College Of Nutrition’, April
2000, and reprinted in Dr. William Campbell Douglass'
‘Second Opinion’ Newsletter.
Whilst on the subject of soy consumption in Asian
countries, one real and bitter truth that does not appear in
the producers’ handouts is that in parts of China where the
people are too poor to get other forms of protein, their
intake of soy has created, according to scientists who went
there and studied the situation, 100 million cretins. This
has occurred due to the goitrogens in soy, which, as we
have seen, depress the thyroid gland and can create brain
damage. New Zealand toxicologist Dr Mike Fitzpatrick
says, "An epidemiological study in China has shown that
high soy intake is not protective against breast cancer.
There have been several similar studies, which have refuted
the theory that soy helps prevent breast cancer".
Furthermore, Asians, unlike Westerners, do not guzzle
soy protein isolate as a milk substitute. Milk is not a part of
their culture.
So how do these ‘myths’ originate? In recent years,
several studies have been published regarding the soybean’s
effect on human health. Thanks to the power of the
well-oiled PR machine, the most widely-published results
are those of the studies underwritten by various factions of
the soy industry. Not surprisingly, they are always overwhelmingly
in favor of soy. The primary claims about soy’s
health benefits are based purely on bad science. Although
arguments for cancer patients to use soy focus on statistics
showing low rates of breast, colon and prostate cancer
among Asian people, there are obvious facts being utterly
ignored.
While soy-funded studies boast that Asian women suffer
far fewer cases of breast cancer than do American
women, they neglect to point out that these Asian women
eat a diet that is dramatically different from that of their
Western counterparts. The standard Asian diet consists of
more natural products, and greater amounts of vegetables
and more fish. Their diets are also lower in chemicals and
toxins, as they eat far fewer processed foods. It is likely
these studies are influenced by the fact that cancer rates
rise among Asian people who move to the U.S. and adopt
American diets. Ignoring the remarkable diet and lifestyle
changes, to assume only that reduced levels of soy in
these American-Asian diets is a primary factor in greater
cancer rates, is bad science.
As for the osteoporosis/menopause protection myth, it
is absurd to infer that soy protects Asian women. Their
habits and diets, as mentioned above, containing little junk
food, are totally different from those of Westerners.
Further, they rarely smoke or drink alcohol, and have not
replaced vitamin D-containing butter with the damaging
soy oil margarine so popular with misguided Westerners.
Need more evidence of the soy producers’ dominance
of what you can read about their product? A widely circulated
article, written by Jane E. Allen, Associated Press
Science Writer, entitled ‘Scientists Suggest More Soy in
Diet’ , cites numerous speakers in the course of a symposium
discussing the probable advantages of soy under the
topic, ‘Health Impact of Soy Protein'. Their deliberations
are still widely quoted as proof of soy’s beneficial effects.
Interestingly, the article also states that the $50,000 symposium
was underwritten by Protein Technologies
International of St.Louis, a DuPont subsidiary that makes
soy protein! How’s that for impartiality?
Other popular arguments in support of soy state that
fermented soy products like tempeh or natto contain high
levels of vitamin B12. However, these supportive arguments
fail to mention that soy’s B12 is an inactive B12
analog, not utilized as a vitamin in the human body. Some
researchers speculate this analog may actually serve to
block the body’s B12 absorption. It has also been found
that allergic reactions to soybeans are far more common
than to all other legumes. Even the American Academy of
Pediatrics admits that early exposure to soy through commercial
infant formulas may be a leading cause of soy
allergies among older children and adults.
And while on ‘Furphys’, one persistent critic tells me
that he "knows for sure" that allowing the bean to sprout
removes all the toxins. He remains unconvinced by the scientific
evidence that shows that sprouting allows genistein
to metamorphose into coumestrol, which happens to be 30
times more oestrogenically potent!
A while back, as information regarding the dangers of
soy started leaking out, the public relations machine went
into overdrive, churning out stories about how the ‘baddies’
known to be in soy are removed during processing. This is
a complete untruth, which has been refuted by many studies,
yet is fervently espoused by the soy adherents. As
described earlier, processing actually adds more deadly
ingredients to an already potent toxic cocktail.
