3 ms·
I would say the author of this article is dodgy and unreliable. Dr. Swan is a leader in her field and cites a ton of research in her book. This is just some ran
by Dig1t 4y ago
I would say the author of this article is dodgy and unreliable. Dr. Swan is a leader in her field and cites a ton of research in her book. This is just some random guy with a substack.
The book is mostly about phthalates and other endocrine disrupting chemicals, and their effects on reproductive health. There is a ton of research on phthalates in humans, the negative correlation between exposure and sperm quantity/quality is undeniable. Do you want me to link to some studies on it? I would not mind, though it is an easy Google.
- gerikson 4y ago> I would say the author of this article is dodgy and unreliable. I mean I personally agree with this in general but Scott Alexander has many fans...
- thebooktocome 4y agoI’d say that’s more for ideological reasons than the quality of his analysis. He makes his otherwise questionable policy ideas very palatable to the educated techie class.
- staticman2 4y agoThe article writer's committmemt to empiricism is so flimsy that he argues polling his buddies on Twitter is a valid form of empirical evidence: "Selection Bias Is A Fact Of Life, Not An Excuse For Rejecting Internet Surveys" https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/selection-bias-is-a-fact-of-life https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/selection-bias-is-a-fa...
- malborodog 4y agoThat there is a correlation is not the issue. The issue is confounding.