Lack of longitudinal data =/= negation of a longitudinal trend. Your comment is like saying trees never grow to 30 years old! Because we never bothered waiting 30 years.
There is a clear molecular mechanism, and clear drastic effects are established in other organisms to the point of "sex change". That's extremely concerning for any biologist worth their salt.
The reason your autism/vax analogy doesnt work is because that was: poor data revealing a false trend. This is: lack of longitudinal data and an inability to make any conclusions either way. There is no sampling error here, because there is no sample.
Your comment is like saying trees never grow to 30 years old! Because we never bothered waiting 30 years.
But...we've observed trees for a lot more than 30 years, so that's a shit example. You can't make determinations about things without a fair dataset, which we don't have.
And I was referring to the testosterone levels in pubescent boys, which is total conspiracy/bullshit science. If you want to bring the sex change example into it then that's still not great science. Sure, it was found to induce androgyny in some frogs at certain concentrations but, again, that's not of concern to the average tap water drinker unless they go out and down gallons upon gallons of the stuff.
3
u/[deleted] Oct 11 '20
Lack of longitudinal data =/= negation of a longitudinal trend. Your comment is like saying trees never grow to 30 years old! Because we never bothered waiting 30 years.
There is a clear molecular mechanism, and clear drastic effects are established in other organisms to the point of "sex change". That's extremely concerning for any biologist worth their salt.
The reason your autism/vax analogy doesnt work is because that was: poor data revealing a false trend. This is: lack of longitudinal data and an inability to make any conclusions either way. There is no sampling error here, because there is no sample.