Categories
Bad science Clinical trials Medicine

“Whole body scans”: Back from the grave and ready to party

Two decades ago, I cut my skeptical teeth countering advertising for whole body scans by companies making extravagant promises for their products. This particular medical fad faded for a while, but now it’s back with a vengeance…with AI! Looking at these products, what I see is basically the quackery that is functional medicine on steroids and powered by AI.

Categories
Antivaccine nonsense Clinical trials

“No saline placebo-controlled vaccine trials”: An old antivax trope

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has resurrected the antivax claim that the childhood vaccine schedule has never been tested in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with a saline placebo controls (and therefore the vaccine schedule is unsafe). This is an old and deceptive antivax half-truth that ignores both what constitutes a scientifically valid placebo and the ethical requirements for RCTs.

Categories
Antivaccine nonsense Bad science Clinical trials Medicine

Now Steve Kirsch wants to “collaborate” with provaccine scientists?

Steve Kirsch is known for his ludicrous challenges issued to vaccine advocates to “debate” vaccines. Now he wants to “collaborate” with provaccine scientists to test whether vaccines cause autism. His proposal is equally ludicrous.

Categories
Antivaccine nonsense Clinical trials Medicine

Undermining the childhood vaccine schedule with EBM fundamentalism

“Not antivax” COVID contrarian Dr. Vinay Prasad demonstrates why skepticism is necessary and how evidence-based medicine (EBM) fundamentalism harms childhood health by inadvertently (I hope) echoing a very old antivax trope about randomized clinical trials for the childhood vaccine schedule, you know, to “rebuild confidence.”

Categories
Antivaccine nonsense Clinical trials Medicine Skepticism/critical thinking

Retracted papers never die in the age of COVID-19

Last month, a study showed that papers about COVID-19 that are retracted tend to be cited far more than average and continue to be heavily cited after retraction. Clearly, scientific publishing and the scientific community need to do better.