I did read a paper a while back about sexual development. The theory was that people don't develop beyond the age of a child in their sexuality. So while a 15 year old is easily attracted to a 14 year old. A guy that stopped developing at that age, could still find 14 year olds attractive at age 25.
That can't be right can it? I'm sure I'm much more sexually developed now than what I was at 15! Well I hope so anyway!
By the way Jeanie, did you get a chance to watch that lecture series on Stem Cells?
No not yet, I'm sorry. I'm planning to have a look at it over the weekend at my brothers. He's got broadband and he's a bit of a computer nerd so he can smooth me through all the downloading and registering and stuff. I will read it and get back to you though. And about the NCC.
No not yet, I'm sorry. I'm planning to have a look at it over the weekend at my brothers. He's got broadband and he's a bit of a computer nerd so he can smooth me through all the downloading and registering and stuff. I will read it and get back to you though. And about the NCC.
I don't think you have to register if you use the link I posted.
I can't find the paper on pedophelia ephebophelia, I think the thread was deleted at some point and it was really hard to find it to begin with.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Well, it would seem to me that if the university found Bailey to be the bigoted, prejudiced, bias, researched he was made out to be, he wouldn't be a professor any longer.
It's pretty clear your mind is made up on the subject. shmap gave you firsthand information regarding some questionable behaviour from the guy, and you "justified" and rationalized it away. I'm with soulsinging on this: it looks like you are more interested in making this say what you want it to say, rather than being open to assess what is happening.
The fact is, this guy ALSO agreed to stay on at the University. It's just as possible the University was trying to give him a break, and he recognizes he needs one. To jump to a conclusion one way or another when you don't have any facts, I call personal bias.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I don't think you have to register if you use the link I posted.
I can't find the paper on pedophelia ephebophelia, I think the thread was deleted at some point and it was really hard to find it to begin with.
I tried to get them from your post the other night but wasn't successful. I'm sure it's me! So I'm going to Doofus tomorrow and get him to get it for me. It'll be much easier and quicker with the broadband and he's used to having to help me besides it makes him feel superior!
I'll try and do a google search on the pedophelia ephebophelia and see what I get. But not tonight. It's 12.42am and I gotta be on the newsagents doorstep at 6am to try and get a copy of the Make Poverty History DVD. I'll definitely do my homework and get back to you. g'night:)
It's pretty clear your mind is made up on the subject. shmap gave you firsthand information regarding some questionable behaviour from the guy, and you "justified" and rationalized it away. I'm with soulsinging on this: it looks like you are more interested in making this say what you want it to say, rather than being open to assess what is happening.
The fact is, this guy ALSO agreed to stay on at the University. It's just as possible the University was trying to give him a break, and he recognizes he needs one. To jump to a conclusion one way or another when you don't have any facts, I call personal bias.
I know more about it than you do. He did the work with Richard Pillard. However, Pillard was never even investigated let alone slandered as such. Never mind, your mad at me. That's what this is about.
You are mad because I suggested you may have had a psychotic episode. But honestly? What did you expect when you trash-talk science because of a vision you had? People take psychoactive drugs like Salvia D and have lucid visions all the time.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I tried to get them from your post the other night but wasn't successful. I'm sure it's me! So I'm going to Doofus tomorrow and get him to get it for me. It'll be much easier and quicker with the broadband and he's used to having to help me besides it makes him feel superior!
I'll try and do a google search on the pedophelia ephebophelia and see what I get. But not tonight. It's 12.42am and I gotta be on the newsagents doorstep at 6am to try and get a copy of the Make Poverty History DVD. I'll definitely do my homework and get back to you. g'night:)
Your friend has an interesting name. I don't think I'll adopt it if I ever have a son.
Yea, it's 8:48 A.M. here and I haven't slept yet. I guess I'm due too.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I know more about it than you do. He did the work with Richard Pillard. However, Pillard was never even investigated let alone slandered as such. Never mind, your mad at me. That's what this is about.
You are mad because I suggested you may have had a psychotic episode. But honestly? What did you expect when you trash-talk science because of a vision you had? People take psychoactive drugs like Salvia D and have lucid visions all the time.
