Search results

A recent report in the journal Lancet, titled "Dementia prevention, intervention, and care," raised the prospect that there might be evidence that older folks can improve both their hearing while reducing their risk of Alzheimer's. But it's with a heavy heart that we say that the hype far exceeded the knowledge.

All arguments are fair game as for whether Dr. Ben Carson is the right (or wrong) person to be Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. But don't tell us a brain surgeon only possesses the skills to be a brain surgeon.

Are you failing to get enough jellyfish in your diet? If so, you better hurry out and get some supplemental jellyfish, because ... well, just because. The company that sells the useless junk claims that it will improve your memory. But they obviously forgot to run clinical trials to prove it.

The government of Brazil has recently announced its intention to begin copying a patented AIDS drug, earning it the dubious distinction of becoming the first county to break a patent on an antiretroviral medication. The move has appealed to the Robin Hood in many journalists, who are praising the step as a victory for public health over the pharmaceutical company villains. But there is much more to the story than simply robbing from the rich and giving to the needy Brazilians.

Tragedies are great teachers, but unfortunately too many people draw the wrong lessons from them. Not too long ago, major tragedies were interpreted as some form of divine retribution for our sins. Now, geology (plate tectonics and volcanology), meteorology, other sciences offer hope for preventative and ameliorative actions.

Rare diseases are becoming the focus of more and more biomedical research. And the cost of developing medicines to treat them takes center stage in the discussion. A new article in JAMA concludes that clinical trials for rare diseases should cost less than those that require a larger number of patients. But it's not that simple. Pfizer's Dr. Robert Popvian explains.

The "activist-legal" complex is real. One of the lead plaintiffs' attorneys, Timothy Litzenburg, was arrested for the attempted extortion of $200 million from a company involved in the production of Monsanto's Roundup. This same attorney collaborates with Carey Gillam and her anti-GMO organization U.S. Right to Know.

In case you're keeping count, the science portion of this year's Nobel Prizes was given to nine scientists, seven of whom are American.

When negative reviews of their then-major product appeared in the Journal of the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), the manufacturer claimed trade libel and sued. And lost. The basis for the Court’s decision revolved around the constitutional right of free speech of the researchers and editor. The Court got the decision right – but for the wrong reason. Does it matter?

Facebook, a site from which a substantial number of people acquire their daily news, has decided that pages that post fake stories will be banned from advertising. That's a perfectly fine decision, but it raises a bigger and more profound question: Who decides which news is fake? Mark Zuckerberg?

Why are there so many scary stories about common foods and products causing cancer? An excellent blog-essay explains quite a lot about how science (or science-y) journalism works. It may confuse or scare you, but not as much as the so-called research does.

Last time, we discussed head transplants and how philosophers are gearing up to address the ethical implications. Many pages and scholarly brain waves were spent in the Journal of Medicine and Philosophy: A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine. What use were these ruminations? Are they valid considerations, even if the basic scientific premise is faulty? Or is this another example of asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? More importantly, what does this tell us about our capacity to resolve complex bioethical issues around new biotech?

DISPATCH 6/20/08: Natural, Biotech, Asthmatic, Clustered, Immune

The prevalence of cigarette smoking among American adults is at an all-time low. Many media outlets decided to downplay or ignore this milestone public health achievement and instead scare people about vaping.

In case you've been waiting around for a really stupid article, your wait is over. And a gratuitous shot at Dr. Alex Berezow. Just for the hell of it. Happy holidays!

By treating risky behavior like a communicable disease, the public health establishment invites government to meddle in our private lives.

A commentary by Linda Gasparello in White House Weekly on February 2, 2005, described ACSH's release of our book America's War on "Carcinogens": Reassessing The Use of Animal Tests to Predict Human Cancer Risk:

For your consideration this time 'round: An American woodworker ... the neurology of being in "the flow" ... a guide to reading in the tsunami of information and misinformation ... and a consideration of whether cells "think."

Science rests on data, of that there can be no doubt. But peer through the hot haze of hype surrounding the use of big data in biology, and you will see plenty of cold facts that suggest we need fresh thinking if we are to turn the swelling ocean of “omes” – genomes, proteomes and transcriptomes – into new drugs and treatments.

A pair of misleading health directive headlines, one in Tme Magazine, the other in The Daily Mail, play up the findings of a less-than-rigorous study published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine that failed to make a strong case for associating athletic activities and participation with lifespan.

Today's scientific discoveries take teams, and long times to come to fruition. And there seem to be fewer "aha" moments. Is it because we’ve found all the low-hanging fruit? Or were the words of Albert Michaelson, America's first Noble Prize winner in physics, correct? "The more important fundamental laws and facts of physical science,” he said, “have all been discovered." Or, even still, have we unintentionally distorted the marketplace of ideas?

A whopping 62% of Americans are afraid to share some of their political views because somebody might be offended. As we all know now, if you offend somebody, you can lose your job and have your life destroyed. Michael Shellenberger, a prominent environmentalist who believes that climate alarmism is misguided, is feeling the fury of the mob.

A recent study says negative news coverage of statin drugs makes some patients discontinue their use, subsequently producing more heart attacks (and death) as a result. But, one of the authors was paid by the drug maker as a consultant. Does this automatically nullify the study? Or, is there something else going on?

Let’s play Unintended consequences
Reassessing the Luddites
Aging and Martin Scorsese
Lie, mistruth, or editing?

Scare-mongering anti-chemical activist groups have pressured the FDA into calling for more stringent oversight of the cosmetics industry. But there is no basis for this concern, and the FDA has many more urgent and important issues on their crowded plate than this nonsense.