Let's work together to improve science literacy and health

Rejection of science and anti-science policies and laws impact all of us.

Today, August 13th, is my birthday. If you know me, you know I’m not really one for birthday celebrations, especially since my big brother Brian died in 2015. He and I were just about 2 years apart, with his birthday 2 years and 6 days before mine. He should have been turning 39 last week, but never made it to 30.

dr.andrealove

A post shared by @dr.andrealove

I thought this year, I might use my birthday for something productive: to underscore the role all of us can play in advocating for science.

---

My newsletter is and always will be free - because I feel passionately that credible science information in this digital disinformation era is more critical than ever.

However, in a world where social media influences and pseudoscience podcasters bring in millions of dollars, it is almost impossible to compete with their reach and the power they wield.

So if you’re feeling generous and you want to sign up for a paid subscription to my newsletter (it’s only $5 a month), you can consider that a birthday gift to me.

If you don’t want to commit to $60 a year ($5 a month over 12 months), you could consider a one-time donation to my Ko-Fi, here.

Or if you don’t have the desire or means to contribute financially, sign up 3 of your friends for my newsletter (free):

The more people with resources to combat pseudoscience and disinformation, the better off we are as a society.

---

Alright, got that weird bit out of the way.

Since it’s my birthday, I want to talk about something important to me: my passion for combating science disinformation, especially chemophobia and pseudoscience, WHY it matters, and what all of us can do to help, because:

Anti-science beliefs and selective rejection of science harms all of us.

---

Rejection of science and personal beliefs impact policy and legislation.

When pseudoscience, misinformation, and anti-science beliefs lead to implementation of regulations, laws, or policies that are not aligned with robust scientific evidence it legitimizes that misinformation.

dr.andrealove

A post shared by @dr.andrealove

While it would be wonderful if scientific inquiry, evidence generation, regulatory oversight, and biomedical development was not a target of interference, we live in a society organized by government and influenced by citizens and organizations.

Government is composed of different branches, bodies, and structures that decide what science and evidence to implement. Governmental bodies are not constructed of professional scientists or experts, but people of all backgrounds, many of whom have their own biases and opinions, and are susceptible to persuasion by constituents and organizations with lobbying money.

Unfortunately, this means that the best scientific evidence is not always what informs law or policies. When laws are not informed by scientific consensus, there are consequences that impact entire societies.

Let’s illustrate with a few examples.

---

California Proposition 65 (Prop 65) is chemophobia masquerading as protections for consumers.

California Proposition 65 (Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986) requires warning labels about chemicals in consumer products that have some sort of association to cancer, birth defects, or reproductive issues. Sounds good in theory, right? The problem? The inclusion of chemicals per Prop 65 is based on the precautionary principle.

The precautionary principle asks: “is there ANY situation in ANY hypothetical scenario that this substance could cause potential harm?”

and not “is there ANY realistic risk to humans based on the exposure range of this substance over a single exposure or throughout the course of one’s life?”

If this sounds familiar, it should. It is a similar approach to the WHO’s IARC “carcinogenicity” hazard assessments, which do not consider human risk, likelihood of exposure, or dosage. Prop 65 law basically states that if there is a hypothetical world in which exposure to a chemical might contribute to 1 additional case of cancer per 100,000 people occurs over a 70-year lifetime, the chemical would be added to the list. Cancers are complex diseases with many contributing factors, so this stipulation is excessively stringent when, theoretically, 1 additional case of cancer over a 70-year window could happen merely because an individual spent too much time in the sun.

This means that many chemicals don’t have evidence to support their inclusion on the Prop 65 list. Many have weak, animal-only, or inconclusive evidence to suggest any relationship to these adverse health outcomes, especially at exposures we might realistically encounter. Even the American Cancer Society stated that many of the substances included on the list don’t have a relationship to cancer in humans.

Prop 65 is legislation informed by personal opinions, not robust science.

This law was passed not after consultation with scientific expert agencies, but by a popular vote in the State of California. Indeed, most credible experts agree it is not aligned with scientific consensus data and includes chemicals that don’t actually pose risks at exposures people would encounter.

