In a significant legal decision, activists attempting to link prenatal exposure to acetaminophen (Tylenol) to Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) had their case dismissed by the court. The plaintiffs in this multi-district litigation (MDL) argued that such exposure caused later diagnoses of ASD and ADHD in children.
However, District Judge Denise Cote, presiding over the case in the Southern District of New York, found that the plaintiffs' experts failed to meet the stringent requirements of the Federal Rules of Evidence 702. Judge Cote highlighted that the experts relied on flawed methodologies, such as the misapplication of the Bradford Hill criteria—a tool used to distinguish causation from association in epidemiology. The court criticized the experts for cherry-picking data to support their conclusions, ultimately leading to the rejection of their testimony and the dismissal of the case.
This ruling is a clear reminder of the importance of rigorous scientific analysis and the dangers of trying to pass off correlation with causation. The court’s decision underscores the judiciary's role as a gatekeeper, ensuring that only reliable and scientifically sound evidence is presented in legal proceedings.
CalGEM’s Report: A Repeat of Rejected Tactics
Despite this clear judicial stance, the California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) recently released a report using the flawed methodology that Judge Cote rejected.
The report, authored by Seth B. Shonkoff, PhD, MPH, and his team, titled “Public Health Dimensions of Upstream Oil and Gas Development in California,” was authored by Seth B. Shonkoff, PhD, MPH, and his team. It contains the same data cherry-picking that the court condemned.
The CalGEM report relies heavily on the Bradford Hill Analysis but with a twist discredited in court: the “Shared Bradford Hill Analysis.”
This method allows experts to combine multiple associations and exposures into a single causality assessment, effectively selecting only the data that supports their predetermined conclusions. This approach masks the inherent weaknesses and inconsistencies in the data, presenting a narrative that conveniently fits the authors' objectives.
Judge Cote’s earlier ruling found that this misuse of the Bradford Hill criteria allowed experts to manipulate the analysis, highlighting favorable results while ignoring contradictory evidence. The CalGEM report’s reliance on this discredited methodology is not only scientifically unsound but also disingenuous. It represents a dangerous precedent where policy decisions could be based on manipulated science rather than objective, comprehensive analysis.
Get A Refund
The State of California should demand accountability for the flawed CalGEM report. Just as the court rejected the activists' case for its reliance on cherry-picked data and manipulated causation analysis, the State should reject the report's conclusions.
The dismissal of the acetaminophen MDL case serves as a critical reminder that correlation does not equal causation and that scientific rigor must guide legal and policy decisions. The CalGEM report contains the same methodological flaws that the court rejected.
Rock Zierman’s Quote to Reporters: “This report relies on a pseudo-science methodology rejected by the courts called the Shared Bradford Hill Analysis. District Judge Denise Cote recently found that this method allows experts to select only the data that supports their desired outcome. This report is riddled with this type of ‘cherry-picking’ and ignores actual health risk assessments conducted in California that showed production can be done safely. The State of California should demand their money back.”
For more information, contact Sean Wallentine.