3 ms·
Nice, an article that links to sources in the prrimary scientific literature! Let's see, the link text says "potent immunotoxicants", that's probably a study a
by 08-15 10y ago
Nice, an article that links to sources in the prrimary scientific literature! Let's see, the link text says "potent immunotoxicants", that's probably a study about the effects of PFAS on the immune system. But no, it's actually some meaningless bullshit about evolution and doesn't even mention the word "fluor" once.
Given that, the term "toxic" is unjustified (it appears that if PFOA is toxic, then so are fatty acids), and so is the claim of "unsafe levels". This is sensationalist bullshit.
- matt4077 10y agoYour misunderstanding starts where you're considering the linked article a "primary source". Even though it's at harvard.edu, it's not a peer-reviewed "primary source". Given that the absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence, the conclusion and causation you imply with "given that" is wrong. You're also awfully quick to call stuff you don't understand "bullshit".
- 08-15 10y agoWhat, are you saying they didn't link to a scientific source at all?! I'm shocked, shocked, I tell you! The point was that this is bullshit precisely because it pretends to link to a scientific source, but doesn't. Sure, it's still possible that every single word in the article is correct even in the absence of actual research---but is it likely?