Ever wondered if your TV marathon could be linked to those annoying trips to the bathroom? A recent study dives into the association between TV watching and nocturia – the habit of waking up at night to urinate. Is it worth sacrificing an extra hour of TV for a good night's sleep?

Arsenic has a well-deserved reputation as a poison; in ancient times it was known as the “Poison of Kings and the King of Poisons.” But arsenic, an element found naturally in soil, air, and drinking water, also has beneficial uses. How should we think about arsenic in terms of human health?   

Since the beginning of the modern environmental movement in the 1970s, air pollution has been defined as the debasement of the outdoor ambient air. That movement has been a resounding success. Accompanying these benefits has been the recognition that the indoor environment is now relatively more important. The EPA has responded with citizen advisory programs but little information on indoor risk or remediations.

In Part 1 of this series, we presented evidence that a not insignificant amount of published science and the “knowledge” resulting from it is wrong. There are many reasons, including experimental carelessness, differences in how researchers approach statistical analyses, journals’ bias against publishing negative results, and outright dishonesty by investigators. Part 2 describes how activist scientists can use meta-analyses to manipulate data to reach a predetermined, but flawed, conclusion.

Tinnitus, the rockstar of auditory annoyances, is a buzzing, ringing, or tone that only you can hear. It's a party trick your brain plays on you. But science now offers a new-age solution: jamming to tones while tickling your tongue. And guess what? It's an FDA-approved medical device.  

The sci-fi world of Gattaca promised parents the option of selecting genetically bespoke children. Now you can buy a menu of tests prophesing your kids’ health risks – even before the embryo is implanted. Soon, we can expect tests for brains, brawn, and beauty. How do we even make that decision?

Two federal courts have ruled that the Biden Administration unduly influenced social media moderation during the COVID-19 pandemic. Some public health and legal experts have argued that these efforts were necessary and did not constitute censorship. They are downplaying the extent of the government's efforts and overlooking their serious consequences.

Some time ago I asked (via Twitter) if people knew of cases where hospice patients were being underprescribed opioid pain medications. Many did. But one story stood out. You'll see why. Meet Laurie Engel.

When you sit for a blood pressure reading, where is the best place to measure it? An article in the Washington Post suggests that the doctor's office, for several reasons, might not be the best place to collect the most accurate readings. Here are the factors to consider – and possibly raise with your doctor.

In March, the U.S. Supreme Court will determine the extent of permissible federal interactions with private-party decision-making – namely, by social media platforms. The issue is portrayed as a clash between First Amendment rights and public health. This is not a new conundrum, but the involvement of social media is upping the ante. Further complicating the issue is the fact that the platforms acquiesced and voluntarily cooperated with governmental involvement, and while they are the object of the federal “incursions,” the social media platforms are not the aggrieved parties in the case.