Friday, 16 December 2016

Sometimes it just has to be said

I received an email from someone residing in America (at least that's what the email header tells me) who had nothing to say except spout several swear words. It seems the person felt a need to vent themselves regards one of my articles although which one vexed them isn't something I can hazard a guess because they never said. Kind of loses the argument from the start on that score. Perhaps if they had explained then I might have contemplated a reply – alas, they didn't so no reply was required on my behalf.

I guess I just have to accept that there are people out there that crawl out of the woodwork from time-to-time who can't seem to hold back while under the influence of a new email account with an inability to express themselves except to fire off some expletives.

If anyone finds any of my articles upsetting then by all means please do send an email but at least try to explain which article you're struggling with, that at least shows you have a brain (this does not, of course, include all the lovely articulate emails I have received over the years to date. I've enjoyed some of our debates).

For the fun of it, here is the inexpressive email from 'Ea Onln' (made up new name) in all its glory with their newly acquired email account just for me: (I apologise in advance for the authors  swearing – shows a little mind is behind the email – as can be seen, the author really had nothing to say in the end)

“you have to be one the sickest pieces of shit i've had the displeasure of encountering. i hope you fucking suffer for the rest of your miserable life you fucking twat.”


I wish you well 'Ea Onln' and hope that you didn't bust a blood vessel during your venting. May light shine on you and calm your nerves :)

Friday, 11 March 2016

Cattle Mutilations. More down to earth than we may think

I wasn't aware of cattle mutilations until we attended a fairly recent talk. It sounded disturbing; the photos were horrendous, but the mystery of who (or what) and why reeled me in.

To cut a long (and probably repetitive) story short: Some believe it's a government body behind the 'mutilations' while others favour aliens. The majority of articles written on the subject suggest that precision surgery was used to remove organs and body parts from the animals. The words 'laser-like' or 'surgical' cuts certainly gives that impression. There are those who tell us that a few animals had broken bones, that there were deep indentations (some say up to three inches deep!) beneath the carcasses, suggestive of being dropped from a height. Then there's the mention of cattle found in trees which can only lead the reader (or listener) to reach the conclusion that the animals had been airlifted, either by helicopter or beamed up by aliens, and then unceremoniously dumped (from a huge height apparently) into the field they had originally been taken from.

But for me there's too many unanswered questions with that scenario. Why go to all the bother of snatching animals under the cover of dark, secret them off to a lab somewhere for testing and then return their 'mutilated' bodies? Why not simply test the foliage, grass or animal feed? If the animals are key to whatever experiments is supposedly going on, then why not tell the farmer/rancher that one or two of his cattle require testing for whatever reason they may care to fabricate (new virus? New disease? How about good ol' foot and mouth?) with the promise of compensation. Why not buy cattle and graze them nearby? Even if I screw on my 'bestest' conspiracy head, it doesn't make sense to steal an animal and then return it, surely that would only cause a stir and risk an investigation (which did happen in the 70's). Or are we to believe that it was designed that way to start the rumour of aliens in the vicinity? Which ever way I look at it, either scenario will cause too much interest. Surely the last thing any covert operation needed was curious reporters or extraterrestrial believers setting up camp let alone an investigation which could very well blow the lid on the supposed secret tests.

All very mysterious that I found myself looking into it. What I discovered behind the 'mutilations' though is somewhat less mysterious and more down-to-earth.

Cattle had been dropped from a great height

Indentation beneath the carcass
I can find no evidence of this supposed “deep indentation” beneath the cows in any of the numerous available photos of 'cattle mutilations', in fact all photos show cows laid on the surface. You would think with this being one of the most pivotal statements to prove alien's are behind the 'cattle mutilations' that there would be at least one. So where did this story come from?

The only documented source I could find that suggests a cow being dropped from a great height is from Dulce, New Mexico (April 20, 1979). An officer claimed “he had seen one mutilation case in which a 600-pound cow was found in the branches of a tree – indicating to him it must have been dropped there by some type of aircraft.

The officer mentioned is Gabriel ('Gabe') L Valdez.

The problem with this is that he apparently later admitted “...that the animal was not actually in the tree but was found at its base”. So if true it removes the suggestion that the cow had been dropped from a great height. It seems his story has been embellished over the years, morphing into “deep indentations in the ground”.

