In response to our January 12 Dispatch dissecting a study that implicates BPA in the cause of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), we received commentary from a reader who is an expert in such matters:
In response to our January 12 Dispatch dissecting a study that implicates BPA in the cause of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), we received commentary from a reader who is an expert in such matters:
This is like déjà vu all over again. The new study is very similar to a 2004 study from Japanese researchers. Along with their cross-sectional design, which makes it impossible to establish cause-effect relationships, another shared flaw is that both measure BPA with an ELISA (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay) method, a technique used to detect the presence of an antibody or an antigen in a sample. As described in a 2006 paper, the ELISA method for BPA is not reliable since it is not selective for and does not confirm the presence of BPA, meaning the researchers have no certainty that they measured any BPA. For these reasons, a series of cross-sectional studies using the ELISA method have all been found to be unreliable by the regulatory agencies that have reviewed BPA. I thought science was supposed to be self-correcting, so how did this new study simply repeat the mistakes of the 2004 study?
Please note that the ACSH office will be closed on Monday, January 17, 2011 for Martin Luther King Day. We will resume our regular Dispatch on Tuesday, January 18.
