Search results

One of the many problems with academia is that it allows nutcases to flourish.

Last week a study reported that according to a meta-analysis, cannabis was no better than a placebo in the treatment of pain. As you would expect, that study generated some headlines, but almost uniformly, the media buried the last paragraphs about their role in generating expectations.

A few weeks ago, the world of organic food proponents was rocked by new research that organic food was not any more nutritious than conventionally-grown food. Consumers have long been interested in knowing if the extra money they have been shelling out for organic food is justified and the subject, therefore, is of much interest.
A Little Bit of Background

Fred Singer was an impressive scientist with a great list of achievements. He will be missed.

Last December, Hawaii County passed a bill that banned biotech companies from the Big Island and prohibited all new genetically modified crops.

The glyphosate scandal involving the International Agency for Research on Cancer has severely – and perhaps irreparably – damaged the reputation of the World Health Organization. Sixteen scientists contacted by Reuters refused to answer any questions about the glyphosate document. That's not how science operates; that's how Fight Club operates.

Scientific progress is built on experiments, data, research, and constant questioning. While fraud is not a new issue, big data and Artificial Intelligence present challenges that dramatically increase the risk of fraud. New tools need to be developed to identify and reduce scientific fraud. Without them, the foundation of the scientific process is at risk.

There seems to be a reproducibility “crisis” in the sciences, where the results obtained by one group of researchers cannot be reproduced by another, putting the validity of the original work in doubt. What is the fate of those papers? Do they languish in some academic backwater hell lining birdcages?

New York Times journalist Eric Lipton, who defended the indefensible by offering support to a group of virulent anti-vaxxers and scam artists known as Moms Across America, is a scourge on public health. The national newspaper recently demoted Jonathan Weisman, a deputy editor based in Washington, DC, for displaying poor judgment. Lipton should face the same fate.

Advisers in the news, and we are everywhere.

Far too many scientific papers are being retracted from prestigious scientific journals because scientists fabricated or falsified data. Although no one defends scientific fraud, few recognize its long-lasting impacts on governmental policy and society.

Rewind to the year 1984 when the EPA first announced that Alar, a plant growth regulator (NOT a pesticide), caused cancer in animals. Now fast-forward five years to 1989, the year that the agency proposed banning this chemical based on what the EPA perceived to be an unacceptably high cancer risk to humans as well. The decision may have had something to do with a 60 Minutes special that ran at the exact same time and was successful in scaring 50 million Americans about the alleged dangers of Alar.

Some activists are claiming that a "cocktail" of harmless chemicals is somehow doing something greater than the individual harmless chemicals can. These people don't just deny chemistry, toxicology and biology. They deny simple arithmetic.

A new paper throws every journalism clickbait notion into one epidemiological claim. Take a look.

A recent meta-analysis concluded, counterintuitively, that e-cigarettes might actually increase smoking instead of reducing it. How could that be? Dr. Stan Young, a ACSH Scientific Advisory Panel member, details how a meta-analysis works, and how it is so often misused.

Unclear Fate of Biologics

If I told you that I knew how to find the cause of childhood leukemia, you might think I was either a genius or Erin Brockovich. If I further told you that we could attribute this cruel disease to products of multinational chemical corporations, companies that do millions of dollars of business with the U.S. Navy, or to underground nuclear tests, you might refer me to some eager lawyers.

Much of the literature in the softer sciences, and here we need to include studies of public health issues, like nutrition, exercise, or even COVID-19, seem irreproducible. One group's work does not seem to be easily reproduced by another, giving rise to concerns about bias and veracity. As always, there is far more to the story.

Lost in the noise of all the medical stories is the issue of bacterial resistance. Although it's not a sexy topic, it's almost certainly more important than anything in the news, as PBS showed by broadcasting its sobering series "Stopping Superbugs."

As drugs continue to be taken for longer periods of time, unexpected complications may arise that were absent from short-term clinical trials.

This piece first appeared in the Washington Times.

The media continue to feature nonsensical statements about health, probably because health issues sell, and the editors lack appropriate scientific judgment.

As the anti-vaccine movement garnered Hollywood momentum, science stood largely silent. However, Dr. Paul Offit, inventor of the Rotavirus vaccine, took to the helm to fight for children's health and safety. Here's an informative conversation with a true expert in the field. 

There is a lot of malicious misinformation on the internet about glyphosate. Much of it comes from academia.

This piece first appeared on the site Daily Caller.
While there may be a few valid illness claims buried among the 10,000 or so cases in the big 9/11 lawsuit now approaching trial, the overwhelming majority clearly relies on junk science. Sadly, there s a whole industry set up to supply that junk -- funded by lawyers eager to fuel such lawsuits, staffed by researchers eager to push bizarre theories, and promoted by ignorant reporters and politicians.