Chemicals can be added to the list simply if government officials in California decide to do so, often as a result of powerful anti-science lobbyist groups. And yes, that pressure from anti-science lobbying arms of organizations like the Environmental Working Group (EWG) means the list continues to grow based on personal opinions and financial motivations instead of science.

Prop 65 warnings are all over consumer products. As a result, people become desensitized and start ignoring warning labels, which dilutes the impact of warnings on genuinely hazardous substances. That means products you may have legitimate reasons to be cautious around might not be treated with the gravity they should.

It also causes unnecessary confusion and fear among consumers, exploiting the risk perception gap, where people fear chemicals that have no realistic risk to their health, while ignoring things with much more substantive impact on health. And of course, it echoes the hallmarks of chemophobia, discussed here.

---

The American Academy of Pediatrics recent policy on GMO foods ignores decades of data and will cause families to fear nutritious and safe foods

I’ve already discussed this topic at length, but it is worth refreshing everyone’s memory. Even medical organizations, especially those that do not consult the appropriate experts on topics, are susceptible to adopting anti-science policy.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) policy on GMO foods is not based on credible evidence whatsoever. It makes unfounded claims about the harms of GE crops, the herbicide glyphosate, and tells parents to buy organic products, which offer no benefits, yet cost 50% more on average.

And when presented with numerous offers to review the actual body of data on this topic by scientific experts around the country, they have declined. Pediatricians are not agriculture scientists, toxicologists, food safety specialists, but they are undermining those experts by adopting a policy that is not supported by evidence. Unfortunately, they are abusing their authority to scare people.

---

Vaccine exemptions reject hundreds of years of science and increase the spread of deadly and debilitating diseases.

This one should be an obvious one, but refusal to vaccinate is considered a top 10 threat to global health. That’s because vaccinations protect individuals and communities from communicable diseases.

Prior to the development of vaccinations 300 years ago and even through the early advent of many vaccines we have today, the leading causes of death among humans were infectious diseases and infections.

Even as recently as 1900, the top 3 causes of death were infectious disease-related: pneumonia (caused by viral and bacterial pathogens), influenza, and GI infections (primarily foodborne pathogens such as Vibrio cholerae, Salmonella (typhoidal and non-typhoidal), and others).

The era of vaccination dramatically reduced overall morbidity and mortality and childhood vaccines are estimated to save 4 million lives globally every year.

Yet many states permit exemptions that give parents permission to opt out of vaccinating their children. These laws and policies are in direct opposition to hundreds of years of data - both on the harms of diseases that are spread person-to-person, but also on the benefits of vaccination.

These laws instead are based on public opinion, political pressure, and personal biases, not science. Unfortunately, we all suffer the consequences. Measles, a disease declared eliminated in the US, is now on the precipice of becoming endemic once again as a result of declining vaccination rates.

---

Abortion bans increase maternal mortality and harm public health.

Yep, we are going there. Abortion is a medical term to describe the ending of pregnancy by removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus. Abortion can be induced or spontaneous, but the result (and the procedure) are physiologically the same.

Spontaneous abortion, also called a miscarriage, occurs in 20% of known pregnancies. Induced abortion occurs in 13.5% of known pregnancies. Abortion, regardless of the circumstance, is an integral part of reproductive healthcare.

Pregnancy is an incredibly risky medical condition. It is 14 TIMES more dangerous than having a safe abortion. The US has the highest rate of maternal mortality of ANY developed nation: 23.8 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births. The maternal mortality is substantially higher for Black women (55.3 deaths per 100,000 live births) compared to white women (19.1 deaths per 100,000 live births).

However, medical procedures that can be life-saving (and life-saving doesn’t just apply to an imminent risk to one’s life) are being banned through legislative measures in many states:

• 14 states have total abortion bans

• 4 states have 6-week bans (before most people would even know they are pregnant)

• 7 other states have bans prior to 24 weeks of pregnancy (the third trimester does not begin until 28 weeks)

Abortion restrictions don’t stop abortion, it only makes them less safe. In countries with fewer abortion restrictions, only 1% of abortions are characterized as unsafe (not medically supervised), whereas in countries with the most stringent abortion restrictions, 31% of abortions are unsafe. When 4.7% to 13.2% of maternal deaths are caused by unsafe abortion, it is antithetical to public health to make that situation more dangerous, don’t you think?

