Hormone articles and premature pseudoscience call-outs.

Dear readers;

I posted my article about xenoestrogens to various sites and received a mixture of reactions ranging from ‘this is a load of pseudoscience bs’ to ‘holy shit, you’re right, thank you!’. All in all, this article has been the most popular article i have ever written in my short few months of serious blogging.

I wanted to thank both the haters and the appreciators of that article, right here. This spurred me to revise and improve the article. Those who criticized the article appeared to have valid points at first, and then i further researched what they were saying and found that my argument was actually on-point, and that the spectrum of external estrogen influence was even greater than i suspected. The article ended up being tempered in fire and came out stronger as a result.

For those who appreciated the article, i have a link dump of new and interesting information for you at the bottom of this article.

I see a lot of this type of criticism on the internet today. While there are all sorts of pseudoscience hawkers out there, people who claim to be on the ‘up and up’ on their scientific knowledge are too quick to disregard new information and call it pseudoscience, even when proper evidence is presented to them.

Reasons for this often include:

  • I don’t like hearing it.
  • I’ve never heard it before and was told something else many times.
  • If that is true, i might have to change something about my life.
  • I went to college and you didn’t, so i must know better.
  • X,Y,Z authority says something else and i respect them more than you.


The funniest example of this mentality is when i posted this picture of me to facebook and explained how i lost all this weight in a short period of time. A few ‘friends’ in a local atheist group piped up and exclaimed that low carb diets don’t work, and one even linked to this entirely biased article on rationalwiki which is chock full of incorrect information. The writer of the article also clearly did not understand the premise of a what a low carb diet entailed in the first place – and it’s rather hard to properly criticize something without understanding it, isn’t it? How rational is that?

Many of these people asserted that i should be dead from this diet, and that it wouldn’t work long term. I jokingly began calling myself the reanimated corpse of a foolish Atkins dieter, since there is simply no other way to explain away the cognitive dissonance. I continued to haunt my local atheist group, providing them a real-world opportunity to interact with the paranormal.

So there is a paradox with these people, many who claim to value rational and logical cognitive styles – they are often incredibly closed minded. This ultimately leads to unscientific thinking, because scientific thinking is based entirely on evidence, not opinions or personal bias. In science, you have to examine new evidence and it’s credibility and change your opinion based on that evidence; otherwise we would still be believing in spontaneous generation and a flat earth, wouldn’t we?

That being said, to those who appreciated the original article, i have more information for you:

CDC public health statement about DDT, DDE, and persistence of DDT, and cancer circa 2002

Reuters report ( 2015 ) about DDT, it’s estrogenic effects, and relation to breast cancer

University of Arizona article about environmental estrogens, cancer, sexual development disorders

Forbes article about link to DDT and aggressive breast cancer

Highly contested Wikipedia article about an anti-estrogenic diet; could be useful for improving testosterone-estrogen balance, but contains a little woo-talk.

Wikipedia article about aromatase inhibitors and how they can prevent breast cancer and prevent breast growth ( gynecomastia ) in males.

Well-sourced wikipedia article about testosterone inhibitors in the environment