Re: SOY: West Price Foundation Tragedy and Hype:

 So, you really do like a discussion H.

Your comment that...........
"Yes, which is why unlike you I actually read the studies"

Are you confrontational or what?

Based on your various past posts about me I could definitely ask the same thing of you.

So if you read the studies you actually linked then why was it that you did not know that so many of them touted the health benefits of soy while at the same time you made it sound like they were touting dangers of soy instead?  This is why I seriously doubt you read your own links.  And as I pointed out most of them were not even studies as you were claiming they were.

Wrong again: I do not rely on newspaper articles but the actual studies themselves. 

And again, how many of the references you gave as "evidence" were newspaper articles that you implied were "studies"?  Here is your quote again:

"Your opinion is noted, but many qualified health professionals agree that unfermented soy is a danger to health for one reason or another, and who have also relied on their conclusions from credible sources such as properly conducted studies: unless you would like to refute these......................."

And from those references include:

The Furrow

Wall Street Journal several times

 Denver Post

Reuters also several times

Nutrition Week

Africa News Service

New Zealand Herald

Cheese Market News

NEXUS Magazine

Natural Medicine News put out by a vitamin company

Honolulu Star-Bulletin

So are these medical or scientific journals?  NO, not even "Cheese Market News"!!!  Are they "properly" conducted studies?  Again, NO!!!  So you want me to refute newspaper and magazine articles that you are presenting as "evidence"?  And as I pointed out the actual references you posted from ACTUAL medical or science journals that I looked out were touting the health benefits of soy.  So you want me to refute the evidence that backs what I have been saying all along and that already refutes the health "professionals" that you are choosing to believe even though they have already been discredited in large part by your own references?

Picking and choosing would be a more accurate way of describing any results/conclusions to fit your own particular paradigm, or preconceived notions and dogma.

Again, I was not the one posting actual studies touting the health benefits of soy in your own post.  Just because you did not bother to read your own references before posting them is not my problem.

For example re' Diabetes WebMD. Unless you know better than Frank Hu, MD, MPH, PhD, nutrition and epidemiology professor at the Harvard School of Public Health, reports that the data on coffee and type 2 diabetes is "pretty solid," based on more than 15 published studies.

And I can find just as many studies showing how caffeine is bad for diabetes.  Not only does caffeine raise blood sugar and reduce insulin sensitivity, it also weakens the adrenals aggravating the autoimmune condition type 1 diabetes.  Caffeine also increases epinephrine output, which constricts blood vessels in diabetics that develop most of their side effects from impaired circulation and rupturing of micro blood vessels from insulin damage.  So the caffeine simply exacerbates the problem.  Then there are the anti-nutrient tannins in coffee that lock of magnesium and chromium needed to maintain proper insulin sensitivity.  There are the other anti-nutrients in coffee as well phytic acid and oxalic acid that your hero Mercola claim are "toxins" in soybeans.  The crashing of the adrenals by caffeine also increases inflammation and combined with the cholesterol raising effects of coffee this just further increases the risk of heart disease, especially in diabetics.

Ironically, you talk about picking and choosing studies, which is exactly what you are doing.  You mention 15 studies that you do not present for review, but instead choose one old study.  Not different studies that can verify or refute the findings since Hu has already presented what you want to hear and present yourself.

I looked up Hu's research articles from Harvard and they only list ONE study on the effects of coffee on diabetes from 2004.  So where are those other 14 studies so we can look at how they were done and if any of that research is current?  By the way, from the Harvard website where they are referring to Hu's research they state:

"The researchers note that caffeine, the best known ingredient in regular coffee, is known to raise blood sugar and increase energy expenditure in the short-term, but its long-term effects are not well understood."

This is why you need to be more careful about picking and choosing your "evidence" to fit your own particular paradigm, or preconceived notions and dogma Chris!!!