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?
Search: “"mehmet oz"”
We found 111 results for your search.
I haven’t written much about Dr. Mehmet Oz and his promotion of pseudoscience lately—or even paid that much attention to him. Unfortunately, this week, that changed as Dr. Oz went all in for astrology. Yes, astrology. The backlash was epic.
Share this:
Oprah Winfrey gave a rousing acceptance speech while accepting the Cecile B. DeMille Award at the Golden Globes on Sunday night, sparking talk of her running for President in 2020. It’s time to throw some cold water on that idea by reminding everyone that Oprah is not a force for reason and evidence. Quite the contrary.
Share this:
There’s one phenomenon I’ve never been able to figure out, namely antivaccine pediatricians. For a pediatrician, to be antivaccine is a profound betrayal of everything learned in medicine and a betrayal of patients. Here’s another antivaccine pediatrician, one I have never encountered before. Special bonus quack points: She’s a homeopath, too.
Share this:
Much of the belief system that undergirds antivaccine views is rooted in superstition. That’s why it’s not a coincidence that antivaxers frequently speak in terms of contamination due to vaccines as a cause of autism and all the other conditions for which antivaxers blame vaccines and ritual purification in the form of “detoxification” as the treatment. These beliefs very much resemble religious beliefs, and antivaxers project them onto pro-science advocates.
