Mayo Clinic: Role of Soy in Promoting Heart Health Is 'Promising' As Research Continues on Benefits

[Guest guest]

Hi All,

 

Mayo Clinic:

Role of Soy in Promoting Heart Health Is 'Promising' As Research Continues on

Benefits

 

http://www.lef.org/news/nutrition/2001/11/20/pr/0000-1218-dc-mayo-soy-health.htm\

l

PR Newswire

November 20, 2001

 

WASHINGTON, Nov 20, 2001 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ --

Researchers don't yet know everything they'd like to know about how nutrition

affects your heart, the Mayo Clinic says,

but as research continues into the role of soyfoods, the " results appear

promising. "

 

In the latest edition of the " Mayo Clinic Heart Book, " physicians and staff at

Mayo note that in cultures where soy is

the main source of protein, such as the dietary intake of many Asian

populations, " rates of cardiovascular disease and

some kinds of cancers are low. "

 

Increasing evidence shows that isoflavones, which are found in soy, can play a

role in promoting health: " Research shows

that eating about an ounce (25 grams) of soy protein a day can reduce three

important numbers in your lipid profile by

about l0 percent, " the book's authors said.

 

The three " important numbers " are total cholesterol, LDL or " bad " cholesterol,

and triglycerides.

 

" Eating soy also may help improve your 'good' HDL cholesterol, " the Mayo Clinic

Heart Book recommends.

 

While researchers aren't yet sure exactly how soy may lower cholesterol and

triglycerides, the book says, " it's not

difficult to substitute soy foods for animal products that are high in saturated

fat and cholesterol. "

 

For example, the diet and health statistics of some Asian countries and peoples

are well-documented, the Mayo

publication said, and " there is enough reliable information available to show a

general pattern, " including various soy

foods in Asian diets.

 

The Mayo Clinic Heart Book suggests adding " several of these soy products " to

daily diets: Soybeans; tempeh and miso,

made from fermented soybeans; soy milk, soy flour, tofu, and textured soy

protein.

 

Soy sauce isn't recommended, Mayo said, because it doesn't contain healthful

amounts of soy and is high in sodium.

========================

 

Just be sure to get a bit of iodine to balance thyroid activity.

 

========================

Good Health & Long Life,

Greg Watson, gowatson

USDA database (food breakdown) http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/

PubMed (research papers) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi

DWIDP (nutrient analysis) http://www.walford.com/dwdemo/dw2b63demo.exe

KIM (omega analysis) http://ods.od.nih.gov/eicosanoids/KIM_Install.exe

[Guest guest]

Hi Greg,

_____________

Get the FREE email that has everyone talking at

http://www.mail2world.com

 

<>

>

> Greg Watson

> 11/22/2001 10:54:59 AM

> crsociety

> Mayo Clinic: Role of Soy in Promoting Heart

Health Is 'Promising' As Research

> Continues on Benefits

> In the latest edition of the " Mayo Clinic Heart Book, " physicians and

staff at Mayo note that in cultures

> where soy is

> the main source of protein, such as the dietary intake of many Asian

populations, " rates of

> cardiovascular disease and

> some kinds of cancers are low. "

 

*****But Japanese incidents of stomach cancer are higher.

 

..

 

 

> While researchers aren't yet sure exactly how soy may lower

cholesterol and triglycerides, the book

> says, " it's not

> difficult to substitute soy foods for animal products that are high in

saturated fat and cholesterol. "

 

******They really want to get us away from natural foods and cholesterol

is mostly bogus.

 

 

..

>

> The Mayo Clinic Heart Book suggests adding " several of these soy

products " to daily diets: Soybeans;

> tempeh and miso,

> made from fermented soybeans; soy milk, soy flour, tofu, and textured

soy protein.

 

******At least they stress fermented.

 

Not an Okinawan,

bubba

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

-

" the desert_rat " <ron

 

Thursday, November 22, 2001 1:20 PM

Re: Mayo Clinic: Role of Soy in Promoting Heart Health Is

'Promising' As Research Continues on

Benefits

 

 

> *****But Japanese incidents of stomach cancer are higher.