Conclusion: There is nothing to substantiate the claim that 'mutilated cattle' (or any animal for that matter) was dropped from a great height.

Side note: The only photographs of large animals I could find lodged in trees were deer but they are obvious hoaxes.

Broken bones
Another statement to indicate the cattle were dropped from on high is that some had broken bones.

The source appears to originate from the same police officer in Dulce, New Mexico, and again there is nothing to substantiate this story. In fact, there is no mention of broken bones in the autopsies written by trained veterinarians. What makes matters worse is that his associated officer was later interviewed and stated that although a hard-working, dedicated policeman, he has become too emotionally involved in cattle mutilations and “sees things that are not there.” When asked for an example, he mentioned an incident in Taos which both he and the officer had investigated together. The officer, he said, “claimed the animal had broken bones when it did not.

Conclusion: Nothing to substantiate broken bones as proof of being dropped from a height.

Tranquiliser and anti-coagulant found in the liver
A tranquilliser and anti-coagulant tested positive in a bull, leading to speculation that the animal was rendered unconscious and an anti-coagulant administered to enable the blood to be completely drained.

According to Rommel's investigation, the tranquilliser was Chlorpromazine. It's usually injected but can be added to animal feed or given orally in tablet form. Apparently this is done to calm the animal when it's ill and acting 'goofy'. Chlorpromazine can remain in the body for some time depending on the size and metabolism of the animal.

The anti-coagulant was citric acid.

Dale Spall of Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, who had performed the original blood tests, said he had found only a trace of chlorpromazine in the blood and was not significant enough to have affected the animal. Also found was high level of napthalene which indicated the animal had been on a hormone feed. He had originally thought the amount of citric acid exceeded normal levels, he has since determined, through additional tests, that the amount of citric acid (anti-coagulant) was normal. The drug, he pointed out, occurs naturally in all animals.

Conclusion: Misunderstanding of 'drug' usage.

Circular 'tripod' marks
These marks/tracks, approximately 4” (four inches) in diameter, have often been cited as proof that alien spacecraft (or hovering craft) had landed in the vicinity of the 'mutilated' cattle; the circular depressions in the ground indicating that the craft was heavy. While this may seem like solid proof that aliens are indeed involved, further reading finds that there is probably a more down-to-earth explanation. The problem with looking for specifics to back a story is that the obvious is sometimes overlooked.

No impressions of the tracks/marks were taken, but I have no reason to doubt Gabe's report, he seems like a genuine and honest police officer who was merely reporting as much as was humanly possible no matter how significant or insignificant. However, Rommel had observed on a number of occasions that the marks are due to a combination of certain weather and soil conditions prevalent in the south-west, the preserved hoof marks from a cow and horses can quickly erode to a circular-like depression of approximately the size mentioned.

Conclusion: Mistaken representation of marks/tracks

During a recorded interview Gabe Valdez stated categorically that it is "humans not UFOs or Satanic groups or people from Mars". Although still determined that the cattle were mutilated he states that “it was humans” and he believes researchers carried out the acts using helicopters.
Read more at Koat NewsAlbuquerque

In another interview (2011) regards the Dulce 'cattle mutilations' he said "I'm not saying it's a government agency or not, but we were able to find some physical evidence at the crime scene...gas masks, er, glow sticks and er, some type of instrument that was monitoring or, whatever it was for we couldn't determine what it was for, because it had to be some form of advanced scientist that knew what they were working on".

I don't know whether or not he mentioned gas masks or glow sticks in his original police reports at the time of the so-called mutilations, but if he did then how have the UFO hunters miss that? If he didn't, then it's mind boggling why he would choose to omit it.
Although there are no other such statements made then, or since, by any other law enforcement, veterinarian or indeed any professional bodies, this story remains, to this day, as the very basis of the belief that aliens are behind the “cattle mutilations.”

No thrash marks or signs of struggle
Apart from other diseases that can cause sudden onset of death in cattle, “a massively underestimated cause of sudden deaths is one of the oldest bacteria of them all – clostridia. They are spread throughout the world and take the lives of cattle, sheep and most other farm livestock on a daily basis

Clinical signs are rarely observed and cattle are simply found dead.

