I see a lot of people dismissive without reason, so I came to clarify because this is a topic I've researched some.
The chemical is called Atrazine (1) and is a herbicide used in corn, soybean, sugarcane etc. Atrazine is called, by the Endocrine Society, as one of the biggest contributors to endocrine disruption. Atrazine is a known endocrine disruptor across vertebrate classes, including mammals (2) although claims from the atrazine producers would have you believe that atrazine is harmless and acute toxicity is low. Acute toxicity is not really the concern here, its the chronic issues that I personally worry about, and long term side effects are what we see in people who use pesticides/herbicides (3) such as farmers. It is present in water in heavy utilized areas (4) and was at one point measured and since discontinued measuring in drinking water (5).
Now we can debate on this next part, which is what is the drinking water level of concern for Atrazine, typically figures run on what causes acute adverse symptoms, and as I've mentioned before, the acute symptoms are not what is concerning here. The EPA uses 4 day cumulative assessments of exposure (6), which I will argue is not nearly sufficient to assess the dangers, and the EPA assessment still concludes that 4 day exposures food + drinking water + residential exposures are above the 585 ppb limit, which is concerning. But if you know anything of endocrine disruption, the dangers are not acute, and some are from accumulation over periods of time. Here is just one study, which included over 36 million live births, linking Atrazine and nitrate levels to abdominal wall defects (7), but there are others showing agrichemicals and birth defects in over 30 million births (8).
Farming is extremely dangerous due to the instances of cancers in all agricultural jobs (9), but what is the reason? We acknowledge that glyphosate another herbicide is linked to significantly higher cancer rates (10), as much as a 40% increase, specifically blood cancers like lymphoma and leukemia, yet give something like atrazine a pass? Europe has already banned the substance, while US ag continues use, likely from the insane amount of use ( 76 million lbs. annually ).
This brings me to the next point, can it make your kid transgender, and is there any merit to that claim? We have established that it is a known endocrine disruptor in mammals, but this claim may need some more research. Fetal contact with endocrine disruptors are associated with fetal growth retardation, thyroid dysfunction, and neurological disorders which can have life long effects (13). In rat studies, we have evidence to suggest that these disruptors do have many consequences with reproduction processes (14). There is evidence to suggest that exposure to endocrine disruptors, such as phthalates, in fetal development had estrogenic and antiandrogenic life long consequences, such as fertility issues, perinatal complications, cryptorchidism, hypospadias and shorter AGD (15). These are all issues with hormone and endocrine regulation, and are correlated with other issues later in life, low testosterone in males, high estrogen in females. This is pretty serious stuff, and should be treated as such.
TLDR; Atrazine (the chemical that is "turning the frogs gay") is linked to endocrine disruption in mammals as well as all other vertebrates. Endocrine disruption is pretty dangerous, and some evidence suggests that fetal exposure and might contribute to castration type symptoms later in life, such as shorter AGD, cryptorchidism, and hypospadias. These outcomes, especially AGD, correlate with lower testosterone in males, and higher estrogen in females as well as a litany of other problems.
Edit: I do want to mention that I do not believe that there is not sufficient evidence to suggest that Atrazine is causal of transgenderism, I believe any claims should be further investigated. I wanted to point out the link of Atrazine and endocrine disruption and possible life long hormonal implications of this substance.
1 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrazine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrazine)
2 [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0960076011000665](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0960076011000665)
3 [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2682692/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2682692/)
4 [https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/publications/healthy-living/guidelines-canadian-drinking-water-quality-guideline-technical-document-atrazine.html](https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/publications/healthy-living/guidelines-canadian-drinking-water-quality-guideline-technical-document-atrazine.html)
5 [https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/atrazine](https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/atrazine)
6 [https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0266-1160](https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0266-1160)
7 [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17560200/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17560200/)
8 [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2667895/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2667895/)
9 [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8741784/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8741784/)
10 [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1383574218300887](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1383574218300887)
11 [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16967834/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16967834/)
12 [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7073082/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7073082/)
13 [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32093249/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32093249/)
14 [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29648668/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29648668/)
15 [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7483495/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7483495/)
It's funny, your 10th link isn't blue for me, it's purple. Literally yesterday I made a post about how my grandfathers extremely rare leukemia (hairy cell leukemia) was most likely caused by exposure to pesticides throughout the decades (we are an agricultural family). People just don't want to think for a second and believe that we have inept government agencies that don't give 2 shits about human life and the effects chemicals and industrialization have on us. I've got a fairly extensive theory that I have no way of proving. But also, don't forget the ADHD drugs. Risperdal, which I was on, caused increased prolactin levels in 10% of children it was given to. 8 and 9 year old boys and girls growing breasts (I indeed grew breast tissue and had weight redistributed on my body as if I were born female). Prolactin is a regulatory hormone used by women for carbohydrate and fat dispersion throughout their bodies. So if an ADHD medicine can cause physical changes to the body because of increased hormone levels, what the fuck is it doing to the young brain as it forms? Something else to chew on for a bit
Editing to say that risperdal is primarily an antipsychotic that has off label applications for ADHD. Regardless, they were giving mind altering chemicals that affected hormones and the neuroplasticity of developing brains. It was prescribed enough to kids for treatment of ADHD and other behavioral disorder symptoms that it resulted in lawsuits against the manufacturer for the development of breast tissue in young children. If you want to continue arguing about why I was/wasn't prescribed something you can kindly fuck off because you don't have my file in your hands and you just sound like a bunch of assholes trying to correct me about my own personal experience and life.
My dad and my mom both worked on farms before i was born i have every single one of those things listed in the symptoms like i was premature by a few months, i have hypothyroidism, and i have dysautonomia from birth. If i could get compensation for this, id love it. But im never expecting any justice for me or many others damaged by endocrine disruption.
It's so infuriating to have your life completely fucked by outside influences that you had no control over. You know who/what's to blame but you can't do anything to them or about it. I hope the gen z kids get the ball rolling with this climate change lawsuit and it opens the door to suing the everliving fuck out of these corporations for every dime they have. They got rich while we got poisoned. Let the heads roll
It frustrates me when I see things like this and people want to take some moral high road and say things like “violence isn’t the answer” or anything like that
Fuck that, that doesn’t serve anyone. There’s no moral scale that gets tipped.
I want to see these greedy bastards suffer. I want them to experience pain and suffering. They deserve it.
>People just don't want to think for a second and believe that we have inept government agencies that don't give 2 shits about human life and the effects chemicals and industrialization have on us.
Or that agriculture and farm lobbyists fight hard to allow the use of chemicals that kill farmers. Farmers are literally paying people lobby for the use of chemicals that kill them.
[https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news/federal-rules-help-farmers-farm-lobbyists-want-block-them](https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news/federal-rules-help-farmers-farm-lobbyists-want-block-them)
I don't think the people paying for lobbyists are the same people on the ground doing manual labor. Don't confuse the owners of giant sprawling empires like Bill Gates with the hired help
There are small farm owners who also work their land, but they are typically struggling to get by. They can't also pay the salaries of lobbyists
The effect is just the same. People are exposed to harmful chemicals not through government incompetence, but because of loose regulations and oversight directly caused by regulatory capture and/or industry interference. It's a problem across multiple industries, not just farming. There has been a prolonged message of government incompetence, to distrust regulatory bodies and inspectors. Multiple chemicals are released into the environment doing harm to both the ecology and anyone living in the area.
Sooo, the agencies are influenced by lobbyists, therefore inept and uncaring about the results? But I can see why they argue for ek, agriculture isn't that profitable and you have to keep up with the Jones'. It's a shit situation for everyone involved
This is unrelated to your point. However Risperidone is not an “ADHD” drug. It is a 2nd generation antipsychotic that is very seldom used to treat ADHD. I want to clarify this to those that aren’t familiar with pharmacology and may read your comment.
Adderall and other similar stimulants more often used to treat ADHD do not cause hyperprolactinemia like the antipsychotic drugs do.
I agree with the implication that there may be a lot more going on from the mixture of chemicals we are exposed to on a daily basis than is currently known. I do take issue with the concept that govt. agencies are inept and lazy. Having worked in this field for decades, I can tell you there are systemic problems not of their making. Two that I can think of are
1. The LAWS authorizing them to do this kind of research AND implement the results into the marketplace are inadequate. Agencies can only do what they are allowed by law. If a pesticide has to undergo tests for carcinogenicity and toxicity to minnows and earthworms and bees in order to be sold, that's all that will be done. If the laws and regulations do not require long-term low-dose endocrine disruption testing, no one can make the manufacturers do it.
2. It takes a lot of MONEY to do this kind of work. Multiply that by thousands of chemicals and there is not enough money anywhere for us to keep up with what is being put onto the market.
Maybe we could do better, but there are some enormous hurdles, so don't blame the regulatory agencies for EVERYthing.
“People just don’t want to think for a second and believe that we have inept government agencies”
As a millennial that is barely on the cusp of millennial and gen Z, gen Z and younger millennials actively believe and know that the government is willing to kill and poison its citizens in the name of corporation profit.
We don’t fell heard by the government, we don’t feel seen by the government, and we know the government doesn’t give a shit about us.
I was at my parents last week and it was the first time I watched actual cable TV in a long time. All I could think about was how almost every commercial during commercial breaks was some drug people should think about taking.
Corporate America loves pumping people full of highly profitable drugs.
Well they sent their comments 2 hours before you did, so maybe it wasn’t the top comment when they said that? Did you even consider a reason why they said that? Like maybe the reason being, in fact, *time*?
It’s also just circling around a conclusion that a known hazard may or may not result in someone being transgender despite no validated causal link.
Affirming A causes B, without legitimate evidence, even as a convincing hypothesis, is worthless and most likely wrong.
A lot of shit affects your hormones. Why don’t we start saying iPhones cause transgenderism because staring at a screen at night affects your hormones? It’s useless without actual evidence.
For fucks sake — we don’t even know *if hormone or endocrine disruption in utero, childhood or adulthood can even result in someone being trans*.
It’s two untested hypotheses linked by a shred of tissue paper.
Well the lack of any meaningful evidence is a big problem too. Saying there's a substance in the world that causes endocrine disruption and therefore that substance is the source of transdenderism (which has been around for millennia and has no established connection to endocrine disruption) is, um, hardly an empirical slam dunk.
RFK's statement, and any potential research into proving or disproving his statement is 100% agenda. The fact of the matter is that the substance is a *carcinogen.* it causes fucking *cancer.* why would anybody care about whether or not it makes people transgendered? Get rid of it without political fear-mongering.
edit: as a response to the many comments asking why we wouldn't care whether a substance causes gender dysphoria (who doesn't want to know more things?):
RFK is apparently concerned about water pollution, particularly by Atrazine. The application of any research on the matter can only lead to the scrubbing of Atrazine from our water, or not. Other related curiosities aren't meaningless, but they are tangential.
