# Soy article in Mothering



## Jay Gordon MD (Mar 12, 2004)

The Soy article was riddled with inaccuracies, exaggerations and absurdities (Soy comparable to DES?? Next thing you know someone will be trying to scare us into believing our children need cow's milk.)

The marijuana article was irresponsible, unscientific and ignores mountains of data (and common sense) stating that these chemicals take residence in a fetus' developing brain.

The average America child's diet is stunningly worse and more dangerous than that of even a three time/day soy eating child's.

Marijuana is a ubiquitous drug which must be shunned by pregnant and lacating women.

Peggy, what were you thinking?

Jay


----------



## Quirky (Jun 18, 2002)

Hey, glad to see you back!









I agree, I thought those articles were wacky. I've given gift subscriptions of Mothering to my more mainstream friends in the hopes of influencing them positively, and now I'm afraid they'll throw AP out the window as kookiness.


----------



## alie (Jan 1, 2003)

I have to agree. I am cancelling my sub to mothering. I am all for alternative care and viewpoints, but the marijuana article is just-well, substandard journalism to be frank. It's a little too far afield. The soy article was hmmm, extreme to my mind. But that's the dilemma; in the world of "mainstream" thinkers, mothering is trying to offer another view. But sometimes they go too far and are offensive.


----------



## UrbanPlanter (Nov 14, 2003)

Have you seen this thread about the soy article?
http://mothering.com/discussions/sho...d.php?t=138115


----------



## *Erin* (Mar 18, 2002)

glad i'm not the only one who felt that way. i thought the soy article in particular was horrible. lots of disinformation, slanted research, scare tactics. soy formula for babies is a bad idea, i agree with that much, but whoa...as far as the cannibis article, well, my two main problems with that were that it was poorly written, and that the mother got her marijuana from street dealers. imo, in that situation, small amounts of (certified medical )marijuana, smoked in a pipe, would be better than the prescription drug alternatives. but that's another thread, right?


----------



## Jay Gordon MD (Mar 12, 2004)

Erin--

As you've said, a small amount of certified marijuana might be a better treatment for certain ailments than MANY prescription medicines. But, suggesting that it is OK to toke while pregnant is unworthy of "Mothering"--the finest magazine of the planet.

I'm assuming that Peggy and her otherwise superb editorial staff will somehow retract this junk.

I believe I am down to only three "Mothering" subscriptions for home and office but will now increase that as a show of support. Everybody makes mistakes.

Jay


----------



## alie (Jan 1, 2003)

ok, maybe i wont cxl my sub to mothering. BUT I have found of late, a kind of neo-liberalism that is a little annoying. Its the opposite end of the neo con spectrum, but so similar in its extreme polarisation of issues. I tend to be moderate-middle road, though liberal. Anyway, debate and discussion are beneficial. So I guess I will keep my sub...still a little upset but mollified.


----------



## EnviroBecca (Jun 5, 2002)

Check out this study of marijuana use by Jamaican mothers published by the American Academy of Pediatrics. A summary of the findings:

"Exposed and nonexposed neonates were compared at 3 days and 1 month old, using the Brazelton Neonatal Assessment Scale, including supplementary items to capture possible subtle effects. There were no significant differences between exposed and nonexposed neonates on day 3. At 1 month, the exposed neonates showed better physiological stability and required less examiner facilitation to reach organized states. The neonates of heavy-marijuana-using mothers had better scores on autonomic stability, quality of alertness, irritability, and self-regulation and were judged to be more rewarding for caregivers. The absence of any differences between the exposed on nonexposed groups in the early neonatal period suggest that the better scores of exposed neonates at 1 month are traceable to the cultural positioning and social and economic characteristics of mothers using marijuana that select for the use of marijuana but also promote neonatal development."

In other words, the apparent POSITIVE effects of prenatal marijuana exposure are probably caused by lurking variables. But please consider that studies that show negative effects of prenatal marijuana exposure are conducted on different populations, where different lurking variables may be causing the negative effects.

I haven't read the Mothering article, but this thread has inspired me to go buy the magazine!


----------



## BusyMommy (Nov 20, 2001)

Yea Peggy!
Thanks for daring to speak your mind







I appreciate your POV even though it's not mainsteam America. Parenting magazine is always available as an antidote. :LOL


----------



## ja mama (Sep 6, 2003)

How do you get around the fact she toked up before doing any research. Then found research to back up her decision?

No matter what the reality of science is, whether the risks outweigh the benefit or not, that one fact taints the whole story.


----------



## slightly crunchy (Jul 7, 2003)

Thank you!






























I really enjoy Mothering but with this issue I was ready to cancel my subscription, too. I won't do it because I just like the magazine too much overall!

But, this issue, and a couple of articles sometime back...phew! really stunk from a scientific POV.


----------



## ChristaN (Feb 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *slightly crunchy*
Thank you!






























I really enjoy Mothering but with this issue I was ready to cancel my subscription, too. I won't do it because I just like the magazine too much overall!

But, this issue, and a couple of articles sometime back...phew! really stunk from a scientific POV.

I'm curious b/c I probably haven't been reading enough of the recent issues throughly enough, but I have heard a few comments from others about other recent issues having questionable articles. I totally agree about this issue b/c I did read it well & found, especially the soy article, to be poorly researched. I am wondering if I ought to go back to some of my other recent mags & check out those articles! Are there some other specific articles that you found to have inaccurate info?


----------



## candiland (Jan 27, 2002)

Peggy did not run an article that states it is okay to smoke mj for recreational purposes during pregnancy.

Or have I lost my mind?

My reading comprehension must be, well, "compromised"........... because what I got from the article is that mj can be a SAFER alternative than dealing with severe hyperemesis. If it helps a woman eat well - or at all - during a pregnancy complicated by SEVERE hyperemesis........... than the benefits clearly outweigh the risks that are posed to both mother and child.

What is so complicated about this idea?

I am baffled.







:


----------



## candiland (Jan 27, 2002)

As for the "soy" article.... it made a lot of sense. However, I have not researched this topic for myself, and I may draw very different conclusions. We shall see.

However, Dr. Gordon, this statement confused me:

"The average America child's diet is stunningly worse and more dangerous than that of even a three time/day soy eating child's."

Why compare apples to oranges?

It's not like mommas who feed their children a lot of soy products - like myself - are suddenly going to say "Oh, no! If I don't feed my child soy products regularly, I fear I will have to supplement with vast amounts of McDonald's and hormone-laden meat products!"

I hope you don't take my messages personally, Dr. Jay; you have your right to your opinion on this issue, as do I. I respect your opinions, I just don't agree with them.


----------



## cynthia mosher (Aug 20, 1999)

Dr. Gordon I have edited the title of this thread to comply with our User Agreement for appropriate posting.

Welcome back! Please do offer your own research findings that would refute these articles you take issue with. I'm sure our community would be interested in what you have to say.


----------



## Momtezuma Tuatara (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jay Gordon, MD*
The Soy article was riddled with inaccuracies, exaggerations and absurdities (Soy comparable to DES?? Next thing you know someone will be trying to scare us into believing our children need cow's milk.)

I haven't got that issue yet, but given the class action in this country that is going ahead, from all the babies fed soy-formula on paediatrician's advice, who have severe stunted growth and other hormonal problems, I think any paediatrician who suggests soy-formula should think again.

Quote:

The marijuana article was irresponsible, unscientific and ignores mountains of data (and common sense) stating that these chemicals take residence in a fetus' developing brain..... Marijuana is a ubiquitous drug which must be shunned by pregnant and lacating women.
I agree that marijuana should never be taken by a pregnant or breastfeeding mother. But that is my persona bias, because I don't believe that pregnant/breastfeeding mothers are acting in the best interests of their children taking things like antibiotics, paracetamol, ... oh a whole raft of prescription pad drugs --- or anything in the form of any other sort of recreational drugs.

Quote:

The average America child's diet is stunningly worse and more dangerous than that of even a three time/day soy eating child's.
Well, all the babies fed on cow's formula, while the others drank soy formula, didn't end up stunted and with health problems. But yes, I agree that much of what I have seen in the USA that passes for nutrition is heading the USA further down the road of chronic illnesses, and high levels of juvenile delinquency. But again, that is opinion from what I see, not based on fact

Quote:

Peggy, what were you thinking?

Jay
I guess that is the way she sees it.

The fact is, that much of what is written in medical journals, makes me want to say the same.

Especially when 30 years down the line, the medical people are consistently proven to be wrong.

You are right. Everyone makes mistakes. But not everyone feels that what they say is a mistake.

The biggest bearers of medical mistakes, both in the literature, and in medical practice, lie right at the medical profession's doorstep, Jay.


----------



## starrynight (Jan 10, 2002)

I've been reading Mothering magazine for a few years now, and while I like the AP slant of the magazine, I'm noticing more and more that after I read an issue I don't feel like I'm getting good information. So many of the articles strike me as biased or alarmist. This last issue was one of the worst in that regard. I thought the soy article was written with the intention of upsetting people and _not_ with the intention of providing good balanced information. The marijuana article I thought was just plain bizarre. I mean buying a street drug to help with severe hyperemesis?

I'm keeping my subscription in the hopes that things will improve, though I'm just going to let it lapse if they don't.


----------



## Cajunmomma (Nov 21, 2001)

I agree with Cynthia. One of the things I most approve of with Mothering magazine is that the articles may not necessarily simply restate my own opinions, but they always provoke thought.

The whole medical marijuana debate has been raging for a long time, and people are welcome to hold any position. However, it is never a bad idea IMHO to be familiar with the other side. Besides, many of the drugs prescribed for pregnant women are untested in pregnant women. While street drugs are certainly a risk, if they are the only treatment that works for a given disorder, does the government give the patient any alternative?

As for the soy article, I am certainly not an expert on soy (especially since I don't use large quantities of it). But if there are questions about it, why should those questions not be brought up for the readers of Mothering? Are they any less valid than questions about surgical or medicated births, which everyone seems to accept as run of the mill?

That Mothering is willing to run the risk of losing readership by questioning the alternative "gospel" only makes it that much more valuable a resource. I hope they neither retract the article nor change an editorial policy which allowed it to run in the first place.


----------



## *Erin* (Mar 18, 2002)

alie said
"BUT I have found of late, a kind of neo-liberalism that is a little annoying. Its the opposite end of the neo con spectrum, but so similar in its extreme polarisation of issues. I tend to be moderate-middle road, though liberal."

huh?

dr jay, i think you are one of our countries pediatric superstars, and i'd jump up and down if i lived close enough for you to be my daughter's doctor







BUT
i still say that certified, medical grade, clean marijuana is a much safer option for a pregnant or lactating mother than many of the pharacuetical alternatives~i don't advocate any sort of mind altering substance use during pregnancy or lactation, for myself or for anyone else, but in an extreme circumstance, like the woman in the article, i think i could let it slide. i do take extreme issue with the fact that she would buy street marijuana, though. noone can be sure what is in that stuff, or who grew it and what it was grown with. that's a really really irresponsible thing to have done. i don't see how marijuana could be healthy, esp during pregnancy. when it's smoked, you're inhaling carcinogins! that's not good!

i think maybe mothering should clarify that they are not advocating the use of STREET drugs;i'd hate for a pregnant woman suffering with crippling nausea to read that and think it was somehow safe or ok to call up some random drug dealer and get a dime bag. *rolling my eyes*


----------



## Meiri (Aug 31, 2002)

I think the soy article brought up good questions. That it was even asking the questions in the first place was groundbreaking at a time when one cannot even buy a loaf of bread or beef hotdogs without checking the ingredients list first to make sure soy hasn't been gratutitiously added. I wish it had been more informative and less inflamatory too, but at least the questions are starting to be asked!

I think this country's blanket dimissal of marijuana as a legal medication for the conditions for which it can be helpful is stupid. Morphine derives from the same plant as certain illegal drugs, but that isn't being banned "on principle". However, the author's seeming to use mj to treat nearly every condition she has has me thinking she's just justifying her usage as nonrecreational, when it reality it might not be. First it was the hyperemesis, then the migraines, then the Crohn's disease. Treatment? really? or masking symptoms? One drug does not treat all any more than one size fits all.

