Does Weed Cause Strokes and Heart Attacks?
A widely cited study commits so many egregious statistical errors that it's a poster child for junk science.
A widely cited study commits so many egregious statistical errors that it's a poster child for junk science.
From bite marks to shaken babies, the Center for Integrity in Forensic Sciences is debunking bad science.
The year's highlights in blame shifting.
The epidemiology of food and drink is a mess.
The epidemiology of food and drink is a mess.
The ruling is likely the first by a state supreme court to undercut the popular forensic technique.
Even the best studies haven't surmounted a key statistical issue, and they tend to distort the evidence to make e-cigarettes look dangerous.
Thanks to tendentiously sloppy research, most Americans think vaping is just as dangerous as smoking. That’s not true.
Amit Katwala’s Tremors in the Blood explores how unreliable technologies have been used in our criminal justice system.
Beware of activists touting "responsible research and innovation." The sensible-sounding slogan masks a reactionary agenda.
The obvious problems with the article reflect a broader pattern that suggests a peer review bias against e-cigarettes.
The failure to consider the timing of diagnoses makes it impossible to draw causal inferences.
Forensic techniques are nowhere near as reliable as cops shows pretend.
Why are activists trying to stop research into a promising backup plan to handle climate change?
Out of 27,900 research publications on gun laws, only 123 tested their effects rigorously.
Her publisher will stop distributing her memoir Lucky, which detailed the attack and aftermath.
Theatrical safety checks don't keep people safe—vaccines do.
Plus: Operation Warp Speed is off to a slow start, Trump's school choice order, and more...
The journal's editors recognized the problem before publication, but the authors failed to address it.
The Journal of the American Heart Association has responded to critics with nothing but boilerplate promises of scientific integrity.
Such scientific ignorance is common in th US as well, and can have a harmful influence on government policy.
More implicit bias research comes under scrutiny
A study suggesting that e-cigarettes double the risk of a heart attack ignored crucial information on timing.
A scientific consensus has emerged that trigger warnings just don't work—and student activists should stop demanding them.
Researchers made no effort to link the two.
This will fail and more pressing problems will be neglected
Surprise: A viral study is junk science.
No, global warming will not spark a black death pandemic that kills millions
Implausible estimates of benefits or risks associated with diet reflect almost exclusively the magnitude of nutrition researchers' cumulative biases.
After years of being blamed for weight gain and metabolic issues, zero-calorie sweeteners and the drinks they flavor are being absolved.
The FDA debunks his fears.
After an initial hearing, Stanford's Mark Jacobson thinks better of pursuing a scientific disagreement in court.
Academic publishers are "still acting as if the internet doesn't exist," says Michael Eisen, co-founder of the Public Library of Science.
The failure of consensus nutrition "science" and the ongoing collapse of dietary puritanism.
Kennedy once compared vaccination to the Holocaust*
Getting Risk Right is a potent antidote to the toxic misinformation peddled by activist scaremongers
Getting Risk Right reviewed by Ronald Bailey
Toxicologists liken the endocrine disruption hypothesis to homeopathy.
"Science isn't self-correcting, it's self-destructing."
The company implied that sucralose and potassium sorbate made competing products unsafe for human consumption.
What happens when warnings about processed meat's cancer risk collides with California's absurd Prop 65 (over)warning law?
The final in a three-part series on how Sarah Maslin Nir's investigative series violated the standards of responsible journalism.
The Uncle Sam Diet mantra: Don't eat anything your ancestors wouldn't have while watching Cheers on network television.
A stinging critique of the shabby science that supports federal recommendations
$28 billion in research funding wasted every year.