Monday, October 23, 2023
Two major studies reveal devastating effect of PFAS and food additives on male and female sexual health: From sperm damage to smaller testicles, early menopause and ovary cysts
Oh dear! Another meta-analysis. A meta-analysis is only as good as the studies fed into it and there are a number of problems with that. A big problem is selection bias -- using only those studies with conclusions that suit you. I have seen a meta-analysis that omitted around 100 "inconvenient" articles. It was in an area that I know particularly well
That mostly arises when a popular hypothesis is under examination. The analysts are very lenient at using studies that confirm the popular idea but very sniffy about including studies that contradict the same theory.
And the hypothesis here is just such a fashionable one. It just seems so obvious. How can a pervasive industrial chemical that we all consume one way or another NOT be bad? People have been trying for decades to prove that PFAS and BPA are bad for you. But the data is unco-operative. No effect or a barely significant effect is the normal finding. Pesky!
And, knowing the literature, I am sure that the confirmatory studies that they fed into this analysis were ones with marginal magnitude. Such studies rarely survive exact duplication and really should at best be regarded as disconfirming the hypothesis. In summary, PFAS and BPA can NOT be shown as bad for you. Sorry about that
In recent years concerns about the contaminants in our foods and everyday products have made headlines due to their links to cancers.
But a growing body of research suggests the microscopic molecules also have a devastating effect on fertility and may be contributing to America's 'baby bust'.
In two new reviews of scientific literature, researchers from across the globe looked at the impact of exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) on male and female reproductive health.
They found these substances can cause infertility, genital malformations, lower sperm count and quality, early menopause and an increased risk of breast and testicular cancers.
EDCs include PFAS but also pesticides, phenols, a group of chemicals found in toys and dental products; phthalates, a group of chemicals in food packaging; parabens, a group of chemicals used as food preservatives; and triclosan, an antimicrobial agent used in soaps and hand sanitizers.
Some primary sources of PFAS and other contaminants include plastic food containers, makeup, cleaning sprays, medications, contaminated food and pollution of water and air.
Researchers from Vietnam, India, New Zealand and the United States reviewed more than 300 sources of information, including previous experimental studies and data from national and international health monitoring databases, as well as animal studies.
In the review of the impact on women, the team looked at studies that had analyzed levels of and exposure to contaminants and tested and evaluated placenta, urine, blood, hormone levels and tissues.
Researchers found exposure to Bisphenol A, or BPA, can lead to a decline in the development and quality of eggs and an increased risk of implantation failure, when fertilized eggs do not implant in the uterine lining correctly, frequently resulting in pregnancy loss.
Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), a leading contributor to infertility, and a risk factor for endometrial cancer and diabetes, has also been linked to BPA exposure.
BPA is a type of plastic used to make plastic dinnerware, car parts, toys, beverage containers and CDs.
Exposure to phthalates, compounds in soaps, shampoos, lubricating oils and plastic packaging, was associated with a reduced probability of pregnancy and lower-quality eggs.
Additional impacts in women seen in the previous studies, include early menopause, an increased risk of breast cancer, endometriosis, which can lead to infertility, and metabolic syndrome, which increases the risk of heart disease, stroke and diabetes.
These harmful substances can also result in longer menstrual cycles and early onset of puberty, which has been linked to depression, substance abuse, sexual assault and adult breast cancer.
The EDC group of PFAS has been linked to a reduction in a mother's lactation period, the timeframe that a woman produces breast milk, and researchers found a type of pesticide led to shortened menstrual cycles, which can affect reproduction.
During pregnancy, exposure to EDCs has been linked to maternal obesity, high blood pressure and preeclampsia, a life-threatening blood pressure condition.
Studies have also shown mixed results on EDC exposure and preterm birth.
Based on their results, researchers strongly advocate for eating organic food and avoiding plastics and canned foods and beverages.
Data also supports avoiding fast food, following a vegetarian diet, changing personal care products and reducing dust.
Using stainless steel or glass bottles and containers, as well as cardboard wrapping instead of plastic packaging and avoiding plastic utensils and non-stick cookware will also help reduce exposure to contaminants.
***********************************************
Economist makes data-driven case for stable two-parent households: 'It's clear that kids benefit'
Brad Wilcox of the Institute for Family Studies shares the latest research which finds married Americans are much happier than singles. He explains why it's important for society to encourage young adults to pursue serious relationships.
It's no surprise that households have changed in the United States in recent decades. As marriage rates have declined, only 63 percent of children in the U.S. are now raised in homes with married parents. That number is even lower among the children of parents who don’t have a four-year college degree, one economist says.
But bringing awareness to the advantages of married families has become an "ideological battle," University of Maryland economics professor Melissa Kearney told Fox News Digital.
In her new book, "The Two-Parent Privilege," she analyzed research from dozens of economists, sociologists and psychologists on the class gap, and found married parents to be a common denominator affecting a child's success.
Married parents tend to have more time, energy, and resources available to bring to their children, she said. Children who are raised by parents who are in a stable, long-term relationship are more likely to graduate high school, to graduate college, and to have higher earnings as adults. The opposite is true for children who don't grow up in these households.
"So kids who grow up in a one-parent household are more likely to grow up in poverty. They're less likely to finish high school, they're less likely to go to college, they're more likely to get suspended from school or be involved with the criminal justice system," Kearney said.
This has less to do with parenting styles and more to do with the constraint on household resources, parental time, and supervision available to just one parent, she clarified.
While this information shouldn't be controversial, Kearney says just talking about the benefits married parents bring to children has unfortunately become politicized.
"And I think this is part of the problem as to why I don't think we do more to really focus on efforts to strengthen families and two-parent families, because it has become a very politicized issue. One of the main things I'm hoping to accomplish with my book is to take this out of the ideological cultural wars and say that, look, as a matter of social science, it's clear that kids benefit when they are growing up in healthy, stable two-parent homes," Kearney said.
Economist Melissa Kearney argues society benefits from more married parent households. She hopes her book will prompt a cultural discussion in how society can change these trends, at the policy level and elsewhere.
"We should talk about and experiment with and fund programs to try and figure out how to help more adults who have a child together, achieve that family structure for their kids and for themselves. We should be doing that at the same time as we're trying to strengthen the safety net in productive ways and improve schools," Kearney said. "It shouldn't be an ideological battle."
According to a report from the AEI-Brookings Working Group on Childhood in the United States, the percentage of young children, 12 and under, living in households with married parents, "declined from 83 percent in the mid-1970s to 71 percent in 2019."
"This decline in children living with two parents was accompanied by a steady increase in the percentage of children living with only their mother. This trend was entirely driven by a rise in the share of children living with never-married mothers, which increased from 3 percent in 1976 to 18 percent in 2019. The share of children living with divorced mothers held relatively steady over this period at 6 percent," the report said.
Nearly half of adults in a new Pew Research Center poll, believe the trend of children being raised by unmarried parents will have a negative impact on the country's future.
While on average, across all groups, kids from married parent homes have better outcomes, Kearney says there are clear outliers to these findings. For instance, children who are raised by two parents without college degrees may fare worse than children raised by a single mother with a college degree, she said. When a parent who has been convicted of a crime is removed from the home, kids typically fare better with just one parent, she explained.
There is no clear "policy lever to pull" to change these trends, Kearney says. Although she supports a strong Medicaid program for low-income children and an expanded child tax credit, she thinks there should be more funding and research into developing programs promoting safe and stable families as well.
"I agree that we need more public support to economically insecure families, but a government check is never going to make up for all the income and other types of support a loving, working second parent in the home would bring. Even in countries with much more generous welfare states than the U.S., family background matters for children’s outcomes. We should have a stronger safety net in the U.S., but we should also invest directly in parents and their ability to establish strong families." Kearney wrote.
Marriage doesn't just impact children's happiness; it also is the "number one predictor of happiness in America today," according to sociologist Brad Wilcox.
***********************************************
Democrats Are Showing You Who They Are, Believe Them
Make no mistake, I never really thought they were great people. The party of slavery, Jim Crow, and segregation isn’t suddenly going to pull a 180 and not be monsters; it’s who they are. They’ve never changed their objectives, only their tactics. Now, their embrace of segregation is done in the name of tolerance, of providing a “safe space” to minorities. But make no mistake, the end result is the same.
The terrorist attack in Israel two weeks ago brought out the worst in the left, but it’s also their true self. You can’t cheer for the wholesale murder of innocent people and “really be a good person, deep down.” No, that’s not how it works. It’s the opposite – they are raging bigots and monsters who manage to tamp it down below the surface most of the time until there’s something to protest or celebrate. It’s really that simple.
I’m not Jewish, and I’m disgusted. I can only imagine the sense of betrayal and horror Jews feel, as friends, neighbors, and colleagues felt so compelled to defend the murderers of Jews, for the express reason that they were Jewish, 24 hours after the attack. The Democratic Socialists of America, who count Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Jamaal Bowman, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, Cori Bush, and pretty must every other Nazi scum “progressive” among their ranks and supporter, marched in support of Hamas in New York City, the next day, before there was anywhere near an accurate body count, let alone an understanding of the scale of the evil. They didn’t march against Israel; they marched in favor of Hamas, literally celebrating the paragliders in the posters promoting it.
In the face of that, how can any normal person care what they have to say or do anything but recoil in disgust at what they’re advocating? They can’t.
The examples of the aforementioned Members of Congress spewing their anti-Semitism or lying about 500 dead in the most densely populated hospital on the planet, when there was really just a small parking lot fire caused by “friendly” terrorist fire, are well known. What isn’t as well known are the examples of small people in positions that wouldn’t get the attention an MSNBC host would, showing people the monsters they are.
