Explore the vast range of titles available.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Background: All forms of asbestos are now banned in 52 countries. Safer products have replaced many materials that once were made with it. Nonetheless, many countries still use, import, and export asbestos and asbestos-containing products, and in those that have banned other forms of asbestos, the so-called \"controlled use\" of chrysotile asbestos is often exempted from the ban. In fact, chrysotile has accounted for > 95% of all the asbestos used globally. Objective: We examined and evaluated the literature used to support the exemption of chrysotile asbestos from the ban and how its exemption reflects the political and economic influence of the asbestos mining and manufacturing industry. Discussion: All forms of asbestos, including chrysotile, are proven human carcinogens. All forms cause malignant mesothelioma and lung and laryngeal cancers, and may cause ovarian, gastrointestinal, and other cancers. No exposure to asbestos is without risk. Illnesses and deaths from asbestos exposure are entirely preventable. Conclusions: All countries of the world have an obligation to their citizens to join in the international endeavor to ban the mining, manufacture, and use of all forms of asbestos. An international ban is urgently needed. There is no medical or scientific basis to exempt chrysotile from the worldwide ban of asbestos.

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.

Background: Prostate cancer is a disease with a complex etiology. Oxidative stress has been implicated in its pathogenesis; however, few prospective studies have investigated the association between an oxidative stress/balance score and risk of prostate cancer. Methods: We investigated associations between an oxidative balance score, calculated as the summation of individual scores obtained from five pro-oxidative and eight anti-oxidative exposures, as well as each individual constituent of the score and risks of prostate cancer overall, and by clinical characteristics, in a case-cohort study (661 cases and 1864 subcohort) nested within the Canadian Study of Diet, Lifestyle, and Health cohort. Men in the lowest quintiles of each pro-oxidant exposure received a score of four (the highest score), while those in the highest quintile received a score of zero (the lowest score). In contrast, scoring for all anti-oxidants was performed in the opposite way. Total oxidative balance score was calculated by summating all individual scores of pro- and anti-oxidative variables, with higher values indicating a higher antioxidant status. Results: The average oxidative balance score was similar between prostate cancer cases and men in the subcohort: 25.2 and 25.3, respectively. There was no association between oxidative balance score and overall risk of prostate cancer with hazard ratios (HRs) of 1.00, 1.02, 1.03, 0.97 and 1.01 for increasing quintiles of the score ( p-trend = 0.71). There were also no associations for non-advanced or advanced disease, or when analysis was restricted to incident cases that arose after two years of follow-up ( n = 508). In general constituents of the score were not associated with prostate cancer, except for red meat intake (HR = 1.44; 95%CI 1.06–1.95 comparing Q5 vs. Q1) and lycopene (HRs of 0.7–0.8 for increasing quintiles). Conclusion: Our findings do not support an association between oxidative balance score and risks of overall prostate cancer or advanced disease.