Clostridium disease includes: Black disease; blackleg; malignant oedema; tetanus and botulism). Black disease is triggered by various factors which damage body tissues activating latent spores, followed by rapid multiplication in the animal's body with toxin production, causing death within hours.

Some of the carcasses did indeed test positive for Black Leg.

Why are there no signs of blood on the ground?
The blood naturally coagulates inside the animal soon after death. Once the heart stops beating the blood begins to settle in the parts of the body that are closest to the ground. It partly dries and water content evaporates. The video, posted further down, gives a good example of this.

In some cases a dark black outline is left on the grass surrounding the animal which appears to be a burn mark
When the body goes into purge, the fluids leak and soak into the ground causing a dark 'pool' around the body. This fluid is so nitrogen rich that it initially kills off any vegetation and gives the impression of 'burn'. The vegetation (grass) will grow back the following year.

Something is mutilating the cattle! If it's not aliens or covert operation to collect data then what is it?
This time-lapse video shows the decomposition of a cow in natural surroundings. Unfortunately it was taken in Australia rather than America or UK but it still gives a good idea of what goes on.

As this time-lapse video was taken over a seven day period it flashes through rather quickly. Day one and two go by in a blink of an eye. Those two days are the most important to illustrate how the 'classic' signs of 'cattle mutilation' occur naturally, so the video may have to be paused several times.

The video starts on 1st October. By the 2nd October the anal area has already been 'cored' out and the body bloats. Most of the anal core activity is done by carrion animals, while the crows do their work during daylight hours. During day two, although there is no outward visible signs of entry to the stomach area (no cuts to the underbelly), the stomach starts sinking as the internal organs begin decomposing and ingested by seemingly invisible eaters (insects/blowflies/maggots that have invaded the body). The layman looking for clues as to how the 'missing' organs were extracted may reach the mistaken conclusion that suction was used through the mouth or anal cavity.

Note the lack of blood on the time-lapse video and the dark 'burn' patch (caused by purge fluid as explained in the previously) that becomes noticeable on 4th October when the carcass is moved.

As the video is shot from the rear of the cow it's difficult to see exactly what is happening to the eyes, eyelid, ears and tongue, however, going by the crow activity they do seem to be working on the head. Note that in most cases of animal 'mutilations' it appears only one ear and/or eye is missing. This is probably because the exposed ear and eye is easier to reach than the ear and eye laid to the ground:

It might be worth mentioning that with the internal body temperature remaining warm after initial death, the internal organs decompose faster than the external body, turning 'mushy'.

Who or what is behind the 'cattle mutilations'?
In a nutshell: The animal kingdom.

Why is it that certain areas on the cow appear to have been mutilated?
Most probably because the skin covering those areas is only about a fifth as thick as the hide on the the animal, so the soft tissues that make for easier pickings – eyes, sexual organs, udders etc – will be pecked, nibbled and eaten first.

What about the appearance of 'laser-like' or 'surgical' wounds?
I know it's hard to believe when the 'laser-like' appearance has been drummed so hard, but it is a fact that large and small carrion help to create the illusion of surgical cuts. Vultures, ravens, crows, foxes, dogs and hogs, eat the soft tissues while the nibbling of blowflies and maggots give the impression, to the untrained eye, of smooth edges. Any veterinarian will be able to tell the difference between a cut made by a knife/laser to the natural process of decomposition. Also, in some cases the skin can tear cleanly when it becomes stretched during postmortem bloat.

In the past many veterinarians have stated the reason for these 'mutilations' is natural decomposition and scavenger activity yet some still refuse to accept the obvious. Before poo-pooing anything I've offered, perhaps browse the internet and read some forensic and pathology reports/articles. They really do make for interesting reading.

I have no personal beliefs regards extraterrestrials, except to say that as yet I haven't seen any proof they exist. I have no problem with those who wish to believe wholehearted, come what may, that aliens from a distant galaxy visit planet earth. I just feel uneasy about so-called 'experts' on the subject of 'cattle mutilations' repeating stories they've come across without checking them. They may have genuinely mistaken various words to mean something else – but I can't help feeling that truth rarely sells as well as a good ol' mystery.

Further reading: Operation Animal Mutilation
Report of the district attorney, 1st judicial district, state of New Mexico, June 1980 
By Kenneth M Rommel, Jr. (Project Director)

Dulce, New Mexico. Scans of the original letters, reports, chemical analysis, autopsy reports etc

Wednesday, 28 January 2015

Is reconsideration a dirty word?

This may come as a surprise to some, but having returned to Jane Tanner's statements/rogatory and cross referencing I can find no apparent discrepancies regards the man she says she saw 'striding purposefully' across the road.

What I did notice in her rogatory (10 April 2008) is that she was able to explain herself better considering she was speaking with a British police officer. This is not to suggest that the previous translation are incorrect, only that she appears to have found it difficult to make herself understood.

There is a possibility that Jane Tanner has been misunderstood, called a liar, simply because the mainstream media gave misleading reports in the early days – child wrapped in a blanket in one article and then barefooted in another; man walking in one direction then walking in another. In fact,  reading through her statements, Jane Tanner has always maintained that the child is barefooted and that the man she claims to have seen was striding 'purposefully' across the road was always heading in the same direction.

Personally I believe that she may very well have seen someone crossing the road but I don't believe he was the supposed abductor. There's a possibility that when the alarm was raised the memory of the man 'striding purposefully' across the road came to mind and perhaps she envisioned a pinky hue to the pyjamas. While talking with the British police officer who was interviewing her she admits that “I thought I saw pink pyjamas and I thought I could see colours, but I don't know, it was fairly orange so I don't know. With a turn-up.

What I found strange is the conflicting testimonies between Gerry McCann, Jez Wilkins and Jane Tanner regards who was standing where at the time that Jane Tanner passed the two men as they chatted in the street. Although Jez Wilkins didn't see Jane Tanner his memory of where he was standing concurs with her positioning of the two men, therefore, the sighting could not have been concocted by Gerry McCann, but it does beg the question why he disagrees with both of them and is adamant that it's Jane Tanner who has the positioning wrong, so much so that he discounts her positioning during the 'reconstruction' filming (and, in essence, that of Jez Wilkins too).

So why didn't Jez Wilkins see Jane Tanner and why didn't Jane Tanner say anything as she passed? Mr Morsal and me chatted about this and although only from a personal perspective it seems quite plausible that if someone is unknown to us (in this case Jez Wilkins) who is chatting with someone we do know then we would simply pass by – it would be rude to interrupt. If the person we knew looked in our direction then we'd say hello. So, according to both  Jane Tanner and Jez Wilkins positioning, Gerry McCann would have had his back to Jane as she passed. As Jane Tanner didn't know Jez Wilkins then the likelihood of her saying anything is zero. Why didn't Jez Wilkins see Jane Tanner passing? That, I admit, is a tough one and only guess work because I wasn't there, but to give an example...we are regulars at a particular supermarket and chatty with some of the checkout women there, one of which (later told us) saw us in MK City Centre but didn't say hello because we were discussing something. I didn't see her. Same thing? I think so.

All in all, I feel Jane Tanner has been misunderstood and that she did perhaps see someone that evening, albeit not an abductor.

It's not wrong to be mistaken but it is wrong not to correct it once you realise!

Regards the following chart please note:

1. There appears to be no mention of certain details in Jane Tanner's 10 May 2007 rogatory. This might be because she had “maintained the honesty of her initial version” and therefore no need to repeat every detail in this particular statement.

2. In the last column there's various descriptive details, this is because it's a transcript of a recorded interview and the descriptions have been taken from several areas throughout the transcript where Jane Tanner has offered details voluntarily, been prompted by DC Ferguson (the interviewing police officer) or Jane Tanner has corrected DC Ferguson on reading her statement back to her. Any corrections made by Jane Tanner are in brackets.

4 may 2007 statement
10 May 2007 statement
8 April 2008 rogatory

Wednesday, 23 January 2013

The Broken Glass at the Front of Sandy Hook School

Screenshot taken from the video:

Footage of the broken glass begins at approx. 0.50:

Friday, 18 January 2013

Sandy Hook: Plants and Provocateurs

Most of the early reports from mainstream media were grasping at any information they could grab and then relayed to the public ‘as it happens’ regardless of whether or not the information was factually correct. This has undoubtedly played a huge part in the apparent inconsistencies surrounding the Sandy Hook massacre.

