American Council on Science and Health The American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) is a consumer education consortium concerned with issues related to food, nutrition, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, lifestyle, the environment and health. ACSH is one of the few fearless voices of reason on these matters.
Christopher Whalen One guy who really understands the financial crisis. Brilliant insights. Links to his other sites.
The Coach's Team Coach Kevin Collins has an impressive resume, and uses all of his talents to demolish the Left. Site includes some guest columnists, as well.
Discussions In Infection Control This blog, designed and written exclusively by Lawrence F Muscarella, PhD, gives you the most comprehensive discussion of healthcare-associated (hospital) infections (or, “HAIs”), infection control, and both instrument and endoscope reprocessing in the world.
Dr. Malcolm Kendrick Provides much-needed balance to the increasingly strident health care lobby that seems intent on scaring everyone about almost everything.
Formaldehyde Facts Your antidote to formaldehyde phobia in the media, from ACC's formaldehyde panel.
Health Care Renewal Expert analysis of what's wrong with American health care. Advocating for accountability, integrity, transparency, honesty, and ethics in leadership and governance of health care.
Health News Digest One of the best and biggest health sites on the web. New content on a daily basis, geared to the professional and informed lay audience.
Interscan Corporation The independent pros in gas detection, known for taking on the tough applications. Site has much technical material, way beyond mere product touts.
Jewish World Review One of the original news/opinion aggregate sites. Founder/Editor-in-Chief/Publisher Binyamin L. Jolkovsky calls it "The intersection of faith, culture and politics." Loaded with content tending toward politically conservative. An oasis for energetic Judaism.
JunkScience.com Steven Milloy and company do a great job in exposing junk science, which he defines as: Faulty scientific data and analysis used to advance special and, often, hidden agendas. Lots of good content.
Loren Feldman Feldman does videos, marketing, commentary and...puppets. He also understands tech and art.
Overlawyered Chronicling the high cost of our legal system. Water Olson and company explore an American legal system that too often turns litigation into a weapon against guilty and innocent alike, erodes individual responsibility, rewards sharp practice, enriches its participants at the public’s expense, and resists even modest efforts at reform and accountability.
Paradigms and Demographics Ohio-based "bug guy" Rich Kozlovich dishes on junk science, junk politics, and many other matters. Rich is also on the prowl 24/7 for supplemental content written by Others. And he still has time to kill pests!
Quiet Music Nick Francis is a superb music programmer. Of course, it helps that he has an encyclopedic knowledge of music. Stream, subscribe, enjoy.
Selwyn Duke Hard-hitting and well-written conservative commentary, from a modern day renaissance man. The Duke is not afraid to ruffle some feathers, or invoke his Catholic faith, either.
SenSoft International Expert assistance on GSA, VA, DOD, and other federal contracts. Yes, there really can be great customer service in such an esoteric space.
The Excel Addict Most of us use Excel. Some of us use it a lot, and are constantly looking for easier ways to do things. Francis Hayes--the Excel Addict--offers plenty of free tips, a regular newsletter, and an inexpensive book to download.
The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics Everything you know about cholesterol causing heart disease is wrong, and this website is run by eminent doctors who are trying to set the record straight. But, with billions of dollars in drug sales at stake, it won't be easy.
The Nutrition Experts The name says it all. Jo-Ann Heslin and Karen Nolan have sold millions of books, and have re-launched their information-packed website. What's more, they encourage website visitors to submit questions.
Weasel Zippers Conservative commentary from all over the Web. Updated constantly.
Zero Hedge Works to...
Widen the scope of financial, economic and political information available to the professional investing public; provide analysis uninhibited by political constraint; liberate oppressed knowledge
This HND piece continues to shine some needed light on the FIRST and iCOMPARE clinical trials. Make no mistake. The purpose of this research was to create data justifying the rollback of certain limitations on the maximum duty hours for medical residents.
There are a host of things wrong with these studies, not the least of which is the researchers' nonsensical contention that no human subjects were involved in work that encompassed 4,330 surgical residents and 138,691 patients.
What makes this even more pathetic is that NIH could have done better simply eliminating the middleman! Why not take the money allocated for this garbage research, and spend it instead on...more residents.
This HND piece starts with the basics, and details typical symptoms of both hypo-and hyper- thyroidism. While classic blood tests have long been available to elucidate proper thyroid function, a growing number of people are exposing serious flaws in the conventional wisdom.
One of these is Dana Trentini, who has her own quite tragic story of being misdiagnosed as "normal." Yet one more example of mindless addiction to "normal" blood titers, by an internal medicine community that clearly should know better by now.
This HND piece is a follow-up to an earlier story describing how three healthcare-related non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are conspiring to undo hard-fought improvements in work rules, pertaining to surgical resident physicians. The NGOs in question are the American Board of Surgery, the American College of Surgeons, and the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME).
Now, the research—such as it is—supporting more hours for the residents, has been published in no less than the New England Journal of Medicine.
