Is the principle of primum non nocere, to do no harm, applied by psychotherapists?
Does a recent study of changes in brain cancer rates indicate we should fear our cell phones? Or does the problem lie elsewhere?
The Truth About Pet Cancer (TAPC) is a slick bit of propaganda. Although it contains some interesting, even promising ideas, these are unfortunately served with a heavy seasoning of misinformation and fear-mongering. Hypotheses and opinions are presented as established facts, and anyone who disagrees is suggested to be ignorant at best, venal and corrupt at worst.
A new review evaluates the evidence for supplements to treat osteoarthris
Every natural pet health website has their recommendations for flea treatments that don’t use harsh chemicals. The evidence for their claims is nonexistent. It’s appropriate that they’re talking about parasitic organisms, but I don’t think they see the irony.
More deaths in the European measles outbreak. Experts call for a national registry of sleep-related deaths in infants. Raw milk puts several Tennessee children in the intensive care unit. Oh, and medicinal dog urine. It must be time for another miscellany of medical malarkey.
It has been our position that 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 knowledge from other cultures and pointing out deficiencies in SBM to justify promoting their treatments. Do their justifications hold water?
Is the dismissal of vaccine-hesitant families from a pediatric practice unethical? Could it be unfair to other pediatric healthcare providers and increase risk to the community? Three medical ethicists who wrote a recent JAMA Pediatrics opinion piece believe so.