I appreciate your follow up, but this means nothing. You have a scientist who had a theory in the 80’s and came to believe that it was true. She has spent 30 years trying to develop the technology to prove her theory. She still hasn’t. She has found that these chemicals can increase calcium activity intracellular via a voltage gated calcium channel. This is turn stimulates prolactin activity. This is not the only response the cell has to estrogen. It is does not take into account the numerous messanger systems that exist in the cell that can be stimulated by estrogen. It doesn’t take into account the very thing she had trouble with in the beginning, and that is the effects of XEs on the nuclear membrane. She cannot, by the very of the nature of her experiments, even square her theory with how the body handles the detoxification of endogenous and xeno estrogens. Detoxification of estrogen by the liver requires pretty decent nutrition. The removal of conjugated estrogens thru the feces requires a pretty good functioning colon. Without these there can be a problem.
She said herself “We looked at these data and said these things are just as potent as physiological estrogens like estradiol if you look at these mechanisms,”....looking at a single mechanism, or pathway that proves her point when there are a multitude of unanswered questons. She is a typical scientist in the Rachel Carson mode....reach a conclusion first and prove it second.
There is nothing wrong with a scientist having a hypothesis and proving it correct in a repeatable experiment.
Her group did in fact find a mechanism that showed how cells can be affected by extremely small concentrations of xenoestrogens and did in fact put together the technology to measure this. Science is like a wall built up from many facts and she has certainly managed to put some bricks in the wall.