Search results

To kick off our new interview series Making the Rounds, we invited surgical oncologist Dr. Ogori Kalu to our New York office for a Facebook Live video streaming session to help educate the public on breast cancer prevention. Take a few minutes to learn about the discredited myths, and to watch the interesting round-table discussion with this Stanford-educated doctor.

Vice News endorses all the currently fashionable opinions—including activist bromides about modern agriculture. The magazine recently took exception to children's books meant to teach elementary-school students about pesticides. I take exception to Vice's sorry excuse for science reporting.

Orphan crops, private equity and the closure of Hahnemann Hospital, a for-profit medical school?, and how to understand the contradictions of science.

Here's a dirty secret you might not be aware of: Scientists get grants because of work they have already done. Instead of being lured by money, Professor Stare, the founder of Harvard's Department of Nutrition, was a co-author on Panic In The Pantry in 1976, precisely because he saw the discourse had been hijacked by groups out to scare people about food.

The prestigious school is growing its list of misguided "experts" while thoroughly undermining its great reputation. Columbia's latest hire is former New York Times food writer Mark Bittman, who calls biotechnology "overrated" while endorsing the mandatory labeling of GMOs, a policy rejected by every major mainstream medical and scientific organization in America.

In addition to voting for president, this election season residents of California will be determining the fate of Proposition 37, which would mandate the labeling of foods that contain genetically engineered ingredients.

Starting next month, many grocery store products will have to carry the USDA's bioengineered ("GMO" in the vernacular) food labels. Here's what you should know about this pointless, costly regulation.

The announcement that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was chosen to possibly be the next head of HHS raises many questions about his suitability for the job, especially given some of his controversial beliefs. Here are a dozen questions I would ask Mr. Kennedy.

The Washington Post and an investigative journalism outlet called The Examination have partnered to investigate nutrition influencers on social media. Their investigation is ongoing, so we can expect more from them. While I think this work is important, I believe some red flags in this investigation are worthy of discussion.

Yesterday, we reported on Dr. Paul Offit s dead-on op-ed in the New York Times, where he thoroughly decimated the concept that there is a fundamental conflict between religion and modern medicine, specifically vaccination.

Did you know we can characterize people at high risk for pubic hair grooming injuries? You know you're curious as to what medical science can tell you. 

The Center for Science in the Public Interest, an activist group known for nuisance lawsuits related to health issues and scaremongering just about every food in the modern world, wants the Department of Agriculture to put warning labels on bacon. Yes, bacon.

Researchers at Harvard's Belfer Center scoured the globe for whatever was publicly available on North Korea's biological weapons program. Referencing news articles, journal papers, expert interviews and government reports, the team assembled a comprehensive study of the knowns and unknowns. Here are the main findings.

A recent report stated that placebo treatments for pain can be effective even when patients know that it’s a placebo. On closer examination, however, this became somewhat less newsworthy. It has all the classic hallmarks of a fluke result that's partly the result of the statistics used, and partly over-interpretation of fairly modest results.

We were pleased to see that we're getting picked up by various media outlets, and in those across the political spectrum.

If you remember 1982, at that time AIDS was a death sentence – and a gruesome one at that. But a recent Lancet paper shows how far we've come. And the difference between what Randy Shilts describes in his book and today is nothing short of miraculous. 

New York, NY -- November 8, 2005. The American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) presented Dr. Michael Crichton with the 2005 Sound Science Award for his defense of sound scientific principles and critiques of junk science. The ceremony and luncheon, which took place at the Union League Club in Manhattan on Friday, November 4th, drew an impressive crowd and featured remarks from such prominent individuals as ABC News's John Stossel and former White House Chief Counsel, the Honorable C. Boyden Gray, in addition to the guest of honor.

A legal document in California suggests the American Council is why $1 billion in environmental fundraising is failing to convince Americans their food is unsafe. Our president is too modest to agree – but it's a terrific compliment.

How can we move scientific research in directions that are felt to be "socially optimal"? While there is no stick to get science redirected, government funding can supply the carrot. How big a carrot is needed? That depends. Let's take a look.

Carey Gillam is a well-known anti-GMO activist who rejects the scientific consensus, regularly reports easily provable lies, and works for an organization that gets most of its money from 9/11 truthers.

How profound. This concept, from the preeminent Harvard scientist and noted optimist, is worth examining in the context of biotechnology.

In a bid to bolster their flagging anti-biotech agenda, several high-profile activist groups have bizarrely joined the chorus of voices suggesting that SARS-CoV-2 escaped from a lab. The science community needs to make clear that wherever the virus came from, its beginnings do not undermine the safety or efficacy of important biotechnology innovations in food and medicine.

YouTube announced last week that it's banning a number of high-profile anti-vaccine activists from its platform. The policy shift is meant to stem the spread of misinformation, but it raises some troubling questions. Most important among them: is more censorship worth the cost it imposes on society?

A cogent opinion piece in The Times of London exposes the fallacy of the EU s precautionary ban of a safe and effective class of pesticides known as neonicotinoids. Their ban is not based on actual evidence, but rather politics and agenda.