This study does not merit wide attention.
There is no perfect scientific study, if you critique all of them to the point you critique this one, you will dismiss more-or-less all science.
Scientists who study the effects of various forever chemicals on health have read hundres of studies on the matter. And from those scientists I've talked to the overall consensus is definitely leaning towards these so-called forever chemicals having associations strong enough towards negative health outcomes that it's worthwhile to keep looking.
Yes, and that process is supposed to include judging the merit of the individual studies that make up the body of work. A hundred shoddy papers don't make a convincing body of work all of a sudden, they make a pile of inconclusive trash.
I'm not disagreeing with the consensus you point at, I wouldn't know, but you can't use "consensus arises from a body of work" to argue inclusion of anything in that body of work.
It doesn't have to be perfect, it has to convincingly (to some degree) reject the null hypothesis, as per GP's own words. And that doesn't dismiss more-or-less all science, it more or less sets the lower bar for what constitutes science in the first place.
>Associations with PFOS in the first/only samples were weak and not statistically significant.
The "first/only" samples were controls, they had generally very low levels of perfluorinated sulfonic acids and so no correlation was detected.
>Elevated concentrations of perfluorononanoic acid were inversely associated with TGCT
Only perfluorinated sulfonic acids were associated with testicular cancer. Perfluorononanoic acid is a carboxylic acid which is likely used as an alternative — i.e. those who were exposed to it were likely exposed to fewer perfluorinated sulfonic acids.
>whereas results were null for other PFAS.
This is the most dishonest part of your comment — you left out the preceding sentence about positive association of perfluorooctanesulfonic acid and perfluorohexanesulfonic acid with TCGT, and by omitting that context you made it look like there were no associations.
Yes.
> Further study is warranted
Yes.
> What the study shows is that these chemicals have decidedly not shown to be safe and therefore ought not be used.
Absolutely not. And the fact that people think that kind of thing after reading sensationalized articles like this causes real problems.
This study detects an effect - and indeed, does so with statistical significance.
By definition, that seems like it can't be underpowered.
My stance has nothing to do with the study.
> In total, 16,150 individuals had ever been exposed. The hazard ratios did not indicate any excess risk of hyperthyroidism among those with contaminated water. For hypothyroidism, the risk of being prescribed medication was significantly increased among women with exposure during the mid part of the study period (but not men). However, the association with period of exposure was non-monotonic, so the significance is considered to be a chance finding. Our research was limited by the relatively simple exposure assessment.
The second one as well
> No association between serum PFAS and fecal zonulin was found. In conclusion, the present study found no consistent evidence to support PFAS exposure as a risk factor for IBD.
Because burning jet fuel in an enclosed interior ship space while hundreds of miles from land is a bigger and more immediate threat?
It makes sense to phase out dangerous chemicals wherever we can, but sometimes their use is a chemical imperative because there are no equivalent alternatives.
The X-37 reportedly uses hypergolic nitrogen-tetroxide + hydrazine fuel, which means everyone wears spacesuits around it on the ground. But it solves an engineering challenge that more mundane fuel mixes don't. Ergo, they use something toxic and dangerous.
If people of the past were as risk-averse as this we would still be living in caves.
> Absolutely not. And the fact that people think that kind of thing after reading sensationalized articles like this causes real problems.
Are you trying to say that this study did show these chemicals to be safe, or were they not shown to be safe? Believing the first would be a real problem.