There are many more ‘truths’ that the pro-soy lobby will
trot out as the answer to just about any health concern,
and if you still believe the claim that taking soy will improve
hormonal health in men and women, consider this. Eating
soy in order to promote hormonal health is not only dangerous,
it is futile, as reported in Nexus Magazine:
"Celibate monks living in monasteries and leading a vegetarian
lifestyle find soy foods quite helpful because they
dampen libido".
WATCHDOGS OR LAPDOGS?
In developed countries such as the USA, Canada,
Australia and New Zealand, governments have established
statutory bodies with the power to ensure the safety of proprietary
food and drugs made available to the public.
Sadly, as far as the marketing of soy is concerned, the
FDA in the US and the Australia-New Zealand Food
Authority, ANZFA, have both displayed a willingness to put
the commercial interests of manufacturers ahead of those
of the consumers, even to the extent of falsifying data or
withholding commercially unpalatable information.
In our own region, one recent extraordinary and blatant
case of deliberate government deception has come to light
– and been totally ignored by the media. It concerns, once
again, the use of soy in baby formula, and should be considered
carefully by anyone who is still under the impression
that "They wouldn’t be allowed to sell it if it wasn’t
OK".
In March 1999, ANZFA prepared a document with the
catchy title, "An Assessment of The Potential Risks to
Infants Associated with Exposure to Soy-Based Infant
Formulas".
In Section 3.1, Hazard Identification, some potential
hazards are listed:
3.1.2 Stimulation of oestrogen-sensitive tissue; Infertility;
Sexual differentiation; Sexual maturation.
3.1.3 Neonatal brain development.
3.1.4 Thyroid alterations: Immune responses.
5.1.1 Dietary exposures: An exposure to hormone levels
240 times higher than breast milk.
6.0 Risk Assessment: "It is clear that phytoestrogens
pose a potential hazard to the consumer of soy foods".
The signatories to this document included the Chief
Toxicologist, Dr Luba Tomaska, together with Dr Fiona
Cumming (ANZFA), Dr P Tuohy of the New Zealand
Ministry of Health, and five academic experts in food safety
from both Australia and New Zealand. Among the
authoritative references examined by this committee was
a 1999 assessment from a US Federal government laboratory,
‘Anti-thyroid Isoflavins From Soybean: Isolation,
Characterisation and Mechanism of Action’, which examines
50 years of medical reports of thyroid harm and
describes how it occurs.
The committee’s final report was clear and unambiguous
in its conclusions that the inclusion of soy in infant formula
was potentially hazardous.
Yet, in May 2002, this same body, ANZFA, prepared a
document for the signatures of all the Health Ministers of
the Australian States and Territories and for the Australian
and New Zealand Federal Health Ministers, setting standards
for infant formulas which contained no hint or mention
of the hazards detailed in their own expert committee’s
Risk Assessment document.
Following ANZFA’s recommendations, all these health
ministers, presumably unaware of the hazards which
someone in ANZFA considered not worth bringing to their
attention, signed the document. The result is that the
agreed Standard for the composition of infant formula sold
in Australia and New Zealand, now approves the inclusion
of ingredients which its own expert committee (as well as
many other authorities) have labeled severely detrimental
to health.
Such approval flies in the face of Australian food safety
and practice laws and puts our children at risk of permanent
endocrine disruption and infertility.
But it gets worse! Australian politicians, spurred by
worried constituents who were questioning the inclusion of
soy in baby formula, are asking ANZFA for more information.
The Authority’s standard response is unbelievable –
and a barefaced lie:
"…there is no evidence that exposure of healthy infants
to soy-based infant formulas over 30 years has been
associated with any demonstrated harm".
Isn’t it good to know that we have such honest and ethical
watchdogs to safeguard our children’s health?
SPEAK OUT AT YOUR PERIL
Many of those who have dared to speak and act
against the industry and its political protectors have suffered
both physically and financially as a direct result. The
story of a New Zealand couple, Valerie and Richard
James, who have now devoted their lives to exposing the
evils of this trade, is worthy of honorable mention. Much of
the suppressed research and evidence has been brought
to worldwide attention through their single-mindedness
and courage, and they have been a great source of inspiration,
advice and information to me and to many others in
our efforts to spread the word.
