What is happening

‘Imagine studying medicine for five years, gaining post-graduate qualifications, publishing high-quality peer-reviewed papers only for a celebrity to tell you to go and do your research'.

Words encapsulated on a meme I saw over the weekend prior to writing this editorial. If only it wasn't so serious.

When did parts of the public stop listening to experts? When did ‘do your own research' become an acceptable stance when postulating and deciding upon your own position? The pandemic brought it into focus, but data show vaccine uptake was already on the wane - it simply served to turbocharge that decline.

© Mixmike/E+/Getty Images Plus

Such folly positions make a mockery of the expertise, dedication and knowledge the scientific community accrues and brings. American scientists are being ostracised for their work and positions which are counter-intuitive to that of the administration's views, with some leading journals being labelled as ‘woke' and ‘corrupt' by government officials. Water fluoridation, COVID-19, vaccines, autism - one imagines the manufacturers of Tylenol are currently flicking through real estate brochures for properties in Beverly Hills in anticipation of winning any lawsuit they will surely bring - have all been targeted, and all without a shred of evidence. Bravo to the British Dental Association calling out such nonsense on social media, saying:

‘At the BDA we want to see patients benefit from safe, effective, evidence-based treatment.

‘Powerful people wielding conspiracy theories will not change a clear scientific consensus.

‘We are pleased to share this reminder that taking paracetamol during pregnancy remains safe and there is no evidence it causes autism in children.'

‘Ah that's an American problem', I have read in some quarters of social media. It is true the above issues are all live ones within the US right now, but these underlying tones and elements are creeping into our conscious closer to home.

Take the ‘paracetamol during pregnancy' nonsense. One UK politician refused to criticise the noises from America. ‘Ah but it's only one' - that's not the point. It fuels the fire of those who believe they know better than scientists. Water fluoridation is another. When I first started in dentistry back in 2011, Southampton's will it-will it not fluoridation was a hot topic. I recall vividly the amount of bonkers claims and accusations the anti-fluoride brigade made wondering what on earth I'd gotten myself in to. ‘You're killing babies with rat poison!' was a particular claim I cannot un-forget - what on earth was happening, I thought.

Even closer to home, dentistry is not immune. I have heard too many young practitioners tell me they don't read the BDJ because they get their information from TikTok and Instagram. These may be a small number of practitioners, but they're practitioners nonetheless. They're treating patients. If all you need is to check out reels to be a practitioner then I'm all ears. What's the worst that can happen?

This slow march away from scientific, evidence-based approaches and decisions should alarm all of us. I often discuss claims and references with authors; ‘where did you get that statistic?' and ‘where is that claim from?' are two classics of its genre. The premise of the entire healthcare community for the benefit of patient safety is clear: if you cannot back it up with an evidence-based approach that has gone through rigorous peer review, keep it to yourself. That premise, like an old Roman fort, is crumbling, and we're now faced with talk show hosts questioning science based on what they're read on Facebook.

The question is how does - or how should - science respond? Old methods clearly are not sufficient - if they were no-one would be making up links between paracetamol usage in pregnancy and autism. Vaccination uptake is dwindling and diseases once confined to the past have reappeared because mums are being told jabs will cause their babies harm. And while one sympathises with a mother's maternal instinct to protect their child, surely protecting them from serious harm and death is slightly more appropriate?

Dealing with such standpoints requires a serious discussion that needs to take place within the scientific - and dental - community sooner rather than later. If dentistry finds itself treading a path of non-evidence based approaches, it will find itself in serious trouble. ◆