 

Cause by eating soy. No.

 

> ******They really want to get us away from natural foods and cholesterol

> is mostly bogus.

 

Who are the who want to get you away from eating natural foods? When were

veggies and fish not available?

 

> ******At least they stress fermented.

 

Sure, what form do you eat?

========================

Good Health & Long Life,

Greg Watson, gowatson

USDA database (food breakdown) http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/

PubMed (research papers) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi

DWIDP (nutrient analysis) http://www.walford.com/dwdemo/dw2b63demo.exe

KIM (omega analysis) http://ods.od.nih.gov/eicosanoids/KIM_Install.exe

[Guest guest]

Gettingwell, " Greg Watson " <gowatson@s...> wrote:

> Hi All,

>

> Mayo Clinic:

> Role of Soy in Promoting Heart Health Is 'Promising' As Research

Continues on Benefits

 

 

Dear Greg,

 

I do believe there are some benefits to eating a limited amount of

fermented, natural not genitecal engineeredly, soy.

 

Unfortunatly in the US not too much of this is available to consumers

unless they happen to have an oriental population and markets close by

and are familiar with these foods.

 

What is sold mainly in the market place here is genetically engineered

soy products added to refined foods, as fake foods like fake seafood

or burgers, or as a liquid milk. These products I am fearfull of

although I have eaten or drank of them in limited quantities in the

past. My thyriod started to not function fully, with the resultant low

tempurature. I stop taking them in and started taking liberal doses of

kelp and Iodine and it has since come up. Did it cause my thyriod

problem. I dont know for sure but suspect it did.

 

I do believe that the fermented and unfermented soy are quite

different substances although some nutritional information will be

similiar as one is made from the other.

 

Most of what I have found of soy in Asia is the fermented type.

 

As to research done on these products, I take it with a grain of salt

as so much fo our studies are conducted, paid for and engineered to

obtain a preassumed desired result.

 

This tilting the results of studies has become such a problem that the

medical journals (supported by the pharmacuetical industry) have

started to complain.

 

just my personal observations,

 

FRank

[Guest guest]

-

<califpacific

 

Thursday, November 22, 2001 2:42 PM

Re: Mayo Clinic: Role of Soy in Promoting Heart Health Is

'Promising' As Research Continues on

Benefits

 

 

> Dear Greg,

>

> I do believe there are some benefits to eating a limited amount of

> fermented, natural not genitecal engineeredly, soy.

 

I agree and luckly in OZ the soy we get is GM free.

 

> What is sold mainly in the market place here is genetically engineered

> soy products added to refined foods, as fake foods like fake seafood

> or burgers, or as a liquid milk. These products I am fearfull of

> although I have eaten or drank of them in limited quantities in the

> past. My thyriod started to not function fully, with the resultant low

> tempurature. I stop taking them in and started taking liberal doses of

> kelp and Iodine and it has since come up. Did it cause my thyriod

> problem. I dont know for sure but suspect it did.

 

It may have done so, depending on how much soy you consumed. Again in the Asian

where soy originated, iodine rich foods

are normally eaten with soy.

 

> As to research done on these products, I take it with a grain of salt

> as so much fo our studies are conducted, paid for and engineered to

> obtain a preassumed desired result.

 

The beauty of PubMed is the research is the original (not modified for popular

press), from many nations and many

researchers. Don't think anyone could buy them all off.

 

Hi Frank,

 

I understand your point and do have some concerns there myself. However PubMed

is the least biased source there is.