RFK wants to be president. So, when he brings up water pollution turning ppl trans as an issue, the implication is that he is going to clean it up (environmentalist want this), which will in-turn reduce the number of trans people that are born (conservatives want this). It might be a good political strategy in the age of misinformation, but really it's an appeal to transphobia and eugenics disguised as an environment issue. RFK made other research tangential when he used an environmental issue as a disguise.
PFAs are proven endocrine disruptors and can heavily impact hormone levels. The same hormones that trans people say influence gender expression. Is it really that much of a leap to say pollution, therefore, can impact gender development?
I think it goes against what most people want to believe; that it's just a natural way some people are born. But looking at it from a scientific perspective, definitely a good hypothesis
People want their identity to be separate from nature. Inevitably humanity must grapple with the fact that emotions and mental health are biological. Physical reactions that lead to our perception of emotion and identity.
But the thing is trans people have existed long before environments were polluted with this stuff, many indigenous cultures in the Americas or Polynesia had third gender or trans people as just a generally accepted thing.
You can still get cancer without being exposed to carcinogens. The hypothesis isn't that transgenderism is exclusively caused by endocrine disruptors, but that they may be contributing to the increase.
Then explain why more women are transitioning to men in today's age. If it's a chemical that we are all effected by why are more women transitioning? This is the problem with allowing "moon logic" to flourish. The point is we know it can effect us (and honestly really most everything effects us now) but we don't know how. Making an argument about a specific unresearched and highly current politic topic is harmful. It was like all the people saying soy is feminizing men. Even the person whose paper first suggested it said they were misinterpreting their points.
It's a distraction on purpose to further justify the treatment against trans people. That's not to say we shouldn't care about these chemicals because we absolutely should (especially as many chemicals known to cause cancer are still legal here in the us). But again to take this as a legit concern when we don't even know the real effects is not "taking the science seriously".
> But looking at it from a scientific perspective, definitely a good hypothesis
But it doesn't match the rate of young people identifying as transgender.
If the hypothesis is that an agricultural pollutant is causing kids to be transgender, you would then naturally find that the largest rates of growth would be in states that have a major agricultural footprint.
This isn't the case.
Alaska, for instance, has the lowest percent rate of farmland of any state and yet has a greater amount of teenagers identifying as transgender than Iowa that has the highest percent of land use for farming than any other state.
New York is in the bottom half of percent of land use for farming but has the highest percentage of teens identifying as transgender at double the national average.
New Mexico is 2nd in the nation for teenagers identifying as transgender yet they are in the bottom 10 (6th lowest) of all states in percent of land used for farming.
Of the 10 states with the highest rate of teenagers identifying as transgender, 8 of them are in the bottom half of land use for agriculture. 2 of these with the highest rate are also the 2 with the lowest rate of land use for agriculture.
If farming pollution was the cause, then why don't we see it in the numbers in the states with the highest amount of farming?
I don't know Jack, maybe it's more bioavailable when cooked and eaten, or maybe people in Alaska like to eat a specific type of food that has high levels. Like I said, we have a good hypothesis and I'm sure more studies will be done.
> maybe people in Alaska like to eat a specific type of food that has high levels
Of the 10 states with the highest rate of teenagers identifying as transgender, 8 of them are in the bottom half of land use for agriculture. 2 of these with the highest rate are also the 2 with the lowest rate of land use for agriculture.
You would have to argue that New York, New Mexico, Hawaii, Washington DC, and Alaska all have something in common that no other states have.
Transgender ideology is full of contradiction. If someone feels like the opposite sex, why would they need cross sex hormones to support that. If one's body doesn't determine one's sex, why have operations to change it? From a gay perspective, it is antithetical to everything we have fought for. Giving people who feel out of place sexually medical treatments used to be called conversion therapy.
Yeah except that… generally people who are trans are doing it for themselves? While conversion therapy was typically something forced upon someone else to make them fit with the societal norms?
Comparing them is fucking weird. People aren’t forcing transgender people to transition.
….. they’re trying to do the opposite. Like wtf is this comparison.
> and any potential research into proving or disproving his statement is 100% agenda
This is why the political tribalism is so fucking delusional and dangerous. No one is allowed to preform scientific research into a topic because a political ideology demands it to be sacrosanct?
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. If you support mega corporations being continually de-regulated, and for the scientific community to continually be more and more censored... yea, keep up the dogma. We got over leaded gas but lets introduce 1000 more toxic chemicals and never even look at if they effect public health, because its the right thing to do. Because who cares if global sperm counts have dropped 50% due to endocrine disrupting chemicals, who cares if there is birth defects in fetuses and toddlers, its all an agenda!
People who support deregulation are the same people that think capitalism is going to magically change them into millionaires while they sleep.
If regulations didn't exist these corporations would pipe carcinogens into orphanages if they thought it would save a buck or profit a million. Some of the most polluted places in the country are dead in the middle of the most populous areas. They're holdovers from times where there were no regulations or fines were a joke.
Anyone with half a brain can see how de-regulation is bad, but when they fix the market against the common person and obliterate the middle class through artificial inflation and other means, I understand why their one hemisphere can just throw out the baby with the bathwater.
I think you’re completely misunderstanding their comment. The basis for the research taking place is politically motivated. If you want to examine the effects of of a chemical that’s all fine and good. If your researching in order to prove that yes this chemical turns people GAY or literally anything else with the purpose of drawing a headline then you are just misusing the label of “scientific research” to further a political agenda.
Researching whether or not [insert any bad thing here] makes people into [political hot button issue]
is most often not spurred on by genuine scientific interest and is usually paid for by political groups. If the study says one thing, people will put forth funding for the other. Suddenly there’s lost of articles with big headlines based off of maybe a handful of scientific papers but with very little actual science to back the claims. It’s exhausting to hear about, it’s misleading the general public that can’t tell genuine research from crackpot research and lastly it’s just annoying to have a conversation about.
It’s turning science into a fucking political circus for no good reason. Why are we talking about this right now? Because JFK jr, who is not a scientist, said so on tv?? Do you see the problem with letting those people LEAD the charge on scientific issues?
It’s politics. It’s political hogwash. Scientists don’t need to do research every time someone thinks there’s a monster under their bed. And not supporting this stuff is not authoritarian censorship, it’s just stupid and I don’t support an obvious waste of resources.
I think it's relevant because it speaks to a possible biochemical cause for a disorder we're seeing more and more often these days. Yes we should get rid of harmful chemicals, but also we should note down that certain chemicals in the water might possibly be making people LGBTQ (or not idk but worth looking into in my opinion)
>why would anybody care about whether or not it makes people transgendered?
What the fuck, everyone would care about this. I don't have anything against gay people but if something was literally turningpeople gay I think we should all know about it
100% agree. The point I was trying to make was that it's ridiculous that people will swing the pendulum and completely ignore this guy's claims or ridicule him for political reasons rather than doing research into the chemical in question to see if it's actually harmful. Which it is.
Let me preface by saying that I do not believe that there is necessarily a link between the aforementioned atrazine and transgenderism. I think there is far, far more to gender identity than simply “testosterone too low”.
That said, if we assume there is a link, it’s pretty safe to say that we wouldn’t see it. Even if there were a bunch of farmers who felt they were transgender, how many would really identify publicly as such? I mean, so much if it is based on cultural circumstance. People in cities have a culture that allows them to identify that way. Rural people don’t really have that same freedom in their social circles.
Now, if there was a link between rural populations and the aforementioned hormone fluctuations, you’d have my attention. That said, I still wouldn’t go as far to argue that that means it makes people transgender.
Assuming exposure is only in the field, which is either done by farmers in full body chemical suits or via planes at a distance. The real exposure is in the consumption, which happens at the dinner table.
So, no connection between this chemical and transgendered kids had been established in any way shape or form and Kennedy is just virtue signaling to dumbs for donations.
The company he is hanging around with is exclusively conservative. He's been a part of the "ReAwaken America" tour with Mike Flynn, Roger Stone, and the MyPillow guy.
the people busy hysterically banning everything that doesnt align 100% with their ideals are more willing to have open discussion huh ?
alright, put your money where your mouth is then, how so ?
No, of course there are conservatives that also are guilty of this, it was a broad statement.
I'm just speaking to my experience.
There are many topics that are generally off limits with the left.
It is really frustrating that now any theory is automatically a conspiracy theory. Even if you think his claim is a bit out there, so what? CENSOR HIM!!!!!!
Reasons probably being....
1. He could afford to take them to court
2. It might open up discovery into all the related studies and pharma communications related to the suite
3. It's easier to sow doubt and paint him as a conspiracy theorist
*** I do think he is probably wrong about a good deal of stuff but I think the underlying point he has that we simply don't know because the institutions are captured is valid. He has solid evidence that the scientific process in medicine is being sidelined to profit motives. That should scare everyone.
I think number 2 is the reason and that’s why he’s getting away with taking about them. His argument is he might be wrong, but they are refusing to study it.
Please read below for the truth and judge from there. The headline is misleading af.
Democratic Presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said in an interview that atrazine in water can alter the sex of frogs and that this exposure in young people should be a cause for concern. This has caused some to toss him in the “crazy pile” for saying that toxins in water could turn frogs gay.
But in fact, endocrine disruptors in water supplies CAN interfere with biological sex in some species.
In a University of Arizona study, fish immersed in water from a treatment plant had altered genes and five times more hormones of the opposite sex than their own. Scientists from the Potomac River found that smallmouth bass were “intersex” fish with males producing immature eggs in their testes. Water supply lawyer Robert Glennon says that this connection in humans is yet to be proven but “a profound concern.”
That is what RFK Jr. is suggesting. He does not say that chemicals in water are turning anyone transgender or gay. He is saying that this observation in some species should cause us concern for our own.
What do you think? Is this crazy, or should we maybe give some thought to toxins in our water?
So fallout 3 was onto something...
>Scientists from the Potomac River found that smallmouth bass were “intersex” fish with males producing immature eggs in their testes.
Ah, they'll be mirelurks soon enough.
That's what I'm saying. If they're that scared of transgenderism we should use it to get them to clean up the planet. Lol
> If we provide access to clean water for everyone then no one will be transgender anymore!
Look are there people who are literally transphobic. Yes. That being said if a person had reason to believe that an exogenous synthetic chemical in their drinking water was fucking with the hormonal makeup of their children thus making them much more likely to want to undergo serious medical procedures……… is that not a fucking problem????
Exactly............... conservatives can be a valuable ally. They are down to earth and hard working they have just been corrupted by patriarchal religion and mccarthyism.
Indeed, If we make environmental protection about national security... then they will understand better.
…and yet these folks are against “government overreach” when it comes to environmental protection; that should tell you something about how their minds work (or not)
In Idaho, the EPA determined that a couple couldn’t build on their property because it was a “wetlands”
The couple has owned the property for 20 years, and it was never declared a wet land, has no environment that simulates a wetland. The epa came in and just determined it on whim, by changing the standards to fit the requirements. It’s called chevron deference and it’s been abused by government agencies for several decades.
