Avsnitt
-
This is the last episode of Critical Science.
It's not goodbye. It's more like, "until we meet again."
Thank you for listening! Thank you for watching! It's been a lot of fun. I learned a lot, and I hope you have, too. I also hope you had some fun along the way. This actually ran a LOT longer than I ever expected.
I appreciate everyone's support!
I fully anticipate creating a new podcast series at some point. I've got some ideas, some things are more concrete than others.
Be excellent to each other, and I'll see you all again real soon.
Help us continue Critical Science. Every dollar helps us focus on developing new content. It takes a lot of time to do the research that goes in to Critical Science, and subscriptions and other support are the only way we can continue to create this content. Please help us out: https://plus.acast.com/s/critical-science.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
Summary
In this episode, Dr. Lyle Burgoon discusses a study published in JAMA Network Open that claims a link between prenatal exposure to certain chemicals and metabolic syndrome risk in children. He analyzes the study using the seven tips he discussed in a previous episode and highlights several flaws and limitations in the study design. Dr. Burgoon emphasizes the importance of being skeptical and checking biases when evaluating scientific studies. He criticizes the media, particularly CNN, for sensationalizing and misrepresenting the study's findings, causing unnecessary fear and confusion among the public.
Takeaways
Be skeptical and evaluate scientific studies based on their scientific merits, regardless of who funded them.
Consider the study design and sample size when assessing the reliability and generalizability of the findings.
Recognize the limitations and uncertainties in observational studies and the inability to establish causation.
Check biases and avoid confirmation bias when interpreting scientific studies.
Be critical of media reporting on scientific studies and consider waiting for scientific consensus before drawing conclusions.
Help us continue Critical Science. Every dollar helps us focus on developing new content. It takes a lot of time to do the research that goes in to Critical Science, and subscriptions and other support are the only way we can continue to create this content. Please help us out: https://plus.acast.com/s/critical-science.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
Saknas det avsnitt?
-
I get asked now and then if I have tips to help people spot poorly done science, bad science, or what I prefer to call pseudoscience.
Here are 7 tips!
If you want to see the infographic, visit our Critical Science website (https://critscipod.com/episode-25-7-tips-for-assessing-science/).
Help us continue Critical Science. Every dollar helps us focus on developing new content. It takes a lot of time to do the research that goes in to Critical Science, and subscriptions and other support are the only way we can continue to create this content. Please help us out: https://plus.acast.com/s/critical-science.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
Summary
In this episode, Dr. Lyle discusses benzoyl peroxide and the recent concerns raised by Valashur about the presence of benzene in benzoyl peroxide products. He explains that Valashur has a history of testing products for impurities and notifying the FDA. However, the benzene was only found in products that were exposed to high heat for extended periods, which is not how they are supposed to be stored. Dr. Lyle emphasizes that one molecule of benzene is not toxic and that there are thresholds for toxicity. He also highlights the importance of educating the public about the science and not relying on activist talking points.
Takeaways
Benzene was found in benzoyl peroxide products that were exposed to high heat for extended periods, which is not how they are supposed to be stored.
One molecule of benzene is not toxic, and there are thresholds for toxicity.
It is important to educate the public about the science and not rely on activist talking points.
Follow the manufacturer's instructions for storing and using benzoyl peroxide products.
Chapters
00:00 Introduction to benzoyl peroxide
00:30 Valashur's testing and FDA involvement
01:24 Benzene presence in benzoyl peroxide
03:23 No safe level of benzene exposure
04:06 Toxicity of one molecule of benzene
05:05 Thresholds for toxicity
06:04 Long history of benzoyl peroxide use
06:29 Detection of impurities over time
07:56 Educating the public about thresholds
08:25 Activist talking points
09:23 DNA repair mechanisms
10:24 Xeroderma pigmentosa and DNA damage
11:24 Homeostasis and cell signaling
12:22 Dose-response curves
13:20 Oncotic necrosis and cell death
14:48 Relevance of Valashur's study
19:00 Following manufacturer's instructions
19:53 Take-home messages
References:
https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/EHP13984
Help us continue Critical Science. Every dollar helps us focus on developing new content. It takes a lot of time to do the research that goes in to Critical Science, and subscriptions and other support are the only way we can continue to create this content. Please help us out: https://plus.acast.com/s/critical-science.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
Summary
In this episode of the Critical Science podcast, Dr. Lyle Burgoon discusses the topic of drug testing, with a focus on methamphetamine testing. He explains the different forms of methamphetamine and how they affect the brain. Dr. Burgoon highlights the presence of levomethamphetamine in over-the-counter products and the potential for false positive methamphetamine tests. He emphasizes the importance of accurately listing all medications, including over-the-counter drugs, when undergoing drug testing. Dr. Burgoon also explores the probability of drug use based on positive test results and the challenges of interpreting drug tests. He concludes by emphasizing the need for due diligence and additional confirmatory tests in the drug testing process.