The solution for that however is legalization and control, not blind blanket condemnation. Saying it's not safe when adequate studies about medical effectiveness and safety haven't been done is no more scientific than her justifying her usage after the fact. Banning such studies due the "war on drugs" is cutting off the nose to spite the face. _{this from someone who tried it once and would rather barf then do so again, having nearly btdt with hyperemisis too}_


----------



## lauraess (Mar 8, 2002)

I think the article on soy is pertinent to many of us who shop healthily and are finding soy to be in many things. I've stopped eating it for the most part when i read something about it's use in the body and something told me to be careful (something in my gut, intuition) I am not surprised by what i read and am glad Mothering is doing it's job as usual to inform us and make us think.
Laura


----------



## lauraess (Mar 8, 2002)

also, I want to ask those who say that the article on soy is filled with misinformation, just what is it that is not accurate?? who are the experts here? What do you know of soy that the rest of us, including the authors, dont know?
Laura


----------



## ftcmj (Apr 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lauraess*
also, I want to ask those who say that the article on soy is filled with misinformation, just what is it that is not accurate?? who are the experts here? What do you know of soy that the rest of us, including the authors, dont know?
Laura

Well, for examples, see:
http://mothering.com/discussions/sho...43#post1373843
and
http://mothering.com/discussions/sho...7&postcount=84

I don't know the author of the Mothering article, so I can't say what I know that she doesn't. Except maybe that I know that how scientists argue and think, and she doesn't seem to. Generally speaking, scientific argument is conservative, in the original, apolitical, sense of the word. Serious scientists are clear about what conclusions their evidence support. They are particularly careful not to make conclusions that overreach their evidence, and go out of their way to point out other research that seem to contradict their interpretations.

What scientists do _not_ do is start with a conclusion, and then search scientific literature for proof of that conclusion, ignoring all confounding evidence. That is how attorneys, not scientists, make an argument. And, in my opinion, that's how the soy article in Mothering reads. Read the soy article, and then read some of the original research for yourself (which is difficult), and see if you can see that difference for yourself.

You don't have to be an expert to know when an argument is biased.


----------



## ftcmj (Apr 25, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Momtezuma Tuatara*
The fact is, that much of what is written in medical journals, makes me want to say the same.

Especially when 30 years down the line, the medical people are consistently proven to be wrong.

The biggest bearers of medical mistakes, both in the literature, and in medical practice, lie right at the medical profession's doorstep, Jay.

Well, of course they do. So far, I haven't met any tailors or cashiers or jugglers who have had much opportunity to make "medical mistakes", either in literature or in medical practice. That may have something to do with such people not being doctors or researchers. Go figure.

And who proves those "medical people" wrong, 30 years down the line? Other medical people, of course. Because, when it's done properly, science is self-correcting. What you're talking about are the corrections.


----------



## lauraess (Mar 8, 2002)

ftcmj: thankyou for your help in this matter. My reading was quick and of course altered by my confusion of late. sometimes i tend to jump on the extremist bandwagon and after reading the aformentioned link in this thread i was better informed. luckily my intuition is working quite well and that says " all things in moderation. soy also."
Laura


----------



## Momtezuma Tuatara (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ftcmj*

Quote:

Originally Posted by Momtezuma Tuatara_
The fact is, that much of what is written in medical journals, makes me want to say the same.

Especially when 30 years down the line, the medical people are consistently proven to be wrong.

The biggest bearers of medical mistakes, both in the literature, and in medical practice, lie right at the medical profession's doorstep, Jay._
Well, of course they do. So far, I haven't met any tailors or cashiers or jugglers who have had much opportunity to make "medical mistakes", either in literature or in medical practice. That may have something to do with such people not being doctors or researchers. Go figure.
















All righty then







.

Like I even *said* something as stupid as that?

Quote:

And who proves those "medical people" wrong, 30 years down the line?
Another option : lawyers, in a court of law. Heretical doctors like Dr Robert Mendelsohn, though actually some of the garbage he wrote about is still freely dispensed








Quote:

Other medical people, of course. Because, when it's done properly, science is self-correcting.
Science isn't always self correcting. Sometimes its leaping from one delusion to another

Quote:

What you're talking about are the corrections.
No I'm not. You are assuming that you know what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about the hundreds of thousands of people who die, and the even larger number who are injured, every year in your country, from preventable medical error, iatrogenic or nosocomial incidents, and anything else "useless" that applies to the pharmaceutical commodities so freely dispensed by the medical profession. Much of it, totally unnecessarily.

Fortunately, tailors cashiers and jugglers don't have the sort of toxic arsenal, or slash and burn equipment that doctors have to do their thing with...

Rant off.


----------



## Jay Gordon MD (Mar 12, 2004)

Yes, doctors kill a lot more people than tailors. Actually, MDs and the advice of MDs hurt many, many people.

But, for heaven's sakes, why bother writing (or reading) an article which--as someone already has posted--begins with a conclusion and then cites shaky Internet web sites to "prove" it's point. The article is poorly written and it truly is unworthy of "Mothering." The author may be an expert on this subject but her article is not very good

No, families eating lots of soy are not suddenly going to switch to McD's and the opposite will not occur. My point is that *if* someone were to switch from the Standard American Diet to a diet high in soy, they'd be *much* healthier no matter what drawbacks soy has!

And, there is no discussion of soy formula here. It should be illegal and we all know it.

Jay


----------



## Momtezuma Tuatara (Mar 3, 2004)

I wonder Jay, if there is something else here too with regard to the Soy issue...

I have lived with japanese families so know how they eat, and they were very traditional eaters. Rarely did soybeans come into it. Sometimes a disgusting thing called nato, which stunk to high heaven, and sometimes tofu.

I am allergic to Soy in all solid forms, and rarely had to worry about offending them. That was one thing I was worried about when I went to stay with them... but it was hardly a problem.

HOWEVER, some of my so-called health conscious friends here, I wouldn't stay with. They eat Soy everything. Their babies are small, and they have no end of problems.

Perhaps what we have here are extremes.

1) The Japanese way ( and I don't know one japanese parent who would dream of using formula ~ not that that means there aren't any....) which doesn't use very much soy at all - most of it is in the fluid form, such as tamari, or soy sauce, which is a totally different ball game to solid protein, flour, or the "whole thing".

2) The western health movement, which much of the time is anything but health where sometimes it seems that anything goes. I happen to believe there are as many quacks in the health movement, as there are in the medical profession







: (Nothing like handing out insults evenly







)

I finally got the magazine today, and read both articles before coming here tonight.

My reaction is as follows. I understand your complaints, but the only difference in writing style between the medical profession, and this lay article on Soy, is that the medical profession puts their argument first, and the *conclusion at the end.* Never mind that they had their conclusion before the start. We all know that most medical research starts with a proposed conclusion, and then all the method is worked around the conclusion. After all, you have to be able to show to the people who are going to shell out the spondoolicks, that there is something in it for them. So they want to know the probably results before they put money into it.

Okay, Peggy wouldn't have done that. But apart from the fact that it could have been written better, much of what is in there is correct.

If the result is that people believe it, and don't eat soy, so much the better in my opinion.

You may feel that the average USA diet could benefit from being converted to soy, but I think the better way would be to convince young mothers to eat properly and feed their kids properly.

I haven't been getting Mothering long enough to know what Peggy has done to expose Mothering parents to the foundations of good nutrition. I don't think that most mothers who read mothering would be totally ignorant about good nutrition, but that is an assumption too. So if you have a problem with Mothering readers only being exposed to information that says "Don't eat soy" then maybe the balance could be struck as to what to eat.

So here's a suggestion for you Jay.

Why don't you send Peggy an article outlining what you think mothers and children should eat?

Now to the Marijuana article.

I had reservations about Erin Hildebrandt's story, only because I have met a lot of people with this condition, and I've never met one where the condition wasn't resolved with natural means. I've even helped one american lady through here last three pregnancies, and we got there without the use of any prescription drugs.

On page 58 and 69, there is a list on the medical drugs used and frankly, why would any doctor ever prescribe thorazine in pregnancy. I know how dangerous that can be... and most of the other drugs listed there made my eyes peel. I wouldn't take any of them.

I don't think Marijuana is the best solution, because to me hyperemesis, respresents pre-existing nutritional deficiencies. It could be that were you to analyse her diet, you would see what the problem is, but that too is speculation. I could be wrong. In the final result if that is what worked for her, and if her children are okay, then fine. For her.

On page 60 and 61 are plenty of references, which people can look up on internet, and verify the medicl evidence, and see whether or not they attach store on it.

For me, I wouldn't use it, because to me, its the possible nose of the camel when there are existing so many good solutions that she never even tried.

If you start to look for reasons as to why one drug should be legalised, then what's to stop the next person looking for reasons as to what a "harder" drug could do for something else.

It's on the basis that I think its use is unnecessary, that I see dangers. That said, there is such a thing as free speech. If you look at Marijuana, with your eyes wide open, that's not that different from looking at Prmethasine, Campazine, Haloperidol, Thorazine, Zofran, and steroids with eyes wide open.

I wouldn't use any of them either.

It seems to me, that its a "touche" situation. What you have to offer, is just as bad, if not worse, possibly, than marijuana in some respects...

So, here's a suggestion for you again Jay.

Why don't you send Peggy an article about what options you would suggest for a mother with hyperemesis, which are natural and not harmful to either her, or the baby?


----------



## crazy_eights (Nov 22, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EnviroBecca*
Check out this study of marijuana use by Jamaican mothers published by the American Academy of Pediatrics. ....In other words, the apparent POSITIVE effects of prenatal marijuana exposure are probably caused by lurking variables. But please consider that studies that show negative effects of prenatal marijuana exposure are conducted on different populations, where different lurking variables may be causing the negative effects.

The only difference being that the average Jamaican mother is getting marijuana that is uncontaminated with things like PCP or other dangerous hallucinagens that are very often added to street marijuana in the US.


----------



## Jay Gordon MD (Mar 12, 2004)

Momtezuma--

Are you implying that medical researchers who receive millions upon millions of dollars from the drug companies might slant their findings towards the products of those same companies? Hmmm, let me think about that. 

I have only spent ten days in Asia (China) and have no firsthand experience with the traditional Asian diets, but I do know that they used to eat food far healthier than the "SAD" and probably continue to do so.

Soy cheese is a salty, highly processed food with far fewer positive attributes than many other foods. And . . . I eat it every day. I use it as a substitute for the beloved cheddar I was raised on in the Badger State. I do not mistake it for "health food." Nor do I mistake tofu dogs for health food or anything close to it. These two soy products are *far* better than regular cheese and hot dogs, however.

To restate the obvious, for the tenth time: Eat a diet with leguminous sources of protein and be far healthier than people who eat dairy and meat as their major (sole) sources of protein. And, a "mono-diet" of mostly soy protein is not healthy either. And, soy formula is dangerous.

Marijuana is a dangerous drug. Geez, that's easy, too. It is *not* as dangerous as many medications prescribed by doctors during pregnancy, but that is no excuse to offer even a weak recommendation for it's use.

And, my semifacetious original thread title meant no real disrespect to Peggy. She's one of the true geniuses of our age.

Jay


----------



## MamaE (May 1, 2004)

First off, let me just say that I LOVE Dr. Jay.







I e-mailed him recently with a question about my DD's diet and he took the time out of his very busy life to answer me! He's a hero to me - has sound, science-based advice and I would give anything to have him as my DD's doctor.

That said, I say RIGHT ON Dr. Jay! I agree with your POV on both articles. I also agree with Starrynight who said this:

"I thought the soy article was written with the intention of upsetting people and not with the intention of providing good balanced information. The marijuana article I thought was just plain bizarre. I mean buying a street drug to help with severe hyperemesis?"

The soy article was alarmist to-the-max and it achieved it's goal, at least in my case - I was totally alarmed until I came to MDC and was calmed by much saner opinions on soy.

The marijuana article - ugh! If MDC intends, in any way or in any capacity, to bring AP and natural family living to the masses, an article on marijuana is NOT the way to begin. I say, tsk, tsk. Any of my mainstream friends who saw this article would turn and RUN the other way from this magazine and, likely, all the wonderful parenting and living philosophies it stands for. Unfortunately, if Mothering continues to run articles like this, the baby will get thrown out with the bathwater.


----------



## EnviroBecca (Jun 5, 2002)

I have read the Mothering articles now, and I think they presented a very good case for medicinal marijuana. The soy article makes some claims that sound dubious to me, but I agree with the general point that a diet over-reliant on soy is probably not a great idea.

Mom2six wrote:

Quote:

The only difference being that the average Jamaican mother is getting marijuana that is uncontaminated with things like PCP or other dangerous hallucinagens that are very often added to street marijuana in the US.
I can think of of other likely differences:

1. In a culture where marijuana use is generally socially acceptable, people of all types use it. In a culture like the U.S. where it is generally frowned upon, most users are members of "fringe" subcultures. Thus, in Jamaica, expectant mothers who use marijuana would be a pretty much random sample of expectant mothers in general, whereas in the U.S. they would be different from other mothers in many other ways (age, socioeconomic status, parenting style), which might have bigger effects on their babies than their marijuana use.

2. In the U.S., people who use marijuana are more likely to use tobacco and alcohol as well. The effects of those substances on babies are well known, yet many studies of prenatal marijuana exposure do NOT exclude mothers who also use tobacco, alcohol, or other drugs.

You are right that U.S. marijuana may be contaminated with something that has its own dangers. That's also true in Jamaica. The greatest risk by FAR is pesticides and herbicides, most of which are not intended to be smoked. Another risk is mold growing on the buds after they're picked, which can be hard to detect because many varieties of marijuana naturally have a dusty appearance or a potent aroma. It's also possible that an unscrupulous dealer will mix marijuana with some other plant that's cheaper but might be harmful. One thing that is more likely in the U.S., because so much of the marijuana here is smuggled in from other countries, is contamination from whatever was packed next to it during smuggling. All of these are issues that could be addressed by having controlled legal sales. (I say "could" not "would" because the U.S. government allows appalling quantities of very harmful materials to be used in tobacco.)

The idea of marijuana being spiked with other drugs is mostly an urban legend. Can you find me A SINGLE DOCUMENTED CASE of someone buying marijuana that was proven to be spiked with PCP, who did not intend to buy that? Think about it: PCP is not cheap--why would a dealer throw it in for free?









I'm hearing a lot of bias here about the idea that a "street drug" could possibly be good for anything. Marijuana is a "street drug" because our government made it so in 1937 under heavy pressure from the tobacco, fiber, and petroleum industries. It has thousands of years of history as a medication. Also, many of you seem to have the idea that a "street drug" must be purchased from some thug you never met, in a dark alley in a bad neighborhood. In fact, much of the marijuana in the U.S. is not sold this way at any stage in its journey from grower to user. Many dealers sell only to their friends, in their own homes in all types of neighborhoods. Some even grow their own plants organically! The article doesn't go into a lot of detail about the source or quality of the marijuana the author uses--you are assuming the worst when you don't really know.

IMO, use of marijuana during pregnancy is questionable, just like eating ground beef during pregnancy is questionable. We all should have the right to be fully informed of the risks and benefits and to make our own decisions.


----------



## ChristaN (Feb 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Momtezuma Tuatara*
I have lived with japanese families so know how they eat, and they were very traditional eaters. Rarely did soybeans come into it. Sometimes a disgusting thing called nato, which stunk to high heaven, and sometimes tofu.

1) The Japanese way ( and I don't know one japanese parent who would dream of using formula ~ not that that means there aren't any....) which doesn't use very much soy at all - most of it is in the fluid form, such as tamari, or soy sauce, which is a totally different ball game to solid protein, flour, or the "whole thing".


We must know different Japanese people! One of my very good friends is from Japan & just recently moved back. They are from Japanese lineage (i.e. - not Westerners who have lived in Japan), and they eat soy every day.

I spent a lot of time at their home when they lived here & we have shared many meals. They make their own tofu. They eat some form of soy every day & usually more than one form - tofu, miso soup (daily), soy sauce, TVP, etc. They eat a lot of tofu - dried tofu in sushi, tofu in soup, soft homemade tofu floating in the water that it was coagulated in with scallions & soy sauce, etc.

From what my friend tells me, the traditional Japanese diet is becoming significantly Westernized. Many Japanese are eating less soy than before & eating more dairy & meat - things that she says were never a big part of the Japanese diet before recent generations. Incidentally, Japanese individuals from Okinawa, who are the longest lived Japanese, have the highest soy consumption of all Japanese.


----------



## lovebugmama (May 23, 2003)

I do have to agree that the article on marijuana was not one of Mothering's best. I wasn't at all offended by the idea of an article about the use of medical marijuana, but the article was really about self-medication with street drugs. Not quite the same thing. I was not alarmed by the article because I found it completely unconvincing, I was more annoyed because it was a waste of my time. I thought the research and studies cited were very weak and therefore it did little to make me think (most Mothering articles are so well-written and researched that I have to mull them over for quite a long time).

Regardless of the topic, I love Mothering for its ability to make my mind work and my preconceived ideas to be shattered - this article did neither.


----------



## Meiri (Aug 31, 2002)

Funny







TVP isn't mentioned in either of my traditional Japanese cookbooks...


----------



## Momtezuma Tuatara (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jay Gordon, MD*
Momtezuma--

Are you implying that medical researchers who receive millions upon millions of dollars from the drug companies might slant their findings towards the products of those same companies? Hmmm, let me think about that. 

Absolutely Jay. The BMJ just recently did a whole issue on that and related subjects, and keeps coming back to the topic. I have a huge pile of medical articles which admit just that, from just about the time of the ark.

Quote:

I have only spent ten days in Asia (China) and have no firsthand experience with the traditional Asian diets, but I do know that they used to eat food far healthier than the "SAD" and probably continue to do so.
They do. the chinese traditional diet is great. and very little soy. Far too many mushrooms for my liking though. And seaslugs are blurgh... But they have caught the refined sugar and flour bug and obesity is starting to be a problem.

Quote:

Soy cheese is a salty, highly processed food with far fewer positive attributes than many other foods. And . . . I eat it every day. I use it as a substitute for the beloved cheddar I was raised on in the Badger State. I do not mistake it for "health food." Nor do I mistake tofu dogs for health food or anything close to it. These two soy products are *far* better than regular cheese and hot dogs, however.
Okay, here's a suggestion Jay. Take a full immunological parameter of everything that you know is relevant to the medical effects of soy.

Then stop eating it. Add back into your diet, anything that suits your constitution. In fact, you might have a look at a book called "Nourishing traditions" by Sally Fallon, and based on the traditional diet of the ethnic group you are from, adapt your diet to fit that.

Then about three months later, presuming you aren't ill, do another test with the exact same immunological parameters.

And see what the difference is. some people have a slight difference, some people who didn't even realise what it was doing to their immune system, have a big difference.

Quote:

To restate the obvious, for the tenth time: Eat a diet with leguminous sources of protein and be far healthier than people who eat dairy and meat as their major (sole) sources of protein. And, a "mono-diet" of mostly soy protein is not healthy either. And, soy formula is dangerous.
Well, any cure for tooting after beans?

Love lentils though...

Quote:

Marijuana is a dangerous drug. Geez, that's easy, too. It is *not* as dangerous as many medications prescribed by doctors during pregnancy, but that is no excuse to offer even a weak recommendation for it's use.
Agreed. But by the same token, since doctors normally offer far more dangerous medications, some might see your complaint as nit-picking. I happen to agree with you, but for different reasons.

I'd still like you to send her an article on how to properly address the problem of constant nausea and vomitting in pregnancy.


----------



## Momtezuma Tuatara (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ChristaN*
We must know different Japanese people! One of my very good friends is from Japan & just recently moved back. They are from Japanese lineage (i.e. - not Westerners who have lived in Japan), and they eat soy every day.

I spent a lot of time at their home when they lived here & we have shared many meals. They make their own tofu. They eat some form of soy every day & usually more than one form - tofu, miso soup (daily), soy sauce, TVP, etc. They eat a lot of tofu - dried tofu in sushi, tofu in soup, soft homemade tofu floating in the water that it was coagulated in with scallions & soy sauce, etc.

From what my friend tells me, the traditional Japanese diet is becoming significantly Westernized. Many Japanese are eating less soy than before & eating more dairy & meat - things that she says were never a big part of the Japanese diet before recent generations. Incidentally, Japanese individuals from Okinawa, who are the longest lived Japanese, have the highest soy consumption of all Japanese.

I think we do then. I have japanese cookery book, and there aren't that many recipes in them with soy. And these are japanese japanese books, not English text books, waterred down for europeans.

And no. TVP is not in Japanese cookery books.....

The other interesting thing is that the Japanese who eat the least soy products are also the tallest.

and the reason the todays children are taller than their parents is not the dairy products, because many Japanese still don't like dairy... but its the fact that there height is no longer suppressed by the hormones in Soy.

Actually, its becoming a big problem on fishing boats. The sleeping slots are too short for the young tall fishermen.


----------



## Fiona2 (Dec 21, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Momtezuma Tuatara*
and the reason the todays children are taller than their parents is not the dairy products, because many Japanese still don't like dairy... but its the fact that there height is no longer suppressed by the hormones in Soy.


I'm interested to know how soy hormones suppress growth - can you explain?

Thanks.


----------



## bebe luna (Nov 20, 2001)

i personally liked both articles...
when will we stop fearing marijuana????
and about the soy...
I for a long time have believed that processed soy is bad for us, and only fermented soy should be eaten, and even then, in small infrequent amounts.
I used to work w/ a group of Japanese people in a resteraunt they ran... they did not eat much soy. They ate a lot of rice, fish, meat, vegetables, green tea, egg, etc... but rarely did they eat soy!
I have friends from China, and it's the same thing~ rice, meat, fish, vegetables... rarely any soy...
I personally think raw organic dairy is way better for most people than soy is...
I know many people will argue this... people argue everything regarding our dietary beliefs....


----------



## Gale Force (Jun 15, 2003)

Frankly, I sure am glad we've got options more sustainable than hotdogs, vegan or not.

I've got this great before and after picture -- the "before" is after six months as a vegan, feeling great, losing my graduate school pounds, cutting out all of the graduate school bads. The "after" is one month on a candida diet -- no sugar whatsoever, plenty of animal. Both are driver's license pictures and are a decent representation of my look at the time. It's not exactly science (wish I had the presence of mind to do some sort of immunological test), but it has given some folks pause around here IRL.


----------



## Momtezuma Tuatara (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Fiona2*
I'm interested to know how soy hormones suppress growth - can you explain?

Thanks.

Soybeans contain growth suppressant hormones.

There had never been any targetted studies done on it, becuase everyone assumed that chinese and japanese were the height they were for genetic reasons. However, the fact that children who don't like or want to eat tofu are growing much taller than their parents has led to conjecture that it is many things in the soy. Phyto-oestrogens, but also compounds that suppress the thyroid.

And that this can cause stunting

Not a good copy, but one article is here:

http://www.soyonlineservice.co.nz/herald.htm

There is now a class action ...

and

the was a Ministry of health document which requires doctors to monitor both growth and thyroid function..

http://www.soyonlineservice.co.nz/files/mohdraft.pdf

However, all the research done by companies that make soy formula says it safe, and just fine to us...

However, soy formula mucks up the gutflora and since we know that the seat of the immune system is actually the gut flora, it seems an unwise thing to do...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=15035688


----------



## Momtezuma Tuatara (Mar 3, 2004)

http://www.soyonlineservice.co.nz

http://www.soyonlineservice.co.nz/sosguide.htm

Oh yeah, and get this medical position from a doc no less:

Quote:

"I agree that high levels of dietary exposures to isoflavones in infants fed soy-based formulas is cause for concern".

"I do not agree that parents have a right to know that soy-based formulas contain isoflavones and the kinds of toxicities isoflavones might demonstrate in infants, since parents would not know how to interpret the information."
Well,







Just maybe they might stop using it...

best case scenario..


----------



## starrynight (Jan 10, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Momtezuma Tuatara*
I have lived with japanese families so know how they eat, and they were very traditional eaters. Rarely did soybeans come into it.

I think I'm kind of confused. You keep saying that the Japanese rarely consume any soy, but then you go on to say that soy is the cause of shorter height among the Japanese and not their genetics.

Could you clear this up?
Also do you have any other links that discuss this. The ones you gave in your post to Fiona2 about this only mention soy formula (which apparently the Japanese don't use) and not about how eating tofu can suppress growth in children.
Thanks....


----------



## honey (Nov 28, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jay Gordon, MD*
But, for heaven's sakes, why bother writing (or reading) an article which--as someone already has posted--begins with a conclusion and then cites shaky Internet web sites to "prove" it's point. The article is poorly written and it truly is unworthy of "Mothering." The author may be an expert on this subject but her article is not very good
Jay


The article was a little heavy, but I thought her sources looked pretty good.
soy article endnotes

She has a PhD in nutrition (from a regionally accredited college) and is a CCN (Certified Clinical Nutritionist).

I thought this issue was a breath of fresh air. Finally, an issue for thinking women!
Okay, I admit the marijuana article made me cringe a little, but I think encouraging mamas to think outside the box is okay. We are smart enough to handle it.


----------



## TexasSuz (Mar 4, 2002)

One quick question...What is wrong with soy formula? I have never heard of it being bad. My sister used it as a supplement to breastfeeding with my niece. Just wondering. Someone fill me in if I am missing something.

My niece is allergic to milk so she drinks soys milk everyday. We use both soy and organic cow's milk with ds.

Did not read the articles but I agree that no one should use pot using pregnancy (or ever for that matter).