Mark well that this is a double travesty, in that the research itself clearly violates long-established ethics guidelines, and it being published in NEJM violates the Journal's longstanding policies on accepting manuscripts from human subjects research. In short, this is failure beyond failure, only it doesn't seem to matter. Inasmuch as NEJM surely has no shortage of submissions, it is simply mind-boggling that they would fast-track such crapola.
God knows why the academic surgeon from Northwestern heading up the study would waste his time with this egregious nonsense, or why the editorial board of the Journal has turned into a bunch of feckless Kool-Aid drinkers.
This HND piece examines some of the science (good and bad) behind low carb. The bad stuff takes advantage of no formal definition of the term "low carb," to mock its efficacy. In that case, 40% carbs was considered "low," and in fairness could be, since the recommended diet—incredibly—is still at 60% carbs.
We quote diet expert and friend of this column Diane Kress, and mock a big study or two.
This HND piece describes some interesting research being done on gut bacteria, in light of improvements in genetic analysis techniques. Certainly, the friendly bacteria are vitally important to us, and it is no coincidence that 60-70 percent of our immune system is located in the gut, and is therefore intimately connected with the microbes.
There are some provocative early findings on both type 1 and type 2 diabetes, in that the gut bacteria profile is different, comparing diabetics to normals. One big question is whether this is a chicken/egg situation., and if you can eliminate diabetes by inoculating the sufferers with proper bacteria. Could harnessing our tiny friends be the key to conquering chronic disease?
This HND piece goes after the absurd—but widely publicized—IARC findings regarding red and processed meat products. Bear in mind that of the 985 substances IARC has tested for carcinogenicity, only one has been put into its Group 4 (Probably not carcinogenic to humans).
Note also that in epidemiological terms, relative risks of 1.18 and 1.17—as are indicated with processed meat products and red meat, respectively—are statistically insignificant, and one wonders why the "experts" at IARC ignored this. Indeed, as a rule of thumb, an RR of at least 2.0 is necessary to indicate a cause and effect relationship, and a RR of 3.0 is preferred.
Compounding this epic journey into junk science, IARC does almost nothing to change the public perception of its ratings. Its classification system does not assess the carcinogenic risk of the given agent, but rather, its rating of the quality of supporting evidence.
Thus, included in the dreaded Group 1 (Carcinogenic to humans) are alcoholic beverages, asbestos, benzene, diesel exhaust, mustard gas, tobacco products, and now...processed meat. However, this does not mean that processed meat is as carcinogenic as tobacco products or asbestos, even if that's what any number of bogus authorities and fear entrepreneurs are now claiming.
The irony here is that IARC has recently been mocked by real scientists for its nonsensical work on formaldehyde. Among other things, it based its cancer assessment on an unpublished and ridiculously flawed and inconsistent study from China. At least, formaldehyde is a chemical with known dangerous properties. But red meat?
This HND piece continues the saga on how officialdom is trying to cover itself over the rapidly deteriorating diet/fat/cholesterol/heart disease meme. The elites are in full crisis mode now, as certain members of Congress are mocking them openly.
Many people—from all walks of life—are criticizing the "Scientific Report of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee." But no one has done a better job than investigative journo Nina Teicholz, bestselling author of The Big Fat Surprise.
The elites can only fight back by calling to authority, except that authority has been bankrupt for over 30 years.
This HND piece looks behind the current walking back of the "fat is evil" dietary theory. Readers of this blog know that the dietary fat/cholesterol/coronary heart disease meme has been disproved hundreds of times, but I guess bad ideas die very slowly.
The change in the wind is likely a direct result of the feckless bureaucrats behind this garbage finally sensing that the party's over. Maybe we can find some genius economist to help us determine how many lives have been ruined or even lost because of this deadly wrong advice.
This HND piece shines a big spotlight on AllTrials, a project launched in the UK, which advocates that all clinical trials should be listed in a clinical trials registry, and their results should always be shared as open data. The motto is "All Trials Registered—All Results Reported." Recently, AllTrials has been launched the US.
It comes as a surprise to most people that crummy clinical trial results are seldom publicized. The most obvious problem with this, of course, is that such negatives can help prevent disasters. There are many examples, but a particularly awful one involves certain arrhythmia drugs, which—to be kind—did not quite produce the intended results. Trouble is, in the absence of the earlier negative findings being published, around 100,000 poor souls dies unnecessarily.
Gee, what if 66 Titanics sunk to the bottom of the North Atlantic? Do you think people might complain? Just one more demonstration of the rotten state of "science" these days. But this time, there's hope.
As you might suspect, there are not too many legit uses for fetal tissue, even though there is a demand. We take a look at some of the NIH-sponsored research using human fetal tissue, and you're not going to be too impressed. In fact, you might be shocked to discover what NIH wastes your money on—and this really is only the tip of the iceberg. Ironically, the best research in the category examined occurs with the smallest grants. ("Best" = Actually having a possible application to improving human health.)
Riddle me this, Batman: What's the difference between an academic scientist and a third-generation welfare mother? One difference is that the scientists are a whole lot more expensive to maintain.