Then what's soulsingings reasoning for pointing out your bias? It's kinda obvious that you were using science to pull rank in this thread, and to back your opinions. You made such a fuss about your fact-based opinions and how the others had mere opinions without back-up. Therefore I can totally understand you grappling to keep the relevence of "your" science guy backed up to the hilt. That's fine, but I can't ignore what you are ignoring about the questions as to his methods, which were detailed in different parts in wikipedia. Specifically how he carried out a study or experiment is not part of a societal conspiracy--it's purely on him. He may or may not be "guilty". I'm just saying given what we know from wikipedia only, (not even regarding the complex link shmap provided) to assume one way or another seems biased to me, especially given that you have a obvious agenda of maintaining your "rightness" with your science "expertise" backing you.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Your friend has an interesting name. I don't think I'll adopt it if I ever have a son.
Yea, it's 8:48 A.M. here and I haven't slept yet. I guess I'm due too.
LOL!!! Doofus is my nickname for my brother! He hates it! Which is why I love it so much! Anyway g'night, its been interesting talking with you again. I'll read up on all the info and get back to you.
Then what's soulsingings reasoning for pointing out your bias? It's kinda obvious that you were using science to pull rank in this thread, and to back your opinions. You made such a fuss about your fact-based opinions and how the others had mere opinions without back-up. Therefore I can totally understand you grappling to keep the relevence of "your" science guy backed up to the hilt. That's fine, but I can't ignore what you are ignoring about the questions as to his methods, which were detailed in different parts in wikipedia. Specifically how he carried out a study or experiment is not part of a societal conspiracy--it's purely on him. He may or may not be "guilty". I'm just saying given what we know from wikipedia only, (not even regarding the complex link shmap provided) to assume one way or another seems biased to me, especially given that you have a obvious agenda of maintaining your "rightness" with your science "expertise" backing you.
The link that shmap posted was hardly complex. It was just pointing out that he was a target for his book. His research has never been discredited by anyone and is still available online. I don't hold shmap entirely responsible but it's just all distorted now. I think shmap was just trying to point out what a weird and bigoted guy Bailey is. I don't know. I don't see a need to discredit his work, especially when it is what it is.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
The link that shmap posted was hardly complex. It was just pointing out that he was a target for his book. His research has never been discredited by anyone and is still available online. I don't hold shmap entirely responsible but it's just all distorted now. I think shmap was just trying to point out what a weird and bigoted guy Bailey is. I don't know. I don't see a need to discredit his work, especially when it is what it is.
Wrong. I have my own opinions of him, but I don't much care whether or not you agree. I wanted to post the website I found because it contains interesting information, from which you can form your own opinions about him. The page to which I'm now linking is basically a summary of the first. Much easier to read through: http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/j-michael-bailey.html
Wrong. I have my own opinions of him, but I don't much care whether or not you agree. I wanted to post the website I found because it contains interesting information, from which you can form your own opinions about him. The page to which I'm now linking is basically a summary of the first. Much easier to read through: http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/j-michael-bailey.html
WTF? Where does it say his 1991 research that I cited is inaccurate?
All this is talking about is his stupid book and the stupid comments he makes.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I think it's dumb that everyone in the public can have strong opinions about homosexuality or transsexuality. But a guy that spends almost 20 years researching it, can't?
Fuck, if I spent almost 20 years researching sexual orientation, I'd probably be pretty opinionated on it as well. I'm not agreeing with Bailey's opinions in any way.
I'm simply saying that the research done in 1991 shows some genetic influence on sexual orientation. Why is that such a crime?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I didn't say that the link would discuss that, did I? Seriously, stop jumping down my throat. You're being ridiculous.
You are confusing me. What was I wrong about?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Also according to J. Michael Bailey, that website you posted shmap is a "hysterical misrepresentation" and some transsexuals agree with the points in his book.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Also according to J. Michael Bailey, that website you posted shmap is a "hysterical misrepresentation" and some transsexuals agree with the points in his book.
That's fine and dandy. Many transsexuals don't agree with the points in his book, so what are you getting at?
