Apr 30, 2026 03:50 PM
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/pnas-pu...doscience/
EXCERPT: Many experts who should know better are actively working against us, and actually supporting pseudoscience in medicine. This is due in part to a frustrating double standard in which regular medicine is held to a high standard, while “alternative” medicine has a standard all its own (functionally no standard).
The latest example of this disastrous double standard is a PNAS article on acupuncture. The article is completely gullible, written as if it were a promotional piece entirely by advocates, without a hint of critical thinking or skepticism. It is also internally inconsistent, even incoherent, but does usefully give the game away for those paying attention, especially with a background in SBM. The author is Lynne Peeples, a journalist, not a scientist. This makes sense in that the piece reads like a feature, with a typical narrative structure, not like an academic review or even opinion... (MORE - details)
EXCERPT: Many experts who should know better are actively working against us, and actually supporting pseudoscience in medicine. This is due in part to a frustrating double standard in which regular medicine is held to a high standard, while “alternative” medicine has a standard all its own (functionally no standard).
The latest example of this disastrous double standard is a PNAS article on acupuncture. The article is completely gullible, written as if it were a promotional piece entirely by advocates, without a hint of critical thinking or skepticism. It is also internally inconsistent, even incoherent, but does usefully give the game away for those paying attention, especially with a background in SBM. The author is Lynne Peeples, a journalist, not a scientist. This makes sense in that the piece reads like a feature, with a typical narrative structure, not like an academic review or even opinion... (MORE - details)