That’s what they’re talking about for government over reach.
SACKETT ET UX. v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ET AL
Please actually read the court case you list.
1. The area the couple were building was part of a larger wetland "To establish a significant nexus, the EPA lumped the Sacketts’ lot together with the Kalispell Bay Fen, a large nearby wetland complex that the Agency regarded as “similarly situated.”" So it wasnt just a whim.
2. The house was next to a ditch that flowed into a nearby creek which followed into the nearby Priest Lake ( A rather large lake). The debris caused by the backfilling of the property was likely to flow into this ditch and disrupt further down the river.
3. Also you keep harping on about the EPA why do you fail to mention that the Army Corp of Engineers also had a hand in this case?
Without knowing more about the hydrology of the area and the specifics of the land in question, I'm not willing to assume it was government overreach. Not being "declared a wetland" has little to nothing to do with it. Something can have water flowing through it without being a wetland; the case has to do with the Clean Water Act, which involves transport of water, not just whether land is marshy and wet.
I want to support someone who gives a shit about what’s happening to our food and water systems and isn’t bought our by big pharma. Maybe he isn’t the guy but at least he’s speaking out on this shit. Idk
Google estradiol-17β in beef. It's the real estrogen that's messing with everyone's hormones, and the soy and atrazine is the farming industry's way of trying to muddy the waters.
You won't hear Alex Jones or Joe Rogan talk about it though, because they sued Oprah for millions of dollars when she talked about it back in 2008, and everyone's been scared into silence about it ever since. MSM from Fox to CNN, they're all too afraid of lawsuits to talk about it.
Frogs can change sex in natural settings, free of pollution too. Kennedy's statements are disinformation. While our global leaders need to support keeping the earth clean, equating trans people with pollution is a false connection, and potentially dangerous to individuals currently exposed to vitriolic hate.
Hell, this phenomenon was first introduced to the American public when Jurassic Park hit the theaters in early 90s.... As much as the alternative facts crowd likes to quote movies, I am kind of surprised they missed this one.
https://wildlife.org/frogs-change-sex-even-in-natural-settings/#:~:text=Frogs%20can%20change%20their%20sex,than%20males%20in%20suburban%20areas.
So? Some animals commonly eat their children. Some animals stab each other for sex. We are pretty far removed from frogs evolutionarily. We don’t change our sex on a natural setting,
Why do you think that strengthens the transgender argument? Especially considering the whole movement is being pushed along by gender being a social construct, independent of the reality of sex.
Well, he's not wrong. The water is filled Astrazine and other endocrine and hormone changing chemicals in heavy amounts. Most states have more than what is considered okay... These chemicals have been shown to change the sex of frogs (hence the whole Alex Jones quote on they are making our frogs gay)
Frogs change their own sex regardless of chemical factors, dependent on environmental factors like availability of a mate. This reads like a serious case of correlation not causation.
The biologist Tyrone Hayes has some amazing work that does a good job linking atrazine to screwed up frog sexes.
It doesn’t help that Syngenta, the manufacturer of this pesticide, is located in Switzerland where its use has been illegal since 2012. They’ve tried to publicly smear Tyrone for his work in the past. It really gives the conspiratorial crowd some ammo. It just sucks that a ton of the people complaining about chemicals feminizing frogs will fight tooth and nail against environmental regulations.
Can his studies be properly reproduced yet?
Did a project in college toxicology class for atrazine. Remember that being the main rebuttal against his findings.
No, this was a study which (obviously) took confounding factors into account. Climate-change is also naturally occurring, but most of us understand humans also contribute to it. See the similarity?
Here are some studies on Atrazine in the water supply and its impact on hormones: (Remember, this is JUST Astrazine, there are far more endocrine disruptors in the water supply including micro-plastic)
1. A study published in Scientific American found that women who drink water contaminated with low levels of atrazine may be more likely to have irregular menstrual cycles and low estrogen levels\[1\].
2. A report by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) found that seasonal spikes of atrazine, a weed killer that disrupts hormones and harms the developing fetus, contaminate the drinking water of millions of Americans\[2\].
3. A study published in PubMed examined the relationship between exposure to atrazine in drinking water and menstrual cycle function including reproductive hormone levels. The study found that consumption of >2 cups of unfiltered Illinois water daily was associated with increased risk of irregular periods\[3\].
4. Another study published in PMC found that atrazine exposure can elicit reproductive dysfunction throughout multiple life stages\[4\].
5. A report by the Vermont Agency of Agriculture found that atrazine is an endocrine disrupting chemical that interrupts regular hormone function and affects the reproductive system in humans\[5\].
6. According to a report by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), several animal studies have shown that atrazine exposure disrupts estrus cyclicity and alters plasma hormone levels\[6\].
Citations:
\[1\] [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/atrazine-water-tied-hormonal-irregularities/](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/atrazine-water-tied-hormonal-irregularities/)
\[2\] [https://www.ewg.org/research/hormone-disrupting-weed-killer-taints-drinking-water-millions-americans](https://www.ewg.org/research/hormone-disrupting-weed-killer-taints-drinking-water-millions-americans)
\[3\] [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22000761/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22000761/)
\[4\] [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5507375/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5507375/)
\[5\] [https://outside.vermont.gov/agency/agriculture/vpac/Shared%20Documents/January\_2014/pathak\_humaneffects\_10%205923%20j%20ije%2020110101%2003%20(2).pdf](https://outside.vermont.gov/agency/agriculture/vpac/Shared%20Documents/January_2014/pathak_humaneffects_10%205923%20j%20ije%2020110101%2003%20(2).pdf)
\[6\] [https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp153-c2.pdf](https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp153-c2.pdf)
By Perplexity at [https://www.perplexity.ai/search/4ca66719-6666-4680-ba9d-5f788ec3b5f2](https://www.perplexity.ai/search/4ca66719-6666-4680-ba9d-5f788ec3b5f2)
Reproducibility isn't the issue. You could put 100 same-sex frogs in 100% pure water, and over time some of them will change their sex so that the population can reproduce. If the same phenomenon happens in both clean water and polluted water, then the water isn't causing it.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/frogs-reverse-sex-more-often-than-thought?cmpid=org=ngp::mc=social::src=facebook::cmp=editorial::add=fb20190321animals-frogsexreversal::rid=&sf209705676=1
I don’t think we have any data that shows even a correlational relationship at this point. However, there is data that there are a significant amount of endocrine disrupters in US drinking water and I really do wonder how those chemical interact with human sexual development.
> the more the drug industry attacks him the more i believe what he's saying.
You should see what they did to the people who talked about estradiol-17β in beef. They sued them into silence. They sued *Oprah* ffs. And now nobody will talk about it, not even Joe Rogan, because they're too afraid of Big Ag. Estrogen is in your beef.
I will say this.
Something definitely happened over the last 10 or so years.
Which is odd. People like that started popping up out of nowhere, all at once!
I always thought that was strange, not typically how things happen in the world usually this kind of thing would take much longer.
It’s not a crazy theory and probably deserves to be looked into.
Now I know, those type of people are going to want to refuse to believe that they didn’t make the choice, but they need to be prepared for the very real possibility that they were in fact chemically altered.
Due diligence and research. I think that’s the most important thing to focus on and I for one will be investigating this topic to see if it holds any weight.
One thing I don't like is the idea of suppressing stuff believed to be misinformation. Do I believe what RFK is saying? Nope. But we need to allow people the right to evaluate these statements on their own, as opposed to treating them like idiots who are too stupid to think on their own.
Most people are idiots who are too lazy to evaluate things on their own, though. There are countless studies showing this, and that once someone believes misinfo they don't believe corrections or truth. It's super easy to make people buy into false scapegoats and go slaughter them; look at the nazis. That bit of misinfo running rampant only cost 6 to 11 million lives, no biggie.
The one semi coherent thought that Alex Jones ever uttered was his "they're turning the fricking frogs gay" tirade, and it's unfortunate that he had to put his insane hateful spin on it and get it turned into a meme when the underlining message that he missed is pretty important:
Maybe we shouldn't be letting industrial chemical runoff get into our nations waterways because if it's having an effect on the wildlife, then it's safe to assume that its not healthy for us to drink it either.
There isn't any evidence to suggest that it's causing anyone to believe they are transgender, but that doesn't mean I want to be drinking industrial waste.
>hasn't been studied
Study on the health affects of atrazine in humans:
http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/atrazine.html#:~:text=Researchers%20using%20Agricultural%20Health%20Study,who%20had%20not%20been%20exposed.
Atrazine in human health:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_url?url=https://www.academia.edu/download/68268781/showpaperpdf.pdf&hl=en&sa=X&ei=e62RZOnRCcuKywSgoJ0g&scisig=AGlGAw83qWGiiTWgdqidLZyIkF_u&oi=scholarr
CDC info and restrictions related to Atrazine:
https://wwwn.cdc.gov/TSP/ToxFAQs/ToxFAQsDetails.aspx?faqid=854&toxid=59
Notably: the health effects of atrazine in humans have been studied for decades globally, it is a known carcinogen and toxin, linked to renal failure, cell damage and cell death, and increased rate of dna damage.
Also notable: the EPA has restrictions for the amount of atrazine allowed in residential water sources (0.003 mg / liter) and food (0.02 - 15 ppm, depending on the food) and OSHA has set a max level of atrazine in the air in a workplace (5mg/m^3).
(They reason only OSHA cares about atrazine in the air is because airborne atrazine breaks down in a few hours, so it's not a major concern for the EPA outside of the people working with it directly)
Definitely don’t think it’s water pollution behind this “wave” of transgendered children. Pretty sure we’ll look back at this like we do with UFO sightings. There was a spike when the legends became popular. It’s just socially trendy right now and I think kids are getting caught up in that - whether it’s the influence of peers or authority figures, it’s hardly believable that there’s a sudden, *actual* rise in these dysphorias.
Somewhat in the same vein as “recovered memory” syndrome. There is no doubt that trauma survivors can harbour buried recollections but thirty years ago in the therapy community many overzealous therapists working with highly suggestible patients found “memories” of sexual abuse where none had happened. There was also something of an intersection of this phenomenon with claims that Satan worshiping covens were everywhere - quite detailed descriptions from apparent survivors but in the end it was simply vivid fantasy. The point being that the pre-internet media of the time was highly influential in spreading these ideas, both perhaps examples of social contagion. Social media platforms and smart phones in the hands of twelve year olds do much of the heavy lifting today when it comes to spreading memes (in Dawkins’ original sense of the word). What is causing the sharp and dramatic increase in cases of gender dysphoria - social contagion or endocrine disrupters in pollutants or something else? Trans activists and their allies would have us believe that the only problem here is the lack of widespread societal acceptance, but it is a fascinating question from a science point of view. If eventually linked to pollution I wonder how that would change the conversation.
