Synthetic Endocrine Disruptors Estriol, DDT, and DES Inspire Propaganda

This weblog has so far explored the validity of claims that exposure to bisphenol-A and isoflavones is harmful to humans. In his essay, “Paralysis Through Analysis,” Dr. Joe Schwarcz mentions synthetic estrogenic compounds other than bisphenol-A, such as DDT, DDE (a biproduct of DDT decomposition), and DES. Perhaps a better idea of the climate surrounding endocrine disruptors can be gained by looking at the public internet reaction to these chemicals as well.

A Google search with search terms DDT and DDE shows that the inflammatory, relatively unsubstantiated writings about endocrine disruptors are not limited to bisphenol-A and soy. The first page linked to on that search, entitled Estriol, DES, DDT written by Ray Peat makes broad cautionary claims about Estriol, DDT, and DES, as well as hormone replacement therapy for menopausal women and dietary estrogenic exposure.

This webpage is a work of manipulated fact to the point of science fiction. Mr. Peat’s claims are not even loosely based on the sparing quotes he uses from scientific journals; it would be kind to say that his claims are even inspired by the quotes. In one example, Mr. Peat uses the fact that “weak” estrogenic compounds in the environment become much stronger through synergistic reactions (which is a cited example from the journal Science in 1996) to draw the conclusion that exposure to different types of estrogen are “almost certain to have unexpected results.” This is simply a provocative, fear-inducing method of saying that no one has significantly studied this possibility and that it frightens the author. "Almost certain" of "unexpected results" means "I don't know what is going to happen."

Mr. Peat also makes claims which he does not even pretend to prove or support. For instance, he claims that hormone replacement therapy is upsetting because it is “administered in quantities much larger than [menopausal women’s] bodies ever produced metabolically.” Regardless of whether this is true, Mr. Peat gives no indication that that quantity of estrogen is dangerous to these women. Once again, it alarms him, and he alarms his readers.

The unsubstantiated claims on this webpage are too numerous to name individually.

This is not science writing: it is broad, uninformed speculation made to prey on fears and encourage distrust of the scientific and medical communities. There are reasons for caution and inquiry with respect to these institutions, but not on account of this article. Unsubstantiated arguments are mentioned offhand with vague, cautionary language and faulty reasoning. No complete arguments are made, and reasoning is secondary to shock value. Hopefully, pages like this succeeds in causing skepticism and distrust toward the author, and readers judiciously continue research in more reputable places. Sadly, as indicated by the popularity of this web site (Google presents pages in the order of most-linked to least-linked on that topic), that is not likely to be the case.