Here is a recap of the stories that appeared last week at Science-Based Medicine, a multi-author skeptical blog that separates the science from the woo-woo in medicine.  

Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski’s cancer “success” stories (DavidGorski) http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/stanislaw-burzynskis-cancer-success-stories/ The upcoming movie about Burzynski and his cancer treatments relies on success stories, attacks on Burzynski’s critics, attempts to justify billing patients for research, and a mention of a supposed clinical trial out of Japan that has not yet been published. Burzynski’s approach abuses the clinical trial process, and the patient testimonials are not what they seem.  

Sex, Gender, and Sexuality: It’s Complicated (Harriet Hall) http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/sex-gender-and-sexuality-its-complicated/ Sex refers to biological traits, gender to social roles. The distinction is blurred because we can’t always tell which characteristics are biologically determined, and there is no either/or test for male and female. Even the XX versus XY distinction is complicated by anomalies like XXY, XYY, XO, and mosaics. Sex, gender, and sexuality constitute a multidimensional spectrum with various axes, biological, social, and psychological.  

Homeopathy is the second most used medical system in the world, after real medicine. It is legal, and in fact enjoys privileged status in the US and many other industrialized nations. Most people, however, do not really understand what it is, or the fact that years of research and hundreds of studies show conclusively that it does not work – for anything.

Homeopathy is an example of 100% pure unadulterated pseudoscience. Its underlying principles are not only unscientific, they are as close to impossible as you can get in science, meaning that vast amounts of physics, chemistry, and biology would have to be rewritten if homeopathy were true.

In a recent Randi.org blog post, D.J. Grothe kindly named me as one of the “workhorses of skepticism”. He explained that these are individuals who “do scientific paranormal investigations of claims.” D.J. also calls out some other investigators, such as Blake Smith of Monster Talk, Sharon Hill of Doubtful News, CSI’s legendary Joe Nickell and the JREF’s very own Jamy Ian Swiss. In his post D.J. adds:

The work of these folks is not at all trivial, and indeed is very important service in the public interest. People are harmed when they believe paranormal and pseudoscientific nonsense, and the work of skepticism, as sort of intellectual consumer protection informed by science and critical thinking and motivated by a kind of humanism or regard for others’ well-being, aims to help people from being hurt by their undue belief.

Before it seems like I’m blowing my own horn, I actually want to give a shout out to a few fellow investigators who are unsung, and share their case about a frightened family and a not-so “haunted” house.