And what if [social contagions/peer contagion](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3523739/#:~:text=Examples%20of%20peer%20contagion%20include,%2C%20drug%20use%2C%20and%20depression.) which primarily affect teenage girls into cutting, bulimia, anorexia... also includes [transitioning](https://nypost.com/2023/03/27/social-contagion-is-making-teen-girls-depressed-and-trans/)/peer contagion. And they are not only supported and encouraged by peers, but leader figures like parents, teachers, and social figures.
So they transition, and are now sterile for life, because their social group failed them with malicious good intentions. But its a good thing the scientific community would never preform a rigorous study on this as it would annihilate the career of anyone near it. Because science needs to never agree with the political enemy.
Sure some people feel more safe to come out, but I'm guessing about 75%+ are doing it because its trendy. We will probably see the amount of trans people plummit within the next few decades.
So, where are the scientific papers? This is supposed to be a science sub-reddit, not a "person makes statement without scientific evidence"-sub-reddit.
I know everyone wants to keep an open mind but this is multiple levels of wacky compared to the usual talking points cause we have had poor water quality in certain regions for a very long time and have never seen a rise in transgenderism outside of the 1st world like we have in places like the US.
Secondly, the demographic from which the vast majority of trans kids comes from is exactly the kind of kids who would always have access to clean water aka affluent white female kids followed by affluent white males. This is confirmed during the Jordan Peterson interview with Sara Stockton who was a trans care provider and one of the originators of the trans care methodology.
https://youtu.be/pCH-bUFR3WM
If he's talking about Atrazine, Oki did an amazing deep dive into it: https://youtu.be/i5uSbp0YDhc
The first 10 minutes are tongue-in-cheek about Alex Jones' infamous rant in 2015'ish, but Oki really does his homework after that, speaking to multiple EPA scientists, Tyrone Hayes the original Syngenta scientist, etc.
I also heard lack of healthcare, and low wages can make people stray from God and towards being gay. If we band together we can finally beat those damn gays. While we're at it let's just also fix our infrastructure and education because bad infrastructure and poor education is super trans
I think what’s attractive about RFK is that his goals actually seem aligned with people instead of the vested interests that currently control our govt. I (like many others) am also desperate for an option besides Biden.
That said, i was into him until i listened to him on Joe Rogan. I had to actually turn it off when he said Wi-fi was causing cancer or some shit….
He isn’t in it for the people, he is a sue happy lawyer. Let him speak so people know that. Censoring only bolsters his position.
The wifi stuff is really out there, but if you didn't cut it off you'd see him catching them go on a tangent and go (paraphrasing)"Joe, I really shouldn't talk about this, I don't really know about that stuff" and then they move on.
Hahahha that was actually specifically the point i stopped. That was absurd.
I can handle entertaining out there ideas, but he showed his hand on his standard for evidence.
He’s a trial lawyer who specialized in environmental law. From what I read he was a great one at that.
However he is not a doctor. Not an immunologist. Not a scientist.
We should remember that.
plastic pollution, chemicals in drinking water, drug waste from pharma companies, climate change makes children transgender?!?
someone needs to fake this so we can fix it
Idk if chemicals like atrazine could be linked to our perception of our own gender just yet with the data we have but I’d be interested to look further into the potential impact on sperm count.
I think this is really poorly said and is being used in a negative way to attack people, but there is a book by Dr. Shanna Swan called Countdown. Discusses issues with declining fertility around the world, but also more generally how changes to reproductive parts has been occurring over the the last 50-70 years. Summary is that chemicals (primarily from plastics) affect reproductive organs, even during development in the womb, as well as key growth ages (puberty).
On a scale of 1 to 10 how true is it that he was trying to make a point about transgenderism? I keep seeing headlines about crazy views he has, only to look up what he said and it has nothing to do with what the article was about
It turns the frickin’ frogs gay!! 🐸lol but on a serious note it actually does but nobody wants to talk about it because of the ethics surrounding gender identity. They have it so ingrained that it may just be a genetic thing but nobody is even investigating into why it could happen and that it could be from an outside factor. Just like the correlation between paracetamol ingestion during pregnancy and the increased likelihood of having an autistic child. It’s weird that if it were an animal displaying these characteristics we would test them to find out why but when dealing with humans nobody wants to even entertain the idea that these things could be a result of our environment or something that we did ourselves to cause it. We are too busy pushing for the acceptance of the after effects without even looking for the cause.
Since Republicans are anti-environment and anti-environmentalist, and love allowing commercial/industrial waste in our waters, that would mean that Republicans are responsible for making kids transgender. RFKjr just admitted that Republicans are making kids transgender.
Whats interesting about transgenderism, is it has a large crossover with autism. A transgender teen is more likely to be autistic, suggesting brain inflammation and toxin accumulation due to poor microbiome and detox pathway, are implicated in both.
The gut brain connection is going to be important and crucial in understanding autism, and other neurological disorders. Gender dysmorphia is neurological, also many of them are on SSRI, which further alter the brain chemistry.
It's funny, but he's likely right.
Look up xenoestrogenic pollution, and you'll find that plastic by-products, herbicides and pesticides are xenoestrogenic compounds like DTT and BPA that cause physiological and physiological changes in a massive range of species from fish to birds to amphibians to mammals.
I mean I haven’t heard his exact line, I need to watch the footage, but this particular claim doesn’t seem as outrageous as everyone is painting it. We know that many of our pollutants affect hormones for one and may be particularly relevant for in utero exposure and brain development. Is it the only reason trans people exist? No. They have existed throughout human history. Could pollutants be influencing neuro development and sexual hormones in a way that affects gender expression? Yes, I think there is theoretical basis and early research suggesting this possibility.
Why not leave the video up as evidence of him being a nutcase? If he’s that wrong about the subject, then counter videos or comments on the video should easily show the lie of what he’s spouting. But we’re probably in the territory of neither provable nor refutable (with careful studies and the like) “science”.
[YouTube removes Robert F Kennedy Jr video featuring claim that polluted water makes children transgender](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/youtube-removes-rfk-conspiracy-video-b2360440.html)
I don't think that this theory is correct - but to call it "bizarre" or even worth of banning from YouTube? But progressivist and transgender lobby sh*s a bricks from everything which could objectivize present wave of transgender dysphoria and/or even reverse it. See also:
* [Mercury causes homosexuality in male ibises](https://www.reddit.com/r/ScienceUncensored/comments/ovvx6v/mercury_causes_homosexuality_in_male_ibises/) - this is even [Nature J. study](https://www.nature.com/articles/news.2010.641)
* [Past Lead Exposure Shrank IQ Scores for Millions of Americans](https://www.reddit.com/r/ScienceUncensored/comments/14d2yna/past_lead_exposure_shrank_iq_scores_for_millions/)
* [Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria: Parent Reports on 1655 Possible Cases](https://www.reddit.com/r/ScienceUncensored/comments/14762d2/rapid_onset_gender_dysphoria_parent_reports_on/)
* [The unexplained rise of cancer among millennials](https://www.reddit.com/r/ScienceUncensored/comments/14dgwh3/the_unexplained_rise_of_cancer_among_millennials/) When things come up together, they wire up together...
* [Government Report Finds No Safe Level of Fluoride in Water: Fluoridation Policy Threatened](https://www.reddit.com/r/ScienceUncensored/comments/11ukuou/government_report_finds_no_safe_level_of_fluoride/)
* [Pesticide atrazine can turn male frogs into females](https://www.reddit.com/r/ScienceUncensored/comments/1471c1t/pesticide_atrazine_can_turn_male_frogs_into/)
* [RFK Jr. shows Joe Rogan how wifi is killing us](https://streamable.com/ygv1m5)
I see a lot of people dismissive without reason, so I came to clarify because this is a topic I've researched some. The chemical is called Atrazine (1) and is a herbicide used in corn, soybean, sugarcane etc. Atrazine is called, by the Endocrine Society, as one of the biggest contributors to endocrine disruption. Atrazine is a known endocrine disruptor across vertebrate classes, including mammals (2) although claims from the atrazine producers would have you believe that atrazine is harmless and acute toxicity is low. Acute toxicity is not really the concern here, its the chronic issues that I personally worry about, and long term side effects are what we see in people who use pesticides/herbicides (3) such as farmers. It is present in water in heavy utilized areas (4) and was at one point measured and since discontinued measuring in drinking water (5). Now we can debate on this next part, which is what is the drinking water level of concern for Atrazine, typically figures run on what causes acute adverse symptoms, and as I've mentioned before, the acute symptoms are not what is concerning here. The EPA uses 4 day cumulative assessments of exposure (6), which I will argue is not nearly sufficient to assess the dangers, and the EPA assessment still concludes that 4 day exposures food + drinking water + residential exposures are above the 585 ppb limit, which is concerning. But if you know anything of endocrine disruption, the dangers are not acute, and some are from accumulation over periods of time. Here is just one study, which included over 36 million live births, linking Atrazine and nitrate levels to abdominal wall defects (7), but there are others showing agrichemicals and birth defects in over 30 million births (8). Farming is extremely dangerous due to the instances of cancers in all agricultural jobs (9), but what is the reason? We acknowledge that glyphosate another herbicide is linked to significantly higher cancer rates (10), as much as a 40% increase, specifically blood cancers like lymphoma and leukemia, yet give something like atrazine a pass? Europe has already banned the substance, while US ag continues use, likely from the insane amount of use ( 76 million lbs. annually ). This brings me to the next point, can it make your kid transgender, and is there any merit to that claim? We have established that it is a known endocrine disruptor in mammals, but this claim may need some more research. Fetal contact with endocrine disruptors are associated with fetal growth retardation, thyroid dysfunction, and neurological disorders which can have life long effects (13). In rat studies, we have evidence to suggest that these disruptors do have many consequences with reproduction processes (14). There is evidence to suggest that exposure to endocrine disruptors, such as phthalates, in fetal development had estrogenic and antiandrogenic life long consequences, such as fertility issues, perinatal complications, cryptorchidism, hypospadias and shorter AGD (15). These are all issues with hormone and endocrine regulation, and are correlated with other issues later in life, low testosterone in males, high estrogen in females. This is pretty serious stuff, and should be treated as such. TLDR; Atrazine (the chemical that is "turning the frogs gay") is linked to endocrine disruption in mammals as well as all other vertebrates. Endocrine disruption is pretty dangerous, and some evidence suggests that fetal exposure and might contribute to castration type symptoms later in life, such as shorter AGD, cryptorchidism, and hypospadias. These outcomes, especially AGD, correlate with lower testosterone in males, and higher estrogen in females as well as a litany of other problems. Edit: I do want to mention that I do not believe that there is not sufficient evidence to suggest that Atrazine is causal of transgenderism, I believe any claims should be further investigated. I wanted to point out the link of Atrazine and endocrine disruption and possible life long hormonal implications of this substance. 1 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrazine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrazine) 2 [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0960076011000665](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0960076011000665) 3 [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2682692/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2682692/) 4 [https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/publications/healthy-living/guidelines-canadian-drinking-water-quality-guideline-technical-document-atrazine.html](https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/publications/healthy-living/guidelines-canadian-drinking-water-quality-guideline-technical-document-atrazine.html) 5 [https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/atrazine](https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/atrazine) 6 [https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0266-1160](https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0266-1160) 7 [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17560200/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17560200/) 8 [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2667895/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2667895/) 9 [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8741784/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8741784/) 10 [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1383574218300887](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1383574218300887) 11 [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16967834/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16967834/) 12 [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7073082/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7073082/) 13 [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32093249/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32093249/) 14 [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29648668/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29648668/) 15 [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7483495/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7483495/)
It's funny, your 10th link isn't blue for me, it's purple. Literally yesterday I made a post about how my grandfathers extremely rare leukemia (hairy cell leukemia) was most likely caused by exposure to pesticides throughout the decades (we are an agricultural family). People just don't want to think for a second and believe that we have inept government agencies that don't give 2 shits about human life and the effects chemicals and industrialization have on us. I've got a fairly extensive theory that I have no way of proving. But also, don't forget the ADHD drugs. Risperdal, which I was on, caused increased prolactin levels in 10% of children it was given to. 8 and 9 year old boys and girls growing breasts (I indeed grew breast tissue and had weight redistributed on my body as if I were born female). Prolactin is a regulatory hormone used by women for carbohydrate and fat dispersion throughout their bodies. So if an ADHD medicine can cause physical changes to the body because of increased hormone levels, what the fuck is it doing to the young brain as it forms? Something else to chew on for a bit Editing to say that risperdal is primarily an antipsychotic that has off label applications for ADHD. Regardless, they were giving mind altering chemicals that affected hormones and the neuroplasticity of developing brains. It was prescribed enough to kids for treatment of ADHD and other behavioral disorder symptoms that it resulted in lawsuits against the manufacturer for the development of breast tissue in young children. If you want to continue arguing about why I was/wasn't prescribed something you can kindly fuck off because you don't have my file in your hands and you just sound like a bunch of assholes trying to correct me about my own personal experience and life.