========================

Good Health & Long Life,

Greg Watson, gowatson

USDA database (food breakdown) http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/

PubMed (research papers) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi

DWIDP (nutrient analysis) http://www.walford.com/dwdemo/dw2b63demo.exe

KIM (omega analysis) http://ods.od.nih.gov/eicosanoids/KIM_Install.exe

[Guest guest]

Gettingwell, " Greg Watson " <gowatson@s...> wrote:

> -

> <califpacific>

> <Gettingwell>

> Thursday, November 22, 2001 2:42 PM

> Re: Mayo Clinic: Role of Soy in Promoting

Heart Health Is 'Promising' As Research Continues on

> Benefits

>

>

 

> The beauty of PubMed is the research is the original (not modified

for popular press), from many nations and many

> researchers. Don't think anyone could buy them all off.

>

> Hi Frank,

>

> I understand your point and do have some concerns there myself.

However PubMed is the least biased source there is.

> ========================

> Good Health & Long Life,

> Greg Watson, gowatson@s...

 

Dear Greg,

 

I dont think they would do anything so crass as to buy anyone off.

They do it better than that. They rig the game from the start.

 

Here is one article, there are quite a few others.

 

The pharma makers, the food industry, and others are usually almost

always the ones funding the studies to start with. Even if it is done

at a university or hospital.

 

 

 

Health Matters issue 43 Winter 2000/01

Buying science, selling drugs

 

http://www.healthmatters.org.uk/stories/morgan.html

 

Steve Morgan, Morris Barer and Robert Evans explain how drug

companies systematically manipulate scientific research in pursuit of

profit.

 

According to standard economic theory the behavior of private firms

is driven by the desire to make as much money as possible. For drug

companies, which have extraordinarily high fixed costs and low

variable costs of production, the route to profitability is through

sales.

 

At least part of the selling process in the pharmaceutical industry

involves creating and disseminating scientific evidence about the

merits of a product.

In an ideal world, corporate investment in clinical research would

facilitate prescribing decisions based on objective evaluations of

scientific evidence on safety, efficacy and cost-effectiveness.

Reality, alas, intrudes.

 

Pharmaceutical companies are not educational charities, investing in

disinterested product evaluation. Science and objectivity are of

interest to a private, for-profit corporation only insofar as they

further the drive for profits. In fact, to the discomfort of many

economists, economic theory does not rule out destroying scientific

information or producing false information as a means of pursuing the

profit objective, just as it does not rule out contaminating the

environment, using child labor or selling known carcinogens.

 

Consider, for example, the long and sordid history of the tobacco

industry.

 

In the pharmaceutical sector, it may be profitable for a firm to

promote bias in the creation, evaluation and dissemination of

information so as to encourage sales – provided that such

behavior is either undetected or carries penalties that are outweighed

by its profit potential.

 

The picture that has emerged from the clinical sciences

overwhelmingly suggests that such practices are profitable because

they routinely occur in the pharmaceutical industry.1 Despite

scientific pretences, drug companies have injected various forms of

bias into virtually every aspect of the product evaluation process.

 

They begin at the front line, courting practising physicians

– most notoriously by proffering gifts: complimentary meals,

travel, gifts and entertainment all have a documented impact on

prescribing, increasing the use of the sponsor's products regardless

of appropriateness.2,3 If gifts and other inducements did not affect

prescribing behaviour, economic theory (and common sense) predicts

that they would not be offered.

 

Not every physician accepts gifts and not all of those who accept

them are influenced. Further, even physicians most likely to believe

drug manufacturers' promotional claims will also be influenced by

other sources of information. For, along with other potentially

competing interests, the physician's primary duty of trust is to the

patient. This makes it imperative for drug companies to influence, to

whatever extent they profitably can, the ostensibly non-promotional

sources of drug-related information.

 

Medical associations have long been a third-party source of

drug-related information for prescribers. Prescribing information,

cautions, and guidelines disseminated under the auspices of medical

associations carry the implicit scientific credibility that such

endorsement brings a “so drug companies have invested tremendous

resources in marketing activities channelled through medical

associations. In the process, drug-makers have allied the medical

profession as a whole just as they have allied individual

physicians. Through grants, advertising and other sources of financial

support, medical associations are heavily reliant on the

pharmaceutical industry as a source of funding, placing the

associations in an obvious conflict of interest.4-7

 

Despite the fact that virtually every systematic review of the

content and impact of drug advertising confirms that it is of dubious

information value,3,4 the financial gains from permitting advertising

have proved too strong for associations and their journals to resist.

