The article itself clarifies..
> Baccarelli’s published statement to the White House only referred to the “possibility of a causal relationship” between acetaminophen and autism. In both his statement and the August paper, Baccarelli called for further study.
...
"Possibility"
See also
https://www.mountsinai.org/about/newsroom/2025/mount-sinai-s...
It’s “possible” that I’m the second coming of Christ, too.
To quote the judge:
> “He cherry-picked and misrepresented study results and refused to acknowledge the role of genetics in the etiology” of autism spectrum disorder or ADHD, Cote wrote in her decision, which the plaintiffs have since appealed.
You realize it's also possible for a judge to be wrong. Why are we just assuming that the judge's opinion trumps the expert witnesses opinion on how to properly review the literature?
here were the expert defendant witnesses:
These are the five general causation experts for plaintiffs in the Tylenol MDL:
Dr. Andrea Baccarelli, MD, PhD, is a leading expert in the field of environmental health science. Dr. Baccarelli is Chair of the Department of Environmental Health Sciences at Columbia University. His research focuses primarily on exploring the chemical and molecular links between human disease and exposure to certain drugs or chemicals. He has published over 600 articles, if you can imagine. Dr. Baccarelli is an elected member of the National Academy of Medicine and he is also President of the International Society of Environmental Epidemiology Dr. Robert Cabrera, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor at the Baylor College of Medicine. Dr. Cabrera is a molecular & cellular biologist and his expertise and research focuses on chemical causes of birth defects during embryonic development.
Dr. Eric Hollander, MD, is a Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine. Dr. Hollander has been the primary investigator in numerous federal grant studies on the causes of autism. These have included several major studies on autism causes funded by the Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Hollander has published hundreds of scientific articles on autism and edited over 20 medical textbooks including Autism Spectrum Disorders (American Psychiatric Publishing, 2017), and the Textbook of Autism Spectrum Disorders (American Psychiatric Publishing, 2011).
Dr. Stan G. Louie is a Professor of Clinical Pharmacy at the University of Southern California. Dr. Louie’s current research and work focuses on the testing and development of new drugs for inflammatory diseases, cancer, and neurodegenerative diseases.
Dr. Brandon Pearson, PhD, is a neuroscientist and toxicologist and currently an Assistant Professor of Environmental Health Sciences at Columbia University. Dr. Pearson is an expert in neurotoxicology, epigenetics, and cell biology and he is currently involved in laboratory studies focusing on genetic and environmental factors causing autism. Dr. Pearson has never previously testified as a litigation expert but was compelled by a sense of moral duty to provide his expertise in this case.
.....
and heres the judge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denise_Cote
She received a Bachelor of Arts degree from St. Mary's College in 1968 and a Master of Arts in history from Columbia University in 1969, after which she taught U.S. history, world history, and African-American history at the Convent of the Sacred Heart, a school in Manhattan. Cote then attended Columbia Law School, where she was Notes & Comments Editor of the Columbia Law Review, and she received her Juris Doctor in 1975.[3]
OK.
Do you think that simply getting paid to provide expert witness voids all reasonable credibility?
A lot? Yes.
I feel this is an attempt to argue from a false premise in logic terms.
I reject the use of his evidence to make statements by the head of the FDA and the president, because it's misuse of his evidence. Not because it was paid for.
His expert testimony was both expensive and unconvincing.
No one gets paid $150,000 to not say what they're supposed to, and even then, they lost the case. It was unconvincing and, to quote the judge, "he cherry-picked and misrepresented study results and refused to acknowledge the role of genetics".
I mean shit, that's marginally better than the absolute garbage of Wakefield but not by much. It's embarrassing that this is where we are.
The Dean was paid openly, directly, by one side of a case. As far as I know the meta analysis, which btw I do not think justifies the public health statements being made, has NOT been retracted, there are questions about methodology.
As you note, the case was lost. The judge used his discretionary powers to discount his evidence, and rightly so but the same judge will sit trial on case where he accepts the paid evidence of experts, routinely.
Yes, I would make that affirmation, specially if the expert is being paid 150k for about a month's worth of work. But suspect doesn't mean guilty, only that there's a conflict and it should be acknowledged.
Let's say you're listening to a podcast extoll the virtues of a high protein low carb diet. You'll assign a mental probability that they're correct. Does that prior probability change if you learn they've signed a protein shake company as a sponsor the same day the podcast was released?
If so, will how the university responds influence some of the culture for an entire class?
(For example, influence perception of how the university values integrity. Or how the university approaches it with process. Or how the university engages with students who raise a concern. Or for whether students should or can engage.)
gnabgib•4mo ago