Search

Abstract An under-recognised aspect of the current humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza is the impact of the war on the environment and the associated risks for human health. This commentary contextualises these impacts against the background of human suffering produced by the overwhelming violence associated with the use of military force against the general population of Gaza. In calling for an immediate cessation to the violence, the authors draw attention to the urgent need to rebuild the health care system and restore the physical and human infrastructure that makes a liveable environment possible and promotes human health and well-being, especially for the most vulnerable in the population. Environmental remediation should therefore form one of the most important parts of international efforts to assist reconstruction, through which we hope Palestinians and Israelis will achieve lasting peace, health, and sustainable development, all as part of accepted international human rights obligations.

Abstract Background The need to call out and expose authors for their persistence in improperly using epidemiology has been previously noted. Tsuda et al. have done well to expose Schüz et al.’s arguments/assertions in their recent publication in Environmental Heath. In this Comment, I point out that, also warranting being called out, are the arguments/assertions of Cléro et al. who, in their recent response to an article by Tsuda et al., reiterated the conclusions and recommendations derived from their European project, which were published in Environment International in 2021. Tsuda et al. had critiqued the Cléro et al. 2021 publication in their 2022 review article. However, in their response to it, Cléro et al. deflected by not addressing any of the key points that Tsuda et al. had made in their review regarding the aftermath of the Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear accidents. In this Comment, I critique Cléro et al.’s inadequate response. Publication of this Comment will help in routing out the improper use of epidemiology in the formulation of public health policy and thereby reduce the influence of misinformation on both science and public policy. My critique of Cléro et al. is not dissimilar from Tsuda et al.’s critique of Schüz et al.: in as much as Schüz et al. should withdraw their work, so should Cléro et al.’s article be retracted. Main body The response by Cléro et al. consists of four paragraphs. First was their assertion that the purpose of the SHAMISEN project was to make recommendations based on scientific evidence and that it was not a systematic review of all related articles. I point out that the Cléro et al. recommendations were not based on objective scientific evidence, but on biased studies. In the second paragraph, Cléro et al. reaffirmed the SHAMISEN Consortium report, which claimed that the overdiagnosis observed in non-exposed adults was applicable to children because children are mirrors of adults. However, the authors of that report withheld statements about secondary examinations in Fukushima that provided evidence against overdiagnosis. In the third paragraph, Cléro et al. provided an explanation regarding their disclosure of conflicting interests, which was contrary to professional norms for transparency and thus was unacceptable. Finally, their insistence that the Tsuda et al. study was an ecological study susceptible to “the ecological fallacy” indicated their lack of epidemiological knowledge about ecological studies. Ironically, many of the papers cited by Cléro et al. regarding overdiagnosis were, in fact, ecological studies. Conclusion Cléro et al. and the SHAMISEN Consortium should withdraw their recommendation “not to launch a mass thyroid cancer screening after a nuclear accident, but rather to make it available (with appropriate information counselling) to those who request it.” Their recommendation is based on biased evidence and would cause confusion regarding public health measures following a nuclear accident. Those authors should, in my assessment, acquaint themselves with modern epidemiology and evidence-based public health. Like Tsuda et al. recommended of Schüz et al., Cléro et al. ought also to retract their article.

Abstract Thermally degraded engine oil and hydraulic fluid fumes contaminating aircraft cabin air conditioning systems have been well documented since the 1950s. Whilst organophosphates have been the main subject of interest, oil and hydraulic fumes in the air supply also contain ultrafine particles, numerous volatile organic hydrocarbons and thermally degraded products. We review the literature on the effects of fume events on aircrew health. Inhalation of these potentially toxic fumes is increasingly recognised to cause acute and long-term neurological, respiratory, cardiological and other symptoms. Cumulative exposure to regular small doses of toxic fumes is potentially damaging to health and may be exacerbated by a single higher-level exposure. Assessment is complex because of the limitations of considering the toxicity of individual substances in complex heated mixtures. There is a need for a systematic and consistent approach to diagnosis and treatment of persons who have been exposed to toxic fumes in aircraft cabins. The medical protocol presented in this paper has been written by internationally recognised experts and presents a consensus approach to the recognition, investigation and management of persons suffering from the toxic effects of inhaling thermally degraded engine oil and other fluids contaminating the air conditioning systems in aircraft, and includes actions and investigations for in-flight, immediately post-flight and late subsequent follow up.

Pressures on epidemiologists, toxicologists, and on public health scientists to suppress their work are known to occur worldwide. In this article, we share six stories from environmental health scientists about the pressures they faced in their jobs after bringing public health problems to light. The method used to document each of the stories was to invite scientists who attended meetings of the International Society for Environmental Epidemiology to tell their own stories of having experienced research suppression. We then extracted the salient features of each experience into a coherent story, providing references as corroboration where possible. The specific purpose in going public with the six stories presented in this article is to open a conversation to better equip colleagues to stand up to pressures to suppress their work. By publicly sharing the pressures experienced by these scientists in attempts to suppress their scientific work, including intimidation, harassment, threats and/or bullying, other scientists may be better able to withstand such pressures. In the absence of a larger collection of stories, we are unable to identify common approaches taken against suppression. It appears that a focus on scientific excellence and tenacity are two major factors likely to have contributed to the ability to withstand pressure. We encourage others to tell their stories. Bringing examples of these instances to attention will make them familiar enough to be less intimidating should others experience anything similar. Additional documented experiences will expand the base of stories and thus help colleagues to withstand the pressures wielded by special interests. Shining a light on these pressures will remove barriers, not only to advancing the science, but also to protecting the public interest.

