[rgrieselhuber]

Well, yes actually. I've read enough over the years that I personally avoid soy and soy-based products. When it comes up, I explain why. It's not a great accomplishment to link to a paper that performs well in organic search.

[jack9]

> It's not a great accomplishment to link to a paper that performs well in organic search.

It's a cursory BS test. If the evidence is hard to find, it's generally because there's no evidence available from credible sources. Belief that the truth is out there, is not sufficient anymore.

The Cochrane Collaboration has nothing.

A google search might lead to the NIH having an article citing "studies" about various related effects, but mostly says nothing and has 0 references. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1480510/

But if you search the NIH databases via https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed using (soybean[Title/Abstract]) AND men[Title/Abstract] you'll come across a doctor who wrote this: http://www.jurology.com/article/S0022-5347(11)60100-6/fullte... - admittedly, I don't think it's compelling as a standalone opinion.

This is a study, by a relatively small organization is better: http://jn.nutrition.org/content/132/3/570S.long

You might benefit from seeing the evidence in favor of Soy being a serious factor in reducing prostate cancer rates and other such ancillary benefits.

[mustacheemperor]

You can read a lot to support nearly any claim, that statement is less valuable evidence than even an actual anecdote. Regardless, surely you'd be able to recall at least one reputable source to serve your "explanation." Why do all the high performing organic search results supporting your claim come from sketchy websites and paranoid blogs? I see the "soy is evil" sentiment come up on hn with some regularity, and I can't understand why because the argument never presents it as more a credible claim than alternative medicines or homeopathy.