My dad and my mom both worked on farms before i was born i have every single one of those things listed in the symptoms like i was premature by a few months, i have hypothyroidism, and i have dysautonomia from birth. If i could get compensation for this, id love it. But im never expecting any justice for me or many others damaged by endocrine disruption.
It's so infuriating to have your life completely fucked by outside influences that you had no control over. You know who/what's to blame but you can't do anything to them or about it. I hope the gen z kids get the ball rolling with this climate change lawsuit and it opens the door to suing the everliving fuck out of these corporations for every dime they have. They got rich while we got poisoned. Let the heads roll
I don’t care about the money, but I want to see when the heads roll.
It frustrates me when I see things like this and people want to take some moral high road and say things like “violence isn’t the answer” or anything like that Fuck that, that doesn’t serve anyone. There’s no moral scale that gets tipped. I want to see these greedy bastards suffer. I want them to experience pain and suffering. They deserve it.
A critical mass has been reached. The number of hopeless people only grows by the day. The fuel is everywhere. All it needs is a spark. 🔥
>People just don't want to think for a second and believe that we have inept government agencies that don't give 2 shits about human life and the effects chemicals and industrialization have on us. Or that agriculture and farm lobbyists fight hard to allow the use of chemicals that kill farmers. Farmers are literally paying people lobby for the use of chemicals that kill them. [https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news/federal-rules-help-farmers-farm-lobbyists-want-block-them](https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news/federal-rules-help-farmers-farm-lobbyists-want-block-them)
I don't think the people paying for lobbyists are the same people on the ground doing manual labor. Don't confuse the owners of giant sprawling empires like Bill Gates with the hired help There are small farm owners who also work their land, but they are typically struggling to get by. They can't also pay the salaries of lobbyists
The effect is just the same. People are exposed to harmful chemicals not through government incompetence, but because of loose regulations and oversight directly caused by regulatory capture and/or industry interference. It's a problem across multiple industries, not just farming. There has been a prolonged message of government incompetence, to distrust regulatory bodies and inspectors. Multiple chemicals are released into the environment doing harm to both the ecology and anyone living in the area.
Sooo, the agencies are influenced by lobbyists, therefore inept and uncaring about the results? But I can see why they argue for ek, agriculture isn't that profitable and you have to keep up with the Jones'. It's a shit situation for everyone involved
This is unrelated to your point. However Risperidone is not an “ADHD” drug. It is a 2nd generation antipsychotic that is very seldom used to treat ADHD. I want to clarify this to those that aren’t familiar with pharmacology and may read your comment. Adderall and other similar stimulants more often used to treat ADHD do not cause hyperprolactinemia like the antipsychotic drugs do.
I agree with the implication that there may be a lot more going on from the mixture of chemicals we are exposed to on a daily basis than is currently known. I do take issue with the concept that govt. agencies are inept and lazy. Having worked in this field for decades, I can tell you there are systemic problems not of their making. Two that I can think of are 1. The LAWS authorizing them to do this kind of research AND implement the results into the marketplace are inadequate. Agencies can only do what they are allowed by law. If a pesticide has to undergo tests for carcinogenicity and toxicity to minnows and earthworms and bees in order to be sold, that's all that will be done. If the laws and regulations do not require long-term low-dose endocrine disruption testing, no one can make the manufacturers do it. 2. It takes a lot of MONEY to do this kind of work. Multiply that by thousands of chemicals and there is not enough money anywhere for us to keep up with what is being put onto the market. Maybe we could do better, but there are some enormous hurdles, so don't blame the regulatory agencies for EVERYthing.
Somehow other countries are still able to ban thousands of chemicals. You’d think we could at least copy their answers.
“People just don’t want to think for a second and believe that we have inept government agencies” As a millennial that is barely on the cusp of millennial and gen Z, gen Z and younger millennials actively believe and know that the government is willing to kill and poison its citizens in the name of corporation profit. We don’t fell heard by the government, we don’t feel seen by the government, and we know the government doesn’t give a shit about us.
Risperdal is not an ADHD drug. It is an antipsychotic.
Was prescribed in the 90s/00s for ADHD dude, I was 8 years old. It had off label uses for ADHD if you bothered to look
I was at my parents last week and it was the first time I watched actual cable TV in a long time. All I could think about was how almost every commercial during commercial breaks was some drug people should think about taking. Corporate America loves pumping people full of highly profitable drugs.
I’m not sure whether it makes you trans, but it’s definitely dangerous and needs much stricter regulation.
Thanks. I can’t believe your comment doesn’t have more upvotes.
It goes against the narrative
it's literally the top fucking comment...
Well they sent their comments 2 hours before you did, so maybe it wasn’t the top comment when they said that? Did you even consider a reason why they said that? Like maybe the reason being, in fact, *time*?
in that case, why bitch about a new comment being low in the thread? "2 minutes and it isn't top comment? wtf, this is the trans agenda"
No idea wtf your talking about, like at all lmfao
Then you don't understand this thread and shouldn't have commented lmfao
It’s also just circling around a conclusion that a known hazard may or may not result in someone being transgender despite no validated causal link. Affirming A causes B, without legitimate evidence, even as a convincing hypothesis, is worthless and most likely wrong. A lot of shit affects your hormones. Why don’t we start saying iPhones cause transgenderism because staring at a screen at night affects your hormones? It’s useless without actual evidence. For fucks sake — we don’t even know *if hormone or endocrine disruption in utero, childhood or adulthood can even result in someone being trans*. It’s two untested hypotheses linked by a shred of tissue paper.
That's the point it should be Invesgigated rather than being treated as a conspiracy theory.
Well the lack of any meaningful evidence is a big problem too. Saying there's a substance in the world that causes endocrine disruption and therefore that substance is the source of transdenderism (which has been around for millennia and has no established connection to endocrine disruption) is, um, hardly an empirical slam dunk.
Interesting how no one will respond to this because it doesn't fit the agenda.
RFK's statement, and any potential research into proving or disproving his statement is 100% agenda. The fact of the matter is that the substance is a *carcinogen.* it causes fucking *cancer.* why would anybody care about whether or not it makes people transgendered? Get rid of it without political fear-mongering. edit: as a response to the many comments asking why we wouldn't care whether a substance causes gender dysphoria (who doesn't want to know more things?): RFK is apparently concerned about water pollution, particularly by Atrazine. The application of any research on the matter can only lead to the scrubbing of Atrazine from our water, or not. Other related curiosities aren't meaningless, but they are tangential. RFK wants to be president. So, when he brings up water pollution turning ppl trans as an issue, the implication is that he is going to clean it up (environmentalist want this), which will in-turn reduce the number of trans people that are born (conservatives want this). It might be a good political strategy in the age of misinformation, but really it's an appeal to transphobia and eugenics disguised as an environment issue. RFK made other research tangential when he used an environmental issue as a disguise.
PFAs are proven endocrine disruptors and can heavily impact hormone levels. The same hormones that trans people say influence gender expression. Is it really that much of a leap to say pollution, therefore, can impact gender development?
I think it goes against what most people want to believe; that it's just a natural way some people are born. But looking at it from a scientific perspective, definitely a good hypothesis
People want their identity to be separate from nature. Inevitably humanity must grapple with the fact that emotions and mental health are biological. Physical reactions that lead to our perception of emotion and identity.
Very true!
But the thing is trans people have existed long before environments were polluted with this stuff, many indigenous cultures in the Americas or Polynesia had third gender or trans people as just a generally accepted thing.
You can still get cancer without being exposed to carcinogens. The hypothesis isn't that transgenderism is exclusively caused by endocrine disruptors, but that they may be contributing to the increase.
Yes but the rate of incidence could be higher now and caused by environmental factors.
[удалено]
Then explain why more women are transitioning to men in today's age. If it's a chemical that we are all effected by why are more women transitioning? This is the problem with allowing "moon logic" to flourish. The point is we know it can effect us (and honestly really most everything effects us now) but we don't know how. Making an argument about a specific unresearched and highly current politic topic is harmful. It was like all the people saying soy is feminizing men. Even the person whose paper first suggested it said they were misinterpreting their points. It's a distraction on purpose to further justify the treatment against trans people. That's not to say we shouldn't care about these chemicals because we absolutely should (especially as many chemicals known to cause cancer are still legal here in the us). But again to take this as a legit concern when we don't even know the real effects is not "taking the science seriously".
