Science Advocacy
Science Advocacy
We hear the words “toxin” and “toxic” thrown around an awful lot lately. It seems like toxins are vaguely blamed for many of the health issues in modern society – nearly every other product claims to “cleanse” or otherwise eliminate them. But what toxins are people referring to? What exactly is a “toxin” anyway? Useyourbrainforscience.com is here with the answers.
Let’s start with some basic science. Broadly speaking, a toxin is defined as any poisonous substance that is made by an organism (animal, pant, bacteria, etc). These toxins are often made as a defense mechanism – like snake venom, or nicotine, which is an effective insecticide for the tobacco plant. However, these are not really the toxins that most people are worried about, because many of the toxins affecting human health (or thought to) are man-made. It’s probably better just to say that a toxin is any poisonous substance. Makes sense, right? But what is poisonous in this context?
Glad you asked. I’m a professional toxicologist, and toxicology is the study of poisons, so I spend a lot of time thinking about this question, and there is a very clear scientific answer. The answer is: everything. Everything is poisonous (or toxic) at a high enough dose. This is where we get the phrase “the dose makes the poison.” Water is probably the least toxic substance known to man, but you can die from water poisoning just as easily as you can from drinking a mercury cocktail – it just takes more water to kill you than mercury. Therefore, water is less toxic than mercury – but both are toxins under the right circumstances. Of course, this doesn’t mean you shouldn’t drink water – most of us could probably stand to drink more water and less soda or coffee.
So it really depends on where you draw the line. How toxic is too toxic? Here’s a handy ranking of some common substances and how they stack up against some prototypical “toxins.” The list is presented in terms of how many grams of the substance you would need to consume per kilogram of body weight. For example: you’d have to consume about 90 grams of water for every kilogram of your body weight (and do it quickly!) in order to reach potentially lethal water levels.
In May of 2018, the Smithsonian Institute honored Henrietta Lacks by placing a portrait of her in the entrance. The portrait is titled the “Mother of Modern Medicine” and it hung in the entry of the museum until November of 2018. Mrs. Lacks never knew it, and her family wasn’t aware of it until much later, but she is responsible of many of our modern medical treatments and research studies.
I have done some pretty weird things in my life (including eating bugs for this blog), but I am not sure that there is anything quite so bizarre as using your own pee-pee as a health tonic. However, in a video posted recently in the New York Post, Julia Sillaman does just that.
Sillaman claims that drinking her own urine and using it as a face wash has cleared up her acne and helped her lose weight. She also says that fasting has helped her pee taste more like coconut water. Not only is this really a thing that she does (and not a joke or prank), the practice of using urine for health purposes has been around since forever. In this, the third article we’ve had to do about pee, we debunk the inexplicable history of people using urine as a health tonic. (Hint: It does not work.)
Welcome to part 3 of our series on how to talk to your friends and family who hold anti-science views on vaccine safety. Click here for part 1, and part 2, which covered the benefit/risk of childhood vaccines, reliable sources of data, and conspiracy theories. Now on to part 3.
PART III: Misunderstanding science and/or over-simplifying how science actually works
Science can be complicated. Fully grasping the basics of a single field of study can take a lifetime. Most of the anti-vaccine arguments you will hear do not stem from bad science. Instead they come from the mistakes outlined in our previous posts – misunderstanding the risk/benefit profile of vaccines, trusting bad data, or believing in conspiracy theories.
Anti-vaccine arguments based on science are the easiest to refute given time, but they are often the hardest to refute in the moment. If someone pulls out an obscure research paper that you haven’t read before as evidence that vaccines are dangerous, a good scientist needs to take the time to read it in order to refute it. This is a big reason why we at UYBFS don’t like to try to argue science in the comments section of Facebook posts. In order to get our science right, we often need to do research – that’s how science works.
With this said, most anti-vaccine scientific claims fall into several general categories – seven by our count. Let’s go through each with some examples from the anti-vaccines posts from our recent Science humor Facebook post (see part 1).
1) Misunderstanding basic science.
This one is pretty straight forward. Scientific misconceptions are everywhere, and getting the basics of science wrong can lead to faulty conclusions. Here are some examples:
“If you look at what caused polio it sure as hell was’nt [sic] apples. So it was caused by toxins in the environment, ddt etc”
Polio is caused by a virus, not by toxins or pesticides.