Susan


----------



## TigerTail (Dec 22, 2002)

ot- gotta quick question- momtezuma (and dr jay), my hyperemesis was caused by esophageal hernias- bad when not pregnant, deadly when pregnant. i used marijuana decades ago when i had no insurance, and phenergan the last one when i did. obviously, no nutritional advice (other than don't eat at night, lol) is going to change the physics of my stomach being inside my throat, but what exactly would the least harmful options have been? throwing up and getting dehydrated till my pee turns dark brown and my kidneys are ready to shut down is not an option, and if i get pg again, i'd prefer not to stay connected to an iv for 9 months.

maybe this is something for dr jay's hypothetical article, but it is of immediate import to people suffering from hyperemesis and i just wondered if you all had any ideas.

btw, soy makes me feel like crap. and meat/dairy (pastured, organic yadda yadda) make me feel great. (fish/seafood best of all. cholesteral- yummmm. and no, that's not sarcasm.) i'll take my soy as miso and keep tofu to an occasional indulgence in soup, and edamame once in a blue moon (and tempeh not at all- dear god, i thought i would explode.)

ps regarding gas: the fermented beans i made made delicious soup and no gas, i guess the little bacteria ate up all the fart material while in their residency in my fridge. fartless bean soup! better than beano.) not using soy, though.

suse


----------



## bobo dioulasso (May 15, 2004)

Hi everyone,

I feel so bad for the people that believe everything in this article that they are sitting at home weeping, wondering how to rearrange their diets, and possibly even thinking of giving up vegetarianism. Does Mothering realize what a potentially harmful article this was??

I wrote a whole huge letter to Mothering addressing all the immense fallacies and scare journalism in this. I felt it was a highly unprofessional and amateurish, opinionated piece of work that feeds into Weston Price, Sally Fallon, Jordan Rubin's and a lot of other current natural-health thinkers vehemently opposed to soy. We already have too many of these voices! I respect the expertise of the above-listed people to some extent even though I'm a vegetarian and don't like their vegetarian-bashing (I am a Hare Krsna and know SO MANY children raised as lactovegetarians since gestation, who have never tasted meat, and who are in excellent health, bright and energetic... it is NOT NECESSARY for all humans to eat meat to get all the necessary nutrients to thrive.) Yes, a lot of the logic in the article, if you dissect it, is worthless... especially about the creation about soy protein isolate. You could just as easily talk about how flax was used to make linoleum floors and thus isn't a suitable foodstuff, or how chocolate is produced by using a (very similar sounding) process involving alkali, extrusion, heating, etc etc! No one would probably argue that you should live off Boca Burgers and Gimme Lean at every meal, but they are not the poison that Kaayla makes them out to be.

Finally, her information about the WIC program is so glaringly inaccurate that I am surprised it made it past the editors at Mothering. I am on WIC and Kaayla's claims that WIC just doles out piles of soy formula to poor African Americans while "failing to promote breastfeeding" shows her obvious lack of experience with the WIC program. My WIC counselor breastfed her babies until they were 3yo, you are welcome to breast feed in the waiting room (where you can view tons of posters promoting bf), and the counselors ACTIVELY encourage you to continue and try to bf until at LEAST 1yo. For every month you continue bf, you get congratulatory cupons and extra free food.

Also, she does not explore any of the other possible reasons why African Americans and other children experience early or delayed puberty. Neighborhoods where there are predominantly low-income African American families often experience other problems such as higher pollution rates, proximities to dumps and refineries where "free estrogens" in such pollutants might abound, and schools and some housing complexes are often "sick" and full of toxic materials. Also, she does not explore whether African American children who were fed dairy formula experience the same early puberties. All in all, very unprofessional and undocumented journalism that is scaring the masses of well-meaning vegetarians.

There are so many more fallacies in this article I could write a book about them... including her lack of addressing the issue of how fermentation helps render soy more digestible and beneficial (on which there is plenty of research and historical use to confirm), the fact that phytates (that supposedly evil nutrient blocker in soy) is present in ALL grains and legumes, but can be negated by proper cooking or preparation... the fact that much of the soy today is GMO and non-organic, and that you could tell a lot of cautionary tales about ANY GMO produce... and also, the fact that different blood types or constitutions simply function better on different foodstuffs. I can't tolerate meat, it makes me sick - yet I have thrived for years on a diet rich in soy. I also, by the way, gave birth to a radiantly healthy and intelligent child while eating lots of soy during my pregnancy. I also work at a natural health store, where I hear many stories every day from women whose consumption of soy, in their own words, has helped them with hot flashes, high cholesterol, and, if you believe everything customers say, even helped their skin look younger. Maybe it's not a coincidence... the article did not even mention once, the high concentration of Omega-3 fatty acids in soy oil.

If you look at all the currently successful "great minds" in the natural health industry, you will clearly see a trend: meat is being emphasized, along with dairy and eggs, and any sort of vegetarian products (from soy, nutritional yeast, wheat gluten products, beans, and just about anything that wouldn't fit in well in the Atkins diet) are being trashed in the mainstream AND natural health press. Well, I don't believe all this reactionary hype. I eat what makes me feel good and healthy, and I do indeed do lots of research about nutrition at the same time, to be sure I'm on the right track. However, I believe what makes sense in my heart, and my heart tells me that eating the flesh of dead animals is not what seems intuitively a healthy or spiritually beneficial choice. Not to offend anyone who does eat meat - I am close to many non-veg's and I respect anyone's choices, especially if the are thankful and mindful in them - but I think that a LOT of this anti-vegetarian sentiment just might be funded, or prodded at least, in part by the animal food product industries who are threatened by the large amount of people deciding to eschew their products!

Anyways, I hope that people will think twice before they believe everything they read.

And yeah, the medical marijuana article seemed really off to me. I understand and sympathize with someone suffering from extreme nausea, but there are other alternative treatments out there. Did the author ever think that by going out and buying street drugs, you are risking the security of your family, putting yourself (a pregnant woman) in dangerous situations, and also, risking that you might get a bad or even lethal batch, laced with something else, or contaminated with paraquat spray? The author says she tried homeopathy, but did she consult an actual, trained homeopath who took her constitutional history? Did she actually seek treatment from educated, accredited naturopathic and other holistic professionals such as acupuncturists, etc? Has she really exhausted all the options? This is another thing that, as a natural health industry inside worker, really gets my goat... people that dabble in self-prescriptive natural health remedies, decide it doesn't work (if you were to randomly raid a pharmacy and take whatever prescriptions you think you need, you wouldn't get better either most likely!), but don't want to spend the cash to consult a real professional in the industry. People who do this, make the entire natural health industry look bad. While at times it's entirely appropriate to self-prescribe, if you don't get results after several tries, then it's a good idea to find someone with more knowledge than you.

Also, marijuana increases the risk of low birth weight and miscarriages. The smoke itself is loaded with toxic chemicals - they are worse than unfiltered cigarettes in this regard. I know a few people who had miscarriages that I can't say were definitely due to heavy marijuana use during pregnancy, but even back then, the idea sprung into my mind.


----------



## Brisen (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bobo dioulasso*
I felt it was a highly unprofessional and amateurish, opinionated piece of work that feeds into Weston Price, Sally Fallon, Jordan Rubin's and a lot of other current natural-health thinkers vehemently opposed to soy.

I wouldn't say that Fallon is "vehemently" opposed to soy. In her cookbook, she lists foods into (I can't remember her exact titles) ideal, compromise, and stuff you should never eat. Fermented soy products are listed in the ideal category.


----------



## Meiri (Aug 31, 2002)

Atkins doesn't trash soy, or rather the companies jumping on the Atkins low carb bandwagon do not trash soy. They're throwing it into blasted near everything so they can claim to have lowered the carbs and boosted the protein!

It's thanks to Atkins and "low carb" that I can't buy anything without reading the labels to make sure there's no soy protein or soy flour or TVP in it.









They may be anti-vegetarian, but they are using/abusing soy to the max!


----------



## bobo dioulasso (May 15, 2004)

Yes, I guess you both are right about Atkins and Fallon, now that I remember. But Sally Fallon in general does have a lot of EXTREMELY negative things to say about soy... Brisen, I don't remember the 3 lists of foodstuffs, are you sure you aren't confusing that with Jordan Rubin? (He does the 3 lists like that in "Patient Heal Thyself", haven't read the new book with the religiously presumptuous title yet... lol). And I was just thinking today about how all that Atkins food is so disgusting... loaded with artificial flavors, soy protein isolate, weird binders, sucralose, maltitol (in case you like "a laxative effect")... I wonder how health food stores like the one where I work even dare to carry it. They might as well just break down completely and start carrying shortening, diet cola and booze if they are just into making money.

As my friend at work said today as we discussed soy... "One single bean was never meant to be turned into milk, ice cream, meat substitutes, condiments, powder, and more... people are using it as if it's the default food these days!"

I think the research about Asians being short because of soy, has a bit of a ridiculous sound to it, and I'm surprised people believe it without serious mental investigation of the logic. If you ever have visited a historic village like Sturbridge or Williamsburg, or the equivalent in medieval Europe, or even lived in a colonial house as I did growing up, the first thing you might note is how puny all the doorways are! People are simply growing taller these days, period... for a variety of reasons, perhaps... I would speculate that growth hormone residues in animal foods could play a part (the opposite effect of soy), part of it could be evolutionary (though I doubt that it would happen that fast), people lead easier lives and have more access to nutritious food in great quantities (when I say nutritious, I simply mean life-giving... not necessarily having the subtleties of trace minerals, probiotics, etc), and don't have to do grueling physical work so much. We are more affluent, have more knowledge of proper prenatal care these days, etc. We also fortify everything and its mother, with vitamins. I am sure all these factors might have some role in our increasing size, as a global phenomenon. It is NOT ONLY IN ASIA.

Also, I think the whole comment about Asians being short because of eating soy is almost a bit racist/eugenic (not consciously, of course)... kind of like saying that Africans are so dark because they eat too much of a certain food, and if they change their diet, they will be light skinned and more "normal". It assumes that Asians are defective because they are statistically shorter than Caucasians (which are implied as the normal benchmark by this logic).


----------



## amnesiac (Dec 28, 2001)

Quote:

ot- gotta quick question- momtezuma (and dr jay), my hyperemesis was caused by esophageal hernias- bad when not pregnant, deadly when pregnant. i used marijuana decades ago when i had no insurance, and phenergan the last one when i did. obviously, no nutritional advice (other than don't eat at night, lol) is going to change the physics of my stomach being inside my throat, but what exactly would the least harmful options have been? throwing up and getting dehydrated till my pee turns dark brown and my kidneys are ready to shut down is not an option, and if i get pg again, i'd prefer not to stay connected to an iv for 9 months.

maybe this is something for dr jay's hypothetical article, but it is of immediate import to people suffering from hyperemesis and i just wondered if you all had any ideas.
Okay so you didn't ask for my opinion, but I'm butting in anyway so just ignore me if you'd like.

Back in the day (? 15 years or so ago) when I had exposure enough to know, some of the dealers that sold marijuana around here used to spray it with Raid because it was supposed to make users "higher" that way. I might even take Phenergan before I'd toke up on some Raid, so I guess you have to be really sure of your source if that's what you're doing.

I don't know enough about your condition to be able to offer any useful alternative though other than the usual ginger, B-6, cloves, peppermint, lemonbalm. If herbals didn't work for me I'd probably go for Benadryl before I'd find street drugs.


----------



## bobo dioulasso (May 15, 2004)

I really think homeopathy can offer the best solutions, if you actually go to a trained, experienced homeopathic physician and get a full constitutional prescribing. Often this can clear up other problems as well. Ume plum vinegar and Eden Plum Balls helped me, but I only had mild nausea and no vomiting. Still, it's worth a try. But I still think constitutional homeopathy is the way to go, and very safe during pregnancy. However with homeopathy, you need to have it prescribed according to many factors. Ipecacuana is good when you are constantly and violently vomiting, to the point that you are vomiting water or just dry heaving. Others are good for other things, nux vomica, arsenicum album and some others all have different applications for different nauseas.

regarding raid in marijuana supply... and answering the previous comment in this thread that "why would a dealer lace their supply with angel dust, it's not profitable, etc" well, I do know of several friends who had that experience in hs and college. It was never certain exactly which drug was in there but one of my friends had also tried angel dust once and said that the terrifying experience felt identical. It may not be done deliberately, but may be contamination from another drug supply. Or it could be another harmful substance added to the supply. I just think if marijuana were in its original, unhybridized form, and growing wild, legal to pick etc it would probably be OK to do moderate marijuana during pregnancy, but what we are getting today is actually a very concentrated, mind-altering drug, with dubious chain of supply and of course, legal implications. How would you like to, as a pregnant woman, end up in jail? It can happen, or you can implicate your other of-age family members as well in possession charges. It just isn't worth it. At the very least, move to a state that has medical marijuana programs, or do more research into other options.

