Search results

Scientists are generally regarded as ethical and honest – the polar opposite of politicians. But there's a disturbing trend taking place in the scientific community: retracted papers, often due to fraud. This one, which appeared in the journal Science, focuses on harm to fish from tiny plastic particles. It is a doozy.

In 1972, the National Academy of Sciences asked me to investigate the persistence of Agent Orange and other defoliants used during the Vietnam War. For seven months, I walked in the chemical in my bare feet. Now at age 83, the bottom line is that I am a very healthy guinea pig after huge and nearly continuous exposure to herbicides.

Science has its Napster. "Sci-Hub, a Pirate Bay-like site for the science nerd. It's a portal that offers free and searchable access ‘to most publishers, especially well-known ones.'   and may incite a similar type of disruption "... For those who ...choose to pirate a paper instead, ask yourself whether it is worth risking the viability of a system..." 

There are plenty of reasons for skepticism about medical studies. Some are poorly designed or performed, and some conclusions are totally implausible. In addition, some interpretations of them are intentionally misleading, and some studies need not have been done at all.

Have you started your Christmas and/or holiday shopping? If you're like us, you're putting it off to the last minute – because you're too busy with other things. Here at ACSH, we've been busy telling the world about science. Here's where we've appeared recently.

The ability of masks, especially high-quality ones, to prevent the transmission of respiratory infections, including COVID-19, is incontrovertible, but some commentators have come unglued on the subject.

In a recent documentary, the religion scholar ate a small piece of human brains. That was inadvisable. Given the choice of good journalism or sensationalism, Dr. Aslan chose the latter. And from a health standpoint the decision carried risks.

If you believe the hype that the Organic Consumers Association puts out, you believe that organic foods are better for you than the conventionally raised variety. And you likely also believe that animals raised in line with organic principles are also treated more humanely. Oops!

There are naysayers who want to eliminate or otherwise "dethrone" the Nobel Prizes. Why? Sexism and racism, of course.

With "The Real Opioid Crisis in Three Charts," a patient advocacy group has briefed senior FDA officials on major changes needed in public health policy for the regulation of prescription opioid pain relievers, and doctors who prescribe them. Perhaps now someone is truly listening to people in pain.

Natural News founder Mike Adams claims the US government has launched a five-phase campaign to force vaccines on American citizens. This is false, of course, but the bigger problem is that Adams is drawing attention away from real problems we need to solve before we face another pandemic.

Agricultural literacy is at a low level in the land of plenty. There may be a law that dictates an inverse relationship between abundance and knowledge about the source of the abundance. We do not burden ourselves with factual information about that which we take for granted, namely, food, health, and a comfortable life in a non-threatening world. As long as the fridge is full, the car always starts, and the TV keeps entertaining, why bother to know what makes all that happen?

Notes From Dr. Miller

Could cocoa extract or a multivitamin slow the onset of dementia? A new randomized placebo-controlled study offers some hope. (Spoiler alert: Eating a chocolate bar a day will not keep dementia away.)

As COVID-19 cases drop and immunization rates rise, Americans are proving the media's glass-half-empty predictions about vaccine hesitancy mostly false. It turns out that people don't like getting sick, and they'll take steps to protect themselves when given the tools to do so.

"Follow the money!" activists shout. The money trail, according to this logic, always leads to lies and deception.
This puerile fallacy, argumentum ad aurum, is just a thinly disguised ad hominem attack commonly used against scientists. Instead of criticizing the quality or conclusions of the research, activists instead assault the integrity of the scientist.

While Gary Hirshberg is a marketing genius, in a #MeToo world even those on his side of the political spectrum have been calling Stonyfield out for sexism. The vitriol stems from its newest anti-science commercial, one that features little girls – and the message that girls can't understand science.

The national media is alive with the report; coffee intake is good for you! And evidently, the more the better. The data, of course, is a bit more – shall we say – nuanced.

These are good times for those who grow and sell organic foods. But there may be trouble in paradise.

The media likes to compare COVID-19 outcomes in different states based on carefully selected metrics. A closer look indicates that these match-ups are less compelling than reporters think. This has consequences for the public's trust in science.

It's long been known in the United States that anti-vaccine sentiment comes down along political lines the same way climate change does. Anti-vaccine sentiment also correlates strongly with anti-agriculture and anti-energy beliefs. But the rationalization among most journalists who didn't want to recognize such uncomfortable truths was that as long as their political elites were not saying it, it didn't count.(1)

In the age of "Facebook science," the weight of evidence must compete with powerful popular narratives. Can common sense help? Let's take a look.

1. Conspiracy Fantasy Camp

This past month, Stanford Medicine posted the following press release headline: “A Stanford Medicine-led trial of identical twins comparing vegan and omnivore diets found that a vegan diet improves overall cardiovascular health.”