Takeaways
Methamphetamine has two forms: levo and dextro, with only the dextro form having psychoactive effects on the brain.
Over-the-counter products containing levomethamphetamine can lead to false positive methamphetamine tests.
Positive drug tests do not necessarily indicate drug abuse, as there is a high probability of non-users testing positive.
Confirmatory tests, such as enantiomer-specific tests, are necessary to accurately determine the presence of methamphetamine.
Chapters
00:00 Introduction to Drug Testing
00:28 Different Forms of Methamphetamine
01:53 How Methamphetamine Affects the Brain
03:10 Levomethamphetamine in Over-the-Counter Products
04:07 Ramifications of Positive Methamphetamine Tests
05:59 Forgetting to List Over-the-Counter Drugs
06:26 Drug Testing in Various Settings
07:24 Probability of Drug Use Based on Positive Test
08:20 Bayes' Rule and Prevalence of Drug Users
09:46 Probability of Positive Test for Non-Users
12:37 Performance Characteristics of Drug Tests
13:34 Low Probability of Drug Use Given Positive Test
16:37 High Probability of Non-Users Testing Positive
18:10 Challenges of Drug Testing and Confirmatory Tests
20:27 Enantiomer Specific Test for Methamphetamine
23:21 Additional Steps in Drug Testing Process
25:31 Importance of Due Diligence in Drug Testing
26:01 Positive Test Does Not Indicate Drug Abuse
26:58 Orthogonal Assay for More Accurate Results
27:25 Conclusion and Closing Remarks
Help us continue Critical Science. Every dollar helps us focus on developing new content. It takes a lot of time to do the research that goes in to Critical Science, and subscriptions and other support are the only way we can continue to create this content. Please help us out: https://plus.acast.com/s/critical-science.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
Happy New Year! New Year, New You, right? Well, it wasn't quite in the new year, but the American Academy of Pediatrics may have re-made themselves into a Merchant of Fear. In December 2023, the AAP released a statement that although GMOs themselves are fine, glyphosate (which is commonly associated with GMO crops) is not okay for children. In fact, the AAP says that glyphosate "Recent studies show that glyphosate is present in many foods, especially ultra-processed foods (more information, below). It also shows up in 80% of urine samples taken from people in the U.S.—including kids as young as 6 years. This suggests that most children and adults are consuming foods that may increase their chances of developing cancer."
So this creates a confusing dynamic: do I trust the US EPA and the US FDA, or do I trust the AAP? The US Government and the AAP can't both be right. The US Government says that glyphosate does not cause cancer. Yet the AAP says glyphosate may increase the chances of children developing cancer. Who's right here?
The science is clear -- the US Government is right, and the AAP is pushing a chemophobic agenda. Find out more in today's podcast!
Help us continue Critical Science. Every dollar helps us focus on developing new content. It takes a lot of time to do the research that goes in to Critical Science, and subscriptions and other support are the only way we can continue to create this content. Please help us out: https://plus.acast.com/s/critical-science.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
Thanks for your patience while I was away on travel. I spent a couple of weeks in Korea presenting at 2 conferences, including 1 Keynote Address. And somehow one of my kids speaks better Korean than me!?! (It's not hard to speak better Korean than me). Anywho, big few weeks in the toxicology world. The European Commission granted another 10 year approval to glyphosate! I did not have that on my bingo card! The Biden-Harris Administration is looking to replace all of the lead service lines -- that's simply fantastic news!
