Gas Stove Prohibition and Childhood Asthma Claim, Part II • Increase capacity with that?

Guest Posts by Warren Kindzierski, Stan Young and John Dunn

Summary

We have published a study evaluating gas stoves/NO₂-Epidemiological study of asthma in children. We observe that this research topic has many potential biases and biases. Most readers of scientific publications are barely aware of the methodological biases of the researchers we describe in our study unless they happen to have knowledge of the limitations of the method in the research topic. But most are not. The evidence presented in our study argues for the legitimacy of gas stoves/NO₂-statement of the cause of asthma in children. The public may consider the claim that the cause of asthma in children is due to an unproven gas stove.

Background

There was a recent discussion on wuwt about banning the use of gas stoves because they emit nitrogen dioxide (NO₂). See New York gas stove ban, Love Green Flame Gas Stove, Attacks on gas stoves are not really about health.

We published a learn which one reviews gas stove/NO₂-Epidemiological study of asthma in children. We published an article, my part, on the website of the American Council on Science and Health based on our research. In the article, we discussed some of the potential fallacies and biases in the study of childhood asthma caused by gas stoves. Including:

1. Research on NO₂ has not determined that this gas, which consists of three carbon-free atoms, is a carbon allergen. As such, a biologically plausible explanation for the causal link to childhood asthma is at best.

• Questionable statistical methods (hypothesis testing) appear frequently at NO₂-Epidemiological study of asthma in children. These studies are compromised with unknown false-positive results. In fact, this may be a characteristic of NO₂-Epidemiological literature on asthma in children.

• P-value chart for gas stove/NO₂− the pediatric asthma association we constructed from a set of experimental statistics in a meta-analysis supporting randomization – this is inconsistent with the evidence that gas stoves are relating to or causing asthma or harm the respiratory tract of children.

An honest scientist or a good reader with common sense can question… Why is there even discussion about gas stoves/NO₂−state the cause of asthma in children if NO₂ not a biologically plausible explanation for the causal link with childhood asthma?

The answer is simple… Academic researchers continued as if Is the truth ARE NOT₂ from gas stoves cause children to have asthma. In this article, we point to two more potential scholarly biases in pediatric asthma…selective reporting and p-hacking.

selective report

academic researcher have flexibility use different methods in the research process. They also have the flexibility to report only those methods that produce positive results and ignore those that produce unfavorable results. This reporting option involves a selective bias to highlight statistically significant findings and to avoid findings that are not significant (zero) in the study. What is reported can be a challenge for policymakers to use as significant findings may simply be false-positive results (chances).

Our study provides three examples of reporting selected in the published literature specifically for gas/NO₂-statement of the cause of asthma in children. One notable example we discuss is that of a highly published, senior academic researcher from Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands (Bert Brunekreef) with over 850 publications and 89,000 citations to date.

Brunekreef was involved in two epidemiological studies at the same time in 2013 – the study study abroad ISAAC and a gas stove synthesis analysis.

The ISAAC study – Brunekreef, along with other researchers around the world, investigated the association between asthma and the use of different cooking fuels, including gas stoves, as a part of the International Study of Asthma and Allergy in Children (ISAAC). ISAAC researchers collected data on 512,707 primary and secondary school students from 108 cities in 47 countries between 1999 and 2004.

ISAAC researchers examined and presented the results for two statistical models to analyze their data for the association between asthma and gas stoves in children. In addition, they examined two asthma outcomes (‘current severe asthma symptoms’ and ‘previous asthma’) for two age groups (6–7 years and 13–14 years). age) in these statistical models.

The ISAAC study was published on May 31, 2013. All of their modeling results were not significant. The ISAAC researchers, including Brunekreef, stated in their Abstract: “We found no evidence of an association between the use of gas as a cooking fuel and asthma symptoms or an asthma diagnosis.“.

Gas stove meta-analysis – At the same time as the ISAAC study, Brunekreef, along with two different researchers, conducted a meta-analysis to quantify the association of indoor NO₂ and cooking gas stove with childhood asthma and wheezing.

For the current asthma-related endpoint of gas cooking, they combined odds ratios (ORs) and confidence intervals (CIs) from 11 epidemiological studies. They declared their results significant (OR = 1.42; 95% confidence interval, CI = 1.23–1.64).