Malignant mesothelioma (MM) is a highly aggressive and difficult-to-diagnose tumor that is almost always caused by asbestos or other asbestiform fibers. Chapter 2 in the Fourth (2015) and Fifth (2021) Editions of the WHO/IARC Classification of Tumours is devoted to the classification and pathologic diagnosis of MM. The authors of these Chapters state that most of the cases of MM in females do not show asbestos as the cause when, in fact, the epidemiologic literature shows that the risk of MM in females exposed to asbestos approaches that in males. While it is correct that the overall incidence of MM in females is lower than in males, the view that MM in females is not caused by asbestos is unsupported. This view results from an inadequate occupational history, the failure to recognize the importance of environmental exposures, and the misrepresentation of published literature by the selection of limited literature and biased bibliographies, often by authors with financial conflicting interests. In this article, we present an example of the institutional failure (1) to protect the public health by permitting the publication of inaccurate statements about the adverse health effects of exposure to asbestos among females, and (2) to make suggested corrections that more accurately reflect reality. Responsibility for correcting the misinformation lies, in our assessment, both with the authors of the erroneous statements and with the editors and publisher of the books that contain these statements. At issue is nothing less than scientific accuracy, the fate of at-risk females for whom early diagnosis could result in improved health outcome, a missed opportunity to promote primary and secondary prevention, and the social injustice of the loss of compensation for females so affected. We describe the steps that we took to correct the inaccuracies, and to expose the dereliction of duty among responsible parties based, at least in part, on what we believe to be undisclosed conflicting interests. Our efforts failed.

Abstract Background In August 2021, we published in Environmental Health a Toolkit for detecting misused epidemiological methods with the goal of providing an organizational framework for transparently evaluating epidemiological studies, a body of evidence, and resultant conclusions. Tsuda et al., the first group to utilize the Toolkit in a systematic fashion, have offered suggestions for its modification. Main body Among the suggested modifications made by Tsuda et al., we agree that rearrangement of Part A of the Toolkit to reflect the sequence of the epidemiological study process would facilitate its usefulness. Expansion or adaptation of the Toolkit to other disciplines would be valuable but would require the input of discipline-specific expertise. We caution against using the sections of the Toolkit to produce a tally or cumulative score, because none of the items are weighted as to importance or impact. Rather, we suggest a visual representation of how a study meets the Toolkit items, such as the heat maps used to present risk of bias criteria for studies included in Cochrane reviews. We suggest that the Toolkit be incorporated in the sub-specialty known as “forensic epidemiology,” as well as in graduate training curricula, continuing education programs, and conferences, with the recognition that it is an extension of widely accepted ethics guidelines for epidemiological research. Conclusion We welcome feedback from the research community about ways to strengthen the Toolkit as it is applied to a broader assemblage of research studies and disciplines, contributing to its value as a living tool/instrument. The application of the Toolkit by Tsuda et al. exemplifies the usefulness of this framework for transparently evaluating, in a systematic way, epidemiological research, conclusions relating to causation, and policy decisions. Postscript We note that our Toolkit has, most recently, inspired authors with discipline-specific expertise in the field of Conservation Biology to adapt it for use in the Biological Sciences.

Abstract Background Critical knowledge of what we know about health and disease, risk factors, causation, prevention, and treatment, derives from epidemiology. Unfortunately, its methods and language can be misused and improperly applied. A repertoire of methods, techniques, arguments, and tactics are used by some people to manipulate science, usually in the service of powerful interests, and particularly those with a financial stake related to toxic agents. Such interests work to foment uncertainty, cast doubt, and mislead decision makers by seeding confusion about cause-and-effect relating to population health. We have compiled a toolkit of the methods used by those whose interests are not aligned with the public health sciences. Professional epidemiologists, as well as those who rely on their work, will thereby be more readily equipped to detect bias and flaws resulting from financial conflict-of-interest, improper study design, data collection, analysis, or interpretation, bringing greater clarity—not only to the advancement of knowledge, but, more immediately, to policy debates. Methods The summary of techniques used to manipulate epidemiological findings, compiled as part of the 2020 Position Statement of the International Network for Epidemiology in Policy (INEP) entitled Conflict-of-Interest and Disclosure in Epidemiology, has been expanded and further elucidated in this commentary. Results Some level of uncertainty is inherent in science. However, corrupted and incomplete literature contributes to confuse, foment further uncertainty, and cast doubt about the evidence under consideration. Confusion delays scientific advancement and leads to the inability of policymakers to make changes that, if enacted, would—supported by the body of valid evidence—protect, maintain, and improve public health. An accessible toolkit is provided that brings attention to the misuse of the methods of epidemiology. Its usefulness is as a compendium of what those trained in epidemiology, as well as those reviewing epidemiological studies, should identify methodologically when assessing the transparency and validity of any epidemiological inquiry, evaluation, or argument. The problems resulting from financial conflicting interests and the misuse of scientific methods, in conjunction with the strategies that can be used to safeguard public health against them, apply not only to epidemiologists, but also to other public health professionals. Conclusions This novel toolkit is for use in protecting the public. It is provided to assist public health professionals as gatekeepers of their respective specialty and subspecialty disciplines whose mission includes protecting, maintaining, and improving the public’s health. It is intended to serve our roles as educators, reviewers, and researchers.

