I’m not trying to be rude or have a dig at you @ukpatco , or anyone, especially not today, but statements like this concern me greatly.
For starters we have ‘some scientists’, is that 5 out of the 10 million scientists in the world or 5 million of the 10 million in the world? What is their background, what is the study they did do decide it? Do other scientists, and the scientific world at large agree with the conclusion? Can they replicate the findings?
Then we have ‘suggested’, so is that something they have seen in the results or just something they have seen in the past when using similar drugs or perhaps some of the ingredients? Suggested may be the most worrying word of all. They shouldn’t be suggesting something so important, they should be speaking with a level of certainty about something so important if they are going to, say “in 0.0001% of cases we’ve seen this, but it’s so small a percentage we don’t consider it to be a big deal” or in fact “we think in as many as 20% of patients this could be an issue”, not some vague suggestion about something so major
Then ‘likely’, likely is pretty certain to me, not may, not could, not potentially in a rare number of cases but likely, which seems like a very strong statement to make, so I’d be interested where that is, what context, and whether the wider scientific community agrees with the use of likely
Ditto ‘cause’. Not be a factor in, not heighten, but cause. Is it permanent or just temporary? What percentage does it affect? Does it cause complete infertility or just worsen the situation for those already in a bad state? Is there a certainty it affects these things or is it just people covering backs because it shows a potential risk that there’s been no evidence of happening so far?
None of these questions I expect you, or perhaps even anyone outside of the scientific community to be able to actually answer with knowledge and certainty, but it highlights the point of these statements that get thrown out by people these days which are often not worth the paper they’re written on. Perhaps the statement is 100% accurate, but without knowing in far greater detail exactly where this comes from and what it really means, it means nothing. It what the newspapers are masters of, which is why of course red wine is bad for you on Tuesday, and by Friday they’re saying it’s a superfood that we should all have 3 times a day. Taking something written in a scientific paper out of the context it was written and intended, often a single line, and turning it into a 2000 word double page spread that will play well with the target readership.
Anyway, that’s my waffle for the morning.