4 thoughts on “scariest headline ever

  1. Very scary headline. Very odd article. Some points he had–yes, people who ingest soy tend to eat too much soy in general. Yes, there are some medical side effects for regular ingestion of very large doses. Interestingly, he did not state whether there are larger percentages of Chinese and Japanese homosexual men than in other places. It’s the homosexual angle that gets me. Not all gay men were the children of granola folks, and the upswing in soy products is relatively recent. But the thing that makes me not take it seriously is the “feminizing” angle. Whether or not he has a scientific merit to his claim (and I am sick and not in the mood to do the research, though I have read other articles which make similar claims) the fact that he’s using soy and “homosexual deviance” in the same article makes me disbelieve his claims, because he is obviously biased and therefore looking for data to support his claims. Sigh. Still, I learned from the site that Chuck Norris can write for any site he wants (according to the flash) and that made it all worthwhile.

  2. The author actually writes that “homosexuality is always deviant.” Which is a load of horseshit. Actually, he should preface that statement with “according to my ideology” because “research” shows that homosexuality has pretty much been around since the dawn of humanity. Here’s pretty much everything you need to know: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_human_sexuality (Holy crap someone spent a lot of time on this article!!)

    I seem to remember reading a study that was in Harvard Women’s Health Watch saying that soy didn’t give as much of an estrogen boost as was previously thougt, so the whole article might really, truly be a stinking pile of horseshit. Here is a link to another study: http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.nutr.24.101603.064950?cookieSet=1&journalCode=nutr that actually concludes: “Given the scarcity and inconsistency of existing human data and the substantial laboratory evidence of hormonal and other activity at doses relevant to the soy-fed infant, we conclude that more clinical and epidemiological study is warranted.” That was in 2004. So, no, the jury is not in, this author is jumping to simplified conclusions that handily support his ideology of how the world “should” be, rather than how it is.

    I call shenanigans!!!

  3. I liked that excess soy led to both reduced penis size AND homosexuality. Which makes some of the gay pr0n I’m aware of somewhat…counterintuitive?

    Aside from that, I think Karen’s points (and Deb’s as well) are right on. Too much soy isn’t great for little kids, but I’ve heard more along the lines that it causes girls to possibly reach puberty early than normal. But then so does a certain body fat percentage. I think this guy is just jumping to a conclusion that he really likes, actual science be damned.

Comments are closed.