Abstract Background The sciences, and especially the research subspecialties of occupational and environmental health, are being misused. The misuse serves to interfere with the advancement of policies that depend on rational evidence needed for policies to protect public health. Methods We selectively surveyed the independent scientific literature. In addition, the efforts of respected international professional organizations of scientists whose focus is on maintaining and improving public health have been considered. This commentary is unique in assembling not only the factual basis for sounding alarms about significant bias in occupational and environmental health research, but also about the manipulative mechanisms used, and, in turn, the methods needed to keep science honest. Results Scientific integrity is based on the principle that research is conducted as objectively as possible; it cannot be compromised by special interests whose primary goals are neither to seek truth nor to protect human health. Evidence demonstrates a significant risk of bias in research reports sponsored by financial interests. Practices of corporate malfeasance include the orchestrated contamination of editorial boards of peer-reviewed scientific journals with industry apologists; interference with activities of national regulatory bodies and international review panels engaged in safeguarding occupational and public health; constructing roadblocks by capitalizing on uncertainty to undermine scientific consensus for much-needed government regulation of carcinogenic, endocrine-disrupting and/or immunotoxic agents; promoting “causation” criteria that lack foundation and effectively block workers’ access to legal remedies for harms from occupational exposures resulting in morbidity and premature mortality; and, violating standards of professional conduct by seducing reputable scientists with financial incentives that make them beholden to corporate agendas. Conclusions Well-orchestrated assaults on science continue unabated and must now be met head-on. Success could be achieved by promoting and protecting the integrity of research. Furthermore, avoiding influence by conflicted corporate affiliates in occupational and public health regulations is needed. Identifying, managing and, ideally, eliminating corporate influence on science and science policy are needed to protect research integrity. Protecting the public’s health, preventing disease, and promoting well-being must be the unambiguous goals of research in occupational and environmental health.

Radiation exposure has long been a concern for the public, policy makers, and health researchers. Beginning with radar during World War II, human exposure to radio-frequency radiation1 (RFR) technologies has grown substantially over time. In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) reviewed the published literature and categorized RFR as a “possible” (Group 2B) human carcinogen. A broad range of adverse human health effects associated with RFR have been reported since the IARC review. In addition, three large-scale carcinogenicity studies in rodents exposed to levels of RFR that mimic lifetime human exposures have shown significantly increased rates of Schwannomas and malignant gliomas, as well as chromosomal DNA damage. Of particular concern are the effects of RFR exposure on the developing brain in children. Compared with an adult male, a cell phone held against the head of a child exposes deeper brain structures to greater radiation doses per unit volume, and the young, thin skull's bone marrow absorbs a roughly 10-fold higher local dose. Experimental and observational studies also suggest that men who keep cell phones in their trouser pockets have significantly lower sperm counts and significantly impaired sperm motility and morphology, including mitochondrial DNA damage. Based on the accumulated evidence, we recommend that IARC re-evaluate its 2011 classification of the human carcinogenicity of RFR, and that WHO complete a systematic review of multiple other health effects such as sperm damage. In the interim, current knowledge provides justification for governments, public health authorities, and physicians/allied health professionals to warn the population that having a cell phone next to the body is harmful, and to support measures to reduce all exposures to RFR.

The health effects of particulate air pollution were highlighted at the Eighth Annual Conference of the International Society for Environmental Epidemiology, held in Edmonton, Alberta in August 1996. Despite consistent evidence for adverse respiratory and cardiovascular health effects related to particulate air pollution, there are significant gaps in the knowledge of the mechanisms whereby particulate air pollution affects human health. Questions regarding the appropriate measure of dose for assessing exposures relevant to health outcomes and the methods used to analyze dose-response data remain unanswered. Health effects have been demonstrated across the range of exposures that have been examined, and further research in low exposure settings is necessary to explore the lower end of the dose-response curve. Although a significant body of literature has been generated, comprehensive risk assessments have not been undertaken. Examination of the chronic effects of particulate air pollution and identification of high risk populations are necessary. Although there are significant unanswered questions regarding the health effects of particulate air pollution, the available information suggests that particulate air pollution at levels consistent with current standards is associated with measurable health effects.