A Nobel Prize does not mean Traditional Chinese Medicine works

traditional chinese medicine

In 2015, the Nobel Prize Committee awarded the Prize for Medicine to three researchers, one of whom investigated one aspect of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM). This Nobel Prize continues to be used by TCM advocates as “proof” that it works, and is “real” medicine. In fact, the Nobel Prize does not confer special status to TCM.

One of the winners of this prize was Youyou Tu (see note 1), for her novel work in developing a medicine to treat malaria. Dr. Tu was the first Nobel Prize winner in the natural sciences from China, so she is a groundbreaking scientist in many ways.

Dr. Tu found this potential treatment for malaria through her research into Chinese herbs, which led people to proclaim that Traditional Chinese Medicine has now been “proven.” But not so fast.

What is the relevance of the Nobel Prize and Traditional Chinese Medicine – is there any importance at all?

Let’s take a look at Traditional Chinese Medicine, in general, and Dr. Tu’s work itself. The story is quite a bit more complicated, nuanced, and scientific than you might have read.

Continue reading “A Nobel Prize does not mean Traditional Chinese Medicine works”

Virus treatments quackery – what not to take for flu, colds, or COVID-19

cold comfort cover cute

It’s that time of year when we are bombarded by virus treatments for everything from the flu and colds to COVID-19. The quackery includes things like “immune-boosting” miracle supplements to junk that “cures” every single virus known to medical science.

This article will attempt to debunk the myths of virus treatments such as “boosting the immune system,” magical supplements, and other nonsense involved with the world of flu treatment pseudoscience.

Of course, the best way to prevent the flu or COVID-19 is to get the vaccines. And since these vaccines are free, it’s infinitely cheaper than fake, useless virus treatments.

Continue reading “Virus treatments quackery – what not to take for flu, colds, or COVID-19”

Merck seeking emergency us authorization for molnupiravir, new COVID-19 drug

molnupiravir

Pharmaceutical giant Merck announced a new drug to treat COVID-19, called molnupiravir, which appeared to cut the risk of hospitalization and death by nearly half for at-risk patients. Furthermore, Merck will be seeking an emergency use authorization for it immediately.

Although this may sound like good news, and if you are reading the news about this drug, you’d think it was a miracle, I want to make sure that everyone understands several important factors about this drug’s safety and effectiveness profile. It is not a miracle, but it may be an important addition to the treatment protocols for COVID-19 patients, especially those at the highest risk of hospitalization or death.

This is not a worthless drug, at least for COVID-19, such as the horse dewormer, ivermectin, that has become popular with the pseudoscience crowd. Molnupiravir was designed from the beginning as an anti-viral drug.

Continue reading “Merck seeking emergency us authorization for molnupiravir, new COVID-19 drug”

Cherry-picking – fake science that shows vaccines don’t work and ivermectin does

cherry-picking

Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, I’ve noticed an epidemic of cherry-picking by people trying to prove this or that about face masks, vaccines, treatments, and mortality. If you don’t spend a lot of time reading the scientific literature on these points, you’d think that there was some sort of scientific debate on everything to do with COVID-19.

Even though some people will try to show that science is all over the place about this pandemic, it really isn’t. We know that facemasks worked, and probably helped reduce the infection rate. And it helped crush the seasonal flu across the world.

We know that the COVID-19 vaccines are very safe and very effective.

We know that all kinds of treatments don’t work from hydroxychloroquine to ivermectin to quack remedies from internet grifters.

And we know that the CDC isn’t intentionally inventing mortality numbers because of…reasons!

So, why does it seem like there are scientific debates about all of these? It’s because we seem to be in a world of false equivalence where cherry-picking one “science” article, irrespective of its merits, can “prove” a contradictory point. But this is not how science is done.

Not to be repetitive, but real science requires one to review all of the published evidence, giving more weight to published studies in respected journals, written by respected scientists, using respected methodologies and analyses, with respected conclusions. It is absolutely not cherry-picking those studies, irrespective of their quality (and they usually have no quality), just to support one’s pre-ordained conclusions. That’s pseudoscience.

I hate cherry-picking unless it’s gathering that delicious fruit. I can get behind that kind of cherry-picking.

Continue reading “Cherry-picking – fake science that shows vaccines don’t work and ivermectin does”