ED-Com: disinformation about bisphenol A

[ttweed@wildrockies.org (Tony Tweedale)]

the plastics industry tries to publish a 'no results'  paper in which not
even the positive controls show a result!  That's almost proof that the
experiment was rigged to show no result.
---

=====  A message from the 'endohealth' discussion list  =====

>Date: Fri, 23 Oct 98 17:13:45
>From: "Pete Myers" <JPMyers@wajones.org>
>Precedence: bulk
>Sender: owner-ed-com@igc.apc.org
>Subject: ED-Com: disinformation about bisphenol A
>To: ed-com@igc.apc.org
>
>     The Society of the Plastics Industry and the Bisphenol A Sector Group
>     of the European Chemical Industry Council issued a highly misleading
>     press release earlier this week about a study purported to show that
>     Fred vom Saal's experiments with bisphenol A could not be replicated.
>
>     The press release was notable for several things, the most important
>     of which is that it has no bearing upon whether or not bisphenol A has
>     effects at low doses.  The bottom line is that the reason why they
>     couldn't replicate the work is that the experiments failed--not that
>     bisphenol A doesn't have an effect.  A careful reading of the press
>     release reveals this fact.
>
>     According to the press release, the reported study, which the press
>     release claims is being submitted for peer review, had 3 important
>     components:
>
>     a control group
>     a "positive control" group
>     and an experimental group.
>
>     **The experimental group was treated with several levels of bisphenol
>     A.
>     **The "positive control" group was treated with several levels of
>     diethylstilbestrol (DES).
>     **The experimental group was treated with neither.
>
>     As expected, the control group showed no effect.
>     The experimental group showed no effect (except minor impacts at
>     relatively high levels).
>
>     Most importantly, the positive control group showed no effect. The
>     press releases reports this:  "There were no effects on any endpoint
>     measured in mothers treated with DES." In toxicology, a positive
>     control group is run with a toxicant with known effects.  DES was
>     chosen as the positive control toxicant because it is known to produce
>     experimental results.
>
>     The fact that they had negative results with the positive control
>     group means that they botched the procedures.  It doesn't mean that
>     vom Saal's work was rejected.  It means that the lab that ran the
>     experiments was not good enough even to get the results with DES which
>     no one contests.
>
>     Thus the press release, which says that the lab could not replicate
>     vom Saal's work, is accurate, but not because bisphenol A doesn't have
>     an effect..  They couldn't replicate the work because they couldn't do
>     the experiments.
>
>     This would appear to me to be one of the most blatant examples of
>     "science by press release" which I have ever seen.
>
>     Interestingly, at the now-famous "low dose workshop" run by NIH, in
>     Raleigh NC May 11 to 13 1998, a toxicologist for Shell, Dr. Stuart
>     Cagen, reportedly acknowledged publicly (in front of hundred or more
>     meeting participants) that "Based on the results presented by Newbold
>     and others we are not challenging vom Saals findings anymore. "
>     (Newbold's work bore specifically upon DES low dose effects). Cagen is
>     also the chair of the bisphenol A task force.
>
>     Also, interestingly, is the question of timing.  Why would these
>     "results" be released this week?  The answer probably lies in the fact
>     that the European Union was on the verge of making a key decision
>     about policy on endocrine disruption.  Below follows a news report
>     about that decision.  I think it would be highly interesting to see
>     internal memos from the Society of Plastics Industry about the
>     strategy for releasing this press release, as well as the study
>     itself.  Given, however, that the positive controls were failures, it
>     is unlikely that any reputable scientific journal will ever publish
>     the research paper they claim has been submitted for publication.
>
>
>
>     --------------------------------------------------------------