“If you’d like, I also cite studies that show that cell denovo replication can be affected by damage to certain proteins caused by febrile seizures and axonal stretch injury.”
These words literally mean nothing in the order above. It sounds smart, but it’s nonsense.
“Hmmm, she gets vaccinated to protect herself, but if I’m not vaccinated then I can spread my virus to her? How does that work, exactly, if this vaccination you speak of actually does anything?”
This is an important principal of immunity that the author of this comment seems to have completely missed. Vaccines are not 100% effective – no medication is. In a small number of vaccinated persons, the vaccine won’t work. This generally happens when there is an inadequate immune response to the vaccine (driven by biological chance or a suppressed immune system) or because the person’s immune system is compromised at the time of infection and unable to response despite the vaccine.
Let’s say this happened to your child – they were vaccinated against measles, but it just didn’t work. If every other child in their class was vaccinated, their risk of contracting measles is still very low – because no one else in their class would have measles due to the vaccination. If however, several kids in their class weren’t vaccinated because their parents didn’t understand this concept, they could catch measles, and measles can be fatal. This is called “herd immunity.” It’s ok if a small percentage of people fail to develop immunity following vaccinations, as long as the rate of vaccination is high among their peers.
“I still haven’t read one good reason for hepb shot , and the ‘vitamin’ k shot at birth. Other than to thwart the immmune system or constitution. The facts are that people [sic] pineal glands are being filled with fluoride which is caused by the mercury. The pineal gland is our holy grail if you like, our internal antenna.”
The author of this comment clearly has no background in science. The reasons for the hepatitis B vaccine (hepb) and vitamin K shot at birth are self-explanatory. Fluoride does not “fill” your pineal gland – if you take too much of it, it goes into your bones. We are not sure if they are inferring that mercury “causes” fluoride (that makes no sense), or if it causes fluoride to “fill” your pineal gland – which it does not. The pineal gland produces melatonin, which helps regulate your circadian rhythm, which we guess is like an antenna, somehow? Finally using the word “constitution” as a medical or scientific term is a classic red flag. This term means nothing at all in modern evidence-based medicine – don’t trust the opinions of anyone who uses this word incorrectly.
2) Misunderstanding data
Here are some published studies that one commenter linked to as supporting evidence of a lack of vaccines safety:
Non-linear dose-response of aluminium hydroxide adjuvant particles: Selective low dose neurotoxicity. This is a cool study because in pharmacology and medicine, a classic dose-response relationship (higher dose = a greater effect) is usually taken for granted. The authors didn’t observe that here, which is SUPER interesting, but not useful as a basis for human risk assessment. Mice are not little people – data generated in mice needs to be understood mechanistically before it can inform risk.
Evidence Concerning Pertussis Vaccines and Central Nervous System Disorders, Including Infantile Spasms, Hypsarrhythmia, Aseptic Meningitis, and Encephalopathy. This is another really nice study, and it’s clear that the person who posted it didn’t read beyond the title. The authors found no link between the DPT vaccine and any of these disorders.
3) Trusting the wrong data or Confusing science and propaganda
This is one of my favorite quotes from the Facebook conversion. It has nothing to do with vaccines, but still:
“There is considerable evidence from human studies implicating ultrasound. Parents in the US are not being given this information.”
The author actually linked to a Chinese book on this topic available through Amazon. Literally every baby born since the 1970’s has been exposed to ultrasound – it’s perfectly safe and every doctor and scientist will tell you this, but this person is going with the opinion form a non-peer-reviewed Chinese book available for $9.99 on Amazon with the following product description:
“Ultrasound is argued, with much supporting evidence, to be the primary initiator of fetal vulnerabilities. The Bibliography lists and discusses arcane documents, previously unknown, modern, high-tech studies, conducted in modern China, surpassing Western science. These studies empirically demonstrate ultrasound disease causation.”
That is some next-level gibberish right there.
So how does this happen? Why would someone believe such a clearly untrustworthy source over pretty much every scientist and health professional in the world? This is a difficult question to answer. People likely believe clearly fake information like this for the same reasons that people believe non-scientific fake news. Many hypothesize that the desire to “know” or reinforce things they believe already drives people to ignore obviously fake information sources. Research also shows that many people have a difficult time recognizing false or biased information, especially when it comes from social media.