I first became aware of the James’ work from an article
in Nexus Magazine . Breeders of tropical birds, the couple
had been alerted to the genetic effects of soy when they
switched to bird feed which was based on soy protein –
with disastrous results; "deformed, stunted and stillborn
babies and premature deaths among females, with the
result that the total population in the aviaries went into
steady decline". They then realized that many of the
symptoms suffered by their birds were similar to the symptoms
suffered by their children, who had been fed soy formula.
Understandably, they were deeply disturbed by what
soy had done to their children and their birds, and enlisted
the aid of toxicologist Mike Fitzpatrick, PhD, whose work
is detailed elsewhere in this essay. Together they formed
an alliance to investigate and expose what big business
and government preferred to hide.
While preparing the sixth edition of my book, I rang
Valerie and Richard in Whangarei, New Zealand, to introduce
myself and ask a favor. I needed a paragraph on the
reaction of the soy industry and the New Zealand
Government to their nine-year crusade against feeding
babies soy formula. As Richard said, "It's impossible to
compress years of fear and a constant feeling of menace
into a paragraph". So they sent me, instead, a huge envelope
stuffed full of the most horrifying information, which
instilled in me a feeling of menace which remains with me
to this day.
Even I, with my knowledge of cosy industry/government
connections, was shocked by what I read. The
James’ enclosed a copy of the painstakingly-researched
scientific proof they had presented to the government.
This document is so damning that I was astonished they
had been unable to persuade the government to even
consider the problem. They enclosed hair-raising details of
industry/government threats, lies from officials who were
and are protecting the soy industry, and details of careers
that were destroyed, grants withdrawn, and research
papers censored or not published.
The pressure on one of the scientists with whom they
worked was so great that his assistant suffered a nervous
breakdown and had to flee the country. Probably the worst
of all is that their government was and still is prepared to
go to any lengths to protect the soy industry and their
multi-billions in annual profits. Even their Federal Health
Minister was firmly aligned behind the baby killers!
As they have become recognized as serious threats to
the continued dominance of the pro soy lobbyists, the
James’ have faced all manner of threats, personal vilification
and legal actions. Their own government actually
allowed a soy producer to use government-funded Legal
Aid to sue the James’ for telling the truth about their product!
The James’, of course, had to fund their own crippling
legal defense. Despite this, and with increasing public
support, they are preparing to lead a class action against
Monsanto and others on behalf of thousands whose lives
have been affected by the Killer Bean.
Visit Dr Fitzpatrick’s website:
http://www.soyonlineservice.co.nz , and you will be able to see
not only the mountain of credible evidence he and the
James’ have assembled against the actions of the multinationals,
but also get a sense of some of the lengths to
which their detractors will go in their attempts to discredit
them. This courageous couple are being pilloried for trying
to save millions of babies from the crippling effects of soy
formula! They should be thanked, instead of being sued
and threatened. It's not only depressing, it’s outrageous.
It would seem that there is no way decent people can
win against the multinationals when these corporations
are backed by governments.
TRUTH WILL OUT
But maybe there is hope yet. Slowly, and despite the
power of the vested interests and the complacency and
laissez-faire attitude of governments, the truth is beginning
to emerge. The US Congress is now taking seriously a
plethora of complaints and legal actions being instituted
against Monsanto on behalf of millions of Americans
whose lives have been ruined through the corporate greed
of this legalized drug pusher. This is largely due to the
Weston A Price Foundation, a Washington public interest
charitable organization, conducting an unrelenting political
lobbying campaign in Congressional Committees. In addition,
the prestigious Georgetown University has sponsored
a national forum on the food supply, with emphasis on the
potential liability of soy products, to be held during the
(US) Fall of 2002. The Environmental Law Forum of the
Georgetown Law School has specifically asked the
Weston A. Price Foundation to prepare a brief on the
legality of soy foods.
In other countries, notably Australia and New Zealand,
as well as the USA, class actions are being mounted
which will finally make public the human toll and the extent
of cover-up, falsification, manipulation, harassment,
threats and other illegal activities undertaken by powerful
multinationals in order to maintain the multi-billion-dollar
profits generated by this innocuous-looking, genetically
modified and deadly poisonous bean.
And a ray of hope is coming from another, perhaps
surprising, direction. Some of soy’s most vocal supporters
are now having cause to reconsider their stance – and
their beliefs. As I have indicated throughout this essay, the
adverse effects of soy often take years to manifest and
are no respecter of persons. It was therefore with mixed
emotions that I recently learned that two prominent advocates
of the ongoing use of soy, American MD Christiane
Northrup and Australian naturopath Nancy Beckham have
both been diagnosed with health problems directly related
to excessive soy intake: hypothyroidism and osteoporosis.