Through medical associations, drug companies fund continuing medical

education programmes, consensus conferences, scientific meetings and

prescribing guideline development. As economic theory would predict,

the result is educational events that systematically favour the

sponsor's products.8,9

 

Not only do firms influence the process by which evidence is

disseminated “putting their 'spin' on whatever the findings may be

“they also influence how the evidence is created in the first place.

If investment in clinical sciences can be orchestrated in a way that

generates favourable findings “which, in turn, generate more sales

“economic theory predicts that firms will so orchestrate their

investments. And indeed, using financial, contractual and legal means,

drug manufacturers retain a degree of control over clinical research

far greater than most people realize.

 

The most obvious mechanisms through which the evidence can be biased

occur in drug trials sponsored by corporations.10 Trial sponsors

commonly control the research question, selection of patients, and

other means to control the evaluation. Combined, these have

documented effects on empirical findings.

 

Clinical trials funded by drug companies are more likely than

non-industry funded trials to generate 'scientific evidence' that

favours the funding company's product, and the data is more

favourably interpreted by those with financial ties to related drug

companies.11

 

Drug companies are also very careful about what aspects of their

studies reach the public domain.12,13 Since the clinical data

generated by industry-funded drug trials is proprietary, it is seldom

open to competitive or public scrutiny. Secrecy, however, is the

antithesis of good, transparent science. It not only undermines the

external review processes for studies that are 'made public', but it

also engenders reporting biases because positive results are more

likely to get published and are frequently published multiple

times.13-15 The evidence put before the public is far rosier than the

actual experiences of test subjects would suggest.

 

Hospitals and universities have too often tacitly acquiesced to such

practices by permitting contract-based research on terms inimical to

good science and patients' interests.16 It should not be surprising,

in a time of declining public funding, that universities and hospitals

are willing to accept research contracts with strict disclosure and

confidentiality clauses and/or methodological flaws. Pharmaceutical

companies are a major source of revenue upon which hospitals and

universities increasingly depend.

 

In addition to fees paid on contract for specific studies, drug

companies give large corporate grants to public institutions. These

for-profit firms do not engage in hand-outs without reasons tied,

directly or indirectly, back to the corporate bottom line. Gifts to

public institutions from a drug company raises that company's image

and serves as a means through which it can influence the decisions of

universities and hospitals.

 

Even when drug companies are not the sponsors of research studies,

they use lawsuits and other means to influence what is studied and

what is reported. Legal threats, regardless of their merit, are

increasingly being used as a means by which the drug industry

silences recalcitrant researchers.17-21

 

Lawsuits significantly raise the anticipated costs of conducting and

publishing clinical research that yield results 'unfriendly' to the

objectives of manufacturers.

 

Even if individual researchers under legal attack win in the courts,

they lose considerable time, energy and money, and are put at a

disadvantage in research competitions with their peers.17,20 Other

researchers note this. It is hard to gauge how much critical research

is 'chilled' as a result, but such chilling is a plausible company

objective “'punish one to teach a thousand'.

 

Evidence-biased medicineDrug companies have also launched legal

actions against those who conduct independent evaluations and publish

clinical guidelines.

 

In 1997, Bristol-Myers Squibb sought an injunction to prevent the

Canadian Coordinating Office of Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA)

from releasing a summary report on drugs to lower blood cholesterol.

 

They were unsuccessful at trial, and on appeal, and received a

judicial rebuke. But they effectively shut down CCOHTA for a year and

drained its budget. Meanwhile they preserved their leading market

position, generating revenues that undoubtedly more than covered their

legal expenses.