Twitter, or X, is like a spyglass into the soul of its users. And in support of terrorists and hatred of Jews, X is marking the spot for leftists around the world to show the world their true selves.
A professor at UC Davis posted, “One group of ppl we have easy access to in the US is all these zionist journalists who spread propaganda & misinformation. The houses w addresses, kids in school. They can fear their bosses, but they should fear us more,” then added a knife, an ax, and three blood emojis. This person is also a “trans woman,” which means a man in drag. If you “misgender” him, the state of California would like to put you in prison. Still, he’ll probably be appointed to a tolerance board over his tweets.
A “doctor” in Denmark can’t stop posting about her hatred of Jews, a “libertarian” in the US pretends she’s a regular on “CSI: Gaza” for attention, college students everywhere sign letters that would be at home in Munich with the Brown Shirts, and seemingly “normal” people chant “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” a blatant call for the genocide of Jews in Israel. And that’s without mentioning that all of these people have taken the side of Hamas, a terrorist organization with the self-professed purpose of eliminating Jews in Israel and everywhere on the planet.
These people have shown you who they are. Believe them. Do not hire them, do not say hello to them, or engage at all.
**********************************************
‘Reliable’ Media Aren’t Ashamed of Fake News on Gaza Hospital Blast
The massive social media companies have all employed “independent fact-checkers” to improve their public image. Democrats and their allied media outlets have lamented that too much “misinformation” is shared on their platforms. “Fact-checkers” flag questionable posts, and they get blocked or limited.
None of this happens when left-wing media outlets commit their own misinformation. Facebook, Google and X (formerly Twitter) aren’t going to punish those “reliable sources” when they are egregiously incorrect. Their freedom of reach is never in doubt.
On Oct. 17, the terrorist group Hamas claimed Israel bombed a hospital in Gaza and killed hundreds of people. The headlines sounded like repeaters, not reporters.
The Associated Press: “Hundreds killed in Israeli airstrike on Gaza City hospital, health ministry says.”
The Reuters wire service: “Israeli air strike hits Gaza hospital, hundreds dead.”
CNN: “Israel hits hospital and school in Gaza as blockade cripples healthcare system.” Their first paragraph unspooled like this: “A school and a hospital in Gaza were among the civilian refuges lethally blasted during Israeli airstrikes on Tuesday, as humanitarian concerns mount over ongoing deprivation of food, fuel and electricity to the isolated population.”
On TV, CNN’s Jake Tapper claimed in those initial moments after the explosion that there was “no reason to doubt” the Hamas claims. Almost every other national outlet repeated these claims, at least on social media.
The New York Times homepage declared, front and center: “Israeli Strike Kills Hundreds in Hospital, Palestinians Say.”
By the next morning, they all casually walked it back. The front page of the Times said, “Palestinians and Israelis Blame Each Other Ahead of Biden’s Arrival.” On Oct. 19, their front page asserted it “remains disputed,” but Biden “backed Israel’s contention that a Palestinian group” caused the explosion.
Biden’s National Security Council told reporters that a blast analysis suggests it was a ground explosion rather than an airstrike that hit the hospital, and that the extensive fire damage and scattered debris was consistent with an explosion starting from the ground level.
No one expects CNN or AP or Reuters — who all blamed Israel at the drop of their pens — to put their own “fact-checkers” on the case and explain how wrong they likely were. But the “prestige media” that lecture everyone else about being patsies for disinformation ought to be humbler and more apologetic about how they report on “mass casualty” events that have the potential to cause global unrest.
Instead, a Reuters Fact Check article from Oct. 19 shamelessly reported it is still in dispute: “The Palestinian Authority said an Israeli air strike on Oct. 17 killed hundreds of people at the Gaza hospital, while Israel said the blast was caused by a failed rocket launch by the Palestinian Islamic Jihad militant group.”
Those “independent fact-checkers” aren’t flagging Hamas for disinformation, but they’re still focusing on Republicans. CNN’s Daniel Dale pounced: “DeSantis campaign falsely describes (Nikki) Haley’s comments on the people of Gaza.” The only recent check by Glenn Kessler of The Washington Post is “Nikki Haley misleads town hall audience on Chinese land acquisitions.”
The leftist media can’t admit when they’ve dreadfully botched a story. Look no further than Hunter Biden’s laptop. In this case, they didn’t warn of the “hallmarks of Hamas misinformation.” They looked like slack-jawed amateurs.
Then they just washed their hands of it. The “PBS NewsHour” arrogantly insisted “Biden’s claims did little to dampen the fury ripping through the region.” They demand everyone outside their “professional” sphere should be rigorously fact-checked and deplatformed for a mistake. It’s not surprising that Gallup found public confidence in the press is at an all-time low.
****************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
*****************************************
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
/>
Kristina Pimenova, once said to be the most beautiful girl in the world. Note blue eyes and blonde hair
Bliss: What every woman wants: to feel safe and secure in the arms of her man. Robert Irwin and Rorie Buckey. See 
No comments:
Post a Comment