Earlier this month, a study claiming to have identified a neurologic mechanism by which acupuncture reduces inflammation was published in Nature. It does no such thing. it’s another bait-and-switch mouse study that likely would never have been published in such a high profile journal if it hadn’t rebranded electrical stimulation as “electroacupuncture”.
Nature recently published a survey showing how common online and other attacks on scientists trying to communicate science-based information are. The hatred is nothing new. What’s new are COVID-19 and social media.
Ivermectin is the new hydroxychloroquine, a drug repurposed for COVID-19 that almost certainly doesn’t work but is still being touted as a “miracle cure” by quacks, grifters, and political ideologues. Are the data supporting it all fraudulent and/or biased? The answer, increasingly, appears to be yes.
A month after a BMJ article linking the Great Barrington Declaration to the right wing think tank AIER, the two are attacking the authors of the BMJ piece and denying any payment or even connection. Why?
A longtime favorite technique of antivaxxers has been to do bad ecological studies to imply that vaccines cause harm. Why is a Harvard investigator inadvertently using the ecological fallacy the same way antivaxxers used to do before COVID-19?