 

Increasingly, the industry is simply leaving the academics behind by

having drug trials designed, managed and reported by private,

for-profit contract research organisations. In 1991, academic centres

accounted for 80 per cent of industry-funded clinical trials; in 1998

they accounted for only 40 per cent.22-24 Private research firms

picked up the difference. The ostensible reason for this change is

that private firms can conduct research more quickly than

universities and hospitals. This is clearly of interest to firms

who wish to get the maximum number of market days out of their

fixed-term patents.

 

But a second advantage of contract research is that the firm can

retain complete control over questions, methods, data and

publications, without hindrance from academic review processes. While

academic researchers and clinicians may still be involved, no

individual will have sufficient grasp of the overall project to be

able to question methods or see warning signs in data coming in from

all participating centres.

 

Professional medical writers frequently write up the results of

privately contracted research. The articles are then published under

the names of prominent researchers or clinicians paid a fee for

reviewing the manuscript and attaching their names. The practice of

ghost-written papers published under 'honorary' authorships has become

so pervasive, and the belief that this reduces accountability for

research is so strong, that some medical journals now require that

authors list their contribution to the research.25

 

Using profit-making organisations to conduct research on behalf of

drug companies, and using public relations firms to put media 'spin'

on the results and coordinate their publication, completes the process

by which the industry has infiltrated every stage of the modern

research enterprise. Faced with this infiltration, patient welfare and

scientific process are simply overwhelmed by the profit objective of

the pharmaceutical companies. Private practitioners have become

more-than-willing pawns in this process, often putting their own

financial and academic interests ahead of their patients'

interests. In the private, contract-based research setting, data

gathering is conducted by ordinary practising physicians.22-24 The

fees paid for enlisting patients in these studies, together with

bonuses for meeting recruitment targets and deadlines, can amount to

hundreds of thousands of dollars a year.24 In this context the notion

of supplier-induced demand takes on a whole new complexion.

Inappropriate treatment occurring under heavy financial incentives

appears to be a form of 'collateral damage' acceptable to the

doctors, contract research organisations and funding drug companies.

 

Contract research for profit is a recent development, but all the

other marketing practices described above are decades old.

Documentation of attempts to generate biased clinical evidence for

marketing purposes dates back decades. As early as the mid-1950s,

public commissions of inquiry in Canada, the US and the UK all

received testimonies of industry efforts to introduce bias into the

prescribing process, not only by the ubiquitous practice of giving

gifts and other benefits to prescribing physicians, but through

financing articles in journals intended for prescribing doctors, and

influencing their content.26-28

 

Then, as now, drug companies: sponsored drug trials; hand-picked

investigators depending on the degree of quality needed (for example,

picking young investigators of little or no reputation to study the

more dubious drugs); discouraged the publication of unfavourable

results; used multiple trials at different centres to raise awareness

of a drug before its market launch; and published results multiple

times (both before and after the drug's launch) so as to hamper those

searching for scientific evidence.

 

As Yale political scientist Ted Marmor has noted, 'Nothing that is

regular is stupid.' These practices are profitable.

References1. Barer ML, McGrail KM et al (eds) (2000) Tales From the

Other Drug Wars: Proceedings from the 12th Annual Health Policy

Conference. Centre for

Health Services and Policy Research, UBC. www.chspr.ubc.ca [26

September 2000]

 

2. Wazana A. (2000) Physicians and the pharmaceutical industry: Is a

gift ever just a gift? JAMA; 283 (3): 373–280.

 

3. Lexchin J. (1993) Interactions between physicians and the

pharmaceutical industry: what does the literature say? Can Med Assoc

J; 149 (10): 1401“1407.

 

4. Guyatt G. (1994) Academic medicine and the pharmaceutical industry:

a cautionary tale. Can Med Assoc J; 150(6): 951-953.

 

5. Glassman PA et al (1999) Pharmaceutical advertising revenue and

physician organizations: how much is too much? Est J Med; 171 (4):

234“238.

 

6. Mabin DC. (1995) BMJ should declare its own conflict of interest.

BMJ;311 : 878.

