I saw the comments regarding antiperspirants and deodorants not including parabens and wanted to comment on the one paper that reportedly implicated parabens with breast cancer. I'm also a scientist, and tho I know others reading this are not, I think the paper is so bad that it will be evident it really is not credible.
The paper by a person named Dabre indeed reported detecting parabens in samples of breast cancer tissue - trhey tested no normal tissue. To detect, they extracted the tissue with a solvent. The did run controls - including on the solvent before it ever saw parabens and you can see that was important because if it were already in the solvent before it saw tissue - you can't say it was in the tissue. THAT was one major problem. They reported that they DID detect it in the solvent before extraction and at levels aproximatung after extraction. They published it anyway - saying the stuff is so ubiquitous that you can't avoid it. This is patently untrue and and very very poor nscience - any number of other papers report good science re. parabens. At minimum - it should have been repeated with uncontaminated solvent - but it was not.
This is such an obvious error you have to wonder at the author's technical credentials to submit it and even more - that the journal had such low standards to publish it.
Comment Reply
I saw the comments regarding antiperspirants and deodorants not including parabens and wanted to comment on the one paper that reportedly implicated parabens with breast cancer. I'm also a scientist, and tho I know others reading this are not, I think the paper is so bad that it will be evident it really is not credible.
The paper by a person named Dabre indeed reported detecting parabens in samples of breast cancer tissue - trhey tested no normal tissue. To detect, they extracted the tissue with a solvent. The did run controls - including on the solvent before it ever saw parabens and you can see that was important because if it were already in the solvent before it saw tissue - you can't say it was in the tissue. THAT was one major problem. They reported that they DID detect it in the solvent before extraction and at levels aproximatung after extraction. They published it anyway - saying the stuff is so ubiquitous that you can't avoid it. This is patently untrue and and very very poor nscience - any number of other papers report good science re. parabens. At minimum - it should have been repeated with uncontaminated solvent - but it was not.
This is such an obvious error you have to wonder at the author's technical credentials to submit it and even more - that the journal had such low standards to publish it.
September 30, 2009 - 1:10pmThis Comment
Reply