Also BTW, I have a friend who had hyperemesis gravis during her pregnancy, and as she is also Hare Krsna, intoxicants of any kind are against our religion, so marijuana wasn't an option. She found other options to help her with the nausea, and avoid getting IV'd every other day, but it took a lot of hard work, quitting her job eventually to take time for herself, and lots of support from her husband.

Marijuana, as you get it today, is a seriously mind altering drug! (yes, I have smoked it plenty in the past before my current life). Nothing was mentioned in the article about the mental effects of it, but intuitively, I just think it is probably very dangerous to a developing baby's mind and sense of groundedness, reality etc to constantly be "fuzzy" from the effects of THC.

Again, I'm not bashing the author, she did what she felt she had to to keep enough food down, and I accept that, but for Mothering to accept her story at face value, without providing other options (it would have been better simply to have an article about hyperemesis gravis with alternative therapies, maybe with this mentioned as a fringe treatment option).


----------



## guerrillamama (Oct 27, 2003)

Quote:

Also, I think the whole comment about Asians being short because of eating soy is almost a bit racist/eugenic (not consciously, of course)... kind of like saying that Africans are so dark because they eat too much of a certain food, and if they change their diet, they will be light skinned and more "normal". It assumes that Asians are defective because they are statistically shorter than Caucasians (which are implied as the normal benchmark by this logic).










why are white people so darn tall anyways? what's wrong with them? must be all that wheat...


----------



## rainsmom (Dec 5, 2001)

Great thread. (Im going to the library today to read the recent Mothering article myself) I eat soy in moderation, dairy very rarely and no beef, chicken and recently no fish. It seems you can find an article to support whichever arguement you want to believe. But eating healthy food products, organically grown when possible, is key to healthy living and feeling good. There was an old saying in the 70s .... You Are What You Eat I try to live by that when choosing what to put in my body.

As for the other article on MJ use for pregnant women, I hope people use common sense when deciding to use ANY potent drug during pregnancy. Its ignorance to think it (mj or any other drug) WONT have an affect on a growing fetus.


----------



## bobo dioulasso (May 15, 2004)

in any case, on the soy/short asians/eugenics topic... why on earth, then, are the Mongolians, who live off mainly off sheep meat/milk and other heavy duty animal proteins, and can't even grow soy, also short in stature? And what about many Central American indigenous people, who are also short? They don't eat any soy, and they eat lots of meat.

BTW, I agree that soy formula should not be legal. It is too concentrated and exclusive a source of soy for babies. Frankly, I think baby formulas, when necessary (and I think they should be avoided if possible), should be made of goat's milk, which is more nutritionally similar to human milk, than is cow's milk. When a baby eats soy formula that is the ONLY food it gets for many months.

Why does this article/topic/evil soy concept get me so hot and bothered? not only because it's just another example of american extremist thinking (either something is a gift from God or an evil sent by the Devil, and we are very fickle in shifting 180 degrees on this), but because I am REALLY sick of tired of the constant attempts of the media to downplay vegetarian diets, which, thanks to Dr. Atkins and the other respectable doctors/writers I mentioned earlier, are now looking more and more "Bad". IMHO, I think a lot of this anti-veg sentiment is based on the same thinking that caused sudden and vehement justifications and polarization in thought on racial prejudice right before the Civil War fully exploded. Not that there will necessarily be such an explosion in this regard, but there will be if this anti-veg thinking ends up on its way to the FDA and into our homes, schools, etc.

IE: we are now forced to vaccinate our children with toxic chemicals, send them to substandard schools to be held hostage to fast food, soda and advertising; we are forced to follow a lot of outdated building codes that were created before many green building techniques came into popularity, etc. Who's to say that, if vegetarians don't strongly express their medical and moral points of view NOW, our beliefs won't be marginalized or made difficult in every way to follow (more than it already is)? Who's to say that some day in the near or far future, if we don't speak up now, our children won't be taken away from us by the DSS or refused enrollment in public school etc, if we can't prove that we are feeding them adequately (which might include requiring eating meat)? I know this sounds crazy, but I think forcing an entire developed nation to jab your tiny babies with aborted fetus cells, dead viruses, mercury and formaldehyde products every 3 months, is extremely crazy, and I'm forced to do it unless I am able to homeschool. I also think it is crazy that WIC gives me five pounds of cheese and five gallons of milk every month, but I know there is some dairy industry motivation in that... and I have no choice, as a financially struggling parent without much to eat, but to find lots and lots of really creative ways to prepare piles of non-organic milk and cheese.

The whole anti-soy sentiment, to me (maybe I am paranoid, but...) is just a thinly veiled anti-vegetarian argument. Soy is the backbone of a lot of vegetarian diets, or at least a big staple in it. Attack soy, you attack the vegetarian lifestyle in a subtle way, and call it into question. If they attacked something else potentially harmful that is also used a lot in both mainstream and veg diets, such as peanuts, wheat, or milk products, it would not be so volatile, even if the issue were of equal concern. If the research is accurate, I understand and acknowledge it... always. But that article was simply bad journalism and should never have been published in a reputable, vegetarian-lifestyle-supportive magazine. It was like they let a tiger into the goat pen, without realizing the full implications of it.


----------



## bobo dioulasso (May 15, 2004)

What I forgot to add about the train of thought re: pre-civil war racial sentiment, etc... was that people were reacting to something that created a strong emotional response because instinctively, on some deep level, people saw the innate moral truth of the situation. However, out of necessity and conditioning, cultural realities etc, people had learned to suppress their more compassionate side. Same thing about meat... and I say this whether or not you eat it... my husband eats meat and he'd say the same about himself: if you have learned to eat meat despite everything you know about what it actually is, then you've learned, out of necessity for survival, to overcome a lot of inner "gag reflexes" about what is considered compassionate towards another living entity that walks, talks, has children, and feels emotions just as you do. And yes, in many parts of the world or with many physiologies that have adapted to them, eating meat has become a part of human life and necessary. If you look at most tribal (I would say more civilized) cultures, there is a consciousness about the taking of life and many rituals designed to help reconcile the human soul with the incongruity of its guardianship and moral stewardship of the earth, with the need so sometimes harm its residents. There is a giving thanks and asking forgiveness, an acknowledgement of the soul of the creature. However, I think that because we have lost that mentality and are so detached from the reality of killing an animal, we have this vegetarian/meat-is-great polarity that, on both sides, can lack insight... vegetarianism can become a knee-jerk moral response without thinking of the full implications, and meat-eating simply becomes hedonistic or a nutritional objective. I personally feel that we live in such an affluent culture that meat eating is certainly not necessary on the scale that it occurs (having factory farms, etc to just satisfy our taste for flesh)... meat to me, is something that should be taken with tremendous reverence and respect, out of necessity only (when the body truly asks for it), and not casually. Also I think it is entirely possible (unlike many current thinkers on this matter, who feel it is not) to thrive on a vegetarian (ie lacto, or possibly even vegan) diet, if the rest of one's lifestyle is in order. But I think that all the Atkins/Sally Fallon/Maker's Diet etc consciousness these days is a sort of justification to placate our own natural moral skittishness about the massive scale of the meat industry that exists merely to satisfy our senses. Since eating meat just as a sense-gratificatory, mindless act without connection to the taking of life is not a very morally laudatory thing, we have to have lots of distinguished professionals justifying it for us, and we have to point fingers at various aspects of the vegetarian diet, how inadequate it is, etc.

Does this make any sense, or am I off my rocker?


----------



## MOV (May 4, 2004)

In response to Honey who wrote,
" The article was a little heavy, but I thought her sources looked pretty good.
soy article endnotes
She has a PhD in nutrition (from a regionally accredited college) and is a CCN (Certified Clinical Nutritionist)."
We all came to the soy and marijuana articles with our preconceived notions which I think we all need to remind ourselves of in looking at the facts.
I am a soy-eating vegan. When I saw the soy article in the great Mothering magazine (which I tend to trust), I was not thrilled. I feared it would mean a complete overhaul of my family's diet. I put off reading it for a few days and then got my courage up.
When I read the article, it did instill fear in me. Some of the logic sounded (and still sounds) possible and, again, it was in Mothering. Also, I know my biases, so I was struggling to read the article with an open mind and not discredit it just because it didn't say what I wanted it to.
Nonetheless, I took immediate issue with a variety of things in the article.
First, the tone in which it and the side boxes were written does not merely question the safety of soy, it instills fear by word choice and giving limited information. For example, soy "lurks" and "Soy is one of the top eight allergens that cause immediate hypersensitivity reactions such as coughing, sneezing, runny nose, hives diarrhea, difficulty swallowing, and anaphylactic shock." What are the other top 8 allergens? Dairy? Eggs? Wheat? Peanuts?
Second, Daniel states opinion or her own personal deductions as fact. For example, "As a clinical nutritionist, I see many clients suffering negative consequences from using soy as their main protein source in vegetarian and vegan diets." This is opinion, not scientific fact. She may suspect this, but it is not proven.
Thirdly, she doesn't fairly present conflicting findings. For example, I've seen early puberty blamed on soy, dairy, high fat diet, pollution...
Even given these issues with the article, I did not want to dismiss it in its entirety. Wanting to know what others thought, I came to Mothering.com for the first time. I found the other thread about this article which, if anyone hasn't read it, has some really good links, discussion and information.
This led me to discover what makes this article really discreditable: she may list legitimate sources, but she does not convey what they say in an accurate manner.
One of her claims is: "The evidence is mounting that greater numbers of boys with birth defects such as hypospadias are born to soy-eating vegetarian moms." She gives two citations for this "fact." The first is a rat study. I didn't bother with this one. Rats we are not. The second one is a study which did find a higher rate of hypospadias in boys of vegetarian moms, but it did not find that they ingested significantly higher amounts of soy. It said more research was needed. (I read the study.)
To make such a strong statement and not back it up is irresponsible and unprofessional. If these are the best sources she has for her "fact" then it is not much of a fact.
I wasn't as alarmed at the marijuana article because it reads more like one person's story (it is) and I found her tone to be almost (not quite) apologetic -- and she certainly explained why she was led to do it. I don't see pregnant women in great numbers rushing out to smoke pot.
On the other hand, I do see - and have seen in these threads - lots of women and men wondering if they should stop eating soy and feeling panicked by the article, not knowing what alternatives to try.
Interestingly, the article which follows the personal story on marijuana use, by Zimmer and Morgan, questions marijuana research for some of the same reasons that I dislike the soy article... E.g. use of animal studies - "Because the effects of drugs on fetal development differ substantially across species, these studies have little or no relevance to humans." Rats we are not. They also note inconsistent findings and highlight the inconclusive nature of the results of studies with negative findings on the matter.
(Personal note: I felt guilty for trying tums for my morning sickness.)

In the end, who knows if there is truly a downside to soy? It is possible. Researching this article at least made me think that we would do well to not rely on soy so much just because eating a variety of foods in moderation is just a better way to go, and the article did give me a kick in the pants to start cutting back even more on processed food. We all know its junk.

A bit more on the soy article from the Physician's Committee for Responsible Medicine. I wrote to them and received this response:

_About the article, there are a number of questionable points made throughout
the article, and I suspect that the next issue of Mothering magazine will
publish letters from concerned nutrition researchers and health
professionals. We sent in a letter to the editor specifically addressing the
safety of soy formulas, which I have attached.

The main problems with the anti-soy information in the article are that the
author latches on to statistically insignificant findings, understates how
powerfully the research refutes many of her main points, and relies heavily
on animal research studies, which are medically irrelevant to human health.
In addition, Ms. Daniel misquotes Peter Golbitz making it appear as though
healthy Asians typically eat very little soy (in the sidebar reader quiz
titled "Just how much soy do Asians really eat per day?"). Mr. Golbitz has
contacted Mothering about this huge error in converting soybeans to soyfoods
as it essentially throws the whole article out of skew.

For information on soy for human health, please see the following article
which addresses many of the claims made in the Mothering magazine article by
referencing human research studies:
http://www.veganoutreach.org/health/soysafe.html

It's also important to mention that if you are concerned about soyfoods or
allergic to soy products, a healthy low-fat vegan diet doesn't need soy
products to be nutritionally complete. Soy products make convenient and
tasty substitutes for meat and other unhealthy foods that people, quite
rightly, are looking to avoid. However, the benefits of complete protein and
soluble fiber can easily be found in other beans, vegetables, grains, and
fruits. Also, in general, the less processed your diet is, the more
nutrient-dense it will be. Thus, replacing processed soy products such as
veggie burgers and veggie hot dogs with tofu, tempeh, beans, and lentils may
provide you with a more nutrient-dense diet.

