Skip to content

Archive

Category: Pseudoscience

Since our last interview with Dr. Ben Goldacre in March of this year, he has written many a tale about the ongoing misrepresentations of science through agencies that wish to sell you a product or provide information through media sources.

Given that many applications of common alternative medical treatments are harmless in nature, there are times when the modes of thinking and claims made by the purveyors of these “health products” cause misery and death.

Such is the case of vitamin-pill entrepreneur Matthias Rath who sued Dr. Goldacre, and the Guardian, for libel. Rath lost his case after a long and expensive court battle but the harm that befell the people of South Africa when his products were touted as a treatment for AIDS and supported by the South African Government was severe.

Dr. Goldacre now has published the chapter of his book Bad Science entitled The Doctor will Sue You Now now that he has won the court case. It is a sad illustration and a very serious story about the dangers of pseudoscience.

As Dr. Goldacre states,

Matthias Rath takes us rudely outside the contained, almost academic distance of this book. For the most part we’ve been interested in the intellectual and cultural consequences of bad science, the made-up facts in national newspapers, dubious academic practices in universities, some foolish pill-peddling, and so on. But what happens if we take these sleights of hand, these pill-marketing techniques, and transplant them out of our decadent Western context into a situation where things really matter?

As the focus of attention turns to the H1N1 outbreak that is now occurring across the country, the public faces an array of information sources that will influence their opinion about vaccination. There have been many claims and critiques about the H1N1 vaccine and it has become a springboard to envelop other vaccines and vaccination [...]

Original broadcast date: July 5, 2009

The general principle in science and medicine is to challenge claims and research findings in order to evaluate its veracity and repeatability. It takes evidence, solid evidence as the fuel for debate and contrarian viewpoints, not opinion based on anecdotal evidence.

To wit, the news that Oprah Winfrey is bankrolling ex-Playboy playmate Jenny McCarthy to broadcast her opinions about the dangers of vaccines is one of many instances where critical appraisal of data is being subjugated by celebrity opinion.

In an article originally published on the web site Science-Based Medicine, and an abridged version in the June 7, 2009 edition of the Toronto Star, Dr. David Gorski comments on anti-vaccine advocacy, bioidentical hormone claims, pseudoscience, alternative medicine, the law of unintended consequences, the logical fallacies that are used to support them and what he calls the Oprah-fication of medicine.


  • David H. Gorski, MD, PhD, FACS, Program Leader, Breast Cancer Biology Program
    Barbara Ann
    Karmanos Cancer Institute
    Associate Professor of Surgery

    Wayne State University School of Medicine

Original broadcast date: April 19, 2009 Walk down any grocery store aisle that stock processed foods and drinks and you will see labelling that uses nutritional science to promote the health benefits of the manufacturer’s product. The trouble is that the claims can be misleading and dance on the edge of the facts what I [...]

In an editorial by Dr. Noni MacDonald and the Globe and Mail’s Andre Picard entitled “A plea for clear language on vaccine safety”, a case is made for plain English and more direct language when discussing and interpreting research findings and clinical recommendations. As outlined in his book “Bad Science” in a recent interview on [...]

Original broadcast date: March 29, 2009 If there is one quote that epitomizes the plethora of ideas expressed in physician and Guardian columnist Dr. Ben Goldacre’s book bad science, it is this from paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science, Steven Jay Gould: “ When people learn no tools of judgment and merely follow their [...]

Original broadcast date: March 1, 2009 What constitutes a good science story? That depends on what side of the fence you sit on. If you are in the news business, fear and sensationalism are all too commonly used to grab your audience’s attention. If you are a company extolling the virtues of a new treatment, [...]

Every year millions of people flock to complementary and alternative therapists offering a vast array of treatments ranging from acupuncture to biofeedback to urine injections. Millions more purchase over-the-counter alternative medications, such as glucosamine, herbs, and homeopathic remedies. While consumer motivations for turning to complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) vary, there is one common element [...]

Original broadcast date: April 20, 2008 We are the safest and healthiest human beings who ever lived, and yet irrational fear is growing, with deadly consequences — such as the 1,595 Americans killed when they made the mistake of switching from planes to cars after September 11. In part, this irrationality is caused by those [...]

Why is our society so risk-adverse when evidence suggests we are safer and healthier than ever before? How we form judgments about risk and the fact that we have both a conscious/rational mind and an unconscious mind that uses certain rules of thumb that can go very wrong? How do special interest groups and “health-fear [...]

Original broadcast date: August 28, 2005 In a June Rolling Stone article, and in subsequent appearances on Imus in the Morning, ABC News, and The Daily Show With Jon Stewart, Bobby Kennedy Jr accuses US government vaccine scientists and their academic advisers of covering up what for him is an uncontestable fact: the causal link [...]