Talk:Endocrine disruptor

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Origin of text[edit]

The original text of this article comes from the public domain explanation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency at [1]. Lupo 07:19, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

focus, wikify. Lupo

Edits[edit]

Removed most of the description of an endocrine system, clarified some language and added internal links. Kerowyn 02:31, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Theory[edit]

I removed weasel word warning, and weasel words. Will somone provide peer-reviewd citations for the points in this section? Pustelnik (talk) 23:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific Objections[edit]

For begging the question and Fallacies of definition, please see reference to epistemological inquiry, now ref. 15, already quoted prior to citation request. The quoted referrence now has an internal link to epistemology.Pustelnik (talk) 21:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental Health Perspectives[edit]

Note that most of the "pro" arguments come from this one journal, and the "con" arguments are from multiple sources. Pustelnik (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a highly respected, open-access journal published by NIEHS, with a high Impact Factor ( 6.19), and Eigenfactor scores in the top 97% for overall value of articles published, and in the top 93% for journal prestige (www.eigenfactor.org). You can't measure the pro and con arguments on this topic by the relative number of citations on the Wiki page, especially when "multiple sources" can be newspaper articles citing no one and webpages of undisclosed affiliations, as opposed to peer-reviewed scientific journals like EHP.Islandeden (talk) 19:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History and Science[edit]

This section should be expanded. The whole concept of endocrine disruption was debunked by the National Academy of Science and the National Research Council in 1999. It is considered to be a prime example of "junk science".Pustelnik 00:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Strangely, the Executive Summary of this publication by the NAS and NRC actually supports both the concept and the reality of endocrine disruption (http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6029&page=1). Ten-plus years of peer-reviewed primary research have been published in the meantime, which elucidate some of the many mechanisms involved and provide further examples of low-dose chemical effects on endocrine-regulated developmental, reproductive, immune, and metabolic systems in a wide variety of wildlife, lab animals, and humans.Islandeden (talk) 23:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This section was deleted, as a neutral POV objection. I undid the deletion. The deleted section was well-referrenced. The concept of endocrine disruption, as well as the originator of the concept, have been discredited in the perr-reviewed scientific literature. I would accept criticism with documented, peer-reviewed referrences which show that any of these substances actually has an environmental effect.Pustelnik (talk) 04:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note on the POV issue: For now, this is a matter of personal tolerance and beliefs as much as science. Some people tend to accept potential harmful substances, e.g. the typical American's unhealthy diet (french fries, sausage egg biscuits, excessive alcohol, cigarettes, soda etc.) while others do not, e.g. "health nuts" (organic foods, whole grains, one drink limit, non smokers, etc.). Some people have faith in our government agencies (FDA, EPA) to protect us, while others believe they are corporate puppets. I suspect such beliefs partially explain the diverse opinions expressed here regarding the subject chemicals toxicity. Furthermore, there seems to be two orders of magnitude difference in the chemical sensitivity of some individuals compared with others. Unfortunately, the study of endocrine disruption is so new and complex, the amounts are so minute (a few micrograms), the synergistic / cumulative effects are apparently significant enough, and the economic and political pressure so intense that hard data supporting either side of the discussion stretch the limits of what current peer reviewed science is able to tell us. Better safe than sorry? Wait until there is clear and present danger? It's a personal decision based on beliefs as much as science. -[janeygun@cfl.rr.com] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.101.85.53 (talk) 08:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the section was deleted again, and will be deleted every day until someone has the time to publish an unbiased and balanced entry for this concept. contrary to the claim of Pustelnik, the deleted section is not accurate. in fact it is profoundly biased.

his claim that "The concept of endocrine disruption, as well as the originator of the concept, have been discredited in the perr-reviewed scientific literature" is at best fatuous nonsense and at worst an outright lie. Tell me where Theo Colborn, Frederick Vom Saal, Shanna Swan and the hundreds of other researchers doing work in this area have been discredited.

    • Read your own WHO referrence, with multiple phrases and comments such as "unproven" "uncertain" "lack of data" "unlear" "no proof" "weak"Pustelnik (talk) 14:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • See also http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/milloy042505.htm for Vom Saal Pustelnik (talk) 03:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • For Shanna Swan see [2] and PMID 16393642

Pustelnik cites one withdrawn paper from 1997 by John McLachlan as proof that endocrine disruption has been debunked, and conveniently ignores the fact that there are hundreds of wildlife studies that have been published? please.

    • This paper was the original basis for the EPA regulationsPustelnik (talk) 14:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

he is obviously completely ignorant of the mountains of peer reviewed material that demonstrates the effects of endocrine disrupting chemicals like polybrominated diphenyl ethers, bisphenyl A and many phthalates. endocrine disruption in a wide range of animal species is a well documented and widely accepted phenomenon and has been for at least 20 years.

    • It shouldn't be difficult to support these assertions, then. Will you provide referrences to peer-reviewed studies that show envoromental chemicals, in the concentrations seen in the environment, have a measurable effect on the endocrine system?Pustelnik (talk) 14:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the suspicion that many synthetic chemicals have in utero effects and neonatal effects in humans is a valid and realistic concern, as evidenced by the debate around the causes of a whole spectrum of symptoms including the rising incidence of testicular cancer, hypospadias, abnormal sperm, infertility, early puberty in girls, autism.

ever heard of diethylstilbestrol (DES)? how about Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)? maybe you remember Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane (DDT)? all endocrine disruptors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.110.141 (talk) 02:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if you had the courtesy to sign your posts, and referrence your changes. The fact that some substances have hormonal effects is unquestioned. Endocrinology, pharmacology, and professional baseball depend on that fact. What is in question is the contention that these substances exist in the environment in concentrations that cause a biological effect. The concept depends heavily on a legal idea called the "precautionary principal" being applied to a scientific field. An example of this is your line that "there is a long list of chemicals which might be endocrine disruptors, but have not been proven". The concept of making laws based on someone's unproven speculations is frightening, and certainly not scientific. For example, I could state that your unrefferrenced article might be totally misleading, and therefore you should be banned from contributing to Wikipedia. Merely an application of the precautionary principal. Pustelnik (talk) 13:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i am sorry i made the edits without signing in. your claim that the theory of ED is considered "junk science" was very frustrating.

i will be happy to provide the information you have requested, and make the entry as balanced as possible. it is ironic that you mention the phrase "precautionary principle", as that is the precise reason the EU decided to ban many of the phthalates and PBDE's in consumer products, because of their links to harmful human health effects. in their view there is more than enough evidence to support the banning of these chemicals. of course the EPA and the US government are more than willing to drag their heels and allow their citizens to be guinea pigs for the chemical industry, and their country to become a dumping ground for chemicals that much of the world is quickly trying to get rid of. there is hope though, Sears announced early in december that they were phasing out polyvinyl chloride (PVC) in all their products, precisely because of their estrogenic effects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Milkandhoney1 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I expect that you will not delete the historical addition I just made. Yes it is important when the term endocrine disruptor was first used. In context, the concept involves a chemical, released into the environment, that works through the endocrine system to cause permanent damage. There is not a scientific consensus on the concept. There is a lot of debate on the potency of the effects (particularly of environmental estrogens), potential doses of these compounds (usually trivial, except for accidental releases of large stores of chemicals) and particularly over the existence or absence of synergism. The last point was what you deleted, involving the Arnold paper, which alleged a sysnergistic effect, and was later withdrawn, and the author found to have committed scientific misconduct. This paper was a major reason that the 1996 legislation requiring EPA action on endocrine disruptors was passed. Don't kid yourself. Sears decision was a marketing decision, not a toxicologic decision. If you disagree, show me what estrogenic effects their products had in humans. The term endocrine disruptor is junk science, bcause it is an example of begging the question. There is little experimental evidence that any of these substances, in the concentrations found in the environment, actually disrupt the endocrine system. You might want to switch to the term HAA (hormonally active agents). If you read the article on precautionary principal, you will know why I quoted it. The real question is what evidence of harm (or lack of harm) are you willing to accept before taking action. Personally, I'm not willing to accept endless position papers and review articles that just quote each other. Show me some real, experimental data. As my old professor used to say "In God we trust, all others need data." Pustelnik (talk) 22:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i will add some good bibliographical info in the next few days, and include a lot of the studies which have been done. i'll also add as many citations as possible, and try to hone the entry further. when it come to human beings, the main thing with EDC's seems to be the effect they have on the developing fetus. This is the area where most of the recent research is focused. Shanna Swan believes that exposure to EDC's in the womb in the first trimester is far and away the most significant route of contamination. its obvious that adults have very little to fear from the low level exposure to these toxins, but the disruption of the exquisite and fragile hormonal balance of the developing fetus is obviously of great concern. it IS kind of shocking to find out that umbilical cord blood has been found to contain literally hundreds of chemicals in varying degrees, including DDT, PCB's etc. another disturbing fact is that the exposure of the male fetus to EDC's seems to be a much greater problem than female exposure. This is why the decision of the EPA to not test for prenatal exposure is so outrageous and disappointing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Milkandhoney1 (talk • contribs) 06:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC) As seems to becoming the norm instead of the exception, people as in individuals, are deleting sections, words, etc. who do not have the authority to do anything remotely close to such a drastic action. The main reason Wikipedia style references are losing credibility is just such behavior. PRIOR to deletion one can request it be deleted and give their opinion of why. However EVEN CORRECTING A SPELLING ERROR is forbidden at least according to the "Wiki police" who put an IP ban on my account for deleting a section that was stolen from my own personal web site! So naturally seeing a couple of pompous jerks bantering back and forth deleting and threatening to delete repeatedly until they get their way, seems like the rules only apply to a very few select people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.17.215.115 (talk) 01:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Integrity of the findings[edit]

  • Remember the scare over chemicals, including pesticides, that supposedly acted as endocrine disruptors? Endocrine disruptors purportedly interfered with our bodies' hormonal systems, potentially harming all sorts of growth and developmental processes.
  • One of the original research papers that got this whole thing started, published in in the journal "Science" in 1996, was eventually retracted. Neither the author nor any other researchers could duplicate the findings. [3]

Anyone seen the original Science article or the retraction? How about the quote from Office of Research Integrity saying that Arnold

"committed scientific misconduct by intentionally falsifying the research results published in the journal Science and by providing falsified and fabricated materials to investigating officials," and that "there is no original data or other corroborating evidence to support the research results and conclusions reported in the Science paper as a whole." [citation needed]

I want to know if our article on "endocrine disruptors" is scientifically sound. --Uncle Ed 22:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The scientist who faked his findings was reprimanded by the U.S. goverment:

Steven F. Arnold, Ph.D., Tulane University: Based on the report of an investigation conducted by Tulane University, dated July 16, 1999, and additional analysis conducted by ORI in its oversight review, the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) found that Dr. Arnold, former Research Assistant Professor at the Center for Bioenvironmental Research at Tulane University Medical Center, engaged in scientific misconduct. Dr. Arnold committed scientific misconduct by intentionally falsifying the research results reported in Table 3 of a paper published in the journal Science [footnote: Steven F. Arnold, Diane M. Klotz, Bridgette M. Collins, Peter M. Vonier, Louis J. Guillette, Jr., John A. McLachlan. "Synergistic Activation of Estrogen Receptor with Combinations of Environmental Chemicals." Science 272:1489-1492 (June 7, 1996) (hereafter referred to as the "Science paper")] and by providing falsified and fabricated materials to investigating officials at Tulane University in response to a request for original data to support the research results and conclusions reported in the Science paper. In addition, PHS finds that there is no original data or other corroborating evidence to support the research results and conclusions reported in the Science paper as a whole. [4]

This is an example of scientific fraud which environmentalists used to get a ban on something which turned out not to be harmful after all. --Uncle Ed 01:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what would you be yelling if the fraud had been one with the opposite result, say that, instead of synergistically enhancing the effect, he had, without doing any actual research, published a paper showing that the compounds cancelled each other's effects? When I see a paper that reinforces a theory of mine, I'm probably going to tout it, knowing that science will eventually correct any untruths: that's why some of us have faith in the scientific method. What frightens me the most about EDs and similar chemicals is that some scientists may be so frightened of them also that they violate their own "vows," so to speak. We don't know, in that case, why Arnold did what he did: did he partly carry out the experiment, was he trying to cover up for laziness or some overwhelming personal problem that occurred at the time, or did he "know" the results in advance and decide not to waste the time doing the actual work, or what? If a scientist is so frightened by these things that he or she decides to fake or exaggerate the results in order to frighten us, I am more concerned than ever. The Endocrine Society is not a bunch of wild-eyed radicals or marching environmentalists: their concern should hit all of us at our cores.GeorgeButel (talk) 06:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)GeorgeButel[reply]

Don't rush to throw the baby out with the bathwater. ECDs as a subgroup of pharmacuetical and personal care products (PCPPs) are of real concern. They are well documented in the water ways of the US and throughout the world. Just bescause a research committed fraud doesn't mean that there isn't an issue. His ethical issues have little to do with whether or not this is an actual issue. ECDs and of PCPPs are well documented in their disruption of sensitve aquatic species. the effects on man are a little more compicated to document, as we don't have a cloned version of people, similar to what we have with white mice, to say what happens with certainty. This is an emerging issue that will be getting more and more press at times progresses, so try to empty your cup from time to time. http://www.epa.gov/esd/chemistry/pharma/faq.htm FOK SD OA 16:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you click on the above link, you are directed to http://www.epa.gov/ppcp/ , which states: "To date, scientists have found no evidence of adverse human health effects from PPPC (Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products as Pollutants) in the environment." Pustelnik (talk) 14:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original article PMID 8633243 Study not confirmed, using the same and other methods PMID 9075711 Retraction PMID 9254413 Pustelnik 21:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Jane Fisher Reference[edit]

This is a review article, not an experimental study. It does not claim the phthalates feminize the genitals of infants, nor does it postulate that any of the effects of phthalates are mediated by endocrine mechanisms. It speculates that there are some effects on gonadal (not genital) development, but does not specify an endocrine mechanism. Pustelnik (talk) 03:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I meant to reword the sentence to bring it in line with the reference and forgot. I just made the change, hopefully this clears things up. Thanks for pointing this out. Yilloslime (t) 03:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elimination from body?[edit]

How long does it take for these chemicals to leave the human body? BPA especially? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.37.212 (talk) 16:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits[edit]

I'm a little curious about recent edits which removed a well-sourced statement that no consensus exists, to replace it with a poorly sourced statement of consensus. Can the editor explain? Fell Gleamingtalk 23:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And, I'm more than a little curious about your edits [5] which completely misrepresented the source and only favored one POV, against the policy of WP:NPOV. Can you explain? You wrote, "The theory of endocrine disruption has been dismissed as junk science by some scientists, and there is no consensus that the concept is valid." However the source that you quoted actually says, "Where science has left a void, politics and marketing have rushed in. A fierce debate has resulted, with one side dismissing the whole idea of endocrine disruptors as junk science and the other regarding BPA as part of a chemical stew that threatens public health." So, you misrepresented a source, again, a pattern that has been brought up on various noticeboards again and again. This, like your other infractions, will have to be reported. Viriditas (talk) 02:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please drop the battleground mentality. To answer your specific charges, I simply reverted a problematic change; I wasn't specifically restoring that claim. However, I don't see that the claim (which was already in the article btw) is inaccurate at all. One side does dismiss it as junk science, and -- given there are two sides to the scientific debate -- no consensus exist. Fell Gleamingtalk 09:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fell, you've misrepresented the source. You wrote:

The theory of endocrine disruption has been dismissed as junk science by some scientists, and there is no consensus that the concept is valid.[6]

However, that is not what the source said. The source actually examined and presented both sides, not one side as you have. The New York Times actually wrote:

