RE: Chemicals in Plastics are Laying Waste to Male Fertility
I am appalled at the blithe tolerance of the health impact of endocrine disrupting chemicals. Not only additives in plastics used in packaging, but pollution from pharmaceuticals, particularly The Pill, and direct additives to food, seem to have not been objected to at all.
Do we assume that after 80 years of exposure, resulting in a decrease in fertility of over 50%, there were no studies before these effects were caused? Do we assume the present social attack on men is unrelated? How about the lawfare and horrible imbalance in victims of legal actions between men and women? Why is no effective action being taken immediately to prevent this medical harm?
Only Pollyanna could fail to grasp that it is not accident that all these attacks on men are concatenating in the West, and have been planned for decades to be doing so now.
We are being replaced with a more docile population.
The red blooded American man has become a relic of history, a meme that soyboys scoff at.
What feminists fail to note is that H. sapiens is one species. Women and lesser men are not benefited by an attack on strong men.
Thanks!
Yeah, the waste of drugs in the water supply is alarming. They took samples from the great lakes years ago and so many pharmas were in there...
While I agree with much of what you say, the "soyboy" epithet is a fallacy. Neither soy nor dead animal body parts make a man.
The family unit is under attack, and changing men and women are key to making a populace more dependent on the state and society.
I was told by my obstetrician that giving my son infant formula based on soy would be the equivalent of giving him 6 birth control pills a day due to the very high concentrations of phytoestrogens it contained. We may not be what we eat, but it seems to have an impact, at least.
I didn't coin the term soyboy, and given the common observation of the synchronicity between male feminists and soy products, it is a convenient appellation to differentiate between populations of men based on their apparent testosterone levels. Again, common assumptions are that there are synchronicities between testosterone levels and political affiliation. This may or may not be scientifically accurate, but it is at least ontologically consistent.
That being said, it wasn't my intention to cast aspersions, despite that I may do so simply out of attempts to limit my verbosity - which is sadly in evidence here!
Phytoestrogens (and soy is one of the primary sources in Western diets) are frequently cited as contributing to the emasculation of Western men, along with plastics, legacy birth control and other chemicals and drugs polluting our environment.
It is why I avoid soy.
Sadly, we have very little definitive research on which to base our understanding of the issue. Worse, the politicizing of science forces us to consider research - particularly on this inflammatory issue - with jaundiced eyes. It is amost as important to know where the funding for research came from nowadays as it is to know what the papers report.
On this we agree completely. I note we also seem to be in complete agreement that present changes are going in the wrong direction, and producing results opposed to what we believe are desirable.
Thanks!
I was told by my obstetrician that giving my son infant formula based on soy would be the equivalent of giving him 6 birth control pills a day due to the very high concentrations of phytoestrogens it contained. We may not be what we eat, but it seems to have an impact, at least.
I didn't coin the term soyboy, and given the common observation of the synchronicity between male feminists and soy products, it is a convenient appellation to differentiate between populations of men based on their apparent testosterone levels. Again, common assumptions are that there are synchronicities between testosterone levels and political affiliation. This may or may not be scientifically accurate, but it is at least ontologically consistent.
That being said, it wasn't my intention to cast aspersions, despite that I may do so simply out of attempts to limit my verbosity - which is sadly in evidence here!
Phytoestrogens (and soy is one of the primary sources in Western diets) are frequently cited as contributing to the emasculation of Western men, along with plastics, legacy birth control and other chemicals and drugs polluting our environment.
It is why I avoid soy.
Sadly, we have very little definitive research on which to base our understanding of the issue. Worse, the politicizing of science forces us to consider research - particularly on this inflammatory issue - with jaundiced eyes. It is amost as important to know where the funding for research came from nowadays as it is to know what the papers report.
On this we agree completely. I note we also seem to be in complete agreement that present changes are going in the wrong direction, and producing results opposed to what we believe are desirable.
Thanks!