Corn and Soy free......?

Soy contains phyto-estrogen, Diadzein and Genistein. Estrogen is used to induce cancer in cells so laboratory researchers can experiment with them. See this excerpt from "World Without Cancer" by Edward Griffin. This excerpt discusses the role estrogen plays in cancer. I thought it relevant due to talk of estrogen hormone substances found in soy, and a breast cancer survivor acquaintance of mine who took to the time to explain her devout stance against soy to me.


Page 82 -

If it is true that the trophoblast cell is brought
into being by a chain reaction which involves es-
trogen or other steroid hormones, then it would
follow logically that an unnaturally high exposure to
these substances would be a factor that favored the
onset of cancer. And, indeed, this has been proven
to be true. The use of diethylstilbestrol as a fatten-
ing agent for cattle was halted in 1972 because it was
proven that this steroid, which was present in trace
amounts in the beef at our grocery stores, had
caused stomach cancer in experimental rats ?

It also has been demonstrated that women taking
contraceptive pills — especially those which are
predominantly estrogen — not only undergo irrever-
sible breast changes, but became almost three times
more cancer-prone than women who do not. This
fact was stressed by Dr. Otto Sartorius, Director of
the Cancer Control Clinic at Santa Barbara General
Hospital in California, who then added:

Estrogen is the fodder on which carcinoma [cancer] grows.
To produce cancer in lower animals, you first introduce
an estrogen base.

There is a slight confusion factor in all this due
to the fact that, occasionally, some cancers appear
to respond to hormone therapy — the deliberate
administration of estrogen or testosterone to the
cancer patient. But the only cases in which this kind
of therapy is rewarded with favorable results are
those involving cancer of the sexual glands, such as
the breasts or prostate, or those organs that are
heavily affected by sexual hormones. Female patients
are given male hormones and male patients
are given female hormones . The apparent favorable
action is the result of the hormones' attempt to
oppose or neuter those glands. If the cancer is retarded,
it is because the organ, is retarded.

The side-effects of this kind of therapy, of course,
are the altering of the sexual physiology of
the patient. Also, the beneficial results it produces,
if any, are usually described by physicians as pallia-
tive, which means that the cancer is not cured, only
retarded temporarily. But the worst part is that
— especially in the case, of men using estrogen— the
presence of unnaturally high levels of steroids
throughout the system could well be a factor favorable
to the production of new cancer tissue other
than at the primary site.

When cancer begins to form, the body reacts
by attempting to seal it off and surrounding it with
cells that are similar to those in the location where it
occurs. A bump or lump is the initial result. Dr.
Jones continues:

In order to counteract the estrogenic ac-
tion on the trophoblast, the body floods
the areas of the trophoblast in a sea of
beta-glucuronidase (BG) which inactivates
all estrogen on contact . At the same
time the cells of the tissues being invaded
by the trophoblasts defensively multiply
in an effort at local containment.

Usually the efforts of the body to control
the nidus of trophoblast are successful,
the trophoblast dies, and a benign polyp
or other benign tumor remains as a
monument to the victory of the body over
cancer.

Under microscopic examination, many of
these tumors are found to resemble a mixture or
hybrid of both trophoblast and surrounding cells; a
fact which has led some researchers to the premature
conclusion that there are many different types
of cancer. But the degree to which various tumors
appear to be different is the same degree to which
they are benign; which means that it is the degree to
which there are nofi-cancerous cells-within it. The
greater the malignancy, the more these, tumors
begin to resemble each other, and the more clearly
they begin to take on the classic characteristics of
pregnancy trophoblast. And the most malignant of
all cancers — the chorionepitheliomas— are almost
indistinguishable from trophoblast cells. For, as
Dr. Beard pointed out over seven decades ago, they
are one in the same.

An interesting sidelight "to these facts is that
trophoblast cells produce a distinct hormone that
readily can be detected in the urine. This is known
as the chorionic gonadotrophic hormone (CGH). If
it is true that cancer is trophoblast, then it is logical
to expect that cancer cells also would secrete this
hormone. And, indeed, they do. It is also true that
no other cell is known to produce CGH. 1 This
means that, if CGH is detected in the urine, it-
indicates that there is present either normal preg-
nancy trophoblast or abnormal malignant cancer.
If the patient is a woman, she either is pregnant or
has cancer. If he is a man, cancer can be the only
cause.