I hope this information is useful.

Sincerely,
Jennifer Keller, RD
Nutrition Projects Coordinator
Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine
5100 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 400
Washington, DC 20016
(202) 686-2210, ext. 318
(202) 686-2216 (fax)
www.PCRM.org
www.CancerProject.org
www.HealthySchoolLunches.org_


----------



## Momtezuma Tuatara (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:

originally posted by starrynight
I think I'm kind of confused. You keep saying that the Japanese rarely consume any soy [/quote]Japanese now, realise that soy has possible caused their "shortness" because children who don't eat it, grow taller

Quote:

, but then you go on to say that soy is the cause of shorter height among the Japanese and not their genetics.
I think I messed up how I explained it. No, I don't believe its genetics. Have a look around you at the Japanese children in American schools. They are pretty average height for american children, not for Japanese children about 30 years ago...

Quote:

Also do you have any other links that discuss this.
No, becuase the work hasn't been done. This has been the outcome of discussions between myself, my Japanese friends and some nutritionists in Tokyo and Osaka

Quote:

The ones you gave in your post to Fiona2 about this only mention soy formula (which apparently the Japanese don't use) and not about how eating tofu can suppress growth in children.
Thanks....
No, japanese didn't give thei babies soy formula in the past, though I don't know their "habits" now. But why would that make any difference? If people ate lots of soy in the past that effect would pass through the breastmilk, since its a hormonal driven process.

Suseyblue, your circumstances fall outside "normal" severe hyperemesis (whatever "normal" is) Perhaps Jay can answer that, because I've not struck a cause as esophageal hernias.

I was also told, and don't know if its true, that the little bacteria eat up all the other nasties as well. So that might be okay. But I just couldn't stand the taste. I'd blanch whenever natto was anywhere near the olefactory sensors....


----------



## Momtezuma Tuatara (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:

_Originally posted by Bobo Dioulasso_the fact that phytates (that supposedly evil nutrient blocker in soy) is present in ALL grains and legumes,
We are talking about phytoeostrogens. I did a google search and nowhere do I find a link which says that other grains and legumes have any, or high levels of phyoteostrogens/isoflavones.

In fact, here is one site that says: http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/foods/legumes/

Quote:

Soybeans have attracted the most scientific interest, mainly because they are a unique source of phyotestrogens known as isoflavones
here's another one:

http://www.andrews.edu/NUFS/phytoestrogens.htm

Quote:

Of the diverse plants that constitute the legume family, only soy and its derivative foods provide significant amounts of the isoflavones, genistein, daidzein, and others, in the human diet.

Quote:

Attack soy, you attack the vegetarian lifestyle in a subtle way, and call it into question.















Well blow me down. Funny how when I was a vegetarian for years, I never touched soy and never missed it. And never needed it. Anyone would think from your points, it was a compulsory base, not an optional extra...

Quote:

Does this make any sense, or am I off my rocker?
I notice your 5 zealous posts, long on emotion, anecdote and short on fact, are all on this thread. Therefore I think you are on a souped up personal mission.
I have spent years studying soy, and know the opinions of many japanese people and nutritionists, as well as a lot of the research, and find your posts medically "wanting" as well as having emotive political by-lines that have nothing to do with the issue....

There is absolutely no reason to use soy in a vegetarian diet whatsoever.


----------



## bobo dioulasso (May 15, 2004)

Originally posted by Bobo Dioulasso
<<the fact that phytates (that supposedly evil nutrient blocker in soy) is present in ALL grains and legumes, >>

<<We are talking about phytoeostrogens. I did a google search and nowhere do I find a link which says that other grains and legumes have any, or high levels of phyoteostrogens/isoflavones.>>

No, Momtezuma, we are talking about phytates. Read the article again. Phytates and phytoestrogens are two seperate compounds mentioned. Phytoestrogens are the hormone analogs, phytates are the nutrient blockers.

Yes, I am on a mission in a sense, but not the way you seem to think. I don't think it's necessary for vegetarians to eat soy, but so many do and it's such a prevalent part of the vegetarian diet that it has almost become a symbol for the vegetarian way of life. Of course, if the article's and other researchers points about soy were truly valid and well-documented, I would accept them. However, as the past few posts have also clarified (read the last post by MOV), this article contains a lot of inadmissably poor journalism.

I am not a journalist, scientist or doctor myself, just an educated consumer with an interest in being told the truth. I was very open to Sally Fallon's "Nourishing Traditions" and her perspectives on soy back when that book came out, because while I was threatened by some of her points of view on vegetarianism, I respected her professionalism and careful research. I couldn't really poke holes in her theories, except to say that for me, and for many others I know in my life, they aren't necessarily true... I feel much better and function better on a meat-free diet. The only thing I had against her, really, was that she turned so many people that could have possibly been happy on a vegetarian diet, totally against the idea, and helped the meat industry in yet another way in this world. But she did create more awareness for sustainable, healthy meat farming and humane slaughtering practices, I think, and that is important too.

Maybe my posts were too long but I don't think you read them carefully... some of the things I mentioned were not addressed in your post: such as the fact that no good alternatives to soy are given in this article, the process of fermenting soy is not addressed, GMO vs organic/nonGMO soy also not addressed, the "how much soy do Asians really eat" sidebar is completely false and misleading (the researcher actually verified this, according to MOV), the author is completely misinformed about WIC and yet feels qualified to make up stories about it that support her conjectures about premature puberty that could have other causes, etc. She simply is not scientific.

I am not so much attacking anyone that criticizes soy... people can criticize it all they want, so long as the research is scientific and valid. But I sense an overall (with the advent of the Atkins diet, especially) a very profound, reactionary mood these days in nutritional circles that seems to view vegetarianism as unhealthy, and as I said and maintain, I think there is some element of psychology mixed in with a limited amount of factual basis in this. I don't want to go into again the whole nature of this psychology, but I think it has some implications for the vegetarian lifestyle that anyone caring about it, should take notice of and keep on their toes... even if they are less paranoid and sensitive about it than I am. It is certainly a point to consider.

I am sorry that you have taken my posts to be "zealous". I don't mean to be that way, although I do like a lively debate and I am emotional about journalistic fallacy that has wide implications.


----------



## TigerTail (Dec 22, 2002)

just wanted to point out for the record to bobo (lol, that is my parrot's name, so i feel a little silly, tho' he is an african grey and could prolly follow along) that homeschooling and the vaccination issue are not related in any manner.

an exemption is an exemption wherever you educate your children (or send them to be educated), and without the exemption, homeschooling children often (depending on the state) legally require vaccinating. other countries i can't speak for, don't know how it is handled.

suse


----------



## ChristaN (Feb 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Momtezuma Tuatara*
Japanese now, realise that soy has possible caused their "shortness" because children who don't eat it, grow taller









: Where on earth did you get this idea? My Japanese friend's 5 y/o daughter is significantly taller than my 5 y/o old daughter (they're 3 weeks apart in age) & she eats lots of soy - doesn't seem to be stunting her growth! My daughter is not abnormally small; she is in the 50% percentile for height - that's not why her Japanese friend is taller.

Can you give us some real sources here other than 'Japanese people tell me...'? If you've got some real research or statements from real Japanese nutritional organizations stating that their prior mass consumption of soy caused the growth of the entire country to be stunted, bring it out. Otherwise, don't just post a bunch of alarmist stuff with no proof.

Incidentally, as someone mentioned earlier, all ethnic groups are getting taller, not just those who have lowered their soy consumption. The average American male during revolutionary war times was about 5'4" to 5'5", depending upon whose sources you look at. Currently, I believe that that average American male is about 5'10" or maybe taller - I'm not sure on that one, but I know that it is much larger than 5'5". The pilgrams did not eat a lot of soy.


----------



## Quirky (Jun 18, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bobo dioulasso*
BTW, I agree that soy formula should not be legal. It is too concentrated and exclusive a source of soy for babies. Frankly, I think baby formulas, when necessary (and I think they should be avoided if possible), should be made of goat's milk, which is more nutritionally similar to human milk, than is cow's milk. When a baby eats soy formula that is the ONLY food it gets for many months.

Bobo,







to MDC! As a long time vegetarian I've been enjoying reading your posts. Slightly







T but I did want to point out that the idea that goat milk is more like human milk than it is like cow milk is not true. I can't get the page to come up right now, but there is a page at www.kellymom.com that compares and contrasts cow, goat, and human milk. I agree with you on the soy formula thing, and I certainly don't think cow milk or cow milk formula is any great shakes, I just don't think goat milk is the answer (I think universal, or as near universal as possible, breastfeeding is the answer!)

MOV,







to you too - I also enjoyed reading your post. I wonder what PCRM had to say about soy formula? I like that group, but I hope they didn't say soy formula is OK - my understanding is that the mineral levels are way out of whack (no matter what the issue of phytoestrogens is).


----------



## Momtezuma Tuatara (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ChristaN*







: Where on earth did you get this idea?

Because this is true to the experience of most of my Japanese friends and they are in japan and in this country

Quote:

My Japanese friend's 5 y/o daughter is significantly taller than my 5 y/o old daughter (they're 3 weeks apart in age) & she eats lots of soy - doesn't seem to be stunting her growth! My daughter is not abnormally small; she is in the 50% percentile for height - that's not why her Japanese friend is taller.
So? The fact is the if your daughter is in the 50th percentile, she will look short against at least 30% of the rest of children her age.

Quote:

Can you give us some real sources here other than 'Japanese people tell me...'?
No I can't. Just as you have used your illustration of your Japanese freinds 5 y/o, I used mine. Most of my information though, comes from japanese doctors who have all "noticed" this trend. After reading your post, I sent an e-mail to one of them, asking him if the Japanese ever studied this. He replied, astonished that anyone would even bother wasting time on it. In his words "What does it matter if you are taller? It will only matter if you are smaller..."

Quote:

If you've got some real research or statements from real Japanese nutritional organizations stating that their prior mass consumption of soy caused the growth of the entire country to be stunted, bring it out. Otherwise, don't just post a bunch of alarmist stuff with no proof.
Oh. So you read an observation as "of alarmist stuff" with no proof? So if you say that you've notice far obese people living in your street and that obese people are more prone to breathing problems, is that also "alarmist"? I couldn't care if you had proof or not. If you think I'm wrong, then prove me otherwise. Write to some japanese doctors and ask them whether the current generation of Japanese children are taller and why they think that might be.

Have you worked with Japanese people from Japan? I have. And I don't just know a handful of them. I am also a professionally trained traditional Japanese Embroidery embroider and teacher, which requires an 8 year apprenticeship, and which required learning japanese and living with Japanese. My observations and working with japanese started in 1989, so I'm not some sudden upstart from nowhere. It's not a throw-away comment from some navel gazer. So, do you know any more Japanese children than just one???

Quote:

Incidentally, as someone mentioned earlier, all ethnic groups are getting taller, not just those who have lowered their soy consumption. The average American male during revolutionary war times was about 5'4" to 5'5", depending upon whose sources you look at. Currently, I believe that that average American male is about 5'10" or maybe taller - I'm not sure on that one, but I know that it is much larger than 5'5". The pilgrams did not eat a lot of soy.
Think it through. Look at what the Japan used to eat, and compare it with what they eat now. The Japanese USED to eat a lot more soy than they do now. Like Europeans, their sources of food have vastly increased. If you are going to eat from a range of food three times as broad as it was, then something is going to give. *In the circles I mix in, that SOMETHING has been soy* . So yes part of it will be extra food, and less exercise. But amongst the older people my own age, they still principally ate what their parents ate after the war. Not for them french bread or even for some Okonomiyaki.

But the doctors I have talked to consider that the issue of reduction of phytoestogens in some people is more relevant than an increase in food.

And just as some people are severely allergic to soy, some won't be. And yes, some people in japan are allergic to soy. And peanuts. And other foods too.

My comments were my opinion, based on years of observation, and listening to what Japanese people say, and conversations with nutritionists and discussing things close to Japanese society.

If you think its a load or crud, then prove me wrong.

Maybe if Alexander is still here he might like to comment on that, since he is a teacher in Japan, and lives there, and might be able to discuss the changes in the diets of young Japanese...