This topic is related to the conspiracy theory discussion from part 2: it’s important to understand that there is bias inherent in many of our information sources. As such, we should always be skeptical of any scientific information we read and seek to confirm it from unbiased sources. Peer-reviewed journals are a great source of “unbiased” data, but data published in this way is generally not written for non-scientists and can be misinterpreted by those without proper training. Other good sources include the news sites of the high end scientific journals Science and Nature, Science News, and Sciworthy. Avoid sites that are heavily politically biased in either direction.
4) Over-interpreting data
Here are a few peer-reviewed publications posted in the Facebook comments. Each is a solid study, but the person who posted these links seemed to think they “proved” that vaccines are unsafe. They do not.
B-Lymphocytes from a Population of Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder and Their Unaffected Siblings Exhibit Hypersensitivity to Thimerosal. There is no link between mitochondrial defects and autism, which pretty much disproves this hypothesis.
Hypothesis: conjugate vaccines may predispose children to autism spectrum disorders. Large, well-controlled sudies consistently show no link between vaccines and autism. There is only correlation and no causation here (see below).
Transcriptomic analyses of neurotoxic effects in mouse brain after intermittent neonatal administration of thimerosal. Changes in gene expression are not necessarily adverse, and this study used thimerosal levels 20-times higher than used in vaccines.
It may surprise some people to find studies clearly looking for a connection between vaccines and autism in the published literature, but it shouldn’t. This is how science works. After Andrew Wakefield published his falsified (now withdrawn) paper claiming a link between vaccines and autism, scientists around the world have looked into the issue. Some of this data, when over interpreted or taken out of context might seem to suggest a link between vaccines and autism, but the totality of the data tells a very clear story. Outside of the discredited work of Dr. Wakefield, there is no evidence of such a link.
5) Mistaking correlation for causation
Similar to above, a number of the statements and peer-reviewed works cited in the Facebook discussion were examples of people clearly mistaking correlation for causation. Here are some examples:
“the exponential rise in autism linked to high rates of aluminium in the brain.”
No causal connection has been identified.
“The US has by far the highest rate of infant mortality in the industrialized world–higher even than many Third World nations. The US also administers the most vaccines to children under 2 years old. These issues are connected.”
Nope. Did you know that if you eat enough chocolate you will definitely win a Nobel Prize? correlation does not equal causation.
Abnormal measles-mumps-rubella antibodies and CNS autoimmunity in children with autism. There is no data at all suggesting that these antibodies cause autism.
Do aluminum vaccine adjuvants contribute to the rising prevalence of autism? Again, a correlation without any evidence at all of a causative link between aluminum and autism.
6) Failing to recognize how data fits into the evolution of the field
This is a big one, since science evolves as more data is generated. There was a time, in the the 1990’s when much of the scientific community considered it possible that vaccines were indeed linked to autism. However, after the work by Dr. Andrew Wakefield was disproven and withdrawn from publication due to fraud, this changed. Today, you won’t find reputable scientists who believe there is any sort of ink between vaccines and autism, or who question the extremely high benefit-to-risk ratio of childhood vaccinations. Citing the work of Dr. Wakefield or early work in the field before a scientific consensus was reached is not an argument against vaccines – it’s just out of date information.
7) Not actually listening to the other side
Science should never be about winning or losing an argument. It’s about seeking truth. It is important to always be open to considering that your position may be incorrect, and even more so if that position is held by the vast majority of experts in a particular field. Unfortunately, some people are just not ready to listen:
“Lol congrats. I appreciate the response and refutation with citation. But I have many many more hahaha so I’m glad I can take these ones that you have refuted out of my list.”
So I guess this person’s plan is just to keep on lining up “evidence” to support his side without considering that with each refutation their position is more and more untenable?
“Considering I am currently taking my Bach of science, I think I have a tiny bit more knowledge in this area than you do. Thanks for playing! Don’t let the Door hit your ass on the way out”
This one hurts me. Every scientist starts here – you learn a little bit and think you know everything. Good scientists take the next step and realize they know very little. Then they can really learn. It doesn’t sound like this person is ready to learn just yet.