The significance of this fact is far-reaching. A
simple urine test similar to the well-known rabbit
1 test for pregnancy can detect the presence of cancer
long before it manifests itself as illness or a lump,
and it throws serious doubt upon the rationale be-
hind surgical biopsies . In fact, many physicians are
convinced that any cutting into a malignant tumor,
even for a biopsy, actually increases the likelihood
that the tumor will spread. (More on that in a later
chapter.) But, in any event, there is questionable
need for such procedures in view of the fact that the
CGH urine test is available and proven to be highly
accurate. In fact, Dr. Manuel Navarro* Professor
of Medicine and Surgery at the University of Santo
Tomas in Manilla,, has offered this test to American
physicians and reports better than
95% accuracy with both cancer and non-cancer pa-
tients. Almost all of the so-called errors have been
"in showing cancer activity within;patients who pre-
sumably did not have cancer. But in a large percen-
tage of these, those same patients later developed
clinical manifestations of cancer, suggesting that
the CGH test was accurate after all."


This information is why most well-read cancer survivors avoid all sources of estrogen and therefore avoid soy too. Soy even in its organic or GMO free form contains phyto-estrogen, Diadzein and Genistein. This is also the reason why so many people in Arizona are becoming a part of www.phoenixorganicfeed.com
 
Last edited:
The source for organic whole grains I discovered that i thought was in Missouri like me, isn't. But they do have free shipping for anything over $99. http://www.pleasanthillgrain.com/bu...d_white_wheat_berries_making_bread_flour.aspx
so here's what I'm going to do to get soy and corn free raw ingredients and make my own feed. I'll have to save up a bit to buy it in bulk, since the majority come in 45 pound mylar lined buckets. It won't be as cheap as the feed store, but it doesn't look like it will be prohibitively pricey either. Still cheaper than paying for shipping from scratch n peck feeds. I found this recipe and I wish I could recall where. But in addition to kitchen scraps, veggies, and pasturing this is the organic, soy free feed mix I intend:
4 cups oats
4 cups hard red wheat
2 cups soft white wheat
2 cups kamut
2 cups millet
(2 cups corn can be eliminated or replaced by other grains and seeds, like triticale or just extra BOSS or oats)
1 cup lentils
1 cup flax
From nuts.com I'll buy
1 cup chia or sesame seed
1/4 cup hemp
4 cups Black oil sunflower seeds
from seaveg.com I'll buy
1/4 cup kelp

That's my plan, and like I said, I have to save up. It'll be about 400 pounds of grains and such all total, and the recipe makes about 6 pounds or so per batch. I can split the cost with at least one neighbor which will help. I'll let ya'll know when I start feeding it, and how the girls lay with it!
big_smile.png
 
Fab!!! Thanks I will get that recipe down and yeah let me know cause I am going to have to come up with something to supplement when the free ranging isn't so great this winter
 
Soy contains phyto-estrogen, Diadzein and Genistein. Estrogen is used to induce cancer in cells so laboratory researchers can experiment with them. See this excerpt from "World Without Cancer" by Edward Griffin. This excerpt discusses the role estrogen plays in cancer. I thought it relevant due to talk of estrogen hormone substances found in soy, and a breast cancer survivor acquaintance of mine who took to the time to explain her devout stance against soy to me.


Page 82 -

If it is true that the trophoblast cell is brought
into being by a chain reaction which involves es-
trogen or other steroid hormones, then it would
follow logically that an unnaturally high exposure to
these substances would be a factor that favored the
onset of cancer. And, indeed, this has been proven
to be true. The use of diethylstilbestrol as a fatten-
ing agent for cattle was halted in 1972 because it was
proven that this steroid, which was present in trace
amounts in the beef at our grocery stores, had
caused stomach cancer in experimental rats ?...

In order to counteract the estrogenic ac-
tion on the trophoblast, the body floods
the areas of the trophoblast in a sea of
beta-glucuronidase (BG) which inactivates
all estrogen on contact . At the same
time the cells of the tissues being invaded
by the trophoblasts defensively multiply
in an effort at local containment.

Usually the efforts of the body to control
the nidus of trophoblast are successful,
the trophoblast dies, and a benign polyp
or other benign tumor remains as a
monument to the victory of the body over
cancer. ... An interesting sidelight "to these facts is that
trophoblast cells produce a distinct hormone that
readily can be detected in the urine. This is known
as the chorionic gonadotrophic hormone (CGH). If
it is true that cancer is trophoblast
, then it is logical
to expect that cancer cells also would secrete this
hormone....