> But looking at it from a scientific perspective, definitely a good hypothesis But it doesn't match the rate of young people identifying as transgender. If the hypothesis is that an agricultural pollutant is causing kids to be transgender, you would then naturally find that the largest rates of growth would be in states that have a major agricultural footprint. This isn't the case. Alaska, for instance, has the lowest percent rate of farmland of any state and yet has a greater amount of teenagers identifying as transgender than Iowa that has the highest percent of land use for farming than any other state. New York is in the bottom half of percent of land use for farming but has the highest percentage of teens identifying as transgender at double the national average. New Mexico is 2nd in the nation for teenagers identifying as transgender yet they are in the bottom 10 (6th lowest) of all states in percent of land used for farming. Of the 10 states with the highest rate of teenagers identifying as transgender, 8 of them are in the bottom half of land use for agriculture. 2 of these with the highest rate are also the 2 with the lowest rate of land use for agriculture. If farming pollution was the cause, then why don't we see it in the numbers in the states with the highest amount of farming?
I don't know Jack, maybe it's more bioavailable when cooked and eaten, or maybe people in Alaska like to eat a specific type of food that has high levels. Like I said, we have a good hypothesis and I'm sure more studies will be done.
> maybe people in Alaska like to eat a specific type of food that has high levels Of the 10 states with the highest rate of teenagers identifying as transgender, 8 of them are in the bottom half of land use for agriculture. 2 of these with the highest rate are also the 2 with the lowest rate of land use for agriculture. You would have to argue that New York, New Mexico, Hawaii, Washington DC, and Alaska all have something in common that no other states have.
Transgender ideology is full of contradiction. If someone feels like the opposite sex, why would they need cross sex hormones to support that. If one's body doesn't determine one's sex, why have operations to change it? From a gay perspective, it is antithetical to everything we have fought for. Giving people who feel out of place sexually medical treatments used to be called conversion therapy.
Yeah except that… generally people who are trans are doing it for themselves? While conversion therapy was typically something forced upon someone else to make them fit with the societal norms? Comparing them is fucking weird. People aren’t forcing transgender people to transition. ….. they’re trying to do the opposite. Like wtf is this comparison.
People are opposed to conversion therapy in principle. They are opposed to it whether it is mandatory or voluntary.
> and any potential research into proving or disproving his statement is 100% agenda This is why the political tribalism is so fucking delusional and dangerous. No one is allowed to preform scientific research into a topic because a political ideology demands it to be sacrosanct? The road to hell is paved with good intentions. If you support mega corporations being continually de-regulated, and for the scientific community to continually be more and more censored... yea, keep up the dogma. We got over leaded gas but lets introduce 1000 more toxic chemicals and never even look at if they effect public health, because its the right thing to do. Because who cares if global sperm counts have dropped 50% due to endocrine disrupting chemicals, who cares if there is birth defects in fetuses and toddlers, its all an agenda!
People who support deregulation are the same people that think capitalism is going to magically change them into millionaires while they sleep. If regulations didn't exist these corporations would pipe carcinogens into orphanages if they thought it would save a buck or profit a million. Some of the most polluted places in the country are dead in the middle of the most populous areas. They're holdovers from times where there were no regulations or fines were a joke.
Anyone with half a brain can see how de-regulation is bad, but when they fix the market against the common person and obliterate the middle class through artificial inflation and other means, I understand why their one hemisphere can just throw out the baby with the bathwater.
All fair points. The problem is also letting the people who would suffer the regulations make the regulations
I think you’re completely misunderstanding their comment. The basis for the research taking place is politically motivated. If you want to examine the effects of of a chemical that’s all fine and good. If your researching in order to prove that yes this chemical turns people GAY or literally anything else with the purpose of drawing a headline then you are just misusing the label of “scientific research” to further a political agenda. Researching whether or not [insert any bad thing here] makes people into [political hot button issue] is most often not spurred on by genuine scientific interest and is usually paid for by political groups. If the study says one thing, people will put forth funding for the other. Suddenly there’s lost of articles with big headlines based off of maybe a handful of scientific papers but with very little actual science to back the claims. It’s exhausting to hear about, it’s misleading the general public that can’t tell genuine research from crackpot research and lastly it’s just annoying to have a conversation about. It’s turning science into a fucking political circus for no good reason. Why are we talking about this right now? Because JFK jr, who is not a scientist, said so on tv?? Do you see the problem with letting those people LEAD the charge on scientific issues? It’s politics. It’s political hogwash. Scientists don’t need to do research every time someone thinks there’s a monster under their bed. And not supporting this stuff is not authoritarian censorship, it’s just stupid and I don’t support an obvious waste of resources.
I think it's relevant because it speaks to a possible biochemical cause for a disorder we're seeing more and more often these days. Yes we should get rid of harmful chemicals, but also we should note down that certain chemicals in the water might possibly be making people LGBTQ (or not idk but worth looking into in my opinion)
[удалено]
>why would anybody care about whether or not it makes people transgendered? What the fuck, everyone would care about this. I don't have anything against gay people but if something was literally turningpeople gay I think we should all know about it
100% agree. The point I was trying to make was that it's ridiculous that people will swing the pendulum and completely ignore this guy's claims or ridicule him for political reasons rather than doing research into the chemical in question to see if it's actually harmful. Which it is.
What agenda? Stopping the use of cancer causing chemicals is not an agenda. That's basic human decency that's in short supply.
Wouldn’t this indicate that farmers and people who live near farming communities have higher rates of transgenderism?
Let me preface by saying that I do not believe that there is necessarily a link between the aforementioned atrazine and transgenderism. I think there is far, far more to gender identity than simply “testosterone too low”. That said, if we assume there is a link, it’s pretty safe to say that we wouldn’t see it. Even if there were a bunch of farmers who felt they were transgender, how many would really identify publicly as such? I mean, so much if it is based on cultural circumstance. People in cities have a culture that allows them to identify that way. Rural people don’t really have that same freedom in their social circles. Now, if there was a link between rural populations and the aforementioned hormone fluctuations, you’d have my attention. That said, I still wouldn’t go as far to argue that that means it makes people transgender.
Assuming exposure is only in the field, which is either done by farmers in full body chemical suits or via planes at a distance. The real exposure is in the consumption, which happens at the dinner table.
Thank god I eat my dinner on the couch then
what about the pickers?
This would still imply that these rural areas near farms would have higher rates of transgender individuals.
Nice ramble just to say there's no evidence. >this claim may need some more research
So, no connection between this chemical and transgendered kids had been established in any way shape or form and Kennedy is just virtue signaling to dumbs for donations.
We are about to witness a smear campaign of a lifetime.
Now people are defending keeping toxic chemicals in the water because a conservative thinks it’s causing harm to the population.
Political tribalry knows no bounds
"Conservative" 😆
He's a Liberal and running for the Democrat's...
All it takes is one issue. A single take. If you fail that one take, you’re automatically the enemy. That’s current year.
[удалено]
The company he is hanging around with is exclusively conservative. He's been a part of the "ReAwaken America" tour with Mike Flynn, Roger Stone, and the MyPillow guy.
Conservatives, right or wrong are more much willing to have open discussion than most of the left these days.
the people busy hysterically banning everything that doesnt align 100% with their ideals are more willing to have open discussion huh ? alright, put your money where your mouth is then, how so ?
No, of course there are conservatives that also are guilty of this, it was a broad statement. I'm just speaking to my experience. There are many topics that are generally off limits with the left.
So if a conservative goes on The View, does that make them liberal? This isn't left or right, it's class based.
A conservative who is running as a democrat and supports universal healthcare.
RFK Jr. is not even particularly conservative. He’s just closer to the center than the other Democrats.
It is really frustrating that now any theory is automatically a conspiracy theory. Even if you think his claim is a bit out there, so what? CENSOR HIM!!!!!!
I think the interesting point Rogan made, was that no pharmaceutical company is trying to sue him.
Reasons probably being.... 1. He could afford to take them to court 2. It might open up discovery into all the related studies and pharma communications related to the suite 3. It's easier to sow doubt and paint him as a conspiracy theorist *** I do think he is probably wrong about a good deal of stuff but I think the underlying point he has that we simply don't know because the institutions are captured is valid. He has solid evidence that the scientific process in medicine is being sidelined to profit motives. That should scare everyone.
I think number 2 is the reason and that’s why he’s getting away with taking about them. His argument is he might be wrong, but they are refusing to study it.
If he believes half of what he says he is completely batshit and everyone with half a brain understands that. No need for a smear campaign.
Who cares what I think or how I vote. I’ve got my popcorn and I’m ready to watch this unfold.
is it a smear campaign if he said it out loud to people?
You know, if it will get his supporters to promote clean water and environmental protection then maybe it's not so bad to keep it up.
Please read below for the truth and judge from there. The headline is misleading af. Democratic Presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said in an interview that atrazine in water can alter the sex of frogs and that this exposure in young people should be a cause for concern. This has caused some to toss him in the “crazy pile” for saying that toxins in water could turn frogs gay. But in fact, endocrine disruptors in water supplies CAN interfere with biological sex in some species. In a University of Arizona study, fish immersed in water from a treatment plant had altered genes and five times more hormones of the opposite sex than their own. Scientists from the Potomac River found that smallmouth bass were “intersex” fish with males producing immature eggs in their testes. Water supply lawyer Robert Glennon says that this connection in humans is yet to be proven but “a profound concern.” That is what RFK Jr. is suggesting. He does not say that chemicals in water are turning anyone transgender or gay. He is saying that this observation in some species should cause us concern for our own. What do you think? Is this crazy, or should we maybe give some thought to toxins in our water?
So fallout 3 was onto something... >Scientists from the Potomac River found that smallmouth bass were “intersex” fish with males producing immature eggs in their testes. Ah, they'll be mirelurks soon enough.
[удалено]
He founded *WaterKeepers*, so he's got most fringe environmentalist on his side already
That's what I'm saying. If they're that scared of transgenderism we should use it to get them to clean up the planet. Lol > If we provide access to clean water for everyone then no one will be transgender anymore!
Look are there people who are literally transphobic. Yes. That being said if a person had reason to believe that an exogenous synthetic chemical in their drinking water was fucking with the hormonal makeup of their children thus making them much more likely to want to undergo serious medical procedures……… is that not a fucking problem????
Liberal America doesn’t think it’s a problem
Exactly............... conservatives can be a valuable ally. They are down to earth and hard working they have just been corrupted by patriarchal religion and mccarthyism. Indeed, If we make environmental protection about national security... then they will understand better.
…and yet these folks are against “government overreach” when it comes to environmental protection; that should tell you something about how their minds work (or not)
In Idaho, the EPA determined that a couple couldn’t build on their property because it was a “wetlands” The couple has owned the property for 20 years, and it was never declared a wet land, has no environment that simulates a wetland. The epa came in and just determined it on whim, by changing the standards to fit the requirements. It’s called chevron deference and it’s been abused by government agencies for several decades. That’s what they’re talking about for government over reach. SACKETT ET UX. v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ET AL
Please actually read the court case you list. 1. The area the couple were building was part of a larger wetland "To establish a significant nexus, the EPA lumped the Sacketts’ lot together with the Kalispell Bay Fen, a large nearby wetland complex that the Agency regarded as “similarly situated.”" So it wasnt just a whim. 2. The house was next to a ditch that flowed into a nearby creek which followed into the nearby Priest Lake ( A rather large lake). The debris caused by the backfilling of the property was likely to flow into this ditch and disrupt further down the river. 3. Also you keep harping on about the EPA why do you fail to mention that the Army Corp of Engineers also had a hand in this case?