I'm taking a break from this thread, you're making me out to be some Bailey-basher when all I'm trying to do is show you a different perspective from what you hold. I really don't appreciate your tone, so you can go attempt to ridicule someone else for a while.
That's fine and dandy. Many transsexuals don't agree with the points in his book, so what are you getting at?
I'm taking a break from this thread, you're making me out to be some Bailey-basher when all I'm trying to do is show you a different perspective from what you hold. I really don't appreciate your tone, so you can go attempt to ridicule someone else for a while.
Tone? Haha that's funny.
Dude, I cited research and then you said something about the researcher. I'm confused as hell, probably more than you.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
One of my good friends has the best logic when discussing this arguement (whether being gay is a choice or not). Here's what he says: If you, as a hetrosexual can remember the time when you decided to like women (for a man) or men (if you're a woman), then that point would be valid. But it's something that isn't chosen. No one has such an answer which shows that they never made a decision, it's something you just have.
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
One of my good friends has the best logic when discussing this arguement (whether being gay is a choice or not). Here's what he says: If you, as a hetrosexual can remember the time when you decided to like women (for a man) or men (if you're a woman), then that point would be valid. But it's something that isn't chosen. No one has such an answer which shows that they never made a decision, it's something you just have.
That's what I've always said. I was always hanging around the boys when I was little ... I like them because they didn't fight as much as the girls, and they never wanted to style my hair or play with Barbies. And seemingly all of a sudden, they weren't just people to play baseball with anymore. I certainly never "decided" to think of them differently, I just did, and I know that there's no way I could "choose" to be sexually attracted to women.
All I can think is that anyone who thinks it's a choice must be bi-sexual themselves. If you think others chose their sexuality, does that mean that you chose yours? If you could just as easily choose one over the other, face it, you're bi.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
That's what I've always said. I was always hanging around the boys when I was little ... I like them because they didn't fight as much as the girls, and they never wanted to style my hair or play with Barbies. And seemingly all of a sudden, they weren't just people to play baseball with anymore. I certainly never "decided" to think of them differently, I just did, and I know that there's no way I could "choose" to be sexually attracted to women.
All I can think is that anyone who thinks it's a choice must be bi-sexual themselves. If you think others chose their sexuality, does that mean that you chose yours? If you could just as easily choose one over the other, face it, you're bi.
I think people think it's a choice, because they think we have choice to begin with.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Hiya ahnimus, I gotta ask. Do you ever sleep?
Anyway I'm here at my (doofus) brother's house and apparently we couldn't download this one because the plug-in was not available. Gonna try for the other stuff now.
Hiya ahnimus, I gotta ask. Do you ever sleep?
Anyway I'm here at my (doofus) brother's house and apparently we couldn't download this one because the plug-in was not available. Gonna try for the other stuff now.
I hardly sleep at all.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Downloaded the realtime player and had a quick look at the 1st HHI lecture but was booted off by my niece who had a major hissy fit. My bro has his computer/TV/Stereo/DVD/video all hooked up together so apparently I was inconveniently interupting her 4000 watch of BRUM!! (I'm such an evil Aunty) I'm gonna have another go at watching during the week while she's on nap time. I'll let you know.:)
Soy is making kids 'gay'
Posted: December 12, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern
There's a slow poison out there that's severely damaging our children and threatening to tear apart our culture. The ironic part is, it's a "health food," one of our most popular.
Now, I'm a health-food guy, a fanatic who seldom allows anything into his kitchen unless it's organic. I state my bias here just so you'll know I'm not anti-health food.
The dangerous food I'm speaking of is soy. Soybean products are feminizing, and they're all over the place. You can hardly escape them anymore.
I have nothing against an occasional soy snack. Soy is nutritious and contains lots of good things. Unfortunately, when you eat or drink a lot of soy stuff, you're also getting substantial quantities of estrogens.
Estrogens are female hormones. If you're a woman, you're flooding your system with a substance it can't handle in surplus. If you're a man, you're suppressing your masculinity and stimulating your "female side," physically and mentally.
