5 ms·
That's not really established by strong evidence. Most of it is cross sectional data without any clinically relevant endpoints. In other words, we have no idea
by TaupeRanger 4y ago
That's not really established by strong evidence. Most of it is cross sectional data without any clinically relevant endpoints. In other words, we have no idea if or how it affects any part of male fertility or testosterone production that humans actually care about. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7304337/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7304337/
Anecdotally, if someone like John Carmack can drink 9 Diet Cokes per day without noticeable ill-effects over several decades, it's going to take strong evidence that he (and others like him) are major outliers in their resistance to BPA "damage" to convince people that a small amount of BPA in their foods and drinks is harmful enough to change their lifestyle and habits to avoid it.
- forgotmypw17 4y agoAnytime I read "no established evidence", I think about cigarettes in the 1950s and 1960s.
- TaupeRanger 4y agoWhy admit to a logical fallacy on a public forum?
- forgotmypw17 4y agoMy logic is that it is advantageous and desirable to use doubt-inducing statements such as "not established strong evidence" to defend profitable but harmful products. Where is the logical fallacy?
- formerly_proven 4y agoTobacco use being hugely detrimental to health has been known and scientifically published since the 18th century.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- shawnz 4y agoIt's advantageous to use such language to defend harmless products too?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- forgotmypw17 4y agoWhat is proven harmless that's been covered in this thread?
- shawnz 4y agoNeither, I'm simply saying your argument applies just as well to harmful products as it does to harmless products, so I don't see how it can be used to argue for the harmfulness of any given product
- rzzzt 4y agoI had one paper in close proximity: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7967748/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7967748/ There are mouse studies described towards the end, but they concentrate more on sperm production than hormones. (Also they were fed tiny bits of polystyrene, BPA only gets a smaller mention in the introduction.)
- calibas 4y agoExcept that even when BPA is removed, plastics still produce chemicals with estrogenic activity. https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1476-069X-13-41 https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1476-06...