Science is the most effective means of determining medical treatments that work and whose benefits outweigh their risks. Those who promote pseudoscientific or prescientific medicine, however, frequently appeal to other ways of knowing, often ancient ways of knowing from other cultures, and pointing out deficiencies in SBM to justify promoting their treatments. Do their justifications hold water?
Orac loves to bask in the adulation of his “fans.” This time around, one of the old men of quackery, Gary Null, has decided that he really, really doesn’t like science-based medicine. That includes Steve Novella, Susan Gerbic, and…Orac.
Homeopathy is The One Quackery To Rule Them All. The same is true all over the world. It’s also true that the preferred tactic of homeopaths and other quacks is to try to suppress criticism of their quackery, not to answer it with science. During Homeopathy Awareness Week, I present an example of this in France.
I’m always hesitant to write about matters that are more political than scientific or medical, although sometimes the sorts of topics that I blog about inevitably require it (e.g., the 21st Century Cures Act, an act that buys into the myth that to bring “cures” to patients faster we have to neuter the FDA and […]
There’s a misconception that I frequently hear about evidence-based medicine (EBM), which can equally apply to science-based medicine (SBM). Actually, there are several, but they are related. These misconceptions include the idea that EBM/SBM guidelines are a straightjacket, that they are “cookbook medicine,” and that EBM/SBM should be the be-all and end-all of how to […]