I have a hard time parsing the outcomes section, the last sentence seems to contradict the previous ones?

„ A total of 25 experimental studies and 44 epidemiological studies were included. Consistent effects of analgesic and phthalate exposure on human fetal germ cell development are demonstrated in experimental models, correlating with evidence from epidemiological studies and animal models. Furthermore, analgesic-induced reduction in fetal testosterone production, which predisposes to the development of male reproductive disorders, has been reported in studies involving human tissues, which also supports data from animal and epidemiological studies.“

And then:

„ However, whilst reduced testosterone production has been demonstrated in animal studies following exposure(s) to a variety of environmental chemicals including phthalates and bisphenol A, these effects are not reproduced in experimental approaches using human fetal testis tissues.“

Last sentence is about environmental chemicals. Previous sentence is about analgesics.

So its analgesics vs „environmental chemicals including phthalates and bisphenol A“? Plausible, though they really should have worded that differently.

My takeaway: keep painkillers like Aspirin, Ibuprofen and Paracetamol away from fetuses and small children.

It's pretty clearly worded to me. That's the trouble with widely releasing research. It's generally (and, IMO, correctly) written in a specific language for a specific audience who can parse this. This is necessary because communicating research has to be extremely precise, but difficult because it requires training.

In my senior year as an undergrad, it would take me 3-5 days to get through a paper and really understand it, and had entire classes that were based around understanding primary literature. In my first year of grad school I was reading dozens of papers in a month. This precise language is needed for replication (despite academic science being structurally unsuited to it) and hi-fidelity idea transmission, but is unsuitable for wider distribution because of the language.

We need more skilled science communicators, not more *arxivs.

I'm not lamenting precise or domain-specific language, this is just an instance of sloppy wording.

Wow, and those are doctor-recommended for treating just about any discomforts of pregnancy. Just think of everything we do to screw up our babies in-utero. What kind of effect does that have on society?

Paracetamol?! That's astonishing. I appreciate that this is about in-utero expsoure in the first trimester, but I can't help pondering the widespread overuse of Calpol in children (or whatever you call it in the US).

So is the conclusion that bisphenol A and phthalates disturb testicle development in fetus, but that we should still try to study this in bigger datasets?

To be practical then, pregnant women should avoid plastic containers with bisphenol A and phthalates?

I always find most systematic reviews very defensive about drawing conclusions, I understand this is due to the fact that the evidence is often from dissimilar data or experiments, but often it just hides clarity.

BPA is everywhere. For example, I learned receipt paper (that stuff that comes on rolls) are coated with it. It needs to be classified as toxic, but industry does not have an alternative, so it gets pushed fwd again and again.

In theory, BPA on receipts is banned in the EU since January: https://echa.europa.eu/en/-/bisphenol-s-has-replaced-bisphen...

But many places still give BPA based receipts, and many have switched to BPS instead.

All of these chemicals have the same effects. I have a friend who is involved in the chemical background on these bans. He says it's known that they're all functionally identical, but there's years of research needed for each to get them banned. Nothing was won by banning BPA at all besides a false sense of security.

Interesting how years are needed to get them banned, but this is not the case for their use in products that are handled by the unprotected/unexpecting.

Wow. That's good news. It finally came through.