The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
And of course, we're not just focusing on sperm and testosterone. You of course also know that many of these herbicides are disrupting estrogens in a similar way. Or are leading to hyper estrogenic, excuse me, states which might explain why puberty is happening so much earlier in young girls these days.
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
So there's a lot that's happening primarily because of these herbicides that are in widespread use to reduce sperm counts. And these are going to have profound effects not just on sperm counts, but on development, sexual development at the level of the gonads and the brain. Because you need testosterone to get dihydrotestosterone for primary sexual characteristics. You need estrogen that's come from testosterone to masculinize the brain.
indeed many of these herbicides can have NE negative effects primarily by impacting the ratios of these hormones in either the mothers or in the the the testes altering the testes of the fathers or Direct effects on developing young animals and potentially humans