Tooth Fairy science is the study of a phenomenon before having actually demonstrated that the phenomenon actually exists. I can't think of a better example than trying to construct an elaborate mapping system of body parts and organs to the surface of the external ear for purposes of sticking needles in them to heal and relieve pain (auricular acupuncture). Yet that's what's just been published.
Paul Davies is a physicist turned Brave Maverick Cancer Researcher who thinks that, as an outsider, he's had an insight to the origin of cancer. The problem is that his "insight" is 100 years old. Scientists rejected it long ago because it doesn't fit with the evidence and produces no promising strategies to improve cancer care. Naturally, Davies cries "Big pharma!"
Ten years ago, I liked to make fun of a pudgy, middle-aged guy named Bill Nelson, not because he was pudgy and middle-aged (which is increasingly describing me), but rather because he used to sell some serious quantum energy quackery known as the Quantum Xrroid Consciousness Interface. Little did I know then that Nelson was ahead of his time and all that he really needed was a celebrity endorsement and a company selling his products using beautiful scantily clad models using his products.
In less than two weeks, the Trump administration will have passed that magical "first 100 days" marker. Let's check in and see how Donald Trump is shaping federal biomedical policy thus far. Hint: It's deregulation über alles.
Just because people think that sticking needles into their meridians will somehow unblock their qi and fix whatever ails them doesn't mean it's OK to inflict the same nonsense on our pets. Unfortunately, a local TV station disagrees.
Quacks love to invoke experts who made predictions that turned out to be wrong or point to Galileo or Semmelweis as examples of scientists whose findings were rejected by the scientific or medical establishment of the time, as though poor prediction or rejection by the establishment means there must be something to their science. Guess what? As Michael Shermer put it, heresy does not equal correctness.
When you're in an exam room with a patient, sometimes you're forced to contemplate uncomfortable questions.
The impetus for the creation of this blog, lo these 12+ years ago, was growing alarm at the rising tide of pseudoscience then, such as quackery, antivaccine misinformation, creationism, Holocaust denial, and many other forms of attacks on science, history, and reality itself. I had cut my teeth on deconstructing such antiscience and pseudoscience on Usenet, that vast, unfiltered, poorly organized mass of discussion forums that had been big in the 1990s but were dying by 12 years ago, having turned into a mass of spam, trolls, and incoherence. So I wanted to do my little part (and I’m under …
One of the overarching themes of this blog, if not the overarching theme, is to expose and combat the infiltration of quackery into medicine. What I’m referring to, of course, is the phenomenon that’s risen over the last 25 years or so in which various pseudoscientific alternative medicine therapies (but I repeat myself) have found increasing acceptance, thanks largely to a major lack of critical thinking skills among both patients and, worse, the physicians who have embraced modalities such as acupuncture, naturopathy, chiropractic, and the like. In fairness, it’s not just a lack of critical thinking skills, but rather a …
All of the candidates being considered by President Trump for FDA Commissioner believe that the FDA is too strict in its standards for approving new drugs. In a commentary in Nature last week, two bioethicists argued that, at least in terms of preclinical data, the standard of evidence is actually too low. Which is correct?