Identifying Medical Pseudoscience

Astrology is a pseudoscience
How to tell science from pseudoscience –
The short cut method:
Relies primarily (or only) on testimonials for evidence? (Natural Cures/Kevin T.)
Not clear which/how tests were done. No mention of replication. (Colon Cleanse)
No progress or advancement in knowledge. (Astrology)
Based on ancient knowledge. (Acupuncture)
Biased source. Do they stand to make money or have an political/religious agenda? (Global Warming Skepticism)
No legitimate or appropriate pedigree. (9/11 "truther" architects)
Hokey marketing. (Infomercials, Lab coats, celebrity endorsements, testimonials, name dropping (certifications, colleges, etc.).) (Airborne)

How to tell science from pseudoscience –
The short cut method:
Relies primarily (or only) on testimonials for evidence? (Natural Cures/Kevin T.)
Not clear which/how tests were done. No mention of replication. (Colon Cleanse)
No progress or advancement in knowledge. (Astrology)
Based on ancient knowledge. (Acupuncture)
Biased source. Do they stand to make money or have an political/religious agenda? (Global Warming Skepticism)
No legitimate or appropriate pedigree. (9/11 "truther" architects)
Hokey marketing. (Infomercials, Lab coats, celebrity endorsements, testimonials, name dropping (certifications, colleges, etc.).) (Airborne)

The Importance of Identifying Pseudoscience in Medicine
Objection: What's the harm?
At worst, it does nothing.
At best, it has a placebo effect.
Reply: medical pseudoscience does plenty of harm
It's costly (e.g., Kevin Trudeau swindled people out of millions, before he was jailed)
People forgo legitimate treatment in lieu of alternatives …and then die of treatable diseases and injuries (e.g., vaccines).
The treatments themselves can be harmful and even kill.




How to Tell if a Treatment Works
You guard against being led astray by doing a double-blind placebo-controlled study and then encourage others to prove the study wrong (let them examine your results and repeat your study).
You study groups to "average out" variation. It's unlikely everyone will be on the mend.
Divide into placebo/control group. If Vaxadrin really works, the treatment group will have a higher rate of health improvement.
You blind your study (to prevent subject bias)
You double blind your study (to prevent experimenter bias)
You let your results be studied: Other people might see mistakes that you missed.
Let your study be replicated.

Until this is done, you should
not believe the treatment works.
The burden of proof is on those
who say that it works. (Beware
the appeal to ignorance.)


Why Testimonials/Case Studies can't be trusted.
The Variable Nature of Illness: Illness affects different people in different ways. Did you get better because you took Vaxadrin, or were you already on the mend? Even cancer can spontaneously go into remission.
The Placebo Effect: People can feel better simply because they expect to (e.g., because they think Vaxadrin works). So someone feeling better is not evidence that what they took works. (And if they only feel better, but you have not treated the cause, they are still in danger.)
Overlooked Causes: People are also doing other things while they take pills. If we are just looking at one case, we can't tell whether it was Vaxadrin that made them better, or something else.

Why Testimonials/Case Studies can't be trusted.
The Variable Nature of Illness: Illness affects different people in different ways. Did you get better because you took Vaxadrin, or were you already on the mend? Even cancer can spontaneously go into remission.
The Placebo Effect: People can feel better simply because they expect to (e.g., because they think Vaxadrin works). So someone feeling better is not evidence that what they took works. (And if they only feel better, but you have not treated the cause, they are still in danger.)
Overlooked Causes: People are also doing other things while they take pills. If we are just looking at one case, we can't tell whether it was Vaxadrin that made them better, or something else.

The Harms of Quackery
Lorie Atikian: 17 mo., fed an "organic vegetarian diet" and treated with "herbal & homeopathic remedies and an energy machine" instead of vaccines and normal medication. "Doll at death."
Kristi Bedenbaugh: treated sinus headache with chiropractic. Neck manipulation caused stroke and death.
Laverne Burrell: died as a result of a colon cleanse. (It's usually kitty litter.)
Makeisha Dantus: died at 3 mo. because of folk remedy (alcohol, salt, water and sugar) for her fever and diarrhea.
51 South Africans: died from Kidney failure caused by a folk remedy.
There are hundreds of similar cases that have been documented.
What is Pseudoscience?
Pseudoscience is something that presents itself as established scientifically when it is not; usually it is demonstrably false.
In medicine, this includes supposed treatments for injuries, cures for diseases that are not effective, and medical misinformation.
How to tell science from pseudoscience –
The short cut method:
Relies primarily (or only) on testimonials for evidence? (Natural Cures/Kevin T.)
Not clear which/how tests were done. No mention of replication. (Colon Cleanse)
No progress or advancement in knowledge. (Astrology)

Examples of Medical Pseudoscience:
Acupuncture
Alternative Medicine
Applied Kinesiology
Autism Denial
Chelation Therapy
Chiropractic (most uses)
Therapeutic Touch
Detoxification
Folk Remedies
Herbal Remedies
Homeopathy
Vitamin Megadoseing

Evaluation of Kinesio tape
Red flags:
It does almost everything
Lots of "in house studies" (that used applied Kenesiology tricks) but no good research.
Why a membership?
Testimonials, testimonials, testimonials.
Lab coats, lab coats, lab coats—and celebrity endorsements.
Donated to Olympic teams with no instructions; publicity stunt.
No progress in 30 years
Discovered at The Olympics, not in scientific journals

Evaluation of Kinesio tape
Testable? Yes, but very few tests have been done, and those that have are ignored.
Fruitful? No. Almost all research is "in-house" and not peer-reviewed. The actual peer-reviewed research concludes that it has no benefit.
Scope? The only explanation I could find for why it works is "it microscopically lifts the skin" which would supposedly "increase blood flow." But it's not clear how placing elastic tape on your skin can lift it (isn't this like pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps?) If the lift is microscopic, can it really increase blood flow? And could it could increase it to a significant enough degree to affect strength, muscle rotation, etc. And would a minute change in blood flow really affect those things?
Simplicity? I didn't find anything that invoked a new force or entity.
Conservatism? It seems to conflict with what we know regarding what causes muscle strength. Could a minute increase in blood flow really make one stronger?

Our senses are unreliable
Perceptional Constancies: We interpret what we see based on what we expect (checkerboard illusion)
Pure Expectation: sometimes we will see what we expect (broken clock moving)
Clarify Vagueness: Pareidolia:
Face on Mars, backmasking
Sometimes they all work together: T-Rex
Subjective Judgments lead us astray. (Blondot)
Obviously, we can think a treatment works when it doesn't.
All of us are subject to these as humans, no matter how smart or well- trained (Air force pilot example).
How to tell science from pseudoscience –
The short cut method:
Relies primarily (or only) on testimonials for evidence? (Natural Cures/Kevin T.)
Not clear which/how tests were done. No mention of replication. (Colon Cleanse)
No progress or advancement in knowledge. (Astrology)
Based on ancient knowledge. (Acupuncture)
Biased source. Do they stand to make money or have an political/religious agenda? (Global Warming Skepticism)
No legitimate or appropriate pedigree. (9/11 "truther" architects)
Hokey marketing. (Infomercials, Lab coats, celebrity endorsements, testimonials, name dropping (certifications, colleges, etc.).) (Airborne)


How to tell science from pseudoscience –
The short cut method:
Relies primarily (or only) on testimonials for evidence? (Natural Cures/Kevin T.)
Not clear which/how tests were done. No mention of replication. (Colon Cleanse)
No progress or advancement in knowledge. (Astrology)
Based on ancient knowledge. (Acupuncture)
Biased source. Do they stand to make money or have an political/religious agenda? (Global Warming Skepticism)
No legitimate or appropriate pedigree. (9/11 "truther" architects)
Hokey marketing. (Infomercials, Lab coats, celebrity endorsements, testimonials, name dropping (certifications, colleges, etc.).) (Airborne)




How to tell science from pseudoscience –
The short cut method:
Relies primarily (or only) on testimonials for evidence? (Natural Cures/Kevin T.)
Not clear which/how tests were done. No mention of replication. (Colon Cleanse)
No progress or advancement in knowledge. (Astrology)
Based on ancient knowledge. (Acupuncture)
Biased source. Do they stand to make money or have an political/religious agenda? (Global Warming Skepticism)
No legitimate or appropriate pedigree. (9/11 "truther" architects)
Hokey marketing. (Infomercials, Lab coats, celebrity endorsements, testimonials, name dropping (certifications, colleges, etc.).) (Airborne)



How to tell science from pseudoscience –
The short cut method:
Relies primarily (or only) on testimonials for evidence? (Natural Cures/Kevin T.)
Not clear which/how tests were done. No mention of replication. (Colon Cleanse)
No progress or advancement in knowledge. (Astrology)
Based on ancient knowledge. (Acupuncture)
Biased source. Do they stand to make money or have an political/religious agenda? (Global Warming Skepticism)
No legitimate or appropriate pedigree. (9/11 "truther" architects)
Hokey marketing. (Infomercials, Lab coats, celebrity endorsements, testimonials, name dropping (certifications, colleges, etc.).) (Airborne)

Why Testimonials/Case Studies can't be trusted.
The Variable Nature of Illness: Illness affects different people in different ways. Did you get better because you took Vaxadrin, or were you already on the mend? Even cancer can spontaneously go into remission.
The Placebo Effect: People can feel better simply because they expect to (e.g., because they think Vaxadrin works). So someone feeling better is not evidence that what they took works. (And if they only feel better, but you have not treated the cause, they are still in danger.)
Overlooked Causes: People are also doing other things while they take pills. If we are just looking at one case, we can't tell whether it was Vaxadrin that made them better, or something else.

Why Testimonials/Case Studies /Clinical experience can't be trusted
Example: When I prescribe Vaxadrin, my patients feel better. Vaxadrin must work!

Any of the limits of human perception, memory, or reason could have been at work here.
Are they really better, or did you just expect them to get better?
Are you only remembering the patients who felt better and forgetting the ones that didn't?
Did you consider other possible explanations?
Did you look for evidence that it doesn't work? Are you denying that evidence or excusing it away?
Are you misremembering how badly they felt before?
Even if a professional thinks that something works it isn't enough reason to think that a treatment works. Professionals are people, subject to biases, just like everyone else.


Identifying Medical Pseudoscience
How Memory Works:
Store basics
Upon recall, make up details
Store again (perhaps mixing in those details)
Recall last Recollection.
Effected by expectation:
eyewitnesses are not reliable
e.g., car crash example
Selective Memory: We recall the memorable
E.g., Slow Lane
E.g., when something "works"


Our Memory is not reliable
Can't I Just Look and Know?
No, for a couple of reasons.
Usually this involves dismissing what is not already accepted, but very occasionally conventional wisdom is wrong (e.g., Einstein).
In general, humans are really bad at "looking and knowing." Our senses, memory, and reason are not nearly as reliable as we think.
How Memory Works:
Store basics
Upon recall, make up details
Store again (perhaps mixing in those details)
Recall last recollection
Effected by expectation:
eyewitnesses are not reliable
e.g., car crash example
Selective Memory: We recall the memorable
E.g., Slow Lane
E.g., when something "works"


Our Memory is not reliable
Our senses are unreliable
Perceptional Constancies: We interpret what we see based on what we expect (checkerboard illusion)
Pure Expectation: sometimes we will see what we expect (broken clock moving)
Clarify Vagueness: Face on Mars, backmasking
Sometimes they all work together: T-Rex
Subjective Judgments lead us astray. (Blondot)
Obviously, we can think a treatment works when it doesn't.
All of us are subject to these as humans, no matter how smart or well- trained (Air force pilot example).
Our senses are unreliable
Perceptional Constancies: We interpret what we see based on what we expect (checkerboard illusion)
Pure Expectation: sometimes we will see what we expect (broken clock moving)
Clarify Vagueness: Face on Mars, backmasking
Sometimes they all work together: T-Rex
Subjective Judgments lead us astray. (Blondot)
Obviously, we can think a treatment works when it doesn't.
All of us are subject to these as humans, no matter how smart or well-trained (Air force pilot example).
Our senses are unreliable
Perceptional Constancies: We interpret what we see based on what we expect (checkerboard illusion)
Pure Expectation: sometimes we will see what we expect (broken clock moving)
Clarify Vagueness: Face on Mars, backmasking
Sometimes they all work together: T-Rex
Subjective Judgments lead us astray. (Blondot)
Obviously, we can think a treatment works when it doesn't.
Our senses are unreliable
Perceptional Constancies: We interpret what we see based on what we expect (checkerboard illusion)
Pure Expectation: sometimes we will see what we expect (broken clock moving)
Clarify Vagueness: Face on Mars, backmasking
Sometimes they all work together: T-Rex
Our senses are unreliable
Perceptional Constancies: We interpret what we see based on what we expect (checkerboard illusion)
Pure Expectation: sometimes we will see what we expect (broken clock moving)
Clarify Vagueness: Face on Mars, backmasking
Sometimes they all work together: T-Rex
Subjective Judgments lead us astray (Blondot)
Obviously, we can think a treatment works when it doesn't.
All of us are subject to these as humans, no matter how smart or well- trained (Air force pilot example).
Our senses are unreliable
Perceptional Constancies: We interpret what we see based on what we expect (checkerboard illusion)
Pure Expectation: sometimes we will see what we expect (broken clock moving)
Clarify Vagueness:
Face on Mars, backmasking
Sometimes they all work together: T-Rex
Subjective Judgments lead us astray. (Blondot)
Obviously, we can think a treatment works when it doesn't.
All of us are subject to these as humans, no matter how smart or well-trained (Air force pilot example).
Intuitive Reasoning Leads us Astray
We are apt to deny the evidence if it doesn't tell us what we want.
Subjective Validation: We can make subjective evidence confirm whatever we want it to confirm. (e.g., Forer Effect, Astrology, Nostradamus)
Confirmation Bias: We only try to prove our hypothesis true.
Availability Error: We pay attention to "easily seeable" evidence (e.g., when something works).
Beware of unnecessary restrictions ("It works, but only if you believe in it.")
Representative Heuristic: "Like Causes Like." (E.g., Rhino Horn, Deer Antler Spray).
Mistaking the Odds: Our intuitions about probability are lousy (Birthday Paradox, Lottery Example)
If the chances of remission are 1/1000, then there were 1,600 remissions last year (b/c 1,600,000 cancer cases). Odds are, at least a few of them were probably using alternate treatments.



Can't I just rely on common knowledge?
Sugar makes kids hyperactive
You lose most of your body heat through your head
You should drink at least eight glasses of water a day
Chewing gum takes seven years to pass through your system
Cracking your knuckles will cause arthritis in later life
Back pain should be treated with bed rest
Eating turkey makes you sleepy because it contains tryptophan
Eating at night makes you fat
Brain cells never grow back
It is harder to lose weight than to gain weight
You should pee on a jellyfish sting
Don't go to sleep if you've had a concussion
People use only 10% of their brains
Coffee sobers you up
Your heart stops when you sneeze
You should feed a cold and starve a fever
Cold, wet weather cause colds and flu
Shaving hair cause it to grow back faster, darker and coarser
Ulcers are caused by stress
You should stretch before exercising

No, because it is unreliable. "Common knowledge" myths:
Objection: What about Malpractice?
Of course, real medicine comes with its own risks, but everything is risky.
But we gauge our actions on risk vs. benefit. Is it worth the risk?
Using science-based medicine is like crossing the street, at a cross walk, to pick up a $100 bill: maybe I'll get hit, but there are safeguards and it's worth the risk because it actually works.
Using alternative medicine is like crossing an interstate to pick up a piece of lint: the likelihood of getting injured is higher, and there is no payoff.

Intuitive Reasoning Leads us Astray
We are apt to deny the evidence if it doesn't tell us what we want.
Subjective Validation: We can make subjective evidence confirm whatever we want it to confirm. (e.g., Forer Effect, Astrology, Nostradamus)
Confirmation Bias: We only try to prove our hypothesis true.
Availability Error: We pay attention to "easily seeable" evidence (e.g., when something works).
Beware of unnecessary restrictions ("It works, but only if you believe in it.)
Representative Heuristic: "Like Causes Like." (E.g., Rhino Horn, Deer Antler Spray).
Mistaking the Odds: Our intuitions about probability are lousy (Birthday Paradox, Lottery Example)
If the chances of remission are 1/1000, then there were 1,600 remissions last year (b/c 1,600,000 cancer cases). Odds are, at least a few of them were probably using alternate treatments.



How to tell science from pseudoscience –
The short cut method:
First announced by mass media, not scientific channels? (Cold-Fusion)
Science jargon that doesn't make sense. (Philipstein Teslar Watches - "Natural Frequency Technology")
Vague scientific language ("it improves performance") that can't be tested or subject to suggestion. (Deer Antler Spray: "enhances performance and improves recovery.")
Invokes "energy fields" or other unverified entities or powers. (Acupuncture, qi. Homeopathy, and "essence.")
Make enemies out of its critics ? Is it "suppressed by the authorities/experts"? Does it attack them, instead of their theory (or providing evidence for their theory)? (homeopathy v. big phrama)


Intuitive Reasoning Leads us Astray
We are apt to deny the evidence if it doesn't tell us what we want.
Subjective Validation: We can make subjective evidence confirm whatever we want it to confirm. (e.g., Forer Effect, Astrology, Nostradamus)
Confirmation Bias: We only try to prove our hypothesis true.
Availability Error: We pay attention to "easily seeable" evidence (e.g., when something works).
Beware of unnecessary restrictions ("It works, but only if you believe in it.)
Representative Heuristic: "Like Causes Like." (E.g., Rhino Horn, Deer Antler Spray).
Mistaking the Odds: Our intuitions about probability are lousy (Birthday Paradox, Lottery Example)
If the chances of remission are 1/1000, then there were 1,600 remissions last year (b/c 1,600,000 cancer cases). Odds are, at least a few of them were probably using alternate treatments.



Intuitive Reasoning Leads us Astray
We are apt to deny the evidence if it doesn't tell us what we want.
Subjective Validation: We can make subjective evidence confirm whatever we want it to confirm. (e.g., Forer Effect, Astrology, Nostradamus)
Confirmation Bias: We only try to prove our hypothesis true.
Availability Error: We pay attention to "easily seeable" evidence (e.g., when something works).
Beware of unnecessary restrictions ("It works, but only if you believe in it.")
Representative Heuristic: "Like Causes Like." (E.g., Rhino Horn, Deer Antler Spray).
Mistaking the Odds: Our intuitions about probability are lousy (Birthday Paradox, Lottery Example)
If the chances of remission are 1/1000, then there were 1,600 remissions last year (b/c 1,600,000 cancer cases). Odds are, at least a few of them were probably using alternate treatments.



Intuitive Reasoning Leads us Astray
We are apt to deny the evidence if it doesn't tell us what we want.
Subjective Validation: We can make subjective evidence confirm whatever we want it to confirm. (e.g., Forer Effect, Astrology, Nostradamus)
Confirmation Bias: We only try to prove our hypothesis true.
Availability Error: We pay attention to "easily seeable" evidence (e.g., when something works).
Beware of unnecessary restrictions ("It works, but only if you believe in it.)
Representative Heuristic: "Like Causes Like." (E.g., Rhino Horn, Deer Antler Spray).
Mistaking the Odds: Our intuitions about probability are lousy (Birthday Paradox, Lottery Example)
If the chances of remission are 1/1000, then there were 1,600 remissions last year (b/c 1,600,000 cancer cases). Odds are, at least a few of them were probably using alternate treatments.



Intuitive Reasoning Leads us Astray
We are apt to deny the evidence if it doesn't tell us what we want.
Subjective Validation: We can make subjective evidence confirm whatever we want it to confirm. (e.g., Forer Effect, Astrology, Nostradamus)
Confirmation Bias: We only try to prove our hypothesis true.
Availability Error: We pay attention to "easily seeable" evidence (e.g., when something works).
Beware of unnecessary restrictions ("It works, but only if you believe in it.")
Representative Heuristic: "Like Causes Like." (E.g., Rhino Horn, Deer Antler Spray)
Mistaking the Odds: Our intuitions about probability are lousy (Birthday Paradox, Lottery Example)
If the chances of remission are 1/1000, then there were 1,600 remissions last year (b/c 1,600,000 cancer cases). Odds are, at least a few of them were probably using alternate treatments.



Kinesio tape

Articles I found:
Olympic Pseudoscience by Steven Novella
Kinesio Taping - The Latest Sports Fad by Steven Novella
Kinesio Tape: The Evidence by Brian Dunning
Sports Med. 2012 Feb 1;42(2):153-64. Kinesio taping in treatment and prevention of sports injuries: a meta-analysis of the evidence for its effectiveness. By Williams S, Whatman C, Hume PA, Sheerin K.
British Journal for Sports Med 2013;47:1128-1129 doi:10.1136/bjsports-2013-093027 - Kinesio taping for sports injuries
The website: http://www.kinesiotaping.com/


Chiropractic and Subluxation
Other Clues:
Little advancement or progress
It's in bed with many other known pseudosciences (acupuncture, homeopathy, applied kinesiology).
It claims to be the cause and cure for everything.
It has been rejected by its own practitioners, in a renowned chiropractic journal.
Basically, chiropractic is about as good for short-term treatment of musculoskeletal problems, especially lower back pain, as is physical therapy, but it cannot treat other injuries, and definitely can't treat any disease.
The risks include everything from injury and death, to being robbed and wasted tax dollars.
Detecting Pseudoscience the Exact Way: Understanding How Science is Done
Science is based in abduction: inference to the best explanation. The best one adhering most to the criteria of adequacy:
Testability/Falsifiability: Does it make observable predictions…or Can nothing count against it? (e.g., conspiracy theory)
Fruitfulness: Are its predictions correct? (e.g., does water always boil at 100C?)
Scope: How much does the hypothesis explain or increase understanding? It shouldn't raise more questions than it answers (e.g., Alien Bridge Example)
Simplicity: How many entities does the hypothesis require? Are they necessary? Are there other explanations without them? (Qi in acupuncture)
Conservatism: Does it cohere with what we already know is true? (Homeopathy)

Detecting Pseudoscience the Exact way: Understanding How Science is Done
Science is based in abduction: inference to the best explanation. The best one adhering most to the criteria of adequacy:
Testability/Falsifiability: Does it make observable predictions? (Can nothing count against it? e.g., conspiracy theory)
Fruitfulness: Are its predictions correct? (e.g., does water always boil at 100C?)
Scope: How much does the hypothesis explain or increase understanding? It shouldn't raise more questions than it answers (e.g., Alien Bridge Example)
Simplicity: How many entities does the hypothesis require? Are they necessary? Are there other explanations without them? (Qi in acupuncture)
Conservatism: Does it cohere with what we already know is true? (Homeopathy)

Detecting Pseudoscience the Exact way: Understanding How Science is Done
Science is based in abduction: inference to the best explanation. The best one adhering most to the criteria of adequacy:
Testability/Falsifiability: Does it make observable predictions? (Can nothing count against it? e.g., conspiracy theory)
Fruitfulness: Are its predictions correct? (e.g., does water always boil at 100C?)
Scope: How much does the hypothesis explain or increase understanding? It shouldn't just raise unanswerable questions (e.g., Alien Bridge Example)
Simplicity: How many entities does the hypothesis require? Are they necessary? Are there other explanations without them? (Qi in acupuncture)
Conservatism: Does it cohere with what we already know is true? (Homeopathy)
Detecting Pseudoscience the Exact way: Understanding How Science is Done
Science is based in abduction: inference to the best explanation. The best one adhering most to the criteria of adequacy:
Testability/Falsifiability: Does it make observable predictions? (Can nothing count against it? e.g., conspiracy theory)
Fruitfulness: Are its predictions correct? (e.g., does water always boil at 100C?)
Scope: How much does the hypothesis explain or increase understanding? It shouldn't raise more questions than it answers (e.g., Alien Bridge Example)
Simplicity: How many entities does the hypothesis require? Are they necessary? Are there other explanations without them? (Qi in acupuncture)
Conservatism: Does it cohere with what we already know is true? (Homeopathy)
Detecting Pseudoscience the Exact way: Understanding How Science is Done
Science is based in abduction: inference to the best explanation. The best one adhering most to the criteria of adequacy:
Testability/Falsifiability: Does it make observable predictions? (Can nothing count against it? e.g., conspiracy theory)
Fruitfulness: Are its predictions correct? (e.g., does water always boil at 100C?)
Scope: How much does the hypothesis explain or increase understanding? It shouldn't raise more questions than it answers (e.g., Alien Bridge Example)
Simplicity: How many entities does the hypothesis require? Are they necessary? Are there other explanations without them? (Qi in acupuncture)
Conservatism: Does it cohere with what we already know is true? (Homeopathy)
Something is pseudoscience if it…
…is unfalsifiable—nothing can count as evidence against it or if its practitioners always dismiss or ignore any evidence against it.
…is not fruitful—if its predictions are wrong, then it's probably pseudoscience.
If it's a medical treatment, then it should do significantly better than a placebo in a double blinded study. If not, then it doesn't work.
…has no scope—if it raises more questions than it answers, doesn't really explain anything, or says it explains everything.
…is not simple—if it invokes new unknown forces which it has no evidence for.
…is not conservative—if it would require us to ignore, or think wrong, things we already know are true, then it's probably pseudoscience.
If it does all of these things, then it is definitely pseudoscience.

Example: The Anti-Vaccination movement.
They say: All vaccines are dangerous.
Some think they are used for mind control.
They say: Use of MMR causes autism.
"The rate of autism has raised in conjunction with the rate of vaccines."
Andrew Wakefield carried out an experiment on some kids at a birthday party, where he gave them the MMR vaccine, and then followed their progress. He claimed most (all?) of them got autism.

Biased source. Wakefield was backed by a company trying to sell an alternate vaccine.
An agenda? The theory is often touted by those selling "natural" cures.
Inappropriate appeal to authority: One of the strongest promoters of this idea is Jenny McCarthy—a former playmate of the year.
It vilifies the medical establishment, claiming that they want to make you sick to make money. It also claims that the establishment suppresses the evidence for their theory (that's why there is no good evidence for the link).
There is almost no limit—anti-vaxers claim that vaccines are responsible for almost every disease out there.

Tell-Tale Signs:
Biased source. Wakefield was backed by a company trying to sell an alternate vaccine.
An agenda? The theory is often touted by those selling "natural" cures.
Inappropriate appeal to authority: One of the strongest promoters of this idea is Jenny McCarthy—a former playmate of the year.
It vilifies the medical establishment, claiming that they want to make you sick to make money. It also claims that the establishment suppresses the evidence for their theory (that's why there is no good evidence for the link).
There is almost no limit—anti-vaxers claim that vaccines are responsible for almost every disease out there.

Tell-Tale Signs:
How to tell science from Pseudoscience –
The short cut method:
Fallacious reasoning?
Data mining (Global Warming Skeptics)
Count the hits, ignore the misses (Psychics)
Too small or biased sample size (Vaccines and Autism)
Causal fallacy/correlation does not entail causation (any testimonial)
Is it "all natural"? (Pumpkin seeds "cure all")
Many natural things are bad (hemlock), many unnatural things (glasses, GMOs) are good.
Appeal to ignorance: "It's true because it hasn't been proven false".



How to tell science from Pseudoscience –
The short cut method:
Fallacious reasoning?
Data mining (Global Warming Skeptics)
Count the hits, ignore the misses (Psychics)
Too small or biased sample size (Vaccines and Autism)
Causal fallacy/correlation does not entail causation (any testimonial)
Is it "all natural"? (Pumpkin seeds "cure all")
Many natural things are bad (hemlock), many unnatural things (glasses, GMOs) are good.
Appeal to ignorance: "It's true because it hasn't been proven false".



How to tell science from Pseudoscience –
The short cut method:
Fallacious reasoning?
Data mining (Global Warming Skeptics)
Count the hits, ignore the misses (Psychics)
Too small or biased sample size (Vaccines and Autism)
Causal fallacy/correlation does not entail causation (any testimonial)
Is it "all natural"? (Pumpkin seeds "cure all")
Many natural things are bad (hemlock), many unnatural things (glasses, GMOs) are good.
Appeal to ignorance: "It's true because it hasn't been proven false".



How to tell science from pseudoscience –
The short cut method:
First announced by mass media, not scientific channels? (Cold-Fusion)
Science jargon that doesn't make sense. (Philipstein Teslar Watches - "Natural Frequency Technology")
Vague scientific language ("it improves performance") that can't be tested or subject to suggestion. (Deer Antler Spray: "enhances performance and improves recovery.")
Invokes "energy fields" or other unverified entities or powers. (Acupuncture, qi. Homeopathy, and "essence.")
Make enemies out of its critics ? Is it "suppressed by the authorities/experts"? Does it attack them, instead of their theory (or providing evidence for their theory)? (homeopathy v. big phrama)

How to tell science from pseudoscience –
The short cut method:
First announced by mass media, not scientific channels? (Cold-Fusion)
Science jargon that doesn't make sense. (Philipstein Teslar Watches - "Natural Frequency Technology")
Vague scientific language ("it improves performance") that can't be tested or subject to suggestion. (Deer Antler Spray: "enhances performance and improves recovery.")
Invokes "energy fields" or other unverified entities or powers. (Acupuncture, qi. Homeopathy, and "essence.")
Make enemies out of its critics ? Is it "suppressed by the authorities/experts"? Does it attack them, instead of their theory (or providing evidence for their theory)? (homeopathy v. big phrama)

How to tell science from pseudoscience –
The short cut method:
First announced by mass media, not scientific channels? (Cold-Fusion)
Science jargon that doesn't make sense. (Philipstein Teslar Watches - "Natural Frequency Technology")
Vague scientific language ("it improves performance") that can't be tested or subject to suggestion. (Deer Antler Spray: "enhances performance and improves recovery.")
Invokes "energy fields" or other unverified entities or powers. (Acupuncture and qi. Homeopathy and "essence.")
Make enemies out of its critics ? Is it "suppressed by the authorities/experts"? Does it attack them, instead of their theory (or providing evidence for their theory)? (homeopathy v. big phrama)

How to tell science from pseudoscience –
The short cut method:
First announced by mass media, not scientific channels? (Cold-Fusion)
Science jargon that doesn't make sense. (Philipstein Teslar Watches - "Natural Frequency Technology")
Vague scientific language ("it improves performance") that can't be tested or subject to suggestion. (Deer Antler Spray: "enhances performance and improves recovery.")
Invokes "energy fields" or other unverified entities or powers. (Acupuncture, qi. Homeopathy, and "essence.")
Make enemies out of its critics? Is it "suppressed by the authorities/experts"? Does it attack them, instead of their theory (or providing evidence for their theory)? (homeopathy v. big phrama)

How to tell science from Pseudoscience –
The short cut method:
Alarmist rants:
Is all food poison (and so should we all be dead)? (Anti-GMOs)
Are doctors trying to keep you sick because they want your money? (Natural Home Cures)
Do they manipulate emotions instead of present evidence?
It's too good to be true. There is no limit.
E.g., Water and Sea Salt Cures
If it claims to cure all, it likely cures nothing.
Makes excuses to save itself from the evidence? (Acupuncture)
Dr. Oz: "Can't be tested by western techniques."


How to tell science from Pseudoscience –
The short cut method:
Alarmist rants:
Is all food poison (and so should we all be dead)? (Anti-GMOs)
Are doctors trying to keep you sick because they want your money? (Natural Home Cures)
Do they manipulate emotions instead of present evidence?
It's too good to be true. There is no limit.
E.g., Water and Sea Salt Cures
If it claims to cure all, it likely cures nothing.
Makes excuses to save itself from the evidence? (Acupuncture)
Dr. Oz: "Can't be tested by western techniques."



How to tell science from Pseudoscience –
The short cut method:
Alarmist rants:
Is all food poison (and so should we all be dead)? (Anti-GMOs)
Are doctors trying to keep you sick because they want your money? (Natural Home Cures)
Do they manipulate emotions instead of present evidence?
It's too good to be true. There is no limit.
E.g., Water and Sea Salt Cures
If it claims to cure all, it likely cures nothing.
Makes excuses to save itself from the evidence? (Acupuncture)
Dr. Oz: "Can't be tested by western techniques."


British Medical Journal: Just 46% of his claims were supported by (any) scientific evidence (usually just one study). Meanwhile, 36% were found to have no supporting evidence and 15% were actually contradicted by scientific evidence.

Kinesio tape


Biased source. Wakefield was backed by a company trying to sell an alternate vaccine.
An agenda? The theory is often touted by those selling "natural" cures.
Inappropriate appeal to authority: One of the strongest promoters of this idea is Jenny McCarthy—a former playmate of the year.
It vilifies the medical establishment, claiming that they want to make you sick to make money. It also claims that the establishment suppresses the evidence for their theory (that's why there is no good evidence for the link).
There is almost no limit—anti-vaxers claim that vaccines are responsible for almost every disease out there.

Tell-Tale Signs:
It conflicts with:
The mounds of data that we have that shows that vaccines work and that they are safe (and don't cause autism).
The fact that the "unnatural" ingredients in vaccines are found in all of our foods in much higher amounts. (There is 5x more mercury in a can of tuna.)
And that most of the (supposed dangerous but actually non-dangerous) ingredients were taken out long ago (to appease people), yet autism has continued to rise.

It's Not Conservative:
It's Not Conservative:
It conflicts with:
The mounds of data that we have that shows that vaccines work and that they are safe (and don't cause autism).
The fact that the "unnatural" ingredients in vaccines are found in all of our foods in much higher amounts. (There is 5x more mercury in a can of tuna.)
And that most of the (supposed dangerous but actually non-dangerous) ingredients were taken out long ago (to appease people), yet autism has continued to rise.


It's Not Conservative:
It conflicts with:
The mounds of data that we have that shows that vaccines work and that they are safe (and don't cause autism).
The fact that the "unnatural" ingredients in vaccines are found in all of our foods in much higher amounts. (There is 5x more mercury in a can of tuna.)
And that most of the (supposed dangerous but actually non-dangerous) ingredients were taken out long ago (to appease people), yet autism has continued to rise.

What's the harm?
We are now enjoying resurgences of previously eradicated diseases.
Measles
Mumps
Meningitis
Whooping cough (Pertussis)
Polio (in Africa, via a conspiracy theory)
Source


Smallpox
Polio
Rubella
Measles
Mumps

Chiropractic
Four Articles:
Science and chiropractic
The end of Chiropractic
What a Rational Chiropractor Can Do for You
Chiropractic Gimmickry
Chiropractic and Subluxation
Testable? It is, but it has been shown not to work and that evidence has been ignored.
X-rays verified that manipulation was not putting bones back into place.
Studies have shown that it does not cure or effect what it claims, yet such evidence has been ignored (in favor of "clinical experience").
The new definition is unfalsifable. "…a complex of functional and/or structural and or pathological articular changes that compromise neural integrity and may influence organ system and general health."
Chiropractic and Subluxation
Fruitful? No.
No studies were initially done (Palmer just started treating people)
Subsequent studies have shown it works no better than placebo
Simple: No, it assumes the existence of a "Innate" ("mythical vitalistic) force.
Scope: No, it raises unanswered questions about what this force is and how it works.
Conservative? No. It conflicts with what we know that actually causes most problems (claimed to be caused by subluxation): germs, imbalanced hormones, antibodies (e.g., allergies), etc.

It is testable, but most anti-vaxers excuse away the results of the
tests or change their hypothesis.
It is not fruitful: It predicts that the rate of autism should be higher among the vaccinated than the non-vaccinated, and it is not. Multiple studies have repeatedly shown no correlation.
It has little scope: it does not explain how vaccines cause autism. It mentions some ingredients in vaccines, but has no explanations for how they could have that effect.
It is not simple because it invokes a conspiracy and cover-up.


Proving It's pseudoscience:
It is testable, but most anti-vaxers excuse away the results of the
tests or change their hypothesis.
It is not fruitful: It predicts that the rate of autism should be higher among the vaccinated than the non-vaccinated, and it is not. Multiple studies have repeatedly shown no correlation.
It has little scope: it does not explain how vaccines cause autism. It mentions some ingredients in vaccines, but has no explanations for how they could have that effect.
It is not simple because it invokes a conspiracy and cover-up.


Proving It's pseudoscience:
It is testable, but most anti-vaxers excuse away the results of the
tests or change their hypothesis.
It is not fruitful: It predicts that the rate of autism should be higher among the vaccinated than the non-vaccinated, and it is not. Multiple studies have repeatedly shown no correlation.
It has little scope: it does not explain how vaccines cause autism. It mentions some ingredients in vaccines, but has no explanations for how they could have that effect.
It is not simple because it invokes a conspiracy and cover-up.


Proving It's pseudoscience:
Biased source. Wakefield was backed by a company trying to sell an alternate vaccine.
An agenda? The theory is often touted by those selling "natural" cures.
Inappropriate appeal to authority: One of the strongest promoters of this idea is Jenny McCarthy—a former playmate of the year.
It vilifies the medical establishment, claiming that they want to make you sick to make money. It also claims that the establishment suppresses the evidence for their theory (that's why there is no good evidence for the link).
There is almost no limit—anti-vaxers claim that vaccines are responsible for almost every disease out there.

Tell-Tale Signs:
Tell-Tale-Signs:
They also manipulate emotions by talking about "harm to children."
It ignores that Wakefield's results can't be replicated, and that study was debunked and retracted.
Most of the kids already showed signs of autism (that's why he selected them.)
The sample size was too small
There was no control.
Anti-vaxers only mention the few instances where autism was diagnosed after vaccines were given; they ignore the majority of cases where vaccines are given and there are no ill effects and the decades of research that shows they are safe.

Tell-Tale-Signs:
They also manipulate emotions by talking about "harm to children."
It ignores that Wakefield's results can't be replicated, and that study was debunked and retracted.
Most of the kids already showed signs of autism (that's why he selected them.)
The sample size was too small
There was no control.
Anti-vaxers only mention the few instances where autism was diagnosed after vaccines were given; they ignore the majority of cases where vaccines are given and there are no ill effects and the decades of research that shows they are safe.

Tell-Tale-Signs:
They also manipulate emotions by talking about "harm to children."
It ignores that Wakefield's results can't be replicated, and that study was debunked and retracted.
Most of the kids already showed signs of autism (that's why he selected them.)
The sample size was too small
There was no control.
Anti-vaxers only mention the few instances where autism was diagnosed after vaccines were given; they ignore the majority of cases where vaccines are given and there are no ill effects and the decades of research that shows they are safe.

Biased source. Wakefield was backed by a company trying to sell an alternate vaccine.
An agenda? The theory is often touted by those selling "natural" cures.
Inappropriate appeal to authority: One of the strongest promoters of this idea is Jenny McCarthy—a former playmate of the year.
It vilifies the medical establishment, claiming that they want to make you sick to make money. It also claims that the establishment suppresses the evidence for their theory (that's why there is no good evidence for the link).
There is almost no limit—anti-vaxers claim that vaccines are responsible for almost every disease out there.

Tell-Tale Signs:
Tell-Tale-Signs:
It invokes the causal fallacy.
Wakefield used no control.
That one thing is followed by the other does not mean that one causes the other. (The age at which a child is old enough to get the MMR vaccine is around the time a child is old enough to show signs of autism.)
That the rate of autism rose in conjunction with rise in vaccines use does not mean one caused the other. It's also the case that organic food use rose along side autism. Without an explanatory mechanism, correlations show nothing.
The rise in autism is probably a rise in diagnosis, not occurrence.
It claims that the ingredients in vaccines are "unnatural" as if that is necessarily bad.
It appeals to ignorance. "Since we don't yet know what causes autism, it must be vaccines."

It is testable, but most anti-vaxers excuse away the results
of the tests or change their hypothesis.
It is not fruitful: It predicts that the rate of autism should be higher among the vaccinated than the non-vaccinated, and it is not. Multiple studies have repeatedly shown no correlation.
It has little scope: it does not explain how vaccines cause autism. It mentions some ingredients in vaccines, but has no explanations for how they could have that effect.
It is not simple because it invokes a conspiracy and cover-up.


Proving It's pseudoscience:
Tell-Tale-Signs:
It invokes the causal fallacy.
Wakefield used no control.
That one thing is followed by the other does not mean that one causes the other. (The age at which a child is old enough to get the MMR vaccine is around the time a child is old enough to show signs of autism.)
That the rate of autism rose in conjunction with rise in vaccines use does not mean one caused the other. It's also the case that organic food use rose along side autism. Without an explanatory mechanism, correlations show nothing.
The rise is autism is probably a rise in diagnosis, not occurrence.
It claims that the ingredients in vaccines are "unnatural" as if that is necessarily bad.
It appeals to ignorance. "Since we don't yet know what causes autism, it must be vaccines."

Tell-Tale-Signs:
It invokes the causal fallacy.
Wakefield used no control.
That one thing is followed by the other does not mean that one causes the other. (The age at which a child is old enough to get the MMR vaccine is around the time a child is old enough to show signs of autism.)
That the rate of autism rose in conjunction with rise in vaccines use does not mean one caused the other. It's also the case that organic food use rose along side autism. Without an explanatory mechanism, correlations show nothing.
The rise is autism is probably a rise in diagnosis, not occurrence.
It claims that the ingredients in vaccines are "unnatural" as if that is necessarily bad.
It appeals to ignorance. "Since we don't yet know what causes autism, it must be vaccines."


60

65

61

62

63

64

59

54

53

55

58

57

56

84

67

86

85
Click to edit Master title style
Click to edit Master text styles
Second level
Third level
Fourth level
Fifth level
2/13/2016

#



83

82

87

88

89

92

91

90

81

80

79

71

70

69

68

72

73

74

78

77

76

75

66

10

11

12

9

7

16

17

18

19

15

13

14

6
2/13/2016

#
Click to edit Master text styles
Second level
Third level
Fourth level
Fifth level
Click to edit Master text styles
2/13/2016

#
Click to edit Master title style

Click icon to add picture
Click to edit Master text styles
2/13/2016

#
Click to edit Master title style

Click to edit Master title style
Click to edit Master text styles
Second level
Third level
Fourth level
Fifth level
2/13/2016

#
Click to edit Master title style
Click to edit Master text styles
Second level
Third level
Fourth level
Fifth level
2/13/2016

#

1
Click to edit Master title style
2/13/2016

#
Click to edit Master title style
Click to edit Master text styles
Click to edit Master text styles
Second level
Third level
Fourth level
Fifth level
Click to edit Master text styles
Click to edit Master text styles
Second level
Third level
Fourth level
Fifth level
2/13/2016

#
Click to edit Master title style
Click to edit Master text styles
Second level
Third level
Fourth level
Fifth level
Click to edit Master text styles
Second level
Third level
Fourth level
Fifth level
2/13/2016

#
Click to edit Master title style
Click to edit Master subtitle style
2/13/2016



#
Click to edit Master title style
Click to edit Master text styles
Second level
Third level
Fourth level
Fifth level
2/13/2016

#
Click to edit Master title style
Click to edit Master text styles
2/13/2016
#


5

4

2

3

20

40

41

43

39

36

37

38

44

45

49

50

51

48

46

47

52

26

25

27

24

23

21

22

28

32

33

34

31

30

29

35

2/13/2016

Click to edit Master text styles
Second level
Third level
Fourth level
Fifth level

#