Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Dismissing manufactured uncertainties, limitations and competing interpretations about chemical exposures and diabetes
  1. Leonardo Trasande1,2,3,
  2. P Monica Lind4,
  3. Erik Lampa5,
  4. Lars Lind6
  1. 1 New York University (NYU) School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA
  2. 2 NYU Wagner School of Public Service, New York, New York, USA
  3. 3 NYU College of Global Public Health, New York University, New York, New York, USA
  4. 4 Department of Medical Sciences, Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
  5. 5 Uppsala Clinical Research Center, Uppsala, Sweden
  6. 6 Department of Medical Sciences, Cardiovascular Epidemiology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
  1. Correspondence to Dr Leonardo Trasande, Department of Pediatrics, New York University School of Medicine, 403 East 34th Street, New York, NY 10016, USA; leonardo.trasande{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

A chemical industry consultant with a competing interest (Bond) and his collaborator (Dietrich) dismiss over 20 cross-sectional studies and at least 7 prospective studies that have found links between persistent organic pollutants and diabetes. In this comment, they also ask for experimental studies supporting the view that environmental contaminants could affect glucose tolerance, neglecting more than a dozen of experimental in vivo and in vitro studies (see Ngwa et al 1 for references).

These authors also fail to acknowledge the carefully described reports from the Prospective Investigation of the Vasculature in Uppsala Seniors (PIVUS) study. Our brief report2 recently published in this journal advances knowledge …

View Full Text


  • Twitter Follow Leonardo Trasande @leotrasande

  • Contributors LL wrote the first draft with PML. LT substantially revised and amplified the response, in consultation with EL.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.