 

7. Ubel PA, et al (1995) Acceptance of external funds by physician

organizations: issues and policy options. J Gen Intern Med; 10:

624“630.

 

8. Sheldon TA, Smith GD. (1993) Consensus conferences as drug

promotion. The Lancet; 341 (8837): 100 “103.

 

9. Spingarn RW, Berlin JA, Strom BL. (1996) When pharmaceutical

manufacturers' employees present grand rounds, what do residents

remember? Acad Med; 71: 86“88.

 

10. Bero LA, Rennie D. (1996) Influences on the Quality of Public Drug

Studies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 12 (2): 209-237.

 

11. Brill-Edwards M. (2000) Canada's Health Protection Branch: Whose

Health, What Protection? In Tales From the Other Drug Wars:

Proceedings from the 12th Annual Health Policy Conference, Barer ML,

McGrail KM et al. (eds.) Centre for Health Services and Policy

Research, UBC 2000; www.chspr.ubc.ca [26 September 2000]

 

12. Wahlbeck K, Adams C. (1999) Beyond conflict of interest: Sponsored

drug trials show more-favourable outcomes. BMJ; 318 (7181): 465.

 

13. Rosenberg SA. (1996) Secrecy in medical research. N Engl J Med;

334 (6): 392“4.

 

14. Rennie D. (1999) Fair conduct and fair reporting of clinical

trials. JAMA; 282 (18): 1766-1768.

 

15. Johansen HK, Gotxche PC. (1999) Problems in the design and

reporting of trials of antifungal agents encountered during

meta-analysis. JAMA; 282 (18): 1752“1759.

 

16. Angell M. (2000) Is academic medicine for sale? N Engl J Med; 342

(20): 1516-1518.

 

17. Shuchman M. (2000) Consequences of blowing the whistle in medical

research. Ann Intern Med; 132 (12): 1013“1014

 

18. Hemminiki E, Hailey D, Koivusalo M. (1999) The courts “a

challenge to health technology assessment. Science; 285 (5425):

203“204.

 

19. Hailey D. (2000) Scientific harassment by pharmaceutical

companies: time to stop. Can Med Assoc J; 162 (2): 212“213.

 

20. Evans RG. (2000) Uses and abuses of research and the research

process. In Barer ML, McGrail KM et al. (eds) Tales From the Other

Drug Wars: Proceedings from the 12th Annual Health Policy Conference.

Centre for Health Services and Policy Research, UBC 2000;

www.chspr.ubc.ca [26 September 2000]

 

21. Rich P. (1999) Re-evaluating guidelines: clash between researcher

and drug company shows need for further clarification of the process.

Medical Post; 25 (41): cover, 64.

 

22. Rettig R. (2000) The industrialization of clinical research.

Health Affairs; 19 (2): 129“146.

 

23. Bodenheimer T. (2000) Uneasy alliance clinical investigators and

the pharmaceutical industry. N Engl J Med; 342 (29): 1539.

 

24. Eichenwald K, Kolata G. (1999) Drug trials hide conflicts for

doctors. New York Times; May 16, 1999.

 

25. Rennie D, Flanagin A, Yank V. (2000) The contribution of authors.

JAMA; 284 (1): 89“91.

 

26. Lang RW. (1974) The Politics of Drugs: A comparative

pressure-group study of the Canadian Pharmaceutical Manufacturers

Association and the Association of the British Pharmaceutical

Industry. England: Saxon House.

 

27. Temin P. (1980) Taking Your Medicine: Drug Regulation in the

United States. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

 

28. Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (1963) Report Concerning

the Manufacture, Distribution and Sale of Drugs. Ottawa: Queen's

Printer. Steve Morgan, Morris Barer and Robert Evans are academics at

the <A HREF= " http://www.chspr.ubc.ca/ " >Centre for Health Services and

Policy Research</A>, University of British Columbia.

[Guest guest]

Frank said:

" I dont think they would do anything so crass as to buy anyone off.

