Ars Technica recently published a story about Hacker X, who helped Mike Adams expand his online empire of health fraud into an empire of fake news and political disinformation, thus intertwining health and political misinformation into the deadly combination we see now.
Ivermectin is the new hydroxychloroquine, a drug repurposed for COVID-19 that almost certainly doesn't work but is still being touted as a "miracle cure" by quacks, grifters, and political ideologues. Are the data supporting it all fraud?
Antivaxxers have long appealed to "natural immunity" as being somehow inherently superior to vaccine-induced immunity, which is apparently "artificial". This is a trope that comes from alternative medicine concepts about purity and contamination that is now endangering us in the age of the pandemic.
Last week, SBM devoted a lot of digital ink to a poorly done study analyzing the VAERS database for myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination that was widely publicized to imply that the vaccine is more dangerous than the disease. Three out of the four authors should have known better, leading me to ask: How did we get here?
In response to the dumpster-diving VAERS study published earlier this month, pediatric cardiologist and guest blogger Dr. Frank Han adds context by explaining how cardiologists think about and diagnose myocarditis.
Dumpster diving in the VAERS database to find more COVID-19 vaccine-associated myocarditis in children
"Dumpster diving" is a term used to describe studies using data from the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System database by authors, almost always antivaxxers, who don't understand its limitations. Last week, non-antivax doctors who should know better fell into this trap when they promoted their study suggesting that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are more dangerous to children than the disease.
A few weeks ago, the Federation of State Medical Boards, which itself does not have any regulatory power but advocates for state medical boards, issued a statement that physicians who spread COVID-19 misinformation should be subject to disciplinary measures. Unfortunately, a recent report found that not a single US physician has had action taken against their medical license for doing this. Why?