Posted on 01/02/2014 2:42:16 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o
This would actually explain a great deal.
Scientific question: I remember hearing that early oral contraceptives had much higher hormonal dosages than those used today. I wonder if the Indian data is based on the high-dosage regimen of years ago, or if they follow more modern dosage practice?
Too much estrogen in our environment is making young American males into Pajama boys.
So they need more people in India?
Population a bit lacking there is it?
Maybe you should just let us know how many children everyone should be having, comrade.
It’s all the soy in the diet. Seriously, that’s a big factor.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/prescriptions/2010/08/premature_maturity.html
Actually, we have a huge amount of hormones in our food. Beef and chicken are infused with them because the sooner they get to market weight and the heavier they are the more money the farmer makes.
I see young men with gynomastia all the time. (Moobs, or man boobs.) Part of that is just due to gluttony. Fat makes estrogen, the only non-sex related tissue to do so. So, the fatter the more estrogen. The fat around the moobs begins to develop. Next thing you know you’re sitting around in a onesy sipping cocoa in your parent’s basement and talking about Obamacare.
I was wondering the same thing.
Oh, surely dozens would be appropriate when you can't feed even one.
Good question. Usually studies have such insights in the conclusion but after searching the AIIMS.edu site, they are verrrry busy people and the new study wouldn’t be available to the public so soon anyway.
On the other hand.... maybe not. :)
But then, those pills are manufactured in India. What sort of quality control do they have. Remember when China was shipping water in place of cancer drugs?
I hear you.
You like for women to have breast cancer?
Gotcha.
I don’t recall having mentioned breast cancer but if you like it.. then I hope you get all of it you want.
Lol
Ping
The way to answer your question --- Does Indian need more people? --- is that there is probably no subcontinent-wide answer, there are only a couple hundred million individual family answers. In other words, does "this family" and "that family" and "the other family" need more kids? The answer is sometimes "no," but surprisingly often, "yes."
If a populous country throttles childbearing,they end up with a disastrous demographic structure: the inverted triangle, with lots of older people at the top, and dwindling numbers at the bottom.
That means few entry-level wage earners, few young entrepreneurs, few innovators, few taxpayers, few care-givers, few contributors; and more people --- as the age at median creeps up and up --- who are older, slower,less productive, more dependent, and plagued by more and more expensive ills.
The poor, especially, can't afford NOT to have children. The children will support their parents in the case of illness, injury, or misfortune.
So what each individual family needs, really,is a way to avoid or achieve pregnancy as they wish, -- a way that will not cost them money, not expose them to state control, not make them dependent on constant pharmaceutical supply, and not leave them sterile, perforated, cancerous, or dead.
I could actually tell you how that can be done.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.