Naturally the reluctance to offer any visual or substantive evidence has also added to the theory that something is amiss. Let’s face it, in the past when a crime has been committed the mainstream media has been keen to offer photos of bloody footprint trails or blood splattered walls or even the murder weapon in situ or bullet holes...which would of course be distasteful in the Sandy Hook instance, but refusing (or unable) to release any CCTV footage of the supposed ‘lone shooter’ entering the school or even photos of broken windows is bound to have keyboards rattling as people attempt to make sense of the whole thing.

I know because having followed the McCann case for several years and watched closely as the events unfold it is clear that much of the wild speculation and confusing reports have been generated by the very lack of information. So many people can see that something is wrong but almost nobody can get a handle on it.

And I think if somebody had a desire to mislead the public over this incident then the greatest weapon in their armoury would be the cloak of secrecy that they throw across the issue.

However, unlike Sandy Hook, researchers of the McCann case now have access to the official police files. Sandy Hook – at least at the moment – is void of anything official for reference; instead it’s down to looking for anomalies among available photos and videos, watching for any betrayal in the faces of the speakers and relying on the media’s half cocked way of reporting. It’s this part that bothers me...

... Over the years conspiracy theorists (or Truth Seekers) have worked hard to gain some credibility, which, by and large, has been accomplished with the dedicated efforts of many in their respective areas. Truth Seekers have done well to gain respect yet now I’m seeing a downward slide once more because of those who are too quick to publish their research  when further digging would make a marked difference to the outcome of their findings. Already Emilie Parker has been mistaken for her sister Madeline and school nurse Sally Cox marked as a fraud, all because the authors have reached a conclusion they’re satisfied with rather than dissecting it to ensure they’re correct. What’s worse is that they’re offering their findings to the internet world as gospel and people are running with it.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with asking questions and putting a viewpoint across, after all that’s how most brainstorming reaches useful conclusions, but some of the ‘evidence’ offered on the Sandy Hook case has been rushed in an almost competitive way to reach a final conclusion regardless of whether there is a full picture or not, it doesn’t seem to matter any more. What seems to matter is being the first to claim a viable scenario which may have little bearing on the truth. More importantly, this clambering for a conclusion, devoid of any evidence, serves only to destroy the truth movement and one can only conclude that this in fact maybe what qualifies Sandy Hook as a pysop and not Obama’s desires to take your guns? That’s simply a side issue because they never pass on an opportunity.

In short, what matters is for the truth community to get refocused, kick out any destructive elements that are undermining our efforts (plants and provocateurs) and come together again in our common cause of exposing lies and manipulation.

Thursday, 17 January 2013

Sandy Hook: The missing triage area

Mystery of the 'bundles' has now been solved!

Many thanks to Anonymous who left a HD helicopter video and an explanation in the comment section where he/she has kindly solved the ‘bundle’ mystery – as Anonymous has rightly pointed out, the ‘bundles’ are nothing more than white folding chairs:

Anonymous pointed out that Gene Rosen can be seen perfectly at 1:19 through to 1:35 and again at 8:15 - 8:48, while the 'shooters' car is already roped off at 4:37 - 4:44:

Screenshots taken from the above video showing the white chairs: 

The rest of this article is no longer applicable. However, I'm leaving it here as an example of how the imagination can sometimes fill in the gaps when there is lack of clear information.

Wednesday, 16 January 2013

Sandy Hook nurse Sally Cox is Sarah Cox

Sally Cox – school nurse – Administered hearing tests to the students

60 year-old Sally Cox had worked as a nurse for Sandy Hook Elementary School for the last 15yrs. She hid under her computer desk when the shooter walked into her office. She could see him only from his knees down when she peered through a small hole in the desk holding computer wires. After the shooter had gone Barbara Halstead, a secretary, ran into the office and hid under the desk with Sally. She pulled the phone off the desk and dialled 911. The two women then raced into a supply closet, where they remained until they were escorted out of the school by police who told them to close their eyes.