----------



## bobo dioulasso (May 15, 2004)

<<Incidentally, as someone mentioned earlier, all ethnic groups are getting taller, not just those who have lowered their soy consumption. The average American male during revolutionary war times was about 5'4" to 5'5", depending upon whose sources you look at. Currently, I believe that that average American male is about 5'10" or maybe taller - I'm not sure on that one, but I know that it is much larger than 5'5". The pilgrams did not eat a lot of soy. >>

<<This it through. The Japanese USED to eat a lot more soy than they do now. Like Europeans, their sources of food have vastly increased. If you are going to eat from a range of food three times as broad as it was, then something is going to give. In the circles I mix in, that SOMETHING has been soy . So yes part of it will be extra food, and less exercise. >>

Clearly, Momtezuma, you have not listened to the previous poster as well as others who have been continually redirecting the conversation toward the global nature of increasing height in humans. However, it seems like since you are primarily familiar with all things Japanese, you prefer to steer the conversation back to that topic, whether or not it makes any sense.

Frankly, I don't think you are being very polite with posters in general. I'm sorry if I'm new on this list, but the least thing I expect on any list, is courtesy. I don't mind a little lively debate so long as it doesn't degrade into childish name-calling, not listening to valid points, and totally off-topic rants about one's extensive qualifications about a miniscule (and not terribly relevant) tangent of the conversation.

You have missed points many posters have made, that have refuted or debated your own points, on many occasions. If you have questions about what some of these are, refer to my last post to you, or just read through the threads again. If you really need clarification about this, I can repost examples of this. Why don't you try to listen more carefully to what people are saying, instead of just arguing and getting defensive? This isn't a battle, it's a discussion, about a health topic that concerns us all (otherwise we wouldn't be here).


----------



## Momtezuma Tuatara (Mar 3, 2004)

[dupe]


----------



## Momtezuma Tuatara (Mar 3, 2004)

Quote:

*=bobo dioulasso* .Clearly, Momtezuma, you have not listened to the previous poster as well as others who have been continually redirecting the conversation toward the global nature of increasing height in humans. However, it seems like since you are primarily familiar with all things Japanese, you prefer to steer the conversation back to that topic, whether or not it makes any sense.

Frankly, I don't think you are being very polite with posters in general. I'm sorry if I'm new on this list, but the least thing I expect on any list, is courtesy. I don't mind a little lively debate so long as it doesn't degrade into childish name-calling, not listening to valid points, and totally off-topic rants about one's extensive qualifications about a miniscule (and not terribly relevant) tangent of the conversation.

You have missed points many posters have made, that have refuted or debated your own points, on many occasions. If you have questions about what some of these are, refer to my last post to you, or just read through the threads again. If you really need clarification about this, I can repost examples of this. Why don't you try to listen more carefully to what people are saying, instead of just arguing and getting defensive? This isn't a battle, it's a discussion, about a health topic that concerns us all (otherwise we wouldn't be here).
Put here so that this is not deleted.

I have responded to you privately.


----------



## MOV (May 4, 2004)

I'm on the short side (FYI: ate regular American diet as a child), but have never suffered for my height. Does whether someone is short or tall have anything to do with health? I've read that breastfed babies and vegetarians grow more slowly but do turn out to be of about the same end height. We know breastfed babies are healthier. I would really like to know what height has to do with it??


----------



## Brisen (Apr 5, 2004)

I've been wondering the same thing. I grew up hearing now and then about the health problems that come with extra height, and was always glad that I was short (5 feet) rather than tall. But in my current nutrition research, height is usually taken as being directly related to health/quality of diet -- the taller the diet makes you, the better the diet is. That's one issue I have with Dr. Price's research, though I like it overall. Maybe I'm biased, though.


----------



## bobo dioulasso (May 15, 2004)

Just to note,

I am sorry if anyone on this list has viewed my points as being extremist in any way (about vegetarianism, etc). I am not at all an extremist if you know me in person, and I have a husband who eats meat, and I cook it for him (which in my religion, is not really accepted, as we practice vegetarianism... but I am a lot less strict and more openminded in many ways than many in that culture, and consider the needs of my husband first in all ways). The only thing I was commenting about in my criticism of the current reactionary thinking about meat-eating vs vegetarianism, its psychological undercurrent etc, has less to do with the general morality of meat-eating, and more to do with the fact that people DO inherently possess a moral instinct to protect and care for other living creatures that behave in similar ways and express similar feelings as we do, and that in order to get over it to be able to eat meat, people have to learn to suppress this identification/compassion somewhat so that you could kill an animal. That is why historically, most cultures and people in the world have had rituals to help reconcile the taking of life with the necessity for survival and nourishment. We have become detached from this reality, and it was just and only that that I'm objecting to. Meat has become less about survival and deeper spiritual responsibilities, than about mindless sense gratification and a widespread, inhumane industry that feeds into that. My husband eats a lot of meat, and his physique seems to demand it, but he only buys halal/free range meat, and in his village, they have elaborate prohibitions and rituals about what animals can be killed and how. There is a tremendous respect for the spirit of the animal that we lack in this culture... if anything, we just want to forget that something gave its life for us, and would rather just see it packaged in plastic or unrecognizable. This is why, I think, there is such a reactionary backlash against vegetarianism (and soy, for that matter, as a chief and symbolic ingredient in many vegetarians' diets in the US and Europe). The fact that the article at hand contained so many logical and factual flaws, illustrates our readiness to accept half-baked data in the face of this

In any case, I think it's time for me to withdraw from this conversation. If anyone wants to contact me privately to talk about the article or any of our points in this conversation I'd be happy, so long as your tone is friendly and respectful. I just feel like there are some people here who are seriously misinterpreting my points, and arguing with me, when I am not trying to argue. And I am a working mom of a baby, so I really don't have a lot of energy for negativity right now.

So long, and enjoyed reading all your posts.


----------



## PurpleBasil (Jan 28, 2004)

Bobo, please do not leave this thread. I'm so sorry that certain posters are using tones against the user rules. It is unfortunate.

But! I have watched this thread very closely as I need it to help me figure this out with soy. I consume a lot of soy and have only health benefits (as do my kids) since adding it to our diet (unfermented soy). I don't know if that is coincidence or what and I read this thread to help me figure it out.

Your posts have contributed greatly to my understanding of soy issues and it would be a shame if you had never come to post or left now,imo.

Montezuma, that Japanese doctor who refuses to research something b/c it is 'obvious' and only matters to the shorter person is outrageous. The minute a doctor refuses to even entertain the idea of researching phenomena is when it is 'obvious' that someone has closed his mind to any causations except those he opinions. Shame on him. But convenient for the anecdotal assertions in this thread.

Thank you to everyone who is attempting to bring this discussion into true discussion. The fact that people are evolving taller all over the world is worth investigating, yes, even for tall people to investigate!









Please do what you have to, Bobo, but I am one person who really has not much to contribute to this thread but I read it everyday for the new posts so I can be part of this awakening about what soy is and isn't. I don't think the Mothering article was worth much for the reasons stated here but I do think it is a very important topic. There is a ton of FTT among adults and children with vegan diets and that is hidden in much of the vegan propaganda out there...maybe Mothering can address that next.

Oh and Montezuma, just like you challenged Jay, how about you submit your proposed healthy diet for vegans, vegetarians (sans soy of course) and pregnant women? I'm sure you'll tell me why you won't but it is a fair challenge based on your assertions here.


----------



## ChristaN (Feb 14, 2003)

I, too, am going to bow out from this discussion at this point. I stopped posting on & reading the other soy thread here for the same reason. It is not because I have nothing to say, but I don't like being attacked by individuals with no proof except correlations. I have a lot of scientific training in statistics as well as a Masters degree in Public Health, so I really have a lot of difficulty with correlations being used as "proof." I can't truly have a reasonable discussion when that is the direction from which others refuse to budge.


----------



## MOV (May 4, 2004)

The seemingly personal attacks, subtle and not so subtle put-downs and tendency in posts to compete with anecdotes of personal experiences has made me at times feel like I was wasting my limited free time instead of using it to research an important issue. I would still like more information. Of course it is important that we parents take care of ourselves so we must do what we need to do. Still, I would hate for someone to have useful information or comments or a burning question and keep silent. I think the majority of readers want open, considerate posts. I hope we can get back to that. And if a particular post seems offensive to you -- scroll on by. A little planned ignoring in this case might be useful.
To those who feel hurt or frustrated... I still want to hear what you have to say.
Also, I'm new to this whole thing -- how do these discussions get moderated??


----------



## tricia80 (Oct 28, 2003)




----------



## TigerTail (Dec 22, 2002)

i really can't imagine strolling onto a message board as a newbie & deigning to be so judgemental, regardless of the strength of my convictions (i had to be here for years before i was this openly, uh- me.) it's a little like popping into a new aquaintence's home & criticizing the carpet (not that i'm comparing you to carpet, momtezuma. )

it is considered a fairly rude thing to do by the 'net savvy. one might consider treading lightly before joining in with the gusto and intimacy of a heated after-dinner debate with the inlaws.

i'm certain there is probably some paragraph in the user agreement about 'tone', but
thankfully cathe usually lets us play like big girls and boys and rarely needs to step in here.

are you suggesting there is a grave need for a moderater to step in, mov? is anybody really feeling that personally wounded by a debate about the efficacy of the research of an article on *soy*?







<--- (the smilie that indicates that one is still allowed to judiciously use sarcasm here. my proof-text, as it were.)

i know momtezuma can handle herself quite nicely and has no need for defenders, but really.

this was a remarkably interesting thread, and i have been fascinated by all the information that has been proffered (both footnoted & published, and anecdotal.) it would be a damned shame for it to get edited to hell (or disappear completely.) go if you will, but must you take all your toys?

suse

edit: simone! what happened to the 'rolleyes' smilie! he's smiling! i wasn't smiling! that's not 'rolleyes'- that's... :bemused! well, that certainly changed my TONE. argh!


----------



## tricia80 (Oct 28, 2003)

T

they changed some of the code... this one







is : eyesroll no space obviously and







: is now : lol:


----------



## PurpleBasil (Jan 28, 2004)

Who are you saying is new and rude, suseyblue?

A link for you on the rolling eyes smilie:

http://www.mothering.com/discussions...d.php?t=145652

And the user rules on sarcasm:

Quote:

Posting in a disrespectful, defamatory, adversarial, baiting, harassing, offensive, insultingly sarcastic or otherwise improper manner, toward a member or other individual, including casting of suspicion upon a person, invasion of privacy, humiliation, demeaning criticism, namecalling, personal attack, or in any way which violates the law.
Not sure where the allowance is, as you state, that we are allowed to 'judiciously use sarcasm here'. Can you clarify?

Thanks.


----------



## honey (Nov 28, 2003)

I thought Bobo's posts were appropriate. I don't care if she is new here or not, she has a right to join a conversation.

Geez.


----------



## TigerTail (Dec 22, 2002)

why, that would be namecalling, playdoh. i was only making a general suggestion, make of it what you will.

i suppose there is a line to be drawn somewhere between 'judicious' and 'insulting' sarcasm, and i will be happy to let cathe draw it. if it is insulting sarcasm to note that this has gotten positively ridiculous, then indict me. soy! not abortion, or politics, or religious circumcision (all of which i have had perfectly civil conversations here about), soy!!!! i grow and love edamame, but i can discuss whether it is healthy to eat large quantities of it, without taking it personally!

and thank you, tricia: my proof-text that sarcasm in some context is allowed would be the







then. i've read desmond morris' 'body language'- tell me that smilie is not a sarcastic little bugger! (if it isn't, it has been being used vastly incorrectly for the past four years here at mdc.)

suse


----------



## seahorsie (Jul 1, 2003)

hi, i read this string over as carefully as i could with a heavy 2yr old bf-ing asleep in my lap and my left arm asleep... so hope i'm not repeating any info here. Dr. Mercola has been a godsend for me for years in many health respects, especially during pregnancy and bf-ing. He reports his health findings from many sources and seems to share what he discovers sooner rather than later. This sometimes has led to some retractions, but i appreciate his honesty in doing so. he does not shrink from controversy. anyway, he reported on the dangers of soy some years ago. http://www.mercola.com Just do a search on soy. he also has 2 books out now. whether or not soy is as bad as it's now reported to be, we need to be informed of the possibility. my approach to any health issue is if there seems to be enough different rational sources (whose philosophy is in line with mine, or someimes not) coming to the same conclusion, then i give it careful consideration. i chose to go against the mainstream when Mercola strongly reccommended that we stop consumption of all fish unless tested to be free of mercury & pcps etc. That was when I was about to become pregnant 3 years ago. I stopped eating fish. Now it has been reported on the nightly news and warnings are now reqiured by law to be posted at every meat counter that sells fish in CA. But I digress. As far as soy goes, it always concerned me that soy is in so many food products now. America has a problem with excess. Too much of a good thing must be even better! If you follow the "everything in moderation" philosophy, and stay informed, follow your instincts, I think you're much better off.


