How not to debate a “pro-vaxer”
To say that the relationship that antivaccine activists have with science and fact is a tenuous, twisted one is a major understatement. Despite mountains of science that says otherwise, antivaccinationists still cling to the three core tenets of their faith, namely that (1) vaccines are ineffective (or at least nowhere near as effective as health officials claim); (2) vaccines are dangerous, causing...
Stanislaw Burzynski and Robert O. Young: How two quacks of a feather illustrate how poorly states regulate medical practice
One of the weaknesses in our system of regulating the practice of medicine in the United States is that, unlike most countries, we don’t have one system. We have 50 systems. That’s because the functions of licensing physicians and regulating the practice of medicine are not federal functions, but state functions. Each state sets its own laws and regulations governing the practice...
On “integrative medicine” and walking and chewing gum at the same time
Evidence matters. Science matters. However, when advocates of "integrating" quackery into medicine via the vehicle of "integrative medicine" invoke weak science and poor quality evidence in conventional medicine in response to criticism, what they are really doing is deflecting attention away from their quackery. More importantly, advocates of science-based medicine are capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time. We...
To debate or not to debate: The strange bedfellows of Andrew Weil
Those who stand on the wrong side of science love public debates and frequently challenge science advocates to them. The reason, of course, is that public debates are almost never a good venue to argue science, and these debates almost never happen in a truly neutral venue. This time around, I got a bit of ego gratification when Andrew Weil apparently wanted...
The suffering the search for “natural immunity” inflicts on children
I realize that Scott Gavura has already covered this particular case (and quite well), but it’s so egregious that I couldn’t resist discussing it myself because it is one of the most horrifying examples I’ve seen in a long time of the consequences of the sorts of beliefs that fall under the rubric of naturopathy. Quite frankly, reading the story angered me...
Authority versus science on integrative medicine
David Katz doesn’t much like us here at Science-Based Medicine. In fairness, I can’t say that I much blame him. We have been very critical of his writings and talks over the years, dating back as far as Steve Novella’s deconstruction of one of Dr. Katz’s more infamous statements about using a “more fluid concept of evidence” to Kimball Atwood’s characterization of...
Matt Ridley’s not-so-mythical “myth” of basic science
I’m a clinician, but I’m actually also a translational scientist. It’s not uncommon for those of us in medicine involved in some combination of basic and clinical research to argue about exactly what that means. The idea is translational science is supposed to be the process of “translating” basic science discoveries in the laboratory into medicine, be it in the form of...
The American Cancer Society’s new mammography guidelines: Déjà vu all over again
One of the things that feels the weirdest about having done the same job, having been in the same specialty, for a longer and longer time is that you frequently feel, as the late, great Yogi Berra would have put it, déjà vu all over again. This is particularly true in science and medicine, where the same issues come up again and...
Choosing Wisely: Changing medical practice is hard
One of the hardest things to do in medicine is to change practice in the face of scientific evidence that what you're doing isn't working. Quacks never change, but medicine does. The change might be slower and messier than we would like, but change does happen. Choosing Wisely is an initiative designed to bring about change by discouraging the use of interventions...

