Paul Saladino· MD
so the polyester pans in conclusion had a deleterious effect on somatogenesis in the dogs which was reversible in the majority of cases
Loading…
We can't find evidence that holds up here. Proponents are reasoning from mechanism or analogy rather than direct human data, and the most credible skeptics raise objections we can't dismiss.
so the polyester pans in conclusion had a deleterious effect on somatogenesis in the dogs which was reversible in the majority of cases
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.
Also, this has been studied in female dogs, too. Same effect. Decreased ovulation, decreased progesterone levels in female dogs with polyester underwear for 12 months.
There are multiple studies, two studies in human males where they wore polyester scrotal slings for 12 months, completely stopped sperm production in one study and significantly decreased sperm production in the other study.
It took about five months for these men and these women to recover in both of these studies. Well, female dogs, you get the idea.