August 19th, 2010 by Lucy Hornstein, M.D. in Better Health Network, Opinion, Quackery Exposed, Research
3 Comments »
Statement #1:
The holocaust never happened. Hitler loved Jews and respected Jewish culture. The photographic evidence of the camps, including the bodies and atrocities, were all fakes designed by the State of Israel to generate international sympathy.
Statement #2:
Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) is an effective treatment for numerous medical conditions. Acupuncture has been around for centuries and is widely practiced in China and elsewhere. Science has proven its efficacy in controlled experiments.
With any luck, that first statement should generate dozens of hits from watchdog groups berating me for spreading the vile lie of Holocaust denial.
The second statement, or words perilously close to that effect, has appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine, a previously-prestigious medical publication now revealed to be no better than the National Enquirer or any other sleazy tabloid, fit only for lining bird cages and wrapping week-old fish. Thanks to this wonderful article by Harriet Hall, it turns out that the first reference to “needling” in Chinese medical literature is from 90 B.C., although it doesn’t refer to acupuncture. It’s talking about lancing abscesses and bloodletting. The technology required to make sufficiently thin needles didn’t even exist until 400 years ago.The Chinese government tried to ban acupuncture several times around the turn of the twentieth century. The actual term “Traditional Chinese Medicine” was coined by Mao Tse Dung in the 1960s! (Go read Hall’s article linked above. It’s awesome.)
So riddle me this, campers: Why (and how) do science denialists get away with these outrageous lies? Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Musings of a Dinosaur*
April 29th, 2010 by Steve Novella, M.D. in Better Health Network, Health Policy, Opinion, Research
1 Comment »
To be blunt up front –- SBM is not apologetic about the pharmaceutical industry. We get zero funding from any company, and have no ties of any kind to “big pharma.” In today’s world I have to spend time making that clear, because despite the reality critics are free to assume and falsely claim that our message is coming straight from the bowels of hell (a.k.a. the pharmaceutical industry).
We promote science-based medicine and criticize pharmaceutical companies along with everyone else when they place other concerns ahead of scientific validity, or promote bad science, for whatever reason.
It has become fashionable, however, to not only criticize the pharmaceutical industry but to demonize them –- and the term “big pharma” has come to represent this demonization. Cynicism is a cheap imitation of skepticism –- it is the assumption of the worst, without careful thought or any hint of fairness. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Science-Based Medicine*
January 29th, 2010 by Dr. Val Jones in Humor, Research
No Comments »
Thanks to Harriet Hall, I found this hilarious spoof article from the BMJ which perfectly illustrates why “Evidence-Based Medicine” (EBM) alone is not sufficient for answering medical questions. The abstract perfectly illustrates why randomized controlled trials must be viewed within the context of general scientific knowledge rather than in isolation. The weakness of EBM has been an over-reliance on “methodolatry” – resulting in conclusions made without consideration of prior probability, laws of physics, or plain common sense.
EBM is valuable but not sufficient for drawing accurate conclusions… which is why Steve Novella and the Science Based Medicine team have proposed that our quest for reliable information (upon which to make informed health decisions) should be based on good science rather than EBM alone.
Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials
Gordon C S Smith, professor1, Jill P Pell, consultant2
Read more »