Now, on to more our topic of the day -- phosphatidylethanol or PETH (see why we just call it PETH; I trip over that word and I have a biochemistry background, which means I am trained to say big words like that). Anywho, today's topic is this: PETH and its use in Family Law cases. I've seen it mostly when a parent, in a co-parenting situation, has temporary custody of a child and is not allowed to drink in the presence of the child. I'm going to talk today about why PETH is not the right biomarker to use in these cases.
And I want to give a shout-out to the Toxicology Education Foundation (TEF; toxedfoundation.org). Fully disclosure: I'm on the Board and I am the Secretary. Part of the TEF's mission is to educate the public about toxicology in our daily lives. We want to raise the level of scientific literacy in our country. But we can't do it without your help. Please consider donating to TEF -- small dollar donations are always welcome.
Help us continue Critical Science. Every dollar helps us focus on developing new content. It takes a lot of time to do the research that goes in to Critical Science, and subscriptions and other support are the only way we can continue to create this content. Please help us out: https://plus.acast.com/s/critical-science.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
Well, California has gone full chemophobic on us. Governor Newsom signed an incredibly anti-science bill into law. They have decided that banning chemicals that will not cause cancer at human relevant concentrations in food is the way to go. This is the first step towards building an anti-science, chemophobic society. But I think the thing that irritates me most is that politicians believe they know more about food safety and science than toxicologists.
Help us continue Critical Science. Every dollar helps us focus on developing new content. It takes a lot of time to do the research that goes in to Critical Science, and subscriptions and other support are the only way we can continue to create this content. Please help us out: https://plus.acast.com/s/critical-science.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
You know, this is all my opinion, and by now you know, I have a lot of opinions. In this episode, I want to talk about one of the Merchants of Fear, the Center for Food Safety, and some of the latest misinformation and bullshit they're spreading.
The Center for Food Safety is scaring the public again by insinuating that the US EPA isn't protecting the American public. I'm still extremely annoyed by this.
So, go read the CFS press release where they spread their bs and misinformation. And you can see the US EPA's well-reasoned, and very, extremely thorough response to the CFS petition.
And if you want to follow along in the US Code of Federal Regulations where EPA explicitly states what toxicity tests require end-use product testing.
Why would CFS put out this nonsense when it's so easy to fact-check? I don't know for sure, but maybe it's because they believe their funders implicitly trust the bs and misinformation they spread.
Help us continue Critical Science. Every dollar helps us focus on developing new content. It takes a lot of time to do the research that goes in to Critical Science, and subscriptions and other support are the only way we can continue to create this content. Please help us out: https://plus.acast.com/s/critical-science.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
Welcome to Summer 2023, or as I like to call it, the Summer of Sweeteners! It seems like everywhere I turn, someone is talking about how artificial sweeteners will give you cancer, or will give you a leaky gut, or some other such nonsense.
In today's episode of Critical Science I am talking about the latest paper to throw sucralose under the proverbial bus, Schiffman et al. (2023).
I'll cut to the chase -- the paper is, in my opinion, a load of rubbish.
Here are the promised links from the podcast:
https://toxictruthblog.com/no-splenda-sucralose-and-its-metabolites-wont-give-you-cancer-peer-review-failed-us-again/
https://toxictruthblog.com/1974-cans-or-a-180-gallon-kiddie-pool-full-of-diet-soda-with-splenda-sucralose-thats-what-it-would-take-based-on-schiffman-et-al-before-you-see-any-hazard/
Help us continue Critical Science. Every dollar helps us focus on developing new content. It takes a lot of time to do the research that goes in to Critical Science, and subscriptions and other support are the only way we can continue to create this content. Please help us out: https://plus.acast.com/s/critical-science.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
Hey everyone, thanks for tuning in! I had a bit of an unintended extended break, but I'm back in the saddle again. Hope your summer is going well, in spite of all the scare headlines about aspartame, sucralose, and other artificial sweeteners.
Does aspartame cause cancer? NO! That's about as emphatic as I can type it. Let's talk about how IARC got to this conclusion, and why IARC has no credibility with me, and hopefully with you after this episode.
Editor Correction: An earlier version of this episode said that IARC declared aspartame a known human carcinogen. I corrected it shortly after posting the episode to say IARC decided that aspartame is a possible human carcinogen.
Help us continue Critical Science. Every dollar helps us focus on developing new content. It takes a lot of time to do the research that goes in to Critical Science, and subscriptions and other support are the only way we can continue to create this content. Please help us out: https://plus.acast.com/s/critical-science.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
Have you ever had lunch with a bunch of strangers? And things seem to be going well, right? And then the conversation turns to agriculture -- I'm sure this happens to everyone! And funny enough, the conversation becomes one not about food security, but instead, it's a conversation about organic agriculture. And I like talking with people who have different ideas from me, because it helps me understand their points and their thinking better. But that doesn't stop the fact that they were spreading, thankfully just amongst themselves, misinformation and disinformation.
There were so many myths about organic and synthetic pesticides at just this lunch! I couldn't keep track of them all.
Well, in today's episode I want to talk about some of what I heard. Some of the misinformation pushed by the organic Merchants of Fear. And I specifically want to debunk several of these myths about organic and synthetic pesticides. And more importantly, I want to give you some talking points to counter this nonsense. Let's talk hazmat suits, pesticides, organic vs synthetic, and countering misinformation in today's Critical Science!
Help us continue Critical Science. Every dollar helps us focus on developing new content. It takes a lot of time to do the research that goes in to Critical Science, and subscriptions and other support are the only way we can continue to create this content. Please help us out: https://plus.acast.com/s/critical-science.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
[Editorial Note: June 27, 2023: I updated this episode because I made a mistake about benzene. I got it confused with a different chemical. We don't make benzene in our bodies. So I edited that stuff out in the new version of the episode. Sorry about that. I should have caught it during post production.]
Thanks for your patience while I was on a short hiatus. I've been on the meeting circuit, talking to lots of folks, learning a lot from other scientists, it's been a great start to the Summer.
In this episode, I'm answering a question from a friend of mine about pesticide safety. I'm talking about some of the misinformation (I'll have an entire episode devoted just to pesticide misinformation coming up soon), but I mostly focus on how pesticides are regulated and how we know they're safe.
Oh, and spoiler alert -- organic pesticdes (yes, organic foods can be grown with pesticides -- they're not pesticide free) are also regulated the same as conventional pesticides!
I touch on some GMO stuff, too (not much, that's going to come up again in another episode).
And if you want to support the podcast, you can go to our website: https://critscipod.com and click on the Support Critical Science link towards the top.
Thanks for listening!
Help us continue Critical Science. Every dollar helps us focus on developing new content. It takes a lot of time to do the research that goes in to Critical Science, and subscriptions and other support are the only way we can continue to create this content. Please help us out: https://plus.acast.com/s/critical-science.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
I was talking with a colleague about an article from a few weeks ago. A person tested positive for a biomarker associated with vinyl chloride (note the word associated). This person lives in East Palestine, OH, and immediately concluded that they are still being exposed to vinyl chloride from the train derailment.
Okay -- full stop. I feel bad for this individual and any other folks in East Palestine who are testing positive for biomarkers associated with vinyl chloride. I don't even want to begin to imagine what they are going through. And I don't even want to begin to imagine how this is impacting the children in that area. But unfortunately, it's not as simple to say that just because you have a biomarker associated with vinyl chloride that you are still being exposed to elevated levels of vinyl chloride due to the train derailment this many months out, given the air sampling data from EPA.
In this episode I discuss what biomarkers are, and I'll go over, briefly, how I look at this as a toxicology investigator trying to piece together the causal relationships between chemicals, biomarkers, and effects.
Help us continue Critical Science. Every dollar helps us focus on developing new content. It takes a lot of time to do the research that goes in to Critical Science, and subscriptions and other support are the only way we can continue to create this content. Please help us out: https://plus.acast.com/s/critical-science.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
If you've heard the podcast before, you know I'm pushing you to think critically. Don't accept what you read in headlines, or in the press, as the truth. There's a pretty little hype machine at work, and it's tuned to your fears. PFAS is the latest boogeyman in the chemophobia arsenal. But did you know we actually don't know much of anything about more than maybe 2-5 PFAS chemicals? Yet, the CDC says there's over 9,000 PFAS chemicals. So what gives? People are making large, overbroad, and overblown statements about 8,995-8,998 chemicals? Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Advocacy organizations, scientists with certain anti-chemical leanings, people who have an interest in scaring you are making a HUGE assumption that all of these over 9,000 chemicals act just like 2 to 5 chemicals. That's not good science. I'm not sure what that is. But you know, and I know -- that's not science!
You know what it is? Fear mongering. Pure, unadulterated fear mongering. And like I said, fear mongering is not science.
Help us continue Critical Science. Every dollar helps us focus on developing new content. It takes a lot of time to do the research that goes in to Critical Science, and subscriptions and other support are the only way we can continue to create this content. Please help us out: https://plus.acast.com/s/critical-science.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
What does scientific uncertainty, and communicating about uncertainty, have to do with the train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio? A lot.
In today's episode, I talk about what uncertainty in science is, and why it is important to communicate our uncertainty about science to the public. For me, I cringe at absolutes and certainty. When I hear someone express certainty in a conclusion I want to know how they got that answer. And when public figures who aren't scientists tell me something with certainty, I want to poke at that and understand their rationale. And you should, too. Today's episode is all about uncertainty, and poking around for more information.
Help us continue Critical Science. Every dollar helps us focus on developing new content. It takes a lot of time to do the research that goes in to Critical Science, and subscriptions and other support are the only way we can continue to create this content. Please help us out: https://plus.acast.com/s/critical-science.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
Lots to say here. In today's episode I'm going to talk about something that bothers me -- science by press release. Not all science press releases are bad. Some are fine. But some are just downright awful. When a press release trumpets some alarming and scary number (like a chemical causes a 500% increase in Parkinson's Disease) when the evidence doesn't support it -- that's wrong. And that's what we call Science By Press Release. Scaring people to get your science out there is simply irresponsible in my opinion. But when we see things like this, we need to start our critical thinking processes. We need to look at the evidence. We need to ask questions. And we need to dig. Hopefully, responsible reporters are out there and they'll get ahead of this and they'll ask questions of independent experts (like myself), and bring the topline messages back down to Earth, and make them more nuanced, and ultimately, more scientific, honest, and informative.
Oh yeah, I'm also renumbering my episodes. The season thing was a great idea when I was starting out, but it's kinda artificial, and I'm doing away with it, and just numbering episodes.
Thanks for listening!
Help us continue Critical Science. Every dollar helps us focus on developing new content. It takes a lot of time to do the research that goes in to Critical Science, and subscriptions and other support are the only way we can continue to create this content. Please help us out: https://plus.acast.com/s/critical-science.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
A listener asked me recently, "What's clean makeup?" And ya know what? I didn't have a clue. I mean, I guessed what it was, and I found out I was right (I'm a good guesser sometimes). But what does "clean" mean for your makeup? Should you buy it? Is clean makeup safer than "non-clean" makeup? There's a lot to unpack here! Find out more in today's episode!
Help us continue Critical Science. Every dollar helps us focus on developing new content. It takes a lot of time to do the research that goes in to Critical Science, and subscriptions and other support are the only way we can continue to create this content. Please help us out: https://plus.acast.com/s/critical-science.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
This is a bit newsy -- the makers of Banana Boat have recalled several products due to a benzene contamination. So, what is benzene? Why are the press saying it could give you cancer? Is there really a risk? And I'll talk about my prediction that we're going to see more of these types of recalls.
Help us continue Critical Science. Every dollar helps us focus on developing new content. It takes a lot of time to do the research that goes in to Critical Science, and subscriptions and other support are the only way we can continue to create this content. Please help us out: https://plus.acast.com/s/critical-science.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
-
Risk 101 is a series within the Critical Science Podcast that will introduce you to some of the key terms and concepts that you need to know. These are concepts and terms that we should have been taught in high school, but weren't.
In this episode I discuss the difference between risk and hazard.
Oh, and there's some great trivia in the episode, too! Do you know what the #1 killer of children in Florida is? Well, listen up, because you're about to find out!
I'll also discuss how the press are Merchants of Fear -- and the role they play in toxic misinformation.
It's a packed episode today!
Help us continue Critical Science. Every dollar helps us focus on developing new content. It takes a lot of time to do the research that goes in to Critical Science, and subscriptions and other support are the only way we can continue to create this content. Please help us out: https://plus.acast.com/s/critical-science.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
- Visa fler