Where science has left a void, politics and marketing have rushed in. A fierce debate has resulted, with one side dismissing the whole idea of endocrine disruptors as junk science and the other regarding BPA as part of a chemical stew that threatens public health.[7]

Please correct your error immediately with a self-rv or a modification, or I will be forced to escalate this to the appropriate noticeboard. You've been warned many, many times now about the importance of citing sources accurately. Viriditas (talk) 10:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Plus the NYT was talking specifically about the combatants in the BPA controversy, not the scientific community in general.Yilloslime TC 14:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Given there are two sides to the scientific debate -- no consensus exists"? There are people who believe (still) that the sun revolves around the earth; would you say that "no consensus exists" on the issue of the earth revolving around the sun? What is consensus? I don't think it means 100% ever.GeorgeButel (talk) 06:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)GeorgeButel[reply]

All people are exposed to chemicals with estrogenic effects in their everyday life ...[edit]

"All people are exposed to chemicals with estrogenic effects in their everyday life, because endocrine disrupting chemicals are found in low doses in literally thousands of products"

Are the Bushmen of Southern Africa included in this category? Probably not.

The word "All" should be replaced with something else. Andrewtheart (talk) 23:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested mergers[edit]

I propose that all of the following articles be merged into Endocrine disrupters: Xenoandrogen, Xenoestrogen, Xenohormone, and Environmental exogenous hormones. This is an important topic and the fragmentation makes it difficult to obtain information.125.7.63.177 (talk) 03:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merging all these article into one would probably produce an article so long that it would need to be split back into pieces (see WP:SIZESPLIT). Xenoandrogen and Xenoestrogen are both fairly well developed and cover distinct subtopics and therefore should be kept separate. Environmental exogenous hormones and Xenohormone are redundant and I would support merging both of those into this article after both are cleaned up. Boghog (talk) 05:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh brother...I am rather new to this and do not have a strong chemistry background...I have been updating the Endocrine disruptor article regarding BPA, hence I find myself here. Yes Boghog, I agree that Environmental exogenous hormones and Xenohormone should be merged. How do you suggest we go about it? Gandydancer (talk) 23:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would first add merger banners to Environmental exogenous hormones and Xenohormone and also clean those articles up before merging into this one. Also with respect to the Xenoandrogen and Xenoestrogen articles, we want to avoid duplicating text in this article that already exists in other articles. Hence I have condensed this material. I hope you don't mind. Boghog (talk) 03:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No I don't mind and please excuse my mistakes - I'm still learning... I will read more as I have time. Gandydancer (talk) 04:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I went ahead and added merger banners to the articles. We should wait at least a few days before completing the merger in order to give others a chance to comment. In the mean time, we can start cleaning up the Environmental exogenous hormones and Xenohormone articles. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 04:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd personally prefer to see these articles kept separate because they're able to accommodate an additional layer of information that would otherwise be much less accessible.   — C M B J   06:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the Xenoandrogen and Xenoestrogen articles cover well defined subtopics and therefore they should be kept separate since they do provide additional layers of information. Environmental exogenous hormones, Xenohormone, and Endocrine disruptor all cover essentially the same topic and therefore I feel that they should be merged. Boghog (talk) 07:35, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Environmental exogenous hormones should definitely be merged into xenoestrogen and xenohormone. I believe that we should retain xenohormone, though, because it is a parent topic for describing xenoandrogens, xenoestrogens, and other xenohormones in a broader context than homeostatic disruption. It is also worth considering that other (e.g., indirect) mechanisms for endocrine disruption exist.   — C M B J   09:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Per the consensus above, I have merged Environmental exogenous hormones (whose content was almost entirely about xenoestrogens) into xenoestrogen (more work needs to be done to cleanup the merged article however) and have retained xenohormone. I do not see any need for further mergers so I took down the remaining merger banners. I hope this is OK. Boghog (talk) 06:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

POV first sentence[edit]

