![]() ![]() I don't really know why you even wrote it so opinionatedly when you self-admittedly have no idea what you're talking about. Your whole post is conjecture because you haven't read the study. ![]() That paper does not support the broader argument of the Gay Frogs rant which is that tap water is a 'Gay Bomb' developed by the air force for population control, given that there is no compelling evidence that Atrazine contamination is causing chemical castration in humans, nor is there evidence of a significant increase in the number of gay men and that the US population has increased since the introduction of Atrazine to the market. The paper is about pesticide run-off from fields contaminating ground water which is not the same as them (presumably the 'literal vampire potbelly goblins') actively putting chemicals in the water with the aim of producing homosexual amphibians, nor is feminization the same gay, it is referring to morphological and hormonal changes. Hayes et al that Atrazine does indeed induce complete feminization and chemical castration in male African Clawed Frogs, Alex Jones screaming "I don't like them putting chemicals in the water that turns the friggin' frogs gay!" is still an insane statement because: It's time to take research seriously after multiple different groups publish the same findings and conflicting research has been addressed.Īssuming that the rest of the literature agrees with Tyrone B. Peer review is to make sure that a paper doesn't have any gaping holes in it, not that it is completely true. ![]() I've not read the paper but just because something is published does not mean it's correct. PNAS is a fairly respectable journal with a good impact factor and Berkeley generally produces excellent research, so the paper shouldn't be rejected at face value. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |