Top stories

What Doctors Don’t Tell You is wrong about autism

A splendid fisking by Mike Stanton (@Convivir) of WDDTY’s latest nonsensical piece on autism, the quack target du jour for pretty much every jour since Andy Wakefield’s fraudfest. Numerous other hot buttons of the SCAM community are also present.

Chinese herb reverses chronic back problems

Chinese herb reverses chronic back problems

This is a short piece that perfectly exemplifies the WDDTY approach.
Chinese herb reverses chronic back problems

A Chinese herbal medicine may reverse chronic back problems by improving movement, repairing damage and reducing inflammation, say researchers.… Read more

See how, within the first paragraph, we’ve gone from “reverses” to “may reverse”?

New therapy reversing autistic symptoms in just nine hours

Second to cancer, autism is probably the greatest focus of pseudomedical nonsense right now. Projects such as “Age of Autism”, the notorious “Autism One” conference, the execrable Jenny McCarthy and homeopath Tinus Smits’ “CEASE therapy” are only a tiny handful of the dozens – hundreds – of examples of autism woo.

WDDTY is trumpeting a new “study” which fits not only their autism woo agenda but also Lynne McTaggart’s nonsensical beliefs in the power of “intention”.

It’s published in a pseudojournal edited by a parapsychology believer. But it mentions intention, so clearly it is peerless wisdom.

The John Diamond Challenge

The John Diamond Challenge

. WDDTY calls itself a medical journal, and while its editors claim in interviews and on Facebook that they don’t give health advice they paradