| Popis: |
Abstract Background The need to call out and expose authors for their persistence in improperly using epidemiology has been previously noted. Tsuda et al. have done well to expose Schüz et al.’s arguments/assertions in their recent publication in Environmental Heath. In this Comment, I point out that, also warranting being called out, are the arguments/assertions of Cléro et al. who, in their recent response to an article by Tsuda et al., reiterated the conclusions and recommendations derived from their European project, which were published in Environment International in 2021. Tsuda et al. had critiqued the Cléro et al. 2021 publication in their 2022 review article. However, in their response to it, Cléro et al. deflected by not addressing any of the key points that Tsuda et al. had made in their review regarding the aftermath of the Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear accidents. In this Comment, I critique Cléro et al.’s inadequate response. Publication of this Comment will help in routing out the improper use of epidemiology in the formulation of public health policy and thereby reduce the influence of misinformation on both science and public policy. My critique of Cléro et al. is not dissimilar from Tsuda et al.’s critique of Schüz et al.: in as much as Schüz et al. should withdraw their work, so should Cléro et al.’s article be retracted. Main body The response by Cléro et al. consists of four paragraphs. First was their assertion that the purpose of the SHAMISEN project was to make recommendations based on scientific evidence and that it was not a systematic review of all related articles. I point out that the Cléro et al. recommendations were not based on objective scientific evidence, but on biased studies. In the second paragraph, Cléro et al. reaffirmed the SHAMISEN Consortium report, which claimed that the overdiagnosis observed in non-exposed adults was applicable to children because children are mirrors of adults. However, the authors of that report withheld statements about secondary examinations in Fukushima that provided evidence against overdiagnosis. In the third paragraph, Cléro et al. provided an explanation regarding their disclosure of conflicting interests, which was contrary to professional norms for transparency and thus was unacceptable. Finally, their insistence that the Tsuda et al. study was an ecological study susceptible to “the ecological fallacy” indicated their lack of epidemiological knowledge about ecological studies. Ironically, many of the papers cited by Cléro et al. regarding overdiagnosis were, in fact, ecological studies. Conclusion Cléro et al. and the SHAMISEN Consortium should withdraw their recommendation “not to launch a mass thyroid cancer screening after a nuclear accident, but rather to make it available (with appropriate information counselling) to those who request it.” Their recommendation is based on biased evidence and would cause confusion regarding public health measures following a nuclear accident. Those authors should, in my assessment, acquaint themselves with modern epidemiology and evidence-based public health. Like Tsuda et al. recommended of Schüz et al., Cléro et al. ought also to retract their article. |
