Debunking bad science can be difficult. The misdirection, false assumptions, and biased narratives are often nuanced or built upon a series of citations requiring the debunker to go down the rabbit hole to find the underlying “truth.” Why is it so much harder to counter lies than to tell them?
Scientific misinformation
Peer review is a failure
Methane rising
The Trolley Problem has multicultural answers
Heating with Nukes
Let’s face it, Dr. Google remains the Dr. Benjamin Spock of our current generation; 53% of Americans search there for health information. A close runner-up is Mehmet Oz, a cardiovascular surgeon and now influencer – and when he speaks, he moves markets, at least for diets and supplements that often, although not always, have scant if no scientific basis. A new study looks at how we combat or, more appropriately, do not combat the Oz Effect.
The desire for eternal youth, and relief from the aches and pains of age, remains far more potent than the efficacy of stem cells in regenerating our youth and vigor. Into that breach, we find the modern-day purveyors of hope in a syringe. A new study looks at their suspect marketing. We should, too.
Does our need for speed influence what we see and hear in the media? Short answer yes. And for Science, with a capital S, that may be not such a good thing.