Some have suggested that Sally Cox is a fraud. They’ve typed her name into The State of Connecticut eLicencing Website, with zero results and therefore concluded that she was never a nurse at the Sandy Hook Elementary school.

However, Sally is a nickname for both Sarah and Sandra. A quick search on the internet for ‘Sandy Hook Nurse Sarah Cox’ and the mystery is solved by the New York Post 
“[Sarah] Cox, known as Sally to friends and co-workers, took no chances.” 
So the true name of Sandy Hook Elementary School nurse is Sarah Cox. Placing that name into the database does indeed bring up one record:

Name: Sarah D Cox
Credential: 10.E35858
Credential Description: Registered Nurse
Credential Status: ACTIVE
City: Newton
State: CT
Zip Code: 06470

License Type: Registered Nurse
License Number: E35858
Expiration Date: 02/28/2013
Granted Date: 05/06/1974
License Status: ACTIVE
Licensure Actions or Pending Charges: None

Sally Cox is listed as a nurse on the Sandy Hook School Directory:

Sunday, 13 January 2013

Emilie Parker still alive after Sandy Hook shooting – Not true!

I have to admit there does appear to be some contradictions and inconsistencies with the Sandy Hook shooting, but one thing I am certain of is that Emilie Parker was not photographed with Obama.

The members of Metabunk forum have outlined this fact and offered their findings with indisputable evidence. The children with Obama are Emilie’s sisters Samantha and Madeline – I hope Metabunk doesn’t mind my using their photos to illustrate:

The following photo enables us to gauge the sister’s heights. It’s plain to see that Emily is taller than her two younger siblings while Samantha and Madeleine are of similar height. Also note Madeline’s smile.

Now look at the sisters with Obama – notice the similar heights between the two girls and the distinct smile:

 Close up:

Emilie was photographed in the red dress in 2010 (age: 4) – it stands to reason that two years later Madeline will be of similar age/height. The girl with Obama is Madeline wearing her sister’s dress.

Friday, 21 December 2012

You have to smile at the End of the World :)

Well, the Mayan’s were correct and the doomsday people were, thankfully, wrong... The world did not end today.

I imagine those who got caught up in the ‘world is nigh’ are either relieved or feeling a little red in the face, not to mention a few £’s lighter.

Some descended on a small village in Bugarach, France, where it’s said, the mountain is a garage for UFO’s which would supposedly transport them to safety, presumably to some hospitable planet unknown to mankind as yet.

Others paid £600 per person to party the end of the world away in a Russian Cold War bunker 184 feet below ground level which had been turned into a nightclub.

If the Druids and Pagans (and perhaps some Doomsdayer’s) believed it was going to rain fire and brimstone then they were going to see their last night out at Stonehenge because over 5,000 gathered there to celebrate the Winter Solstice.

At least they enjoyed themselves in their respective chosen locations.

As for those who stocked up on tins, dried food and bottled water in preparation of being holed up for a few months, take heart, you are a few leaps ahead the rest of us should some disaster befall the world in the near or distant future.

How did you prepare for the End of the World?

Soy The toxic bean

Soy (or soya) has been hailed as the wonder bean, pushed to the public as a cure all for cancer prevention, menopause, osteoporosis, heart conditions, weight loss as well as other health issues. Health conscious people and vegetarians alike have consumed huge amounts of soy as meat replacement and in energy bars believing the cleverly marketing techniques used by soy multi billion industries that soy foods and supplements are the health food to consume.

It may come as a surprise to learn that soy may not be the wonder bean it’s been touted to be. In fact, a little searching on the internet will bring up an amazing amount of sites which outline the hidden dangers of toxins lurking in the soy bean which may have adverse effects on our bodies and health and has been attributed to a rash of modern day illnesses including fibromyalgia and hypothyroidism.

Even the Guardian newspaper wrote a warning article "Should we worry about Soya in our diet?":

Fitzpatrick carried out an exhaustive study of soya and its effects. "We discovered quite quickly," he recalls, "that soya contains toxins and plant oestrogens powerful enough to disrupt women's menstrual cycles in experiments. It also appeared damaging to the thyroid." James's lobbying eventually forced governments to investigate. In 2002, the British government's expert committee on the toxicity of food (CoT) published the results of its inquiry into the safety of plant oestrogens, mainly from soya proteins, in modern food. It concluded that in general the health benefits claimed for soya were not supported by clear evidence and judged that there could be risks from high levels of consumption for certain age groups. Yet little has happened to curb soya's growth since.

More than 60% of all processed food in Britain today contains soya in some form, according to food industry estimates. It is in breakfast cereals, cereal bars and biscuits, cheeses, cakes, dairy desserts, gravies, noodles, pastries, soups, sausage casings, sauces and sandwich spreads. Soya, crushed, separated and refined into its different parts, can appear on food labels as soya flour, hydrolysed vegetable protein, soy protein isolate, protein concentrate, textured vegetable protein, vegetable oil (simple, fully, or partially hydrogenated), plant sterols, or the emulsifier lecithin. Its many guises hint at its value to manufacturers.

Soya increases the protein content of processed meat products. It replaces them altogether in vegetarian foods. It stops industrial breads shrinking. It makes cakes hold on to their water. It helps manufacturers mix water into oil. Hydrogenated, its oil is used to deep-fry fast food.

Soya is also in cat food and dog food. But above all it is used in agricultural feeds for intensive chicken, beef, dairy, pig and fish farming. Soya protein - which accounts for 35% of the raw bean - is what has made the global factory farming of livestock for cheap meat a possibility. Soya oil - high in omega 6 fatty acids and 18% of the whole bean - has meanwhile driven the postwar explosion in snack foods around the world. Crisps, confectionery, deep-fried take-aways, ready meals, ice-creams, mayonnaise and margarines all make liberal use of it. Its widespread presence is one of the reasons our balance of omega 3 to omega 6 essential fatty acids is so out of kilter.

You may think that when you order a skinny soya latte, you are choosing a commodity blessed with an unadulterated aura of health. But soya today is in fact associated with patterns of food consumption that have been linked to diet-related diseases. And 50 years ago it was not eaten in the west in any quantity.

But Soy is the staple diet of Asian countries isn’t it? Certainly that’s what we’ve been led to believe but the reality and truth of the matter is somewhat different:

The hypothesis behind the health claims is that rates of heart disease and certain cancers such as breast and prostate cancer are lower in east Asian populations with soya-rich diets than in western countries, and that the oestrogens in soya might therefore have a protective effect.
Fitzpatrick, however, looked into historic soya consumption in Japan and China and concluded that Asians did not actually eat that much. What they did eat tended to have been fermented for months. "If you look at people who are into health fads here, they are eating soya steaks and veggie burgers or veggie sausages and drinking soya milk - they are getting over 100g a day. They are eating tonnes of the raw stuff."
In fact, most Asian dishes are brimming with fresh vegetables, fish and meat. They do use soy sauce however it is fermented for months to remove the toxicity of the soy bean

Soya is used in traditional oriental diets in these forms, after cultures, moulds or precipitants have achieved a biochemical transformation, because in its raw form the mature bean is known not only for its oestrogenic qualities but for also its antinutrients, according to the clinical nutritionist Kaayla Daniel, author of The Whole Soy Story. Soya was originally grown in China as a green manure, for its ability to fix nitrogen in the soil, rather than as a food crop, until the Chinese discovered ways of fermenting it, she says.

The young green beans, now sold as a fashionable snack, edamame, are lower in oestrogens and antinutrients, though not free of them. But raw mature soya beans contain phytates that prevent mineral absorption and enzyme inhibitors that block the key enzymes we need to digest protein. They are also famous for inducing flatulence.

Even the lecithin (a heavy sludge in the soy bean oil draining storage) was once considered a waste product, but now with clever marketing it’s used as an emulsifier and can be found in a high amount of food including margarine.