I am changing the first sentence of the lead to be less definitive. There is significant scientific uncertainty on whether specific EDs cause harm to humans. The "founding member" of the class, DES, of course did, but there is uncertainty for just about every other ED that is discussed. The uncertainty is reflected in the following (emphases added):

"It is clear that some of these chemical pollutants can affect the endocrine (hormonal) system, and certain of these endocrine disruptors may also interfere with the developmental processes of humans and wildlife species." WHO "state of the science" report, executive summary, 2012, page v. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/78102/1/WHO_HSE_PHE_IHE_2013.1_eng.pdf

"Endocrine disruptors are chemicals that may interfere with the body’s endocrine system and produce adverse developmental, reproductive, neurological, and immune effects in both humans and wildlife." National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. http://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/endocrine/

"In recent years, some scientists have proposed that chemicals might inadvertently be disrupting the endocrine system of humans and wildlife. A variety of chemicals have been found to disrupt the endocrine systems of animals in laboratory studies, and there is strong evidence that chemical exposure has been associated with adverse developmental and reproductive effects on fish and wildlife in particular locations. The relationship of human diseases of the endocrine system and exposure to environmental contaminants, however, is poorly understood and scientifically controversial (Kavlock et al., 1996, EPA, 1997)." US EPA http://www.epa.gov/endo/pubs/edspoverview/whatare.htm

"There is mounting concern in the scientific, environmental, private, and governmental sectors on a wide range of substances, known as endocrine disruptors, that may interfere with the normal functioning of a living organism's hormone system. Endocrine disruption has the potential to cause reproductive, behavioral, immune system, and neurological problems, and tumors." US Fish and WIldlife Service http://www.fws.gov/contaminants/Issues/EndocrineDisruptors.cfm Jytdog (talk) 23:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Current scientific debate on EDCs[edit]

As seen in the following editorials and comments, there exists disagreement among toxicologists and endocrinologists: [8], [9], [10], [11]. Could and should this be added to the article? Best, 129.132.211.151 (talk) 00:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Updated External Link[edit]

I have updated the external link to the ACS National Historic Chemical Landmarks resource. I am the program coordinator of the ACS-NHCL program.KLindblom (talk) 23:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New content[edit]

This content was introduced today:

A study published in 2015 estimates the health costs of EDC in the European Union to be approximately €157 billion per year.[1][2]

References

  1. ^ http://www.eu-koordination.de/umweltnews/news/chemie/3071-edc-eu-kommissar-verteidigt-folgenabschaetzung
  2. ^ Estimating Burden and Disease Costs of Exposure to Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals in the European Union, doi: 10.1210/jc.2014-4324

I removed this with edit note: "this is essentially a press release on publication of a WP:PRIMARY source. fails MEDRS", and Gandydancer restored it with edit note, "This source seems OK to me". I have not re-reverted.

Issues:

