That's funny because
1: Over and over everything I've seen on the subject [granted usually via odd youtube recomends] is that it's the exact opposite. Smaller dicks, less testosterone.
2: "4.8 inches (12.1cm) to 6 inches (15.24 cm)" I've never seen anywhere suggesting an average of 4.8 inches. Unless perhaps all their old data is from china
. Also it seems some older studies were saying the average was around 6 but as newer studies came out, it seems the better number was a wee bit above 5.
Also that is a pretty big gain, somebody somewhere would have noticed something going on before the study came out.
I donno maybe it's true, but when it comes to science and medical reporting even from otherwise reliable sources I've seem some bad reporting.
If you notice, some of the links have absolutely nothing to do with the article.
Also the study they linked to in the article,
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5316830-EDCs-Androgenic-Activity-Perfluoroakyl.html isn't the study they are talking about.
I think I found the study the are actually refering to
Belladelli F, et al. World J Mens Health. 2023 Oct;41(4):848-860. https://doi.org/10.5534/wjmh.220203
wjmh.org
The data
In the 90's 13.12
The past decade 14..55
Notice the differences.
Only data for Stretched and Flaccid go back earlier. Stretched has gone down [due to age according to the article] and flaccid from 1980 to today is low 8.16, 11. 8.30 and 8.72 which kinda tells you the data set is as the kids say these days Sus.
There is this
I will assume the plot is done correctly but the data points make me wonder. Also the difference between the plots and the information before is weird.
www.euronews.com
