Comments on: You Can’t Believe Everything You Read-Even in a Scientific Journal!

By: Yunnan Paiyao–Secret Herbal Formula to Stop Bleeding? « The SkeptVet Blog

Wed, 17 Mar 2010 21:32:59 +0000

[...] substances doesn’t make a very convincing case. And we have to remember the problem with the reliability of different sources of published research. Publication bias (the publishing of only positive results and “round-filing” of [...]

By: Homeopathy Works for Arthritis–Or Maybe Not « The SkeptVet Blog

Homeopathy Works for Arthritis–Or Maybe Not « The SkeptVet Blog — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 07:18:24 +0000

[...] Barker Bausell in his book Snake Oil Science does an outstanding job illustrating some reasons why not everything that makes its way into a scientific journal is reliable science and why such critical evaluation is [...]

By: gwen

gwen — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 09:39:55 +0000

I just came back from a combined nursing/physician conference and not only did they include a couple of doctors pedaling woo, but they were passing out gideon bibles in the display area. I am boycotting Contemporary Forums Conferences. When I pay big bucks for a conference, I expect science, not woo. I will be sending a letter to that effect.

By: skeptvet

skeptvet — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 16:01:30 +0000

Yes, checking references is another of the chores that no one likes to do but that is necessary to really evaluate the article properly. In a review article on veterinary joint supplements, the authors went through an elaborate process of grading and ranking interventions based on “evidence” and concluded there was a reasonable probability that glucosamine was beneficial. They cited one reference, and when I read it it compared glucosamine/chondroitin supplementation to an NSAID and found no benefit from the glucosamine.

By: Bartimaeus

Bartimaeus — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 15:27:46 +0000

Another problem with some articles written by supporters of alternative medicine is deliberate (probably) misrepresentation or misinterpretation of their bibliographies. I have seen one article on veterinary acupuncture in which the author claims a scientific base to modern acupuncture, but reading the references shows that that base is a house of cards. Among the references supporting “scientific acupuncture” are one book chapter written by an acupuncturist that can be summarizes as “People don’t believe in Chi, so lets call it neuroanatomical acupuncture instead” with nothing to support that assertion, and another paper by Edzard Ernst saying acupuncture was no better than placebo.

I think that some authors expect that no one will check the references they list, especially in a non peer-reviewed article. This problem is not limited to CAM supporters, but seems to be especially prevalent with them.