Skip to main content

View Diary: Created Developmental Disabilities? No, Harvard Study Links Developmental Disabilities To Chemicals (28 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Literature Reviews and Meta-analysis ahoy. (0+ / 0-)

    Where to even begin?

    Best of all, the source data are epidemiological studies, which have serious causation issues to begin with.

    It's baseless scaremongering at the worst.

    •  Well, heavy metals are toxic. In fact, many (0+ / 0-)

      compounds they list are well known to be toxic.

      They specifically say:

      'Precautionary interpretation of data about developmental neurotoxicity should take into account the very large individual and societal costs that result from failure to act on available documentation to prevent disease in children. Academic research has often favoured scepticism and required extensive replication before acceptance of a hypothesis, thereby adding to the inertia in toxicology and environmental health research and the consequent disregard of many other potential neurotoxicants.'

      They choose to interpret every study that shows possible toxicity as a cause for alarm.

    •  do you prefer randomized controlled trials (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      joynow, worldlotus, nirbama

      --say where some kids are selected to get doses of cadmium and others get a placebo, then you wait 10 years and see what happens in their neurodevelopment?

      Well-designed epidemiologic studies are often the only option.  Certainly they need to be well designed and carefully analyzed.  But then, that's true for clinical trials.

      No meta-analysis was done by the authors.  It is just a literature review, quite a good one.

      •  The meta-analysis was the flouride study. (0+ / 0-)
        --say where some kids are selected to get doses of cadmium and others get a placebo, then you wait 10 years and see what happens in their neurodevelopment?
        You're being snide, but long term studies of the exposed is generally how these things are done, rigorously.
        No meta-analysis was done by the authors.  It is just a literature review, quite a good one.
        The fluoride study from China they were looking at was a meta-analysis.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site