In fetal development, the default is being female. All humans (even in old age) tend toward femininity. The main thing that keeps men from diverging into the female pattern is testosterone, and testosterone is suppressed by an excess of estrogen.
If you're a grownup, you're already developed, and you're able to fight off some of the damaging effects of soy. Babies aren't so fortunate. Research is now showing that when you feed your baby soy formula, you're giving him or her the equivalent of five birth control pills a day. A baby's endocrine system just can't cope with that kind of massive assault, so some damage is inevitable. At the extreme, the damage can be fatal.
Soy is feminizing, and commonly leads to a decrease in the size of the penis, sexual confusion and homosexuality. That's why most of the medical (not socio-spiritual) blame for today's rise in homosexuality must fall upon the rise in soy formula and other soy products. (Most babies are bottle-fed during some part of their infancy, and one-fourth of them are getting soy milk!) Homosexuals often argue that their homosexuality is inborn because "I can't remember a time when I wasn't homosexual." No, homosexuality is always deviant. But now many of them can truthfully say that they can't remember a time when excess estrogen wasn't influencing them.
Doctors used to hope soy would reduce hot flashes, prevent cancer and heart disease, and save millions in the Third World from starvation. That was before they knew much about long-term soy use. Now we know it's a classic example of a cure that's worse than the disease. For example, if your baby gets colic from cow's milk, do you switch him to soy milk? Don't even think about it. His phytoestrogen level will jump to 20 times normal. If he is a she, brace yourself for watching her reach menarche as young as seven, robbing her of years of childhood. If he is a boy, it's far worse: He may not reach puberty till much later than normal.
Research in 2000 showed that a soy-based diet at any age can lead to a weak thyroid, which commonly produces heart problems and excess fat. Could this explain the dramatic increase in obesity today?
Recent research on rats shows testicular atrophy, infertility and uterus hypertrophy (enlargement). This helps explain the infertility epidemic and the sudden growth in fertility clinics. But alas, by the time a soy-damaged infant has grown to adulthood and wants to marry, it's too late to get fixed by a fertility clinic.
Worse, there's now scientific evidence that estrogen ingredients in soy products may be boosting the rapidly rising incidence of leukemia in children. In the latest year we have numbers for, new cases in the U.S. jumped 27 percent. In one year!
There's also a serious connection between soy and cancer in adults – especially breast cancer. That's why the governments of Israel, the UK, France and New Zealand are already cracking down hard on soy.
In sad contrast, 60 percent of the refined foods in U.S. supermarkets now contain soy. Worse, soy use may double in the next few years because (last I heard) the out-of-touch medicrats in the FDA hierarchy are considering allowing manufacturers of cereal, energy bars, fake milk, fake yogurt, etc., to claim that "soy prevents cancer." It doesn't.
P.S.: Soy sauce is fine. Unlike soy milk, it's perfectly safe because it's fermented, which changes its molecular structure. Miso, natto and tempeh are also OK, but avoid tofu.
Comments
That can't be right can it? I'm sure I'm much more sexually developed now than what I was at 15! Well I hope so anyway!
That's funny!
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
No not yet, I'm sorry. I'm planning to have a look at it over the weekend at my brothers. He's got broadband and he's a bit of a computer nerd so he can smooth me through all the downloading and registering and stuff. I will read it and get back to you though. And about the NCC.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
I don't think you have to register if you use the link I posted.
I can't find the paper on pedophelia ephebophelia, I think the thread was deleted at some point and it was really hard to find it to begin with.
The fact is, this guy ALSO agreed to stay on at the University. It's just as possible the University was trying to give him a break, and he recognizes he needs one. To jump to a conclusion one way or another when you don't have any facts, I call personal bias.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I tried to get them from your post the other night but wasn't successful. I'm sure it's me! So I'm going to Doofus tomorrow and get him to get it for me. It'll be much easier and quicker with the broadband and he's used to having to help me besides it makes him feel superior!