Soy Online Services has summarised the dangers of soy:

• High levels of phytic acid in soy reduce assimilation of calcium, magnesium, copper, iron and zinc. Phytic acid in soy is not neutralized by ordinary preparation methods such as soaking, sprouting and long, slow cooking. High phytate diets have caused growth problems in children.
• Trypsin inhibitors in soy interfere with protein digestion and may cause pancreatic orders. In test animals soy containing trypsin inhibitors caused stunted growth.
•  Soy phytoestrogens disrupt endocrine function and have the potential to cause infertility and to promote breast cancer in adult women.
•  Soy phytoestrogens are potent antithyroid agents that cause hypothyroidism and may cause thyroid cancer. In infants, consumption of soy formula has been linked to autoimmune thyroid disease.
•  Vitamin B12 analogs in soy are not absorbed and actually increase the body’s requirement for B12.
•  Soy foods increase the body’s requirement for vitamin D.
•  Fragile proteins are denatured during high temperature processing to make soy protein isolate and textured vegetable protein.
•  Processing of soy protein results in the formation of toxic lysinoalanine and highly carcinogenic nitrosamines.
•  Free glutamic acid or MSG, a potent neurotoxin, is formed during soy food processing and added to many soy foods.
•  Soy foods contain high levels of aluminum which is toxic to the nervous system and the kidneys.

•  Babies fed soy-based formula have 13,000 to 22,000 times more estrogen compounds in their blood than babies fed milk-based formula.
•  Infants exclusively fed soy formula receive the estrogenic equivalent of at least five birth control pills per day.
•  Male infants undergo a “testosterone surge” during the first few months of life, when testosterone levels may be as high as those of an adult male. During this period, baby boys are programmed to express male characteristics after puberty, not only in the development of their sexual organs and other masculine physical traits, but also in setting patterns in the brain characteristic of male behavior.
•  Pediatricians are noticing greater numbers of boys whose physical maturation is delayed, or does not occur at all, including lack of development of the sexual organs. Learning disabilities, especially in male children, have reached epidemic proportions.
•  Soy infant feeding—which floods the bloodstream with female hormones that inhibit testosterone—cannot be ignored as a possible cause for these tragic developments. In animals, soy feeding indicates that phytoestrogens in soy are powerful endocrine disrupters.
•  Almost 15 percent of white girls and 50 percent of African-American girls show signs of puberty such as breast development and pubic hair, before the age of eight. Some girls are showing sexual development before the age of three. Premature development of girls has been linked to the use of soy formula and exposure to environmental estrogens such as PCBs and DDE.

Far from the being the "wonder" bean it appears that soy is the "toxic" bean. Most of us are probably consuming soy in unsuspecting food stuffs such as bread, cakes, sauces, chocolate, frozen foods, mayonnaise and margarine to name but a few.

The Real Bread Campaign  found that “fresh” bread sold in supermarkets is part baked and then finished off at the supermarkets. The consumer may not know the amount of artificial ingredients (including soy flour) which lurk in the so-called fresh loaves because loopholes in labelling rules mean they need not list all additives and processing aids.

The Daily Mail’s article "Supermarket bakeries are just loaf tanning salons"  tells us:

Supermarkets dress up these loaves as 'fresh' or even 'artisan' bread - suggesting they are the result of craft and expertise.
But a range of processing aids and additives are used, while fat, ascorbic acid, soya flour and sugars are included as 'improvers'.

Processing aids include the fungal enzyme alpha amylase, which increases volume and gives a darker crust and prolonged softness.

The campaign said it could cause an allergic reaction. Enzymes created by genetic modification may also be included.

I asked my local Tesco ‘baker’ if there were any loaves which didn’t contain soy flour. Surprisingly he fanned his hands out to the breads on the ‘freshly’ baked rack, including the organic range, and said “none of these...” then promptly led me away from the ‘fresh’ loaves and past the manufactured bread to their gluten free section...”..Perhaps something here?” he suggested.

Because of the low cost of soy the food industry has been adding soy additives and derivatives to their products. Over the years soy has found its way into vegetable oil, mayonnaise, margarine, chocolate, salad dressings and biscuits.

I find shopping a chore at the best of times, but now it’s a nightmare because I’m scrutinising every ingredient label on all packets, cans and jars looking for the words lecithin, mono-diglycerides, monosodium glutamate, hydrolyzed vegetable protein and of course now I avoid processed foods like the plague because more often than not they contain some sort of soy additive or derivative.

Whatever happened to real food?

Edited to add: For anyone who is interested, there is a book called “The Hidden Dangers of Soy” written by Dianne Gregg and available to buy at Amazon.

For more information about soy and the book, please consider visting Dianne’s blog: Hidden Dangers of Soy, and/or her home site