The significance of this fact is far-reaching. A
simple urine test similar to the well-known rabbit
1 test for pregnancy can detect the presence of cancer

long before it manifests itself as illness or a lump,
and it throws serious doubt upon the rationale be-
hind surgical biopsies . ...the fact that the
CGH urine test is available and proven to be highly
accurate. In fact, Dr. Manuel Navarro* Professor
of Medicine and Surgery at the University of Santo
Tomas in Manilla
,, has offered this test to American
physicians and reports better than
95% accuracy with both cancer and non-cancer pa-
tients. Almost all of the so-called errors have been
"in showing cancer activity within;patients who pre-
sumably did not have cancer. But in a large percen-
tage of these, those same patients later developed
clinical manifestations of cancer, suggesting that
the CGH test was accurate after all."


This information is why most well-read cancer survivors avoid all sources of estrogen and therefore avoid soy too. Soy even in its organic or GMO free form contains phyto-estrogen, Diadzein and Genistein. This is also the reason why so many people in Arizona are becoming a part of www.phoenixorganicfeed.com
Gosh, I feel compelled to point out the the reference you cite was published in 1974. Dr Navarro Died in 1992. The trophoblast hypothesis of cancer origin was first put forward in 1902 by John Beard from the University of Edinburgh. The reference states that a simple urine test for cancer would be similar to the 'rabbit test' --this test is now commonly available in the form of an over the counter pregnancy test but back then, the test was called a rabbit test because it used a live rabbit injected with a sample of the woman's urine. The rabbit was killed several days later to see if the rabbit's ovaries showed characteristic changes. Can you imagine if an otc pregnancy test were a test for cancer? These tests would be marketed as home cancer screening tools and the market would be extremely robust (ie they would be making billions).

I would personally not want to be treated for cancer or any other disease by a doctor that has not received training in his or her art in the last 40 years.

That is not to discount the role of estrogen in some cancers. However, I would like to point out that soy is only one of many foods that contain phytoestrogens. Any antioxidant supplement that says 'isoflavones' contains phytoestrogens. Other legumes, whole grains, and some seeds such as flax seeds also contain phytoestrogens. One quick read reference: http://www.med.nyu.edu/content?ChunkIID=108298

Interestingly, phytoestrogens are a weaker estrogen-like molecule that also bind to estrogen receptors in the body and thus compete with the more potent natural estrogen. This may actually reduce cancer in some cases. This NIH study from 2012 shows a statistically significant decrease in the recurrence of breast cancer in treated women who consume >10 mg of isoflavones/day. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=22648714
 
Most soy and corn are GMO's which are very bad for anyone that eats them, or products fed to animals with GMO's. You should educate yourself on them, they are scary!

This is a general question, not directed only at JillParham, and am eager to hear the varieties of points of view on the matter.

I have been wondering, specifically, what is most scary and bad about GMOs? I have gotten different answers from a few people about their reasons behind the aversion to GMOs and I was wonder what other people think? Answers have included 'they are of corporate manufacture and patented and therefore bad', all the way over to 'the inserted genes will be absorbed into my system and may integrate into my DNA'.

Please help me understand your personal perspectives.
 
studies on gmo's have shown exaggerated rates of tumors, hormone disruptions and such in laboratory animals. I don't have the links with me to post, but they are easily found on the internet. these studies are the reason many European countries are banning and destroying all gmo crops. There's quite a bit of information to be found on both sides of the argument.
 
studies on gmo's have shown exaggerated rates of tumors, hormone disruptions and such in laboratory animals. I don't have the links with me to post, but they are easily found on the internet. these studies are the reason many European countries are banning and destroying all gmo crops. There's quite a bit of information to be found on both sides of the argument.

Thank you for your reply. I have read the studies. I am interested in why, personally, an individual is anti-GMO. It sounds like for you it is fear of increased tumor risk?
 
Last edited:
It's fear of the unknown, a very human feeling. I'm not against GMO's because no one can show any real danger after all this time.
It's only been a few decades and only in the last few years have GMOs been in almost all processed food. Really short time in the scheme of things. To each his own. I will avoid them wherever possible, but they seem to sneak into everything.
 
For me, I'm more worried about weedkiller residue in my food than the altered genes themselves.

Roundup works by being absorbed into plants. The altered genes allow for the plants to be sprayed with Roundup, but survive. Why would I want to eat weedkillers? No matter what the label says, it can't be good for you.

I'll stick with organic, non-GMO food whenever possible.
 

New posts New threads Active threads

Back
Top Bottom