I could told them that without a study. Estrogen, what's in the body of 50% of humanity, is not dangerous short term, hey.... But, its still good to have a study state it since maybe now doctors can stop being so damn anal about dosages. Like Estrogen was radioactive or something.
Amsterdam, are the only one doing better than quack studies, but
even them have many methology faults. Their breast size study was
good in a sense that its the only one in existence, but it didn't take
into account many factors that limit the validity of their conclusion.
Most people who state 1 cup less than a family member point to
that study (not the one in the link, its another of their studies).
Factors not taken into account
- The different growth speed between mature TS and
puberty women due to varying receptor sensitivity and human growth hormone levels HGH
- Wrong kind of E (they were still using premarin and
ethinilestradiol at that time); there E had bad DVT profiles which limited safe upper dosages.
- Wrong dosage, mostly uniform too low dosages accross parties without regard to different HGH levels and receptor sensitivity (results are a better judge of dosage, but since doctors were afraid of DVT, they stayed on the low side which impacted some people's results).
- Tendency to stop to quick (SRS is one year out and often dosages were drastically taken down post op, which dramatically affected growth speed)
All of these factors made the 2 year study limit highly biased towards genetic women. Since they will have the quicker growth, so obviously they'll be bigger in 2 years than the treated TS. But, if they were both checked at the 10 years post treatment, I think the result would be different.
One of the problems with checking at 10 years down the line, is breasts are highly influenced by weight gain, which are more probable over long periods of time.