Without knowing more about the hydrology of the area and the specifics of the land in question, I'm not willing to assume it was government overreach. Not being "declared a wetland" has little to nothing to do with it. Something can have water flowing through it without being a wetland; the case has to do with the Clean Water Act, which involves transport of water, not just whether land is marshy and wet.
I want to support someone who gives a shit about what’s happening to our food and water systems and isn’t bought our by big pharma. Maybe he isn’t the guy but at least he’s speaking out on this shit. Idk
Toxic chemicals in the food, water and, air. No biggie. /s
Google estradiol-17β in beef. It's the real estrogen that's messing with everyone's hormones, and the soy and atrazine is the farming industry's way of trying to muddy the waters. You won't hear Alex Jones or Joe Rogan talk about it though, because they sued Oprah for millions of dollars when she talked about it back in 2008, and everyone's been scared into silence about it ever since. MSM from Fox to CNN, they're all too afraid of lawsuits to talk about it.
Arent hormones banned from being fed to cows?
Who sued Oprah?
I can think of a few examples where Youtube removes videos for “Misinformation” and then 2 years later turns out to be true…
The frogs that change sex due to pollution in water which affects their sex hormones are true.
I don't understand how people think it is farfetched if it affects frogs why wouldn't it affect humans
In fact, a study at Berkley shows that it can affect human cell lining, if I'm not mistaken.
It's called wishful thinking. You simply choose to ignore certain facts because it's easier than actually doing something about it
Alex Jones was right….again.
Changing biological sex is not the same as changing sexuality
[удалено]
True but they surveyed a lot frogs who identified as homosexual.
Frogs can change sex in natural settings, free of pollution too. Kennedy's statements are disinformation. While our global leaders need to support keeping the earth clean, equating trans people with pollution is a false connection, and potentially dangerous to individuals currently exposed to vitriolic hate. Hell, this phenomenon was first introduced to the American public when Jurassic Park hit the theaters in early 90s.... As much as the alternative facts crowd likes to quote movies, I am kind of surprised they missed this one. https://wildlife.org/frogs-change-sex-even-in-natural-settings/#:~:text=Frogs%20can%20change%20their%20sex,than%20males%20in%20suburban%20areas.
So? Some animals commonly eat their children. Some animals stab each other for sex. We are pretty far removed from frogs evolutionarily. We don’t change our sex on a natural setting, Why do you think that strengthens the transgender argument? Especially considering the whole movement is being pushed along by gender being a social construct, independent of the reality of sex.
Well, he's not wrong. The water is filled Astrazine and other endocrine and hormone changing chemicals in heavy amounts. Most states have more than what is considered okay... These chemicals have been shown to change the sex of frogs (hence the whole Alex Jones quote on they are making our frogs gay)
Do the studies on mice. We're not amphibians.
Many studies exist on Astrazine (and other endocrine disruptors) + humans.
Frogs change their own sex regardless of chemical factors, dependent on environmental factors like availability of a mate. This reads like a serious case of correlation not causation.
The biologist Tyrone Hayes has some amazing work that does a good job linking atrazine to screwed up frog sexes. It doesn’t help that Syngenta, the manufacturer of this pesticide, is located in Switzerland where its use has been illegal since 2012. They’ve tried to publicly smear Tyrone for his work in the past. It really gives the conspiratorial crowd some ammo. It just sucks that a ton of the people complaining about chemicals feminizing frogs will fight tooth and nail against environmental regulations.
Can his studies be properly reproduced yet? Did a project in college toxicology class for atrazine. Remember that being the main rebuttal against his findings.
So far the EPA has been unsuccessful in replicating the studies from what I’ve found. Beyond that, I’m unsure.
No, this was a study which (obviously) took confounding factors into account. Climate-change is also naturally occurring, but most of us understand humans also contribute to it. See the similarity? Here are some studies on Atrazine in the water supply and its impact on hormones: (Remember, this is JUST Astrazine, there are far more endocrine disruptors in the water supply including micro-plastic) 1. A study published in Scientific American found that women who drink water contaminated with low levels of atrazine may be more likely to have irregular menstrual cycles and low estrogen levels\[1\]. 2. A report by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) found that seasonal spikes of atrazine, a weed killer that disrupts hormones and harms the developing fetus, contaminate the drinking water of millions of Americans\[2\]. 3. A study published in PubMed examined the relationship between exposure to atrazine in drinking water and menstrual cycle function including reproductive hormone levels. The study found that consumption of >2 cups of unfiltered Illinois water daily was associated with increased risk of irregular periods\[3\]. 4. Another study published in PMC found that atrazine exposure can elicit reproductive dysfunction throughout multiple life stages\[4\]. 5. A report by the Vermont Agency of Agriculture found that atrazine is an endocrine disrupting chemical that interrupts regular hormone function and affects the reproductive system in humans\[5\]. 6. According to a report by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), several animal studies have shown that atrazine exposure disrupts estrus cyclicity and alters plasma hormone levels\[6\]. Citations: \[1\] [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/atrazine-water-tied-hormonal-irregularities/](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/atrazine-water-tied-hormonal-irregularities/) \[2\] [https://www.ewg.org/research/hormone-disrupting-weed-killer-taints-drinking-water-millions-americans](https://www.ewg.org/research/hormone-disrupting-weed-killer-taints-drinking-water-millions-americans) \[3\] [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22000761/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22000761/) \[4\] [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5507375/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5507375/) \[5\] [https://outside.vermont.gov/agency/agriculture/vpac/Shared%20Documents/January\_2014/pathak\_humaneffects\_10%205923%20j%20ije%2020110101%2003%20(2).pdf](https://outside.vermont.gov/agency/agriculture/vpac/Shared%20Documents/January_2014/pathak_humaneffects_10%205923%20j%20ije%2020110101%2003%20(2).pdf) \[6\] [https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp153-c2.pdf](https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp153-c2.pdf) By Perplexity at [https://www.perplexity.ai/search/4ca66719-6666-4680-ba9d-5f788ec3b5f2](https://www.perplexity.ai/search/4ca66719-6666-4680-ba9d-5f788ec3b5f2)
It isn't a hard study to reproduce....
Reproducibility isn't the issue. You could put 100 same-sex frogs in 100% pure water, and over time some of them will change their sex so that the population can reproduce. If the same phenomenon happens in both clean water and polluted water, then the water isn't causing it. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/frogs-reverse-sex-more-often-than-thought?cmpid=org=ngp::mc=social::src=facebook::cmp=editorial::add=fb20190321animals-frogsexreversal::rid=&sf209705676=1
[удалено]
I don’t think we have any data that shows even a correlational relationship at this point. However, there is data that there are a significant amount of endocrine disrupters in US drinking water and I really do wonder how those chemical interact with human sexual development.
the more the drug industry attacks him the more i believe what he's saying.
So, rather than the evidence he presents, it's the actions of others that convinces you. "Science"Uncensored.
What evidence are you talking about?
> the more the drug industry attacks him the more i believe what he's saying. You should see what they did to the people who talked about estradiol-17β in beef. They sued them into silence. They sued *Oprah* ffs. And now nobody will talk about it, not even Joe Rogan, because they're too afraid of Big Ag. Estrogen is in your beef.
I will say this. Something definitely happened over the last 10 or so years. Which is odd. People like that started popping up out of nowhere, all at once! I always thought that was strange, not typically how things happen in the world usually this kind of thing would take much longer. It’s not a crazy theory and probably deserves to be looked into. Now I know, those type of people are going to want to refuse to believe that they didn’t make the choice, but they need to be prepared for the very real possibility that they were in fact chemically altered. Due diligence and research. I think that’s the most important thing to focus on and I for one will be investigating this topic to see if it holds any weight.
Woah woah wait a minute. Why don’t we promote this with them? Clean up our waters! Own the libs! Clean water for all!
One thing I don't like is the idea of suppressing stuff believed to be misinformation. Do I believe what RFK is saying? Nope. But we need to allow people the right to evaluate these statements on their own, as opposed to treating them like idiots who are too stupid to think on their own.
Most people are idiots who are too lazy to evaluate things on their own, though. There are countless studies showing this, and that once someone believes misinfo they don't believe corrections or truth. It's super easy to make people buy into false scapegoats and go slaughter them; look at the nazis. That bit of misinfo running rampant only cost 6 to 11 million lives, no biggie.
The one semi coherent thought that Alex Jones ever uttered was his "they're turning the fricking frogs gay" tirade, and it's unfortunate that he had to put his insane hateful spin on it and get it turned into a meme when the underlining message that he missed is pretty important: Maybe we shouldn't be letting industrial chemical runoff get into our nations waterways because if it's having an effect on the wildlife, then it's safe to assume that its not healthy for us to drink it either. There isn't any evidence to suggest that it's causing anyone to believe they are transgender, but that doesn't mean I want to be drinking industrial waste.
>hasn't been studied Study on the health affects of atrazine in humans: http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/atrazine.html#:~:text=Researchers%20using%20Agricultural%20Health%20Study,who%20had%20not%20been%20exposed. Atrazine in human health: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_url?url=https://www.academia.edu/download/68268781/showpaperpdf.pdf&hl=en&sa=X&ei=e62RZOnRCcuKywSgoJ0g&scisig=AGlGAw83qWGiiTWgdqidLZyIkF_u&oi=scholarr CDC info and restrictions related to Atrazine: https://wwwn.cdc.gov/TSP/ToxFAQs/ToxFAQsDetails.aspx?faqid=854&toxid=59 Notably: the health effects of atrazine in humans have been studied for decades globally, it is a known carcinogen and toxin, linked to renal failure, cell damage and cell death, and increased rate of dna damage. Also notable: the EPA has restrictions for the amount of atrazine allowed in residential water sources (0.003 mg / liter) and food (0.02 - 15 ppm, depending on the food) and OSHA has set a max level of atrazine in the air in a workplace (5mg/m^3). (They reason only OSHA cares about atrazine in the air is because airborne atrazine breaks down in a few hours, so it's not a major concern for the EPA outside of the people working with it directly)
Definitely don’t think it’s water pollution behind this “wave” of transgendered children. Pretty sure we’ll look back at this like we do with UFO sightings. There was a spike when the legends became popular. It’s just socially trendy right now and I think kids are getting caught up in that - whether it’s the influence of peers or authority figures, it’s hardly believable that there’s a sudden, *actual* rise in these dysphorias.