----------



## bobo dioulasso (May 15, 2004)

Suseyblue,

OK, I accept the criticism. I came on too strong, I just was bursting at the seams since I work in the natural health industry, and I am sick and tired of seeing this article in my face and seeing how everyone takes everything in printer's ink very seriously without evaluating the journalism involved. Not just this article, but the Atkins diet (which is actually warned against by the Physician's Committee for Responsible Medicine), and a lot of other financially motivated fad diets out there that play into consumers' desires for easy solutions. I am not closed to the possibility of soy being harmful in excess, in fact I always thought Americans do everything to excess (as I mentioned earlier), but I do think that, for people to ignore so of what I saw as gaping fallacies in one article without pause, represents a deeper issue, which is that vegetarianism overall is under considerable attack and criticism by the natural health and mainstream press these days. Some of this criticism is healthy and natural scientific curiosity, but some of it to me, is a bit reactionary and sentimental, Rousseaian, etc... the idea that we should return to some biblical archetype or the hunter/gatherer "noble savage" that ate only raw foods or meat fresh from the hunt, etc. The truth is that there really are a lot of diverse diets for different peoples, and now in my opinion (I won't say this is The Truth...







) there is something out there in Creation for everyone. I don't think any edible, nutritive food out there was created just to dupe us or poison us, but I do think they all have their time, place, and suggested use. And I think different constitutions and genetic makeups of people digest foods differently. I happen to thrive on soy and so do many others I know. I do try to avoid excessive soy "junk foods" but I really don't think they are worse than, say, pasta or bread in their processed-ness.

Also it surprises me that no one's really followed on a point some of us have made... which is that the article really doesn't discuss alternatives. If we are vegetarians, then suggestions of alternate all-vegetable protein sources would be great. If people eat meat or are on low-carb diets, then they should be also informed, IMO, that the meat and dairy options out there can be just as dangerous (or worse?) because - and this is really key for me - animal products that are not organically raised, contain lots of added hormones, antibiotics, and questionable feed ingredients. So for me, while I acknowledge the phytoestrogens and other not-so-great substances in soy, I think as a food, it has a balance of good and bad so long as your body seems to digest it well. Fermented soy, I think, is quite healthy. This is all my opinion of course and anecdotal experience. And on the other hand, I think soy is a much better alternative, still, to conventionally raised meat and dairy, which contains synthetic estrogens and growth hormones rather than the more self-regulating ones in soy.

I don't want to address any other aspects of this conversation that are potentially inflammatory, although I agree that it's really silly to get so emotional about them. Mostly I just want people to talk respectfully and if people felt I was rude, I'm sorry. That's not my intention.

But in general, since my feelings about the issue are strong and I see deeper/subtle underlying social issues involved, I would rather butt out... not because I am sulking and "taking my toys" but just because I don't have the mental stamina these days for the subtleties of forum politics/dynamics, as well as the addictive nature of sitting around at your computer talking to strangers. I do like to talk about issues, but if it starts turning into debate team dynamics, I'd rather retreat. I am interested to hear what others have to say, still, and if people want to contact me privately, I would rather do that.

I don't want people to think I'm angry or upset, I just felt it was best at that time to go back to lurking and focusing on the rest of my life rather than get drawn into the abyss of abstract cyber-debates.


----------



## seahorsie (Jul 1, 2003)

Does anyone drink organic, fortified rice milk, such as Rice Dream as an alternative? (Also rice cheeses, etc) I had been doing that until, due to other dental issues re my dd, I have decided to try raw organic milk - so far, so good.


----------



## rainsmom (Dec 5, 2001)

I give dd fortified Rice Dream as well as fortified Almond milk. From what Ive read, I dont feel safe giving dd cows milk, even organic. She uses so little on her cereal, and almost never asks to drink a glass of milk. She would much rather drink water than anything else. I grew up drinking glasses of milk, so it was only the past 8 yrs that I gave that up finally. Except for yogurt and occasional cheese, I limit our dairy intake.


----------



## ericaz (Jun 10, 2003)

Great thread.

I sent an email to Sally Fallon letting her know about it and asking that she weigh in.

I do know people who have been eating a diet heavy in soy for years and have had no ill health as a result. I also know people who can undeniably associate their health problems to a diet high in soy and low in animal proteins. So many women (men, but not as many) have approached me asking me to help them overhaul their diets when all else has failed. These people generally have health problems the conventional medical community refuses to classify as legitimate - fibromyalgia, CFS, candida, etc.

All of these people benefit from a diet high in animal protein (including raw milk and pastured meat) and low in soy.

There's a reason why soy is always included in the list of common food allergies. Would anyone ever say "Peanuts?! How dare someone say we should be leary of introducing peanuts into our diet because they might cause allergies?! It's how I get my protein so there's no way I'm giving it up." So why is everyone in such a tizzy over soy? Yes, there are health benefits to soy when fermented and eaten in moderation. But should it be used as a main source of protein? Absolutely not. Doing so will only potentially disrupt digestion and possibly cause your thyroid to function improperly.

And fwiw, while I respect a lot of what Dr. Jay Gordon has to say in regards to child-rearing, his nutrition advice is less than stellar. Any progressive nutrition expert will tell you that.


----------



## seahorsie (Jul 1, 2003)

Rainsmom, raw milk is a whole different animal, so-to speak, than pateurized milk. I agree that the latter should be avoided. I haven't had a glass of pastuerized milk for years either. for more raw milk info, one source is http://www.mercola.com/2004/apr/24/raw_milk.htm

My dd has developed cavities and I have been advised to try raw dairy to remineralize her teeth. But this is totally off-topic.


----------



## rainsmom (Dec 5, 2001)

I think its not just the milk, raw or organic......just the practice of drinking the milk of another animal as an adult or weaned human. When you think of it, its a bizarre practice. Maybe its just me......reading too much about the negatives of dairy since I am intolerant. BUt it was just so much a part of growing up. Mom would buy huge jugs of milk and we would drink large amounts of it every day. Im hoping my dd drinks more water, and THAT becomes her habit.

By the way....my best friends dad worked in a milk pastuerization plant years ago.......she filled me in about the process a few years ago.

As far as the whole topic of soy.........anything you eat in LARGE doses cant be good. If you ate red meat at every meal, THAT wouldnt be good for MOST people either.......in the long run. Isnt that why diets such as ATKINS have been getting negative press lately? Im not going to stop eating/drinking soy, but I definetly will continue to limit my intake of processed foods, including fake meats, etc.


----------



## MOV (May 4, 2004)

For the record, I have not been personally offended by anyone. I didn't address my last e-mail to anyone because there wasn't a particular person I really felt I needed to say something too. I just would hate to see people back out of the discussion. I admit that I am a "newbie" and not net savvy. I didn't know that I was supposed to hold back, and I guess I'm not that kind of a person. Rereading it, the first line of my last post reads awful strong which I didn't intend, but I just wanted to put it out there that the targeted disagreements were a put off. I think there are ways of expressing ourselves that can say what we need to say with a minimum of fallout. I don't think it matters if the topic is soy or abortion if we have respect for others' opinions. Even talking about butterflies could get heated if we don't have respect. (I do think the majority of posts have been respectful.) I asked how these threads get moderated because I don't know. My experience is with face-to-face discussions, and I prefer to have a group facilitator to call things back to the topic. I guess this is very different in that everyone can write posts at the same time whereas in person we can only hear one individual at a time.
I want to know what people have to say, and I'm glad we're getting back to that.


----------



## bobo dioulasso (May 15, 2004)

Ericaz,

if you do contact Sally Fallon, I want to mention that, after having ordered (for my store) Nourishing Trad's after a long absence without it (ie relying on memory... I read the book last year), and reading it at work today (bad me







) I renewed my respect for her research, even if I don't personally agree with the entire direction it heads into. I just don't want her to think I've missed her points or am bashing her. She has done the very good work of dissecting a lot of prevailing health myths in the medical/nutritional world and popular press, and going back into the history of humankind to find what "works" for people overall. And to be fair, she does encourage moderation, not a "meat centered diet", although I was misled upon the first read, by my intense memory of all the sidebar quotes about Masais drinking milk and blood, indigenous Gaelic eating carrion and offal with rancid butter, and Native Americans having intestine-eating contests while feasting on the contents of bison tummies!









Anyways, this is getting off topic... but anyways upon this read I see that she is just endorsing "animal fat" which can also mean dairy, butter, etc. I just don't want her to think I don't respect her research or see the subtleties of what she is saying. I just know plenty of lacto-veg kids though whose moms were lacto-veg thruout pregnancies, and they are some of the healthiest and brightest kids I have seen. They eat lots of milk, butter, ghee and dairy products, beans etc. Not much soy... actually not much good is said about soy in the HK movement either... it's supposed to be "chicken feed". But a lot of us like it anyways and use it. I do not think that just because there are no "exclusively vegetarian" peoples in the world that it's not a valid or healthful way of life. I think that what you WILL find is, in every culture in the world, occasional anomalies of people (or religious sects, etc) who decide out of personal sensitivities, to not eat meat. (even my dh's completely meat-centric one, his grandfather was a veg out of compassion for animals)! So who knows. Maybe people were meant to eat meat, and maybe we were meant to evolve as a species, beyond it. I can't say. Anyways, I digress.

BTW I don't think it's weird to drink cow's milk. Not to get into a debate about it... to each his own fancy and beliefs on the subject... but mainly I just think humans are opportunistic and intelligent, and will eat just about anything that doesn't bite back... and for the most part, that is a great survival mechanism. I think it makes more sense with some animals than others. Cows, I think, have kind of a unique relationship with humans, since the dawn of civilization (and agriculture) they have been almost like co-creators of the human race as we know it today. They help us plough fields, they have manure and urine that are totally antiseptic and fertilizing to the fields, and they help dispose of vegetable waste in the kitchen. They just do everything. This is BTW why they are considered sacred in India... because they are very kind, docile creatures that have the unique quirk of very readily allowing themselves to be "adopted" and milked by people, forming attachments, etc... and when they calve, domesticated cows often make way more milk than they need to, as if their body considered the humans as their extra "children". In my dh's country, actually, he said that he raised many cows and oxen, and that one of his cows would even come into his house (it's that kind of village







and moo to get milked... before even her calf had had any. The bond between cows and humans that gets formed is unique and profound. However, it's true that throughout most of the world, they are treated lousily, and milked forcibly.

However, I don't think I'd go and try to milk a tiger or dog...







...

and rice milk... it seems like it's good mainly for the taste rather than the nutritional value. I am highly suspicicious of anything "fortified"... which is just, to me, a way of saying it's nutritionally a little deficient and so had to be artificially jacked up. Synthetic nutrients added to these things are not the same thing as food that naturally is containing them. Still, its pretty tasty. Low on protein. I try to stick with soy or nut milks. BTW, OT, I have been eating tons of RAW peanuts lately from chinatown (dh says in his country, that's what women take to increast their breastmilk, and it seems to be working!) and was thinking, they taste SO different from regular (roasted?) peanuts... more like raw snap peas in the pod yet with a milky, sweet texture... they would make a great nut milk!!

BD


----------



## spiritfreedom (Jun 1, 2003)

I think that one of the problems with printing this sort of thing, is that the public may misinterpret. For instance, you've got a pregnant teen who reads the article and uses it as justification for smoking pot.

I think it was not a wise thing to publish. All over the internet on MANY forums I've lurked around on, people are canceling their subscriptions to Mothering. Even more upsetting is the mainstream folks I chat with who have been interested and open to having conversations about alternative ways of parenting are now backing WAY off. Very bad move Mothering.


----------



## TigerTail (Dec 22, 2002)

hey, bobo! thanks for coming back! (i am gonna have a soft spot for anyone who shares my congo grey son's name, anyway.) and sorry, mov, for not taking my own advice- i came off way snarkier than i meant to.

i was afeared that this very informative, passionate thread might be closed due to all of us getting a bit hot under the collar, & that is what i was mostly wired about. so many times a thread gets interesting around here, & *boom!* it's dust. i don't like to see everything i write disappear into the ether, let alone valuable info & well-reasoned arguments others wrote that i like to refer back to at leisure (i.e., when toddlers aren't ripping my nipples off.) the loss of the archives was bad enough (i will be talking about my 3000+ obliterated posts in the nursing home.)

well, i hope sally can make it, i'd be honored to hear her thoughts. what an inspiring book.

apologies to anyone i offended, suse


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

So, Dr. Jay, what about the Soy article's statement that eating lots of soy while pregnant will result in a male child having hypospadias?


----------

