The proverbial searching for "the needle in a haystack" can help us understand science's problem with p-values, and why so many studies find contrary things.
Policy & Ethics
Dr. Michael Dourson, who sits on ACSH's Board of Scientific Advisors, discusses changes at the EPA. He notes the public interest is best served when science is replicable, and when it's not access to underlying data is vital to independent analysis. Without quality risk assessment, we can't create effective national regulations.
The "American healthcare costs vs the rest of the world" narrative has been with us forever and this is unlikely to change. But it is not a simple problem, even though it is portrayed as just that. Pfizer's Dr. Robert Popovian takes his usual thoughtful look at thorny issues in his latest piece in Morning Consult. Don't miss.
With my old friend Dr. Oz squarely within the virtual anus of the intestinal machinations of some most recent news cycles, I just can't resist focusing on him again. Here's some really terrible art I've created over the years.
How far will behavioral economics go to improve our health and decrease costs?
Dr. Harold Bornstein, Donald Trump’s original physician, may have violated patient privacy when discussing the president's medications. But that was not the case in the "raid."
To get us closer to an answer to that question, consider this example: The American Academy of Pediatrics’ recent strategy that makes it acceptable for doctors – as a last resort – to refuse to allow families who decline vaccination to be a part of their practice.
Policymakers argue about whether sin taxes – on tobacco, alcohol etc. – are regressive, affecting the poor more than the wealthy. But no one argues the health benefits; they are assumed. Wouldn't a bit of evidence about the benefit of sin taxes, to some entity other than the government, been helpful?
The anti-opioid hysteria has hit the U.S. Military. It's using acupuncture – which is quackery – to treat wounded soldiers, even during battle. Let's stick a needle in this nonsense.
Under the guise of improving care, it can be argued that electronic medical records end up diminishing it. Here's how.
Sugary beverage taxes are designed to improve health. Yet, despite their increasing popularity with city government, there's no actual evidence of a health benefit. (That is, unless you call increased tax revenue a measure of health.)
Supporting prior studies, investigative work published in the Journal of the American Medical Association underscores the disparities of disease burden within states. When will our policies reflect that?