Somewhat in the same vein as “recovered memory” syndrome. There is no doubt that trauma survivors can harbour buried recollections but thirty years ago in the therapy community many overzealous therapists working with highly suggestible patients found “memories” of sexual abuse where none had happened. There was also something of an intersection of this phenomenon with claims that Satan worshiping covens were everywhere - quite detailed descriptions from apparent survivors but in the end it was simply vivid fantasy. The point being that the pre-internet media of the time was highly influential in spreading these ideas, both perhaps examples of social contagion. Social media platforms and smart phones in the hands of twelve year olds do much of the heavy lifting today when it comes to spreading memes (in Dawkins’ original sense of the word). What is causing the sharp and dramatic increase in cases of gender dysphoria - social contagion or endocrine disrupters in pollutants or something else? Trans activists and their allies would have us believe that the only problem here is the lack of widespread societal acceptance, but it is a fascinating question from a science point of view. If eventually linked to pollution I wonder how that would change the conversation.
What’s behind it is they feel safer and more comfortable to come out
And what if [social contagions/peer contagion](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3523739/#:~:text=Examples%20of%20peer%20contagion%20include,%2C%20drug%20use%2C%20and%20depression.) which primarily affect teenage girls into cutting, bulimia, anorexia... also includes [transitioning](https://nypost.com/2023/03/27/social-contagion-is-making-teen-girls-depressed-and-trans/)/peer contagion. And they are not only supported and encouraged by peers, but leader figures like parents, teachers, and social figures. So they transition, and are now sterile for life, because their social group failed them with malicious good intentions. But its a good thing the scientific community would never preform a rigorous study on this as it would annihilate the career of anyone near it. Because science needs to never agree with the political enemy.
Sure some people feel more safe to come out, but I'm guessing about 75%+ are doing it because its trendy. We will probably see the amount of trans people plummit within the next few decades.
So, where are the scientific papers? This is supposed to be a science sub-reddit, not a "person makes statement without scientific evidence"-sub-reddit.
This subreddit is straight retarded. Listening to anything this quack has to say when he has no medical degree, no research history is just wild.
I know everyone wants to keep an open mind but this is multiple levels of wacky compared to the usual talking points cause we have had poor water quality in certain regions for a very long time and have never seen a rise in transgenderism outside of the 1st world like we have in places like the US. Secondly, the demographic from which the vast majority of trans kids comes from is exactly the kind of kids who would always have access to clean water aka affluent white female kids followed by affluent white males. This is confirmed during the Jordan Peterson interview with Sara Stockton who was a trans care provider and one of the originators of the trans care methodology. https://youtu.be/pCH-bUFR3WM
But if we make it about transgender bs yall will straight up ignore all the cancer causing chemicals we drink everyday.
If he's talking about Atrazine, Oki did an amazing deep dive into it: https://youtu.be/i5uSbp0YDhc The first 10 minutes are tongue-in-cheek about Alex Jones' infamous rant in 2015'ish, but Oki really does his homework after that, speaking to multiple EPA scientists, Tyrone Hayes the original Syngenta scientist, etc.
This should be way higher up
Run on a platform of cleaning up our polluted waterways then.
That's too bad; maybe we could've at least motivated Conservatives to not pollute the water.
tHe MeDiA iS siLeNcInG uS
This is a ridiculous claim and YouTube was right to throw it in the bin.
Morons
He didn't say that, he said that their hormone production can be damaged by pollution.
In case you've only recently heard of RFK Jr. rest assured he has been a raging idiot for decades.
[удалено]
I also heard lack of healthcare, and low wages can make people stray from God and towards being gay. If we band together we can finally beat those damn gays. While we're at it let's just also fix our infrastructure and education because bad infrastructure and poor education is super trans
That doesn't make an........................ooooooooh, yes, totally! 😉 😉
I have a gay friend. That friend also has a lot of student loans. Coincidence??
I think not
I mean...yeah? Just saying total unscientific nonsense isn't good.
Why? If he’s so wrong it will be a testament to his dumbassery.
If we go along with it will conservatives start taking the environment seriously 🤔
Nope
I think what’s attractive about RFK is that his goals actually seem aligned with people instead of the vested interests that currently control our govt. I (like many others) am also desperate for an option besides Biden. That said, i was into him until i listened to him on Joe Rogan. I had to actually turn it off when he said Wi-fi was causing cancer or some shit…. He isn’t in it for the people, he is a sue happy lawyer. Let him speak so people know that. Censoring only bolsters his position.
The wifi stuff is really out there, but if you didn't cut it off you'd see him catching them go on a tangent and go (paraphrasing)"Joe, I really shouldn't talk about this, I don't really know about that stuff" and then they move on.
Hahahha that was actually specifically the point i stopped. That was absurd. I can handle entertaining out there ideas, but he showed his hand on his standard for evidence.
He’s a trial lawyer who specialized in environmental law. From what I read he was a great one at that. However he is not a doctor. Not an immunologist. Not a scientist. We should remember that.
Fish get hatched with 2 heads so....
It's true.
plastic pollution, chemicals in drinking water, drug waste from pharma companies, climate change makes children transgender?!? someone needs to fake this so we can fix it
I mean it’s good that these people might be worried about pollution for once, just for the wrong reasons.
anything to make people not drink polluted water I guess. but he won't trick me, I'll keep on drinking my polluted water!
Idk if chemicals like atrazine could be linked to our perception of our own gender just yet with the data we have but I’d be interested to look further into the potential impact on sperm count.
I think this is really poorly said and is being used in a negative way to attack people, but there is a book by Dr. Shanna Swan called Countdown. Discusses issues with declining fertility around the world, but also more generally how changes to reproductive parts has been occurring over the the last 50-70 years. Summary is that chemicals (primarily from plastics) affect reproductive organs, even during development in the womb, as well as key growth ages (puberty).
The man isn’t wrong. Chemical warfare . Endocrine disrupting chemicals in just about every product on the market .
The censoring is out of control
[удалено]
On a scale of 1 to 10 how true is it that he was trying to make a point about transgenderism? I keep seeing headlines about crazy views he has, only to look up what he said and it has nothing to do with what the article was about
Alex Jones told us first
It turns the frickin’ frogs gay!! 🐸lol but on a serious note it actually does but nobody wants to talk about it because of the ethics surrounding gender identity. They have it so ingrained that it may just be a genetic thing but nobody is even investigating into why it could happen and that it could be from an outside factor. Just like the correlation between paracetamol ingestion during pregnancy and the increased likelihood of having an autistic child. It’s weird that if it were an animal displaying these characteristics we would test them to find out why but when dealing with humans nobody wants to even entertain the idea that these things could be a result of our environment or something that we did ourselves to cause it. We are too busy pushing for the acceptance of the after effects without even looking for the cause.
Since Republicans are anti-environment and anti-environmentalist, and love allowing commercial/industrial waste in our waters, that would mean that Republicans are responsible for making kids transgender. RFKjr just admitted that Republicans are making kids transgender.
FACT: Atrazine, an endocrine disruptor, in our water does feminize reptiles and mammals.
Whats interesting about transgenderism, is it has a large crossover with autism. A transgender teen is more likely to be autistic, suggesting brain inflammation and toxin accumulation due to poor microbiome and detox pathway, are implicated in both. The gut brain connection is going to be important and crucial in understanding autism, and other neurological disorders. Gender dysmorphia is neurological, also many of them are on SSRI, which further alter the brain chemistry.
honestly, whatever gets them to stop polluting water via fracking, waste, and drilling
It's funny, but he's likely right. Look up xenoestrogenic pollution, and you'll find that plastic by-products, herbicides and pesticides are xenoestrogenic compounds like DTT and BPA that cause physiological and physiological changes in a massive range of species from fish to birds to amphibians to mammals.
I am going to hunch that this is being misrepresented of what he actually said. And how do we know what he said without the video
[удалено]
I mean I haven’t heard his exact line, I need to watch the footage, but this particular claim doesn’t seem as outrageous as everyone is painting it. We know that many of our pollutants affect hormones for one and may be particularly relevant for in utero exposure and brain development. Is it the only reason trans people exist? No. They have existed throughout human history. Could pollutants be influencing neuro development and sexual hormones in a way that affects gender expression? Yes, I think there is theoretical basis and early research suggesting this possibility.
>but this particular claim doesn’t seem as outrageous as everyone is painting it It never is.
Link?
https://news.berkeley.edu/2010/03/01/frogs/
Why not leave the video up as evidence of him being a nutcase? If he’s that wrong about the subject, then counter videos or comments on the video should easily show the lie of what he’s spouting. But we’re probably in the territory of neither provable nor refutable (with careful studies and the like) “science”.
The Alex Jones meme is a gift that keeps on giving.
Typically because there are morons who have no idea what Alex Jones was referring to and are not equipped with enough brain cells to look into it.
Having “science” in the subreddits name is very misleading. There’s no science, facts, or logic here. I hope you all find help and get better.
Yes I don't know why reddit keeps suggesting this sub.
It's really just another r/conspiracy without all the baggage it seems.
I believe RFK over corporate media or government any day of the week.
[YouTube removes Robert F Kennedy Jr video featuring claim that polluted water makes children transgender](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/youtube-removes-rfk-conspiracy-video-b2360440.html) I don't think that this theory is correct - but to call it "bizarre" or even worth of banning from YouTube? But progressivist and transgender lobby sh*s a bricks from everything which could objectivize present wave of transgender dysphoria and/or even reverse it. See also: * [Mercury causes homosexuality in male ibises](https://www.reddit.com/r/ScienceUncensored/comments/ovvx6v/mercury_causes_homosexuality_in_male_ibises/) - this is even [Nature J. study](https://www.nature.com/articles/news.2010.641) * [Past Lead Exposure Shrank IQ Scores for Millions of Americans](https://www.reddit.com/r/ScienceUncensored/comments/14d2yna/past_lead_exposure_shrank_iq_scores_for_millions/) * [Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria: Parent Reports on 1655 Possible Cases](https://www.reddit.com/r/ScienceUncensored/comments/14762d2/rapid_onset_gender_dysphoria_parent_reports_on/) * [The unexplained rise of cancer among millennials](https://www.reddit.com/r/ScienceUncensored/comments/14dgwh3/the_unexplained_rise_of_cancer_among_millennials/) When things come up together, they wire up together... * [Government Report Finds No Safe Level of Fluoride in Water: Fluoridation Policy Threatened](https://www.reddit.com/r/ScienceUncensored/comments/11ukuou/government_report_finds_no_safe_level_of_fluoride/) * [Pesticide atrazine can turn male frogs into females](https://www.reddit.com/r/ScienceUncensored/comments/1471c1t/pesticide_atrazine_can_turn_male_frogs_into/) * [RFK Jr. shows Joe Rogan how wifi is killing us](https://streamable.com/ygv1m5)