I'll try and do a google search on the pedophelia ephebophelia and see what I get. But not tonight. It's 12.42am and I gotta be on the newsagents doorstep at 6am to try and get a copy of the Make Poverty History DVD. I'll definitely do my homework and get back to you. g'night:)
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
I know more about it than you do. He did the work with Richard Pillard. However, Pillard was never even investigated let alone slandered as such. Never mind, your mad at me. That's what this is about.
You are mad because I suggested you may have had a psychotic episode. But honestly? What did you expect when you trash-talk science because of a vision you had? People take psychoactive drugs like Salvia D and have lucid visions all the time.
Your friend has an interesting name. I don't think I'll adopt it if I ever have a son.
Yea, it's 8:48 A.M. here and I haven't slept yet. I guess I'm due too.
Then what's soulsingings reasoning for pointing out your bias? It's kinda obvious that you were using science to pull rank in this thread, and to back your opinions. You made such a fuss about your fact-based opinions and how the others had mere opinions without back-up. Therefore I can totally understand you grappling to keep the relevence of "your" science guy backed up to the hilt. That's fine, but I can't ignore what you are ignoring about the questions as to his methods, which were detailed in different parts in wikipedia. Specifically how he carried out a study or experiment is not part of a societal conspiracy--it's purely on him. He may or may not be "guilty". I'm just saying given what we know from wikipedia only, (not even regarding the complex link shmap provided) to assume one way or another seems biased to me, especially given that you have a obvious agenda of maintaining your "rightness" with your science "expertise" backing you.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
LOL!!! Doofus is my nickname for my brother! He hates it! Which is why I love it so much! Anyway g'night, its been interesting talking with you again. I'll read up on all the info and get back to you.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
The link that shmap posted was hardly complex. It was just pointing out that he was a target for his book. His research has never been discredited by anyone and is still available online. I don't hold shmap entirely responsible but it's just all distorted now. I think shmap was just trying to point out what a weird and bigoted guy Bailey is. I don't know. I don't see a need to discredit his work, especially when it is what it is.
Wrong. I have my own opinions of him, but I don't much care whether or not you agree. I wanted to post the website I found because it contains interesting information, from which you can form your own opinions about him. The page to which I'm now linking is basically a summary of the first. Much easier to read through: http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/j-michael-bailey.html
WTF? Where does it say his 1991 research that I cited is inaccurate?
All this is talking about is his stupid book and the stupid comments he makes.
Fuck, if I spent almost 20 years researching sexual orientation, I'd probably be pretty opinionated on it as well. I'm not agreeing with Bailey's opinions in any way.
I'm simply saying that the research done in 1991 shows some genetic influence on sexual orientation. Why is that such a crime?
I didn't say that the link would discuss that, did I? Seriously, stop jumping down my throat. You're being ridiculous.
You are confusing me. What was I wrong about?
http://www.psych.northwestern.edu/psych/people/faculty/bailey/controversy.htm#book
http://www.autogynephilia.org/
http://www.transkids.us/
You can also read portions of his book here
http://www.nap.edu/nap-cgi/skimit.cgi?isbn=0309084180&chap=55-84
That's fine and dandy. Many transsexuals don't agree with the points in his book, so what are you getting at?
I'm taking a break from this thread, you're making me out to be some Bailey-basher when all I'm trying to do is show you a different perspective from what you hold. I really don't appreciate your tone, so you can go attempt to ridicule someone else for a while.
Tone? Haha that's funny.
Dude, I cited research and then you said something about the researcher. I'm confused as hell, probably more than you.
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
All I can think is that anyone who thinks it's a choice must be bi-sexual themselves. If you think others chose their sexuality, does that mean that you chose yours? If you could just as easily choose one over the other, face it, you're bi.
I think people think it's a choice, because they think we have choice to begin with.
Hiya ahnimus, I gotta ask. Do you ever sleep?
Anyway I'm here at my (doofus) brother's house and apparently we couldn't download this one because the plug-in was not available. Gonna try for the other stuff now.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
I hardly sleep at all.