  • First the source is in German.
  • second, it is an announcement in the EU parliament by a member of the Green party there. This is just political posturing, noting that a scientific paper has been published that is good for that politician's POV. With the German and the political nature of this, it is a bad source.
  • third there has been a shitload of popular media reports on these studies in English. like this, so if we were going to generate content from this, there are far better sources.
  • if you do some work, you will see that there are 4 WP:PRIMARY sources that were published at the same time by the same group, with one summarizing the other three:
    • (summary) Trasande L et al. Estimating Burden and Disease Costs of Exposure to Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals in the European Union. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2015 Mar 5:jc20144324. [Epub ahead of print] PMID 25742516
    • Legler J et al. Obesity, Diabetes, and Associated Costs of Exposure to Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals in the European Union. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2015 Mar 5:jc20144326. [Epub ahead of print] PMID 25742518
    • Hauser R, et al. Male Reproductive Disorders, Diseases, and Costs of Exposure to Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals in the European Union. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2015 Mar 5:jc20144324. [Epub ahead of print] PMID 25742517
    • Bellanger M et al. Neurobehavioral Deficits, Diseases and Associated Costs of Exposure to Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals in the European Union. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2015 Mar 5:jc20144323. [Epub ahead of print] PMID 25742515
  • These 4 papers are WP:PRIMARY sources, and per other science-based content in WP, we wait to see how these papers are treated by WP:SECONDARY sources. We don't do science by press release in WP. We don't do it when Big Pharma hypes clinical trial results published in a primary source, and we don't it here either. Jytdog (talk) 12:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that this information was published in the journal published by the Endocrine Society and that it reports: Accounting for probability of causation and using the midpoint of each range for probability of causation, Monte Carlo simulations produced a median cost of €157 billion (or $209 billion, corresponding to 1.23% of EU gross domestic product) annually across 1000 simulations, which is not medical information but a discussion of the cost of endocrine disease, it seems reasonable to include a mention. Perhaps it could be phrased differently, but I see nothing wrong with including it. Gandydancer (talk) 12:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
because the papers are WP:PRIMARY sources about science, and we should not base content in WP on such sources. This is policy. Please respond to that, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
i was making a general statement about discussing science here, but you have brought up the health aspect which I do think is fundamental here - the authors decide what diseases are caused by ED and then come up with estimates of costs based on that decision. This is indeed subject to MEDRS. I'll bring it to the relevant board. Jytdog (talk) 12:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have opened a discussion, and will not discuss further here, pending the resolution there. Discussion is Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#MEDRS:_Splashy_press_around_splashy_PRIMARY_sources_on_costs_of_endocrine_disruptors.. Jytdog (talk) 12:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 13:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
this was gracious of you. Thanks gandy. Jytdog (talk) 13:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all! It will help me to better understand the use of sources. Gandydancer (talk) 13:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: Linking this discussion in the WikiProject Medicine would have been better than to copy it there. --Leyo 19:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: Would you like to re-add the (modified) sentence yourself based on the outcome or would you prefer to have it done by others? --Leyo 19:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Leyo. First, thank you for being on this - this fell off my radar and you did a good thing here. In your view, what is the outcome? In my view, there was no clear consensus on it and part of that is my fault for not bumping/keeping it going so more folks would respond and we could get a better read. I could repost at the same place with a link to the old discussion, and say that we need resolution.... anyway thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 19:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I actually went ahead and re-listed it here. I will follow it better this time. last week was terrible/ugly. Jytdog (talk) 20:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Important scientific debate missing[edit]

I believe that the following science and policy debate happening in 2013 is important enough to be mentioned in the article. Key elements of the debate (roughly in chronological order):

I don't know what would be the most appropriate way to summarize this debate by keeping a neutral point of view. Does anyone feel able to do this task? --Leyo 23:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for presenting that! I will take a shot at drafting something to bring here to Talk on Saturday. Jytdog (talk) 12:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know i still owe you this, Leyo - will get to that this weekend. Jytdog (talk) 11:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endocrine Society statement[edit]

doi:/10.1210/er.2015-1093 JFW | T@lk 09:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Endocrine disruptor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Endocrine disruptor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:39, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endocrine disruptors: EFSA and ECHA outline guidance plans[edit]

News: Endocrine disruptors: EFSA and ECHA outline guidance plans --Leyo 10:34, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Endocrine disruptor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:29, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Endocrine disruptor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:13, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Gay frogs" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Gay frogs. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 2#Gay frogs until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Ϫ 13:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Comparative Developmental Biology[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2023 and 21 April 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): LE4rSt0966, 1947143432C, Shermanmccarthy, Mgattar, Iscucchi, TortyT, Hbrowny5 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: JayRel23, ALMOYAYA, Mnaddo.

— Assignment last updated by TortyT (talk) 02:20, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

The article itself is detailed and informative. Though, some of the references are 10 years or more old, I suggest updating some of those sources with more recent sources to keep the information fresh. JayRel23 (talk) 20:42, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:MEDRS, please remember to use secondary sources (review articles). Please also see the "Ideal sources" links at the top of this page. Thanks, Boghog (talk) 06:42, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Toxicology[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2023 and 11 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Evefinal (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Scocougs7.

— Assignment last updated by Ash.cobbler (talk) 15:28, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Endocrine_disruptor&oldid=1206745913"