Welcome to Bad Science on the Internet! Here, we highlight some of the crazy and sometime dangerous stuff people post online, and then we give you the facts.
There have been a number of recent news stories about the possibility of coffee being listed as a human carcinogen in the state of California. A recent court decision ruled against several coffee sellers (including 7-Eleven and Starbucks), allowing a lawsuit to continue that may end with coffee being listed as containing potential carcinogens in California. How did this happen, and should we be worried about our morning brew? Let’s break down the science and find out.
Let’s start here. There is absolutely zero data to suggest that drinking coffee increases your cancer risk. In fact, it is more likely to be protective against some cancers because of the antioxidants it contains. Coffee may also lower the risk of heart disease and diabetes, though the data supporting these potential positive health effects is weak. It is true that the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified drinking very hot beverages of any kind as being linked to cancer, but this is not specific to coffee and is honestly kind of silly, because most people intuitively understand that scalding their esophagus and mouths with hot beverages day after day is probably not good for them. So to recap: coffee does not cause cancer, do not drink boiling water.
We at UYBFS like a good joke. In that spirit, we posted a cartoon poking fun at Jenny McCarthy, D-list actress and notable anti-vaccine advocate, to a Facebook page called Science Humor. It’s a funny page, if you’re in to science puns and jokes you need an advanced degree to understand, which we totally are.
People liked the cartoon, but we were very surprised by a vocal minority of people who responded to the post with very vehement anti-vaccine views. Our surprise stems from the fact that the name of the page is “Science Humor”, which we assumed would narrow down the active readers to people with a strong background in science, of which we know exactly zero who oppose the use of vaccines or believe (as Jenny McCarthy does) that vaccines cause autism.
Our assumptions were wrong. Some of the anti-vaccine supporters clearly had some background in science. They posted articles supporting their views and seemed to be looking for debate. Meanwhile, some of those who took the pro-vaccine side just resorted to name calling rather than engage in scientific debate. (In all fairness, there was name calling on both sides).
We stayed out of the debate. In part, we wanted to see where the discussion went, but mainly, we are of the mind that the comments section in a Facebook post is not a good place hold detailed scientific discussions. However, we need to acknowledge that there are people out there with very strong anti-vaccine views . Making fun of them or dismissing them as “nuts” is not productive. Our goal should be to educate, to bring them along and lay out the facts. We won’t convince those who are not open to impartially weighing the scientific evidence, but if we do our job right, we may just change a few minds for the better.
But how? Some of these people were VERY passionate about their anti-vaccine posts – can we actually change their minds? Should we go point-by-point, refuting each reference they posted? This last approach would be the most thorough, but it would also be BORING, and we actually want people to read this blog. So instead, we will focus on the major pillars of “evidence” used to support anti-vaccine views. For those aligned with science, think of this as a guide for speaking to others with opposing views. For those who hold anti-vaccine views, we hope this may bring some clarity to the science behind vaccine safety. There is a lot to unpack here, so this we’ll break our discussion into 3 parts. When possible, we’ll use some examples from the Facebook page thread, with all names redacted.
The use of genetically modified organisms (GMO’s) in our food is controversial. I think most people would agree with that statement. However, the exact reasons for the controversy is a bit hazy to many people. Some would argue that GMOs are unsafe, not nutritious, or bad for the environment, but these statements are scientifically incorrect. In reality, the source of controversy is not scientific, but ethical and political. Freedom of choice, the right to know, the ethics of genetic engineering and the complex economics of global agriculture are what make GMOs controversial. Despite this, perfectly reasonable campaigns for labeling of GMOs become intertwined with pseudoscientific propaganda proclaiming GMOs to be toxic culprit for a list of modern day maladies that seems to have no end.
The task of educating others on the benefits and potential risks of GMO food is made extremely difficult by these inherent controversies of the subject. As scientists and science advocates wrestle with this difficult task, ads such as the Stonyfield Farms spot shown above only serve to confuse the issue further.
This ad cynically uses children to deliver a decidedly anti-GMO message, labeling GMOs “monstrous”, and bringing up the “fish tomato,” a commonly misunderstood target of anti-GMO crusaders. The text overlay urges the viewer to “avoid GMOs” and “join the organic revolution”.