If continued abortion access is restricted, it is estimated that pregnancy-related deaths in the U.S. could increase by as much as 21%.

If you wanted to enact legislation to reduce unwanted pregnancies and improve health outcomes, evidence tells you that you should focus on access to affordable contraception, comprehensive sex education, affordable prenatal and perinatal medical care, paid parental leave, and affordable childcare.

---

Banning fluoridated water defies scientific evidence that fluoride promotes dental health and prevents tooth decay

I’ve talked about the benefits of fluoride and fluoridated water extensively, so I’ll keep this one short (if you want to read about the science behind fluoridation, head here).

That being said, there are lots of localities in the US that have removed (or prevent the addition of) fluoride from water supplies because of anti-science rhetoric, which influences voters and government officials to support these measures. Some examples:

Portland, OR has rejected measures to fluoridate city water since 1980, even in spite of scientific consensus of the benefits of fluoridation on dental health. As recently as 2013, the city again voted down a measure to fluoridate water, driven by anti-science activists.

Bellingham, WA removed fluoride from water in 2007 as a result of political pressure and outcry from anti-science activist groups (including RFK Jr’s Children Health Defense, one of the most dangerous anti-science organizations).

As a result? Dental caries rates are higher in these areas. Unfortunately, this is yet another example of opinions superseding scientific evidence.

---

There are many other examples, but I’ll stop for the sake of brevity. But you might notice that anti-science laws and policies are not restricted to one political party, one ideology, one community. Everyone can fall prey to biases and opinions that have been formed by misinformation, either unwittingly or intentionally.

These beliefs and laws that result from them are heavily influenced by community, media, and echo chambers.

We live in an era where clickbait headlines, social media personalities, and podcasts are viewed more credibly than legitimate scientific data and expert consensus. There are many players at fault here, but placing blame doesn’t help. What does help?

We need concerted cooperation and participation in helping to combat science and health misinformation, wherever we see it.

My final birthday wish for all of you: help correct misinformation, seek out credible sources of information, don’t fall prey to clickbait and fear-mongering, and apply logic and critical thinking to information you encounter. Remember, anyone can say anything online: it doesn’t mean it is truth.

For the media: do better reporting. Stop using unqualified sources when discussing health and science topics. EWG and Consumer Reports are not credible scientific sources. Seek relevant experts: a pediatrician is not a toxicologist. If you want to report on a scientific study and don’t understand how to dissect the materials and methods, seek out scientists who have expertise in the field. We are chomping at the bit to help improve science literacy.

For the public: get into the fight for science literacy. Comment on social media posts that are misleading. Tag in a scientific expert who can help the viewers understand the reality. Report lies to the platform in question. Calling out misinformation has been demonstrated to help. The more people that call it out, the more attention it gets for being false. Oh, and don’t SHARE clickbait posts - that boosts their engagement and feeds the social media algorithms. Take screenshots if you want to share it with someone.

For scientists and healthcare providers: defer to the appropriate experts. Use your expertise to tackle topics that you can provide fact-checking on, and elevate others when your expertise has reached its limit. If you overstate your knowledge, you run the risk of contributing to misinformation. Be transparent about your skill set and breadth of training. The belief that everyone in “science” is an expert in all things science is why we have harmful podcasters like Andrew Huberman.

Low science literacy impacts public perception, beliefs, and opinions, which ultimately influences media, policy, and legislation. If we want to improve the quality and quantity of our lives through evidence-based measures, we all must play an active part in drowning out the disinformation with factual content.

---

Thank you for supporting evidence-based science communication. With outbreaks of preventable diseases, refusal of evidence-based medical interventions, propagation of pseudoscience by prominent public “personalities”, it’s needed now more than ever. 

Stay skeptical,

Andrea

---

“ImmunoLogic” is written by Dr. Andrea Love, PhD - immunologist and microbiologist. She works full-time in life sciences biotech and has had a lifelong passion for closing the science literacy gap and combating pseudoscience and health misinformation as far back as her childhood. This newsletter and her science communication on her social media pages are born from that passion. Follow on Instagram, Threads, Twitter, and Facebook, or support the newsletter by subscribing below: