Search results

Is there an "epidemic" of autism? Are vaccinations or dental fillings to blame?
Lately the media has loudly featured, with more noise than facts, the increase in reported cases of autism and the unproved allegation that the mercury derivatives in some vaccines and dental fillings have caused this increase.
We seek ways to improve the condition of those with autism, but enthusiasm mustn't imperil sound science. Wrong answers can make things worse, wasting time and squandering resources.

I recently gave a speech about cigarettes to a libertarian discussion group called the Junto here in New York City. I had expected the conversation to pivot on the question of free will not only do libertarians defend the legal right to smoke, many scoff at the idea of addiction, since each individual must ultimately be held accountable for his own decisions, healthy or unhealthy.

Recently, Xiaorui Zhang, World Health Organization (WHO) coordinator on traditional medicine policy, noted the difficulty in conducting clinical trials of herbal remedies because of two factors: first, participants can detect a difference in taste between the placebo and the herbal therapy; second, quality control is difficult since many of the herbal products contain multiple ingredients, making it tough to determine which chemicals are responsible for any health outcomes. She added: "Western medicine came to China about a hundred years ago.

For decades, Americans have relied on the American Lung Association (ALA) for reliable information on respiratory health. But in its recent "State of the Air 2002" report, ALA vastly exaggerates air pollution levels and misleads people into believing air pollution is getting worse, when in fact it has been improving for at least twenty years.

As I learned one day at an alternative medicine expo, pseudo-scientific health remedies come in all forms: animal, vegetable, and mineral literally. Let's take them in reverse order.
Mineral: Healing with Crystals

To the Editor:
At last the truth about water consumption is starting to leak out (Why You're Drinking too Much Water; 5/23/02)! I suspect the exaggeration of the amount of water a person ought to drink each day to stay healthy may have come about through careless transformations of the scientifically valid daily fluid requirement into a daily water requirement.The "fluid" humans require is, of course, water, which can be found in abundance in foods such as milk, juices, fruits, and vegetables, thus decreasing the amount of plain water required.

A low-fact diet can be dangerous. Have you heard that chips, fries, and even bread can give you cancer? This "fact" has been widely reported, even though it's essentially untrue.

Every year over 1.5 million adults choose to have some type of vision correction surgery to rid themselves of glasses and/or contact lens dependence. The most popular of these surgeries is LASIK. While glasses and contacts correct a person's eyes with a prescription, LASIK uses a laser to put the prescription directly on a person's cornea the front, clear portion of the eye. The LASIK procedure can correct relatively high degrees of nearsightedness and astigmatism as well as farsightedness.

It is that time of the year: parties, presents, family gatherings - and dining-room tables laden with a tempting array of mouthwatering, delicious, seasonal chemicals.
Chemicals? Yes.
We live in an intensely chemical-phobic society, one where food labels and menus brag of being "all-natural" and "purely organic." Poultry sections offer fryers from "happy, free range chickens." "Chemical-free" cuisine is in.

How in the world did so many people get so fearful of the very science and technology that have lifted humanity out of malaria and mud huts? That's the fundamental question asked and discussed at length in the new book by ACSH's Thomas DeGregori, Origins of The Organic Agriculture Debate.

When does it become fair to say that offbeat, unscientific ideas are not just harmless intellectual errors but dangerous? Well, to take a few examples, maybe...

when a trainer at hip Crunch Gym, according to a lawsuit, gives a woman with high blood pressure supplements that were meant to enhance her performance but instead caused a stroke (one of several cases prompting recent regulatory action against ephedra)...

Morgan Spurlock wanted to be in a movie. And he was in a movie one he made himself which he then presented to the world at the 2004 Sundance Film Festival. The subject of the movie was the fattening of Morgan himself he managed to gain 25 pounds in a month by overeating at McDonald's restaurants. The name of his documentary, "Supersize Me," should serve as a warning to the rest of us that eating too much will make us fat (which we might have heard before).

Morgan Spurlock, the moviemaker whose claim to fame is that he ate his way to obesity at McDonald's, seems to have padded his ego in addition to his midsection. In an interview with The Today Show's Katie Couric, Mr. Spurlock said, in part "I think that this film had a tremendous impact on their decision to eliminate supersized portions." Leaving egos aside for a moment, Mr. Spurlock is basically exhibiting his ignorance of the world of food service. Any change, whether in portion size or in menu choices, takes months of planning and figuring of costs and procedures.

The animal rights radicals who used Dr. Atkins' private medical records to out him as a fat guy, the PETA-affiliated Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, don't really care about human diets too much. They just want to make sure animals are not part of those diets. But animal rights are a tough sell, so PCRM feigns concern over the deadly dangers of meat consumption instead.

A recent Associated Press story by David Ho reported that BioPulse, Inc. and BioPulse International, Inc. have settled federal charges with the Federal Trade Commission regarding how they marketed alternative therapies such as insulin-induced hypoglycemic treatment (IHT), which has been used to "treat" cancer.

Editor's note: Tiki the Eco-Penguin's website has been updated since Andrew Apel wrote this article criticizing him for ACSH two years ago, but Tiki, alas, is still online and Apel's criticisms are still insightful.

Just as the Stonewall riots of 1969 are remembered as the start of the gay rights movement, so too will July 27, 2002 be remembered as the start of New York City's smokers' rights movement.
At least, that was the plan of the group NYC C.L.A.S.H. (NYC Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment) as they organized a petition drive against proposed New York City laws that would banish smokers from restaurants and even bars a petition drive launched on the site of the pro-gay rights Stonewall riots.

The September 4, 2002 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine has both good and bad news for the health of American women and girls. One article (the good news) presents the results of a study on post-menopausal women showing that regular physical activity diminishes the risk of heart disease. The bad news is that a second article in the same issue reports that as girls advance from childhood to mid-adolescence, their levels of physical activity drop precipitously. This pattern does not bode well for their health.

"I'm OK with it, but it'll be a drag if I don't make it until the next James Bond movie comes out."

Warren Zevon, fifty-five year-old singer of "Werewolves of London," on being diagnosed with terminal lung cancer, as reported September 12 by Associated Press, which did not mention Zevon's smoking, and Reuters, which did.

That's the finding of the recently-completed study "Electromagnetic Fields and Breast Cancer on Long Island: A Case Control Study," published in the American Journal of Epidemiology. The study, part of the ten-year Long Island Breast Cancer Study Project (LIBCSP), is the latest study to come from the project that fails to show a correlation between a perceived environmental risk factor and an actual increased risk for breast cancer. Previous studies discovered no significant association between breast cancer development and exposure to PCBs or to organochlorines found in pesticide.

This summer saw the comic book character the Incredible Hulk turned into a so-so movie. It strikes me that the beloved gamma-irradiated behemoth combines two common but false fears about biology: (1) that radiation causes completely unpredictable, bizarre transformations and (2) that extra body mass can somehow materialize without any extra mass being consumed by the body.

Suppose your gracious new neighbor took you aside one day and quietly warned that serving non-organic fruits and vegetables to your family was endangering your kids' health. Suppose she offered a professional-looking "index of danger" showing your supermarket's peaches, apples, spinach, celery, and potatoes were all too dangerous to eat. You'd probably be devastated.

You've heard that quote, "The trouble is not what we know, it's what we know that isn't so?"
Well, one of the things I do at the Reason Public Policy Institute is argue for safety, health, and environmental policy that is rooted in the sound use of science, and more often than not "what we don't know" is glossed over in favor of unsupportable statements of certainty. Time after time, we hear that this policy or that policy is based on "sound science," and that the "debate over the science is done, now it's time to implement!" But it's virtually never that simple.