Yeah, I get that about you!;)
Downloaded the realtime player and had a quick look at the 1st HHI lecture but was booted off by my niece who had a major hissy fit. My bro has his computer/TV/Stereo/DVD/video all hooked up together so apparently I was inconveniently interupting her 4000 watch of BRUM!! (I'm such an evil Aunty) I'm gonna have another go at watching during the week while she's on nap time. I'll let you know.:)
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53327
Soy is making kids 'gay'
Posted: December 12, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern
There's a slow poison out there that's severely damaging our children and threatening to tear apart our culture. The ironic part is, it's a "health food," one of our most popular.
Now, I'm a health-food guy, a fanatic who seldom allows anything into his kitchen unless it's organic. I state my bias here just so you'll know I'm not anti-health food.
The dangerous food I'm speaking of is soy. Soybean products are feminizing, and they're all over the place. You can hardly escape them anymore.
I have nothing against an occasional soy snack. Soy is nutritious and contains lots of good things. Unfortunately, when you eat or drink a lot of soy stuff, you're also getting substantial quantities of estrogens.
Estrogens are female hormones. If you're a woman, you're flooding your system with a substance it can't handle in surplus. If you're a man, you're suppressing your masculinity and stimulating your "female side," physically and mentally.
In fetal development, the default is being female. All humans (even in old age) tend toward femininity. The main thing that keeps men from diverging into the female pattern is testosterone, and testosterone is suppressed by an excess of estrogen.
If you're a grownup, you're already developed, and you're able to fight off some of the damaging effects of soy. Babies aren't so fortunate. Research is now showing that when you feed your baby soy formula, you're giving him or her the equivalent of five birth control pills a day. A baby's endocrine system just can't cope with that kind of massive assault, so some damage is inevitable. At the extreme, the damage can be fatal.
Soy is feminizing, and commonly leads to a decrease in the size of the penis, sexual confusion and homosexuality. That's why most of the medical (not socio-spiritual) blame for today's rise in homosexuality must fall upon the rise in soy formula and other soy products. (Most babies are bottle-fed during some part of their infancy, and one-fourth of them are getting soy milk!) Homosexuals often argue that their homosexuality is inborn because "I can't remember a time when I wasn't homosexual." No, homosexuality is always deviant. But now many of them can truthfully say that they can't remember a time when excess estrogen wasn't influencing them.
Doctors used to hope soy would reduce hot flashes, prevent cancer and heart disease, and save millions in the Third World from starvation. That was before they knew much about long-term soy use. Now we know it's a classic example of a cure that's worse than the disease. For example, if your baby gets colic from cow's milk, do you switch him to soy milk? Don't even think about it. His phytoestrogen level will jump to 20 times normal. If he is a she, brace yourself for watching her reach menarche as young as seven, robbing her of years of childhood. If he is a boy, it's far worse: He may not reach puberty till much later than normal.
Research in 2000 showed that a soy-based diet at any age can lead to a weak thyroid, which commonly produces heart problems and excess fat. Could this explain the dramatic increase in obesity today?
Recent research on rats shows testicular atrophy, infertility and uterus hypertrophy (enlargement). This helps explain the infertility epidemic and the sudden growth in fertility clinics. But alas, by the time a soy-damaged infant has grown to adulthood and wants to marry, it's too late to get fixed by a fertility clinic.
Worse, there's now scientific evidence that estrogen ingredients in soy products may be boosting the rapidly rising incidence of leukemia in children. In the latest year we have numbers for, new cases in the U.S. jumped 27 percent. In one year!
There's also a serious connection between soy and cancer in adults – especially breast cancer. That's why the governments of Israel, the UK, France and New Zealand are already cracking down hard on soy.
In sad contrast, 60 percent of the refined foods in U.S. supermarkets now contain soy. Worse, soy use may double in the next few years because (last I heard) the out-of-touch medicrats in the FDA hierarchy are considering allowing manufacturers of cereal, energy bars, fake milk, fake yogurt, etc., to claim that "soy prevents cancer." It doesn't.
P.S.: Soy sauce is fine. Unlike soy milk, it's perfectly safe because it's fermented, which changes its molecular structure. Miso, natto and tempeh are also OK, but avoid tofu.
http://www.myspace.com/thelastreel http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=19604327965