Litigation-related Research

The article by Madison et al. (1) contains major omissions, errors, and mis-statements which we feel compelled to bring to your attention. First and foremost is the authors' failure to mention the source of their funding. This study was funded by lawyers for approximately 70 persons (including all 42 of the "exposed subjects") (2). Rather than being merely passive financiers of the study, the lawyers were actively involved in the design and administration of this study, thus seriously compromising the scientific value. As a result, Madison et al. failed to make any attempt to adjust for the many biases such as self-selection and financial gain. Many other persons were also in the Crown Point area at the time of the release and met the author's loose definition of "exposed." Such persons were never contacted to determine their health status (and hence, whether "expo-sure" or litigation was the more important factor). The Cooper Landing "con-trol" group was equally biased, but in the opposite direction, i.e., this group was significantly healthier than the Cooper Landing community as a whole. Of 600 surveys mailed to the residents of Cooper Landing, only 30 were initially returned (3). Eventually, 65 persons completed surveys, but only 29 showed up to have blood samples drawn (4). The authors failed to mention that they performed a follow-up on nonrespon-dents in the Cooper Landing area to determine if the volunteers they used were significantly healthier than the population at large (5). This follow-up survey clearly demonstrated that the 29 Cooper Landing volunteers were not at all representative of the Cooper Landing community. A number of the non-respondents had conditions that Broughton has stated previously affect Tal levels and auto-antibodies (6). Other major differences also existed between the exposed subjects and the control group. The Cooper Landing controls were significantly older, did not contain a single child (versus 15 children in the "exposed" group), and the formaldehyde antibodies of the control group were measured with a different microtiter reader than was used for the exposed subjects (7). The questionnaires and blood were obtained from the control group during a short period of time during the summer of 1989, whereas the questionnaires and the respiratory infections are more prevalent (8). Different questionnaires were administered via different methods to the two groups. Most of the flaws and inadequacies in the design and administration of the study can be attributed to the rather …