Consumer Health Digest is a free weekly e-mail newsletter edited by William M. London, Ed.D., M.P.H., with help from Stephen Barrett, M.D., It summarizes scientific reports; legislative developments; enforcement actions; other news items; Web site evaluations; recommended and nonrecommended books; research tips; and other information relevant to consumer protection and consumer decision-making. The Digest’s primary focus is on health, but occasionally it includes non-health scams and practical tips. Items posted to this archive may be updated when relevant information becomes available. To subscribe, click here.
“Complementary and alternative” medicine research criticized. Dr. Edzard Ernst has written a commentary about research into so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) conducted since he became the world’s first professor of complementary medicine nearly 30 years ago. [Ernst E. Applying science to SCAM: A brief summary of the past thirty years. Skeptical Inquirer, 47(1):11-12, 2023] He concludes:
So, in the past thirty years of SCAM research, we have gone from the rejection of science to accepting that it would be good for promotion, to insisting on an “alternative” version of science, to misleading the public with false-positive findings. It has been a long and tedious journey without actually advancing all that far.
Anti-quackery book reviewed. Harriet Hall, M.D., highly recommends Quack Quack: The Threat of Pseudoscience (ECW Press, 2023), “even for those of you who think you already know a lot about science, pseudoscience, quackery, and human error.” The book is the latest by Dr. Joe Schwarcz, the director of McGill University’s Office for Science and Society. Hall describes it as “an informative and entertaining look at quackery and pseudoscience past and present. A delightful read.” [Hall H. Quack quack. Science-Based Medicine, Jan 3, 2023]
Overconfidence linked to opposing scientific consensus. Researchers have found in a series of studies that “people who disagree most with the scientific consensus [on various issues] know less about the relevant issues, but they think they know more.” [Light N, and others. Knowledge overconfidence is associated with anti-consensus views on controversial scientific issues. Scientific Advances 8(29), 2022] The series covers climate change, genetically modified foods, nuclear power, vaccination, homeopathic medicine, the big bang theory, evolution, COVID-19 mitigation measures before vaccines were available, and the potential for a COVID-19 vaccine in summer 2020. The researchers suggest extreme opponents of the scientific consensus are unlikely to be swayed by fact-based interventions, but it may be helpful to try to change their perceptions of their own knowledge by (a) encouraging people to explain the mechanisms underlying the phenomena at issue, and (b) focusing on persuading thought leaders from political, religious, or cultural groups who have credibility among people holding anti-consensus beliefs.
Low science literacy and lack of critical-thinking education linked to conspiracy beliefs. The Reboot Foundation conducted a survey through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk) from May 2 through June 9, 2022, addressing scientific knowledge, education, scientific background, news-consumption habits, conspiracy-theory beliefs, critical-thinking opinions, and demographics. The 541 respondents were located in the United States and ranged in age from 19 to 81 with a mean age of 41; the most common age was 31. Sixty-five percent had completed a bachelor’s degree or higher. Key findings:
- Roughly 25% of respondents were open to at least one conspiracy theory.
- Almost 25% were at least open to the idea that “governments add fluoride to drinking water in order to keep citizens apathetic and to lower the IQs of children.”
- 25% said it was certainly true or probably true that “COVID-19 is a biological weapon released intentionally by China.”
- 22% said it was certainly true or probably true that “the trails left in the sky by high-flying aircraft are actually toxic chemicals.”
- 21% said it was certainly true or probably true that “5G mobile Internet is substantially harmful to human health.”
- 71% of respondents reported an increase in conspiracy-theory beliefs in people they know, and 74% said they know at least one person who believes a conspiracy theory.
- Respondents who identified as conservatives were 65% more likely to believe in conspiracy theories than self-identified centrists, and they were 70% more likely to believe than those who described themselves as progressives.
- The average score on the scientific knowledge test was 64%.
- Respondents who scored higher on the science-literacy quiz tended to eschew conspiratorial beliefs.
- Respondents who reported having studied critical-thinking activities and media literacy while in school were 26% less likely to believe a conspiracy theory.
- Only 42% reported learning to analyze science news in high school, and just 38% reflected on how messages in advertising or on TV programming might affect people’s feelings or actions.
- Respondents who believed themselves to be critical thinkers were 63% more likely to believe in conspiracy theories.
A report on the survey noted: “Conspiracy believers tend to self-identify as ‘critical thinkers’ even if they’ve never had any formal education on the topic.” The report concluded with recommendations for reforming education, science communication, journalism, and social-media businesses. [Science fictions: Low science knowledge and poor critical thinking are linked to conspiracy beliefs. Reboot Foundation, Sept 2002] The report is discussed in a recent article. [Tolkacz D. Lack of science knowledge, critical thinking skills linked to belief in conspiracy theories. Skeptical Inquirer, Jan 3, 2023]
Systemic changes proposed to transform nursing homes. The Committee on the Quality of Care in Nursing Homes, formed by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, has concluded:
- The way in which the United States finances, delivers, and regulates care in nursing home settings is ineffective, inefficient, fragmented, and unsustainable.
- Immediate action to initiate fundamental change is necessary.
- Federal and state governments, nursing homes, providers, payers, researchers, and others need to make clear a shared commitment to the care of nursing home residents.
- Extreme care needs to be taken to ensure quality-improvement initiatives are implemented using strategies that do not exacerbate disparities in resources, quality of care, or resident outcomes.
- High-quality research is needed to advance the quality of care in nursing homes.
- The nursing home sector has suffered for many decades from both underinvestment in ensuring the quality of care in nursing homes and a lack of accountability in how resources are allocated.
- All relevant federal agencies need to have authority and resources from the U.S. Congress to implement the recommendations of this report.
The committee developed an interrelated set of recommendations to achieve each of these goals:
- deliver comprehensive, person-centered, equitable care that ensures the health, quality of life, and safety of nursing home residents; promotes resident autonomy; and manages risks
- ensure a well-prepared, empowered, and appropriately compensated workforce
- increase transparency and accountability of finances, operations, and ownership
- create a more rational and robust financing system
- design a more effective and responsive system of quality assurance
- expand and enhance quality measurement and continuous quality improvement
- adopt health-information technology in all nursing homes
[The national imperative to improve nursing home quality: Honoring our commitment to residents, families, and staff. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2022]
2001 || 2002 || 2003 || 2004 || 2005 || 2006 || 2007
2008 || 2009 || 2010 || 2011 || 2012 || 2013 || 2014
2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || 2020 || 2021
2022 || 2023 || 2024 || 2025
To subscribe, click here.
