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.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

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.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

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/).

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

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

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

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

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

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!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

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.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

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.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

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/

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

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.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

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!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

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!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

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.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

You know what it is? Fear mongering. Pure, unadulterated fear mongering. And like I said, fear mongering is not science.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

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.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

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!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

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!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

But due to some really bad science fooling a lot of attorneys, we now have a very large class-action lawsuit, that claims that ranitidine/Zantac actually is transformed to a cancer causing chemical in the stomach of heartburn suffers across our country, and giving them cancer.

In today's episode we talk about why it's important for a laboratory experiment about human health to actually be relevant to how our bodies work, and the levels of chemicals in our bodies. And we talk about the conclusion a US Federal District Court judge in Florida regarding the science cited by the plaintiffs in the ranitidine/Zantac case.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

But remember -- just because someone detects a chemical in a food, that doesn't mean it's going to hurt you!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

We tend to have a bias to lionize those who we believe our there to help us out, to protect us from harm. We believe these saviors and heroes, because they have no reason to harm us -- they're trying to help us! That is white hat bias.

Today, I'm going to talk about the intersection of white hat bias and fear -- and how groups, I call them the Merchants of Fear, use poorly done science to drive your fear to drive money into their bank accounts.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In toxicology we're also going to have some exposed group. And again, for the sake of argument, that group will also have a distribution of responses, and let's say it's also a bell shaped curve distribution. Now then, in simplistic terms, if those two distributions overlap completely, so that they're identical, we'd say there is no treatment effect. What needs to happen is for the response in the treated group to be so different from control that we can't conclude that the treated group's response came from the control distribution.

Said another way: if I randomly sample from the control distribution and get the same response as I'm seeing in the treated, then there's no treatment effect. That's the simplistic way of explaining this (there are some nuances I'm not bringing up).

Well, in today's episode, we're going to talk about a case where the "signal" (that is the treatment response that NIEHS' scientists say is a real treatment effect) is actually just noise from the control group.

Here's my analysis report on how I came to this judgement, and you can see the analysis code here.

But there are other issues with this particular NIEHS study that says hair relaxers, straighteners, and pressing products are linked to uterine cancer. For starters, NIH's press release made a causal statement that, "women who used chemical hair straightening products were at higher risk for uterine cancer compared to women who did not report using these products" -- that's simply not true at all because this study didn't find causality.

But the other big issue -- the study isn't even representative of the US population of women. 85.6% of the women in the study were white only, and not hispanic or LatinX -- just white. That's way more than we have in the US population. The number of Black or African American women is well below the US population. Same goes for other non-white groups. Which means, these results are not even relevant to the US population of women. We can't translate these results to the US population.

Listen to today's episode to find out more!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

But really, this is a story of sex, not necessarily lies (maybe inappropriate analyses), and nope, no videotapes -- but it is a podcast!

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This is the story of how a pair of scientists, through flawed scientific studies, kicked off a campaign that grew widespread support throughout the scientific community. It's a story of how confirmation bias blinds scientists, and leads to faulty hypotheses and perpetuates flawed understanding of the science. And how confirmation bias, poor study designs, and a lack of scientific integrity ultimately harms millions of people -- in this case millions of pregnant women and their children.

This is the sad, unfortunate story of diethylstilbestrol.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In today's episode of Critical Science, our host, Dr. Lyle Burgoon, explores how we got here -- how we got to the point that someone is suing a candy maker over titanium dioxide. We'll go beyond the headlines. We'll look at how the European Food Safety Authority reached their conclusion that titanium dioxide might or might not cause DNA damage. We'll explore the scientific studies they relied on. We'll critique the science, and help you better understand why titanium dioxide is considered safe by the US FDA and toxicologists around the world.

And find out why 4,080 is such a critical number!

All that on Critical Science.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.