I also want to make the point: 2% sounds like a low figure. It is. However, let's say it's even 3% inaccurate - feasible considering the trials to date have been limited in number and we don't know much about the methodology or potential for bias.
So, if the number of men suffering side effects was even 5% rather than 2%, we would see 2.5x the anticipated number of men reporting adverse health implications. Accuse me of jumping to conclusions but I think this is exactly what is happening.
So, if the number of men suffering side effects was even 5% rather than 2%, we would see 2.5x the anticipated number of men reporting adverse health implications. Accuse me of jumping to conclusions but I think this is exactly what is happening.
Comment