Ah, I see what you're saying on the survival curve, thanks for the point out! I agree that's an interesting statistic, and it'll be interesting to see further s

Ah, I see what you're saying on the survival curve, thanks for the point out! I agree that's an interesting statistic, and it'll be interesting to see further studies investigating flame retardants. I'd be very interested in human studies, as I myself have thyroid issues (albeit more familial than anything). That being said, I'm not sure that you can claim that hyperthyroidism in cats is an autoimmune condition. I also am interested in what the effect size of this correlation actually is. We see the data that says that cats in 1995 had 20x lower rates of hyperthyroidism, but we don't have any additional information on how many cats were actually being screened for that. It's like saying (hopefully this isn't too controversial) the prevalence of autism is higher today than it was 20 years ago. That's an interesting question you bring up though, whether or not we should immediately intervene based on animal studies. And this is something we should probably extend to human studies, and as far low level as basic science studies. Where do you draw the line? Do you ban cell phones? Wifi? Milk? Meat? Coffee? Aspartame? And finally - Do you require all compounds to be listed on labels of all products? Or just some? How many compounds? Only when we find correlations? Or prior to that based on empirical evidence?