Paradoxically, Dr Northrup still denies that soy has anything
to do with hypothyroidism, despite the clear evidence
to the contrary, and continues taking her soy preparation
every day.
Nancy Beckham has always dismissed the idea that
soy contributes to osteoporosis, because she claims to
"successfully" use soy milk in her treatment protocols for
osteoporosis in her Sydney clinic, and is well-known for
her published responses to the anti-soy articles written by
Sally Fallon, MA, president of the Weston A Price
Foundation, and the highly-respected authority on nutrition,
Mary Enig, PhD.
I can only wish them well, even in their apparent state
of denial, and leave you with the words of another victim
of soy-induced hypothyroidism, courageous US dietitian
Joyce Gross, MA, RD, LD/N, who recently sent the following
email to her own patients and friends:
Nutritionist Joyce Gross' e-mail to friends and patients
(used with permission)
Hi everyone (especially the women)
Some of you may remember that last year I was touting
soy along with the rest of the medical profession
regarding their beneficial effects. I was consuming soy for
their phytoestrogen effect to alleviate menopausal symptoms.
I was duped like so many other non-suspecting consumers.
I have developed Hashimoto's Disease or acute
Hashimoto's Thyroiditis which is an acute autoimmune disease
that affects the thyroid gland. (In basic terms this
means that my thyroid is attacking itself and I can no
longer produce thyroid hormone.) My initial symptoms
included things like severe joint pain especially in my
hands, "trigger" finger(s), carpal tunnel syndrome, excessive
weight gain (I gained about 25 lbs. in 3-4 weeks
which, of course, when you are a Registered Dietitian you
can calculate how many calories you are taking in and it
just doesn't correlate with the amount of weight one is
gaining), chronic fatigue syndrome, a "brain fog", depression,
among others. (Classic symptoms of hypothyroidism
are that you gain an unexplained amount of weight in a
short period of time and that your hair falls out).
It took almost 4 months before everything was figured
out (by me) and it was not really diagnosed properly by
my physicians. About 3-4 months after I initially started the
soy supplement I had been taking (now this would also
include any soy isoflavone pills you may be taking as
well), I developed a "hyper" state, where my resting pulse
rate was 125, and I was having 100's of palpitations a day.
Of course, so many of the symptoms I mentioned above
can be related to so many other diseases or conditions
(especially menopause and when you've never been in
menopause before - how does one know what is normal
and what is not?) but of course, when the "heart" thing
started, this got me to a cardiologist and fast. I didn't know
if I was having a heart attack or what.
The only thing I could think of as I was waiting for the
cardiologist to call me back that I had done differently was
the soy. So I went onto ‘Google’, put in "toxic effects of
soy", and thyroid disease (especially hypothyroidism) came
up. Well, I 'm saying to myself, "that doesn't make sense".
How can I be hypothyroid with a resting pulse rate of 125!
So, it's in the back of my mind but I'm thinking it's not feasible.
Anyway, I go to the cardiologist, have all kinds of
tests, echocardiogram, Holter monitor on for 24 hours, etc.
I am told that "there's nothing wrong with you. Go home
and take your estrogen and you'll feel better." Well, I won't
tell you how angry that made me. I insisted that there was
something wrong with me and told the doctor to have my
labs faxed to me and I would look for another doctor to
help me. When my labs came through my fax machine, I
almost fainted. They did a TSH (the indicator for thyroid
disease) and it was elevated! (which means that I had an
underactive thyroid).
Later on, after researching this thing to death, I found
out that my symptoms of the "hyper" state are sometimes
quite common and many women wind up in the emergency
room as a result. Apparently, in Hashi's, just before your
thyroid stops working completely, it can go "haywire" and
put you into a hyper and hypo state. It has taken 8 months
now for me to start feeling better. Adjustments in thyroid
medication take some time and I have finally been losing
weight, have no more carpal tunnel syndrome, etc.
So, this brings me to my word of caution. If any of you,
or your wives, are taking soy product, isoflavone pills or
homeopathic-type menopausal products, please be careful.
