Completely agree friend

Some problems I see right away. First, these studies were done during prohibition and I think we all know you can find studies to support a certain narrative if you manipulate some of the parameters and sample size. The first pubmed link, I can't even see the study itself unless I'm missing something which is possible. The second link had a sample size of only 14 and it doesn't detail when they got gyno, and as far as I can see all you can see is the abstract notes, but I'm no expert at reading studies either. How did they know these volunteers for the study didn't use anabolics or eliminate other outside factors like terrible lifestyle and diet?

I just think correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation. And tbh, I don't think it directly correlates either. I've known a lot of heavy smokers including myself and the vast majority of them don't have gyno, so it leads me to believe that this is due to something else, maybe low physical activity and terrible diet, lots of things that affect androgens and hormones.

I think we would need more current research with a far larger sample size to actually treat this as a fact. We all know there was plenty of anti cannabis propoganda back in the day and people had a certain mindset against cannabis, could've affected the findings and parameters of any studies.

Do you have a source for that? I've been smoking a long time as well as using steroids and bodybuilding and I've never heard that claim. Not saying you're wrong I just would like some evidence before I believe it.