Studies that don't either establish causality or show extreme results should be banned from publication.
At this point, we can be pretty confident that everything is "associated" with everything. Further results are just wasted time and energy and are fodder for people to worry about unnecessarily.
If it is showing up in bloodstreams it needed FDA approval. That we can do these studies is an unacceptable regulatory gap. Given enough substances it is only a matter of time until we will eventually be doomed by this incompetence if our incompetence of treating releasing CO2 in any quantity as harmless doesn't doom us first.
I believe you only need FDA approval if you sell something as a medical device/treatment etc. If you sell it as <plastic thing> and some residual chemical ends up in someone's bloodstream, that's fine.
This is because millions of chemicals are perpetually floating around in our bloodstreams (and elsewhere).
The FDA may issue warnings and bans. But to do so usually requires some evidence something is harmful. This study does NOT provide any evidence of that. Hence it was a total waste of time and energy.
>The Food and Drug Administration is responsible for protecting the public health by ensuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, and medical devices; and by ensuring the safety of our nation's food supply, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation.
The FDA evaluates food packaging and optimistically dismisses chemicals entering the consumer. But let's assume they don't, you are saying that given a new chemical added to your bloodstream you want to assume it is safe based on 0 evidence when presented with weak evidence for what it actually does?
I understand your concern, but I think that publishing these papers is important. It puts on the record what investigators have looked at for others to parse and decide if they want to investigate further.
Although I do agree that you can find associations between many different things, establishing causality is important for making the information more actionable.
At this point, we can be pretty confident that everything is "associated" with everything. Further results are just wasted time and energy and are fodder for people to worry about unnecessarily.