Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Is estrogen from birth control or other sources affecting males and kids?

hrandani · 11-25-2006, 08:02 PM

http://www.reproduction-online.org/c...full/132/4/527

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=14317888

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=14288340

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...t_uids=5950843

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=14277673

http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/A...-Guillette.htm

http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/Basics/chapters.htm

This organization seems to have a large amount of information on the subject, though I am not familiar with them and they do seem to have an environmentalist bias. Then again, everyone has a bias. You just need to account that in the reckoning.

http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/2...ticide2005.htm

There are reams of evidence available, from both sides. From all sorts of sources, from all types of researchers. This new shade of affecting humans is an old debate, older than global warming. But like global warming, despite the obfuscation there's a clear, but complicated answer neither party likes to admit exists. I don't understand why you want to engage in a debate on this through citation of peer review journals, which are not written for laymen, are very biased to influence with the journals, typically seek sensation or glory, or at least interesting points in the field. More frequently studies written up in peer journals revolve around small, provable experiments and do not outline in great terms the entire field. These basics we are discussing are all old, essential, and unremarkable. This is textbook material and that is precisely where I learned it. When I first began to read this board, people attacked and mocked Host for his well researched posts, which I greatly admired, and so I dislike being called out for lack of documentation. Other people outright admit they skip over lengthy posts, or posts with links. So here's a shorter summary in light of that. Which nobody will look at or click.

http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/Basics/chapters.htm

Any doctor who tells you that it's ok to take large amounts, or even medium amounts, of sex hormones and not expect any negative repercussions is telling an outright falsehood. But that's ok because doctors lie - all the time. They have to. It's their job to be reassuring, to let the patient know everything's going to be ok - even when they are fairly sure it isn't. The body is incredibly complicated. All forms of life are. It is impossible to say someone is going to be alright on such medication, or after such procedure, but that is exactly what doctors are expected to do, repeatedly. Paternalistic, but that's how it's taught. Doctors frequently do not bother with the details, they try their best and move on with their life, the details are for the scientists in their laboratories and the malpractice committee. Yes, these are blanket statements, and they are not going to always be true.

Everybody knows about the effects of castration, most have heard about man-tits and other unpleasant side effects you get from hormone therapy when you lose a testicle. Sex hormones are enormously important for regulating a wide variety of bodily functions, even post development.

All mammals, possibly all animals are very sensitive to sex hormones during development, infancy, and childhood. Sex hormones alter many portions of development, including brain chemistry with regards to reproduction, sexual aggression, and sexual organ operation.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...lligators.html

This is a particularly interesting study, Lake Apopka where a large amount of chemicals were spilled and found to affect wildlife in regards to sexual development. There are more such examples, including the one lab where they were using a plastic to study breast cancer samples and their control was showing rampant growth, which should have only happened in the presence of estrogen. Guess what, after months of testing to find the contamination the lab found the plastic had an estrogen-mimic compound in it, and the company (Dow? I forget) hadn't mentioned the change in their catalogue. Water in all cities is not treated adequately to filter out enough chemicals.

http://www.anapsid.org/cnd/hormones/sabotage3.html

I am willing to go back and transpose sections from my human developmental biology, sexual biochemistry textbooks if you are really interested. This is a non-debate for me, like global warming. Whether or not it is truly a measurably negative effect that chemicals dumped in the water or the air are hurting us, and our environment, I do not believe companies should have the free reign to do such. That is to say in more moralistic terms, whether it is horribly harmful or not at all to humans, it is still pollution and it is still wrong.

11-25-2006, 08:02 PM	#17 (permalink)
hrandani Insane	http://www.reproduction-online.org/c...full/132/4/527 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=14317888 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=14288340 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...t_uids=5950843 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=14277673 http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/A...-Guillette.htm http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/Basics/chapters.htm This organization seems to have a large amount of information on the subject, though I am not familiar with them and they do seem to have an environmentalist bias. Then again, everyone has a bias. You just need to account that in the reckoning. http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/2...ticide2005.htm There are reams of evidence available, from both sides. From all sorts of sources, from all types of researchers. This new shade of affecting humans is an old debate, older than global warming. But like global warming, despite the obfuscation there's a clear, but complicated answer neither party likes to admit exists. I don't understand why you want to engage in a debate on this through citation of peer review journals, which are not written for laymen, are very biased to influence with the journals, typically seek sensation or glory, or at least interesting points in the field. More frequently studies written up in peer journals revolve around small, provable experiments and do not outline in great terms the entire field. These basics we are discussing are all old, essential, and unremarkable. This is textbook material and that is precisely where I learned it. When I first began to read this board, people attacked and mocked Host for his well researched posts, which I greatly admired, and so I dislike being called out for lack of documentation. Other people outright admit they skip over lengthy posts, or posts with links. So here's a shorter summary in light of that. Which nobody will look at or click. http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/Basics/chapters.htm Any doctor who tells you that it's ok to take large amounts, or even medium amounts, of sex hormones and not expect any negative repercussions is telling an outright falsehood. But that's ok because doctors lie - all the time. They have to. It's their job to be reassuring, to let the patient know everything's going to be ok - even when they are fairly sure it isn't. The body is incredibly complicated. All forms of life are. It is impossible to say someone is going to be alright on such medication, or after such procedure, but that is exactly what doctors are expected to do, repeatedly. Paternalistic, but that's how it's taught. Doctors frequently do not bother with the details, they try their best and move on with their life, the details are for the scientists in their laboratories and the malpractice committee. Yes, these are blanket statements, and they are not going to always be true. Everybody knows about the effects of castration, most have heard about man-tits and other unpleasant side effects you get from hormone therapy when you lose a testicle. Sex hormones are enormously important for regulating a wide variety of bodily functions, even post development. All mammals, possibly all animals are very sensitive to sex hormones during development, infancy, and childhood. Sex hormones alter many portions of development, including brain chemistry with regards to reproduction, sexual aggression, and sexual organ operation. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...lligators.html This is a particularly interesting study, Lake Apopka where a large amount of chemicals were spilled and found to affect wildlife in regards to sexual development. There are more such examples, including the one lab where they were using a plastic to study breast cancer samples and their control was showing rampant growth, which should have only happened in the presence of estrogen. Guess what, after months of testing to find the contamination the lab found the plastic had an estrogen-mimic compound in it, and the company (Dow? I forget) hadn't mentioned the change in their catalogue. Water in all cities is not treated adequately to filter out enough chemicals. http://www.anapsid.org/cnd/hormones/sabotage3.html I am willing to go back and transpose sections from my human developmental biology, sexual biochemistry textbooks if you are really interested. This is a non-debate for me, like global warming. Whether or not it is truly a measurably negative effect that chemicals dumped in the water or the air are hurting us, and our environment, I do not believe companies should have the free reign to do such. That is to say in more moralistic terms, whether it is horribly harmful or not at all to humans, it is still pollution and it is still wrong. Last edited by hrandani; 11-25-2006 at 08:23 PM..