The meta-analysis was published on August 20, 2013, nearly three months after the ISAAC study. The meta-analytical researchers, including Brunekreef, stated in their Abstract: “This meta-analysis provides quantitative evidence that, in children, gas cooking increases the risk of asthma and indoor NO.₂ increases the risk of existing wheezing“.

This gas stove meta-analysis does not address the large international ISAAC study and its worthless findings. Why?

p-hacks

p-hacks is a form of testing multiple hypotheses that involves finding significance during statistical analysis of a data set. A layman’s description of p-hack would be to cheat statistics to get the answer you want. A logical discussion of the various p-hacking strategies that academic researchers use is provided in a recent article. open publication.

p-hack is popular in scientific literature. An advanced Google Scholar search for “p-hacking OR p-hack OR p-hacked” for the period 2013–2023 returned 12,600 results excluding citations. Statisticians know about p-hacks, but they seem to mostly silent.

Interested in gas stove/NO₂−statement of the cause of asthma in children is a p-hacking strategy that involves reanalyzing subsets of the data set in the experimental environment multiple times. When a data set is divided into subgroups and if a particular subgroup is reanalyzed, it can easily find statistically significant results through diligent search. If the dice are rolled enough times, a snake eye will appear.

As explained in our study, the very 2013 gas stove meta-analysis discussed above showed proof of p-hack:

• The meta-analysis researchers initially examined eight different causal associations (endpoints) in their meta-analysis involving gas/NO₂ and asthma and wheezing endpoints using the dataset they aggregated.
• The researchers then conducted additional statistical re-analysis on a subset of their data using the same methods. This reanalysis was in only six of the eight endpoints.
• They then conducted further statistical re-analysis on another subset of data using the same methods, this time focusing on only three of the eight endpoints.

Others noted that in epidemiological investigations “there is a risk of false claims about effect modifiers when several subgroup analyzes are explored” … And … “There is a need to refrain from viewing small group findings as discovery and hypothesis generation rather than determination“.

Discussions

In general, the evidence presented in our study contests the legality of gas stoves/NO₂-statement of the cause of asthma in children. The public may consider the gas stove-asthma claim in children unproven based on the following:

• Research not established NO₂ as a biologically plausible explanation for the causal association with childhood asthma.
• Questionable statistical methods (hypothesis testing) were common in the 2013 gas stove meta-analysis-coupled epidemiological studies we evaluated.
• The p-value plot for the association between childhood asthma and gas stoves in the 2013 gas stove meta-analysis supported randomization. An incidental finding that is inconsistent with evidence that gas stoves cause asthma or respiratory damage in children.
• p-hacking – specifically, re-analysing subsets of data (a questionable research activity) – is evident in the 2013 gas stove meta-analysis.
• Selective reporting (another questionable research practice) is evident in published studies and reviews of pediatric respiratory health studies using gas stoves.

Most of the published epidemiological studies and reviews examined in our study were co-authored by academics. The role of scholars in the study of childhood asthma caused by gas stoves requires further comment.

Most of the hidden mistakes and biases in published academic research can be traced back to their methodological biases. Others have called them researcher’s flexibility or researcher degrees of freedom. In essence, too many academics do what they want in the research process and then report what they want in a paper submitted for publication. All that is needed is that they carefully write a ‘rigorous science story’ to support their research results for it to be published.

Most readers of scientific publications are barely aware of the methodological biases we describe in our research unless they happen to be aware of methodological limitations in the topic. studies (i.e. gas stoves and childhood asthma). But most are not. Also worrisome is the plight of policymakers and media that recommend/support a gas stove ban. They are unlikely to be deprived of less knowledge about the limitations and methodological biases in the study of childhood asthma due to gas stoves.

As for academics, Ian Oxnevad of the National Association of Scholars perfectly describes the effect that they have on social… “Everyone needs to know that the academy is not an innocuous place”…”[Academia] is at the heart of all the bad things you’re seeing going on right now.“

Warren Kindzierski is a retired university professor in St Albert, Alberta. Stanley Young is the CEO of CGStat in Raleigh, North Carolina and the Director of the National Association of Scholars. Transfer sand project. John Dunn is an attorney and emergency physician (retired) in Brownwood, Texas.