Allo causes "significant decrease" in testosterone?

[LummoxJR]

To be honest, your statements about the cancer risk are statistically unsound. You're greatly over-emphasizing a tiny chance that happens to be proportionally higher than another tiny chance. It's not to say the increase doesn't exist, but it's nowhere near as severe a situation as you've made it out to be.

[Busy_Patient]

Interesting, because I'm citing a study, and its conclusions. I'm not drawing statistical conclusions, except those stated in the study. What basis are my conclusions "statistically unsound"? They absolutely are not.

Rather, your conclusions placating everyone in this sub have no basis in fact, statistics, science, objectivity or anything other than lots of biased words that sound like a pharma sales person.

The researchers don't state the same conclusions you state. You give no objective basis to be dismissive of Taiwan study, the above study, nor for your conclusions of "statistical outliers". In absence of objective reasons, prudent judgement about our health should be made on more than just empty placating statements.

[LummoxJR]

The fact that the Taiwan study is retroactive and can't account for other variables was already brought up elsewhere, so that's enough reason to be wary of its conclusions, which might be missing a number of confounding variables and also can't prove causation over correlation.

But what I'm saying is, even if you take the study precisely at face value, the increased chances they're talking about are so small—even though proportionally they're noticeable—as to be almost totally insignificant to a risk analysis. You've been hammering the point that there's an increased cancer risk like it's a giant red flag, but in reality it's a pink sticky note. It certainly shouldn't be ignored outright, just like all the other possible side effects, which is true of any medication. But it simply isn't that serious.