Search results

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.)

Only half of Americans and few scientists believe in alternative medicine, but we're all paying to study it.

From a relatively small $2 million per year operation in 1992, called the Office of Alternative Medicine, a behemoth has grown now known as NCCAM, the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Its funding has grown even more rapidly than the popularity of alternative medicine has and is now soaring over $100 million a year.

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

This piece first appeared in the Washington Times.

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. 

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:

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!

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.

1. Nutella scare redux. After we criticized the EU food safety in USA Today for its badly-reasoned claim that nutella was going to give people cancer, they have promised to reexamine palm oil health risks.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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."

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.

It's no surprise when an activist group trots out a lone, non-peer-reviewed study in an effort to bolster its case, but you would think that government regulations rest on a stronger scientific foundation. Guess again.

Peer review is a failure
Methane rising
The Trolley Problem has multicultural answers
Heating with Nukes

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.

Once upon a time, science communication was a niche hobby, reserved for the rare few who could translate lab jargon into something the public might understand. Carl Sagan made it look easy, but most scientists saw public engagement as either career suicide or an activity best left to journalists. Fast-forward to 2025, and science communicators, now "sci-fluencers," are everywhere.

Consumer Reports (CR) promotes itself as an unbiased source of a wide variety of product ratings. It also publishes Should I Eat This? Simple ways to know what to eat and what to avoid. I recently received the updated 4th edition. Let's see how much of the content we should swallow.

Caveat Emptor. Consumers and Journalists beware-Biodevastation activists aim to target you over the next few days with false and misleading information about food safety, nutrition and the environment. The same people who brought you a long list of other false health and environmental scares-including the infamous Alar in apples scare, the Dow-Corning breast implant campaign-and dozens of other debunked fears are at it again. This time the scaremongers are targeting such safe foods as milk and other dairy products in your local supermarket and at food retail outlets such as Starbucks.

Earlier this week, the New York Times editorial page opined about the effectiveness of banning smoking in public places as a means of cutting down heart disease risk. Citing a very small, six-month study of heart attack admissions to a hospital in Helena, Montana, the Times editors concluded that "a six-month ban on smoking in public places...appears to have sharply reduced the number of heart attacks."

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