I have since found out that Hashi's can take 8 years to
diagnose (we don't build up the antibodies overnight to it)
and from an email that I sent out to a few of you the other
day, I know that some of you are also hypothyroid. There
are tons of websites to go to for more information or email
me if you are affected by this and I will be happy to help
you find some. The soybean industry is a multi-billion dollar
industry in this country so they are trying to keep this
quiet, even though there have been doctors in the FDA
who have written position papers regarding the dangers of
soy.
Just before I started writing this note to you, I received
an email from a woman in the United Kingdom who is
interested in my testimonial along with many others. She is
a consumer representative on a government committee
which is looking into health concerns over phytoestrogens.
I have also been in touch over the past several months
with people in New Zealand who are also "on the bandwagon"
regarding the dangers of soy. They have several
documented animal studies showing the ill effects of soy.
With so many new products coming out containing soy,
and the continued "touting" of it as a major benefit, more
and more women are going to become hypothyroid. I am
currently working as a nutrition expert in treating depression,
bi-polar disorder and substance abuse problems. I
can't tell you how many of the women who are admitted for
depression are also hypothyroid to the point now that the
medical doctor automatically first checks their TSH before
the psychiatrists even start prescribing their meds. If I hadn't
been so adamant about taking over my own health
issues last August, I could have very easily wound up
being a patient in my own hospital.
Menopause doesn't mean that we are supposed to be
depressed. Menopause is great, though I used to tell people
that was a whole lot of crap several months ago.
If you are having any of the symptoms mentioned
above, don't assume it’s the menopause. It is estimated
that there are about 10 million women out there who have
hypothyroidism and don't know it. Are you one of them?
Have your TSH level checked every few years and if you
are taking soy, you may want to give serious consideration
to stopping it.
My guess is that a class action suit will eventually
develop out of all of this but of course, the way things work
it'll probably take a few years. I am going to be very actively
involved in this area over the next several months assisting
those groups and individuals who are publicizing this
health concern.
If any of you are or have been experiencing any of
what I've told you, PLEASE CONTACT ME!!!
And if you think you may have hypothyroidism, just go onto
‘Google’ and type in "symptoms of hypothyroidism" for
more information regarding the symptoms.
As always
Joyce
(Joyce Gross, M.A.,R.D.,L.D/N.)
© Elaine Hollingsworth, August 2002
The copyright holder grants permission for this article to be freely reprinted, copied
and circulated in its entirety, without alteration or editing, in the interests of widening
public knowledge. It is based on material published in Elaine Hollingsworth’s book,
"Take Control of Your Health and Escape The Sickness Industry", which also
includes details of many other common health risks and their natural alternatives.
The book can be ordered from this website, http://www.doctorsaredangerous.com.
For a copy of this article e-mailed to you in Word97 format please contact:
reprint@doctorsaredangerous.com .
For permission to quote extracts in press and electronic media, or for interviews with
Elaine Hollingsworth: publisher@doctorsaredangerous.com.
To express your interest in joining the Australian class action against soy producers:
soyaction@doctorsaredangerous.com.
.
For people who are lazy and don't want to read this full thing I'll summerize my findings, not only from this article, but research I've done on my own.
Small history lesson.
When soy was first grown, it wasn't grown to be eaten. It was planted in between crops. Why though? Soy was planted because it absorbes all the horrible crap in the soil so they would get a better crop for whatever their next crop would be. In short, when Soy is grown, all the stuff in the ground is absorbed into the beans.
Most people don't know, and this was stated in the article in the spoiler, but aluminum is one of the most dominant minerals in soil. It doesn't affect most crops, but the soy plant however does have an affinity for aluminum.
Fact: Soy milk contains 100 times more aluminum than untreated cow’s milk.
Other stuff that soy contains.
Commercials for soy always talk about how much protein you get from it, and how many minerals that are good for your body. However it has not so good stuff.
Soy Contains:
Phytic Acid: Which blocks the absorption of key minerals.
Enzyme inhibitors: Which interferes with protein digestion in the small intestine.
Goitrogen - substances that depress thyroid function and
may cause goiters
Hemagglutinin - a clot-promoting substance that causes
red blood cells to clump together.
So this is only a little bit of info. If you want, search google with Soy Sideeffects. You will get a whole list of things about how bad soy is.
-Speedpaws-