They do it better than that. They rig the game from the start.

 

Here is one article, there are quite a few others.

 

The pharma makers, the food industry, and others are usually almost

always the ones funding the studies to start with. Even if it is done

at a university or hospital. "

 

Frank, I appreciate your point and you may very well be correct. However,

how do I know that the folks putting out all the negative reports on Soy are

not also bought off? In this case by the powerful Meat and Dairy industry. I

have seen some of their research and continue to be astounded by how

outlandish and incorrect it is.

 

Ken

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hi Greg,

No i don't think the higher rate of stomach cancer is related to soy any

more than i attribute their lack of some of the more prevalent western

diseases.

 

Who are the they? You Aussies really got to bone up on your conspiracy

facts.

Our FDA, AMA and one world gov't. movement will get you too.

 

Ahh veggies and fish. I do envy you your access to those.

Mine come by truck from a chemicaly fertilized farm to a central

warehouse and then to a local warehouse and then to the supermarket

shelf. And yes most of the grain fed fish comes from fish farms.

 

Got room for one more down there? I wish i could transplant meself.

_____________

Get the FREE email that has everyone talking at

http://www.mail2world.com

 

<>

>

> Greg Watson

> 11/22/2001 2:15:14 PM

> Gettingwell

> Re: Mayo Clinic: Role of Soy in Promoting Heart

Health Is 'Promising' As

> Research Continues on Benefits

>

> -

> " the desert_rat "

> To:

> Thursday, November 22, 2001 1:20 PM

> Re: Mayo Clinic: Role of Soy in Promoting Heart

Health Is 'Promising' As

> Research Continues on

> Benefits

>

>

> > *****But Japanese incidents of stomach cancer are higher.

>

> Cause by eating soy. No.

>

> > ******They really want to get us away from natural foods and

cholesterol

> > is mostly bogus.

>

> Who are the who want to get you away from eating natural foods? When

were veggies and fish not

> available?

>

> > ******At least they stress fermented.

>

> Sure, what form do you eat?

> ========================

> Good Health & Long Life,

> Greg Watson, gowatson

> USDA database (food breakdown) http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/

> PubMed (research papers) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi

> DWIDP (nutrient analysis) http://www.walford.com/dwdemo/dw2b63demo.exe

> KIM (omega analysis) http://ods.od.nih.gov/eicosanoids/KIM_Install.exe

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Greg,

They got at least halfway round.

 

> -

>

> To:

> Thursday, November 22, 2001 6:11 PM

> Re: Mayo Clinic: Role of Soy in Promoting Heart

Health Is 'Promising' As

> Research Continues on

> Benefits

>

>

> Dear Greg,

>

> I dont think they would do anything so crass as to buy anyone off.

> They do it better than that. They rig the game from the start.

>

> Hi,

>

> I find that by actually reading 1,000's of papers and having a good

scientific / medical background you

> can sort the

> wheat from the chaff. Highly biased studies stand out like a beacon.

>

> And you can't get to the whole world.

> ========================

_____________

Get the FREE email that has everyone talking at

http://www.mail2world.com

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

-

<califpacific

 

Thursday, November 22, 2001 6:11 PM

Re: Mayo Clinic: Role of Soy in Promoting Heart Health Is

'Promising' As Research Continues on

Benefits

 

 

Dear Greg,

 

I dont think they would do anything so crass as to buy anyone off.

They do it better than that. They rig the game from the start.

 

Hi,

 

I find that by actually reading 1,000's of papers and having a good scientific /

medical background you can sort the

wheat from the chaff. Highly biased studies stand out like a beacon.

 

And you can't get to the whole world.

========================

Good Health & Long Life,

Greg Watson, gowatson

USDA database (food breakdown) http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/

PubMed (research papers) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi

DWIDP (nutrient analysis) http://www.walford.com/dwdemo/dw2b63demo.exe

KIM (omega analysis) http://ods.od.nih.gov/eicosanoids/KIM_Install.exe