This type of misleading ad only fuels distrust of GMOs, with vague suggestions that they are “bad.” Using children makes it even worse. It is irresponsible to teach children that GMOs are “monstrous.” The fish tomato reference is particularly biased. Not only were these tomatoes never sold or eaten by a single person, there are currently no commercially available GMO tomatoes at all, and Stonyfield does not make a tomato yogurt as far as we know.
To make matters worse, after several science advocates cried foul, Stonyfield doubled-down by calling their critics “trolls”. In their statement (read it here), they did back off the “GMOs are bad” message, saying, “We do not believe that eating GMOs has been proven harmful to your health.” However, they are back to demonizing GMOs a few sentences later:
“The majority of GMO crops used by farmers today require the use of toxic herbicides. The use of glyphosate, which has been categorized as a probable carcinogen by the World Health Organization, has increased nearly 15-fold since so-called “Roundup Ready,” genetically engineered glyphosate-tolerant crops were introduced in 1996.”
This is statement is highly misleading. GMO crops do not require the use of roundup any more than regular crops, though it is used often to control weeds in the vicinity of genetically-modified “round-up ready” crops. Also ,the World Health Organization (WHO) has not classified glyphosate (the active ingredient in Roundup) as a carcinogen. This was done by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IRAC). While IRAC is part of the WHO, the WHO disagrees, and classifies glyphosate as “unlikely to be a human carcinogen”. Worst of all, they label glyphosate as “toxic” which in this context has no meaning – toxic to what, and at what dose?
Stonyfield is also strongly implying that they do not feed their cows crops which were treated with pesticides. This is also false. Organic farming allows the use of certain pesticides, including the spraying of Bt toxin, which is the insecticide engineered into many GMO crops. It is likely that cows eating organic feed are exposed to higher levels of Bt pesticide than those that eat non-organic feed. That’s not to say that organic yogurt isn’t safe – it is, and so is non-organic yogurt.
The Stonyfield ad also includes a clear promotion of labeling GMO foods. The CEO and co-founder of Stonyfields, Gary Hirshberg, is also the chairman of Just Label It, a group which promotes the labeling of GMO foods. The labeling of GMO foods seems like a worthy conversation to have, but the promotion of a pro-labeling viewpoint by a company which will clearly benefit from such regulations, in an ad featuring children seems less like a sincere attempt to make a positive change in the world, and more like an example of corporate greed.
Standing up for science by countering misleading ads is not trolling, it’s science advocacy, and selling yogurt by exploiting people’s fears is shameful.
Welcome to “chemicals and society”, where we highlight the current understanding of the biological effects and safety of some of the most common chemicals in today’s society.
What is fluoride?
Fluoride is the anion of fluorine, the element with an atomic number of 9. An anion is a negatively charged particle (represented as F‾), and fluoride occurs naturally when it is released from fluorine-containing minerals like calcium fluoride. Fluorine is pretty common on earth – it’s the 13th most common element, and people are exposed to it mainly in their food and water. However, we are most familiar with fluoride from it’s use in toothpastes, mouthwashes, dental treatments, and as a drinking water additive.
What is fluoride used for?
Fluoride is used to prevent or delay the development of dental caries (commonly known as cavities). Cavities occur when bacteria build up on your teeth and acidify (lower the pH of) the enamel around them. This acid slowly eats away at your teeth. Luckily, your teeth can counter-act this demineralization to some degree, and that’s where fluoride comes in. It aids in the remineralization and in the process also makes teeth more resistant to future demineralization.
So how and why did people start putting fluoride in drinking water?
Fluoride occurs naturally in all water – seawater, lake water, river water, groundwater, literally all water. The actual levels of fluoride depends on the geology of the area, and it can vary widely. These different levels of fluoride in different areas of the world helped people figure out that fluoride could protect against cavities. They noticed that people living in areas with higher levels of fluoride had fewer cavities, and this eventually led to the idea that adding fluoride into water that didn’t have much in it might reduce cavities in those that drank it. The first city to fluoridate it’s drinking water was Grand Rapids, MI in 1945. Since then, much of the United States and many countries around the world have introduced fluoridation, including Argentina, Australia, Brazil, and Canada.
