This is what the study said, as I read it "Estrogen dependant tumour promotion" I take that to mean potentially causing an increase in tumours. Please explain if there is a different interpretation, I've read it multiple times because I thought I had misread.The isoflavones showed all pure ER agonistic activity. Thus, these compounds should be regarded as potentially estrogenic and, consequently, as potential endocrine disruptors that may cause elevated cell proliferation leading to estrogen-dependent tumor promotion
By the way, what was the purpose of those two video links, painfully I endured the full 30 min to hear nothing of any value, I have some financial experience and hence already looked at the WAPF returns, I was hoping to see something I missed, but there was nothing. The returns are typical of any non profit organisations, many of these organisations have rich people sitting on the Board and the directors run many different businesses, this doesn't make them criminal in any way.
They do promote grass fed beef and raw dairy, they also promote all free range farming and all organic produce, that's what they do, thats what Weston A Price was about, I don't agree with all their nutritional practices, but that doesn't make them sinister.
You have been shown enough studies that show that Dietary Soy can have negative consequences, just because you have shown other studies that didn't have the same outcomes doesn't mean it is safe, only that more detailed studies are needed.
For whatever reason, you refuse to accept that consuming Soy can have any negative consequences and you simply dismiss any dissenting data, there have been studies posted that show a number of negative outcomes which you refuse to give any due consideration.
I take on board the entire Phytoestrogen, Xenoestrogen & Estrogen in beef stories and have learned a lot more about Soy along this journey, and will be much more wary of ensuring greater dietary variety, but am not convinced in the least bit that Soy consumption should form a significant part of anyones diet, there are still too many questions about it's effects in the body.
I like to learn and as much as possible I have followed up your links and those posted by others to have a read and I have read the entire discourse on this thread, maybe you don't see it as you do seem to be a very prolific poster, but you do seem to read others out of context often and your replies come across as quite dismissive, to posts which I, and I believe others as well, considered to have some merit to the discussion.
I suppose what I'm saying is that it seems you have taken a very clear debating position that Soy is Unilaterally healthy and will not be swayed by any information to the contrary.
I have to say I was swaying a bit early in the piece, thinking maybe I had been too tough on Soy, but discovering new information to the negative confirmed that Soy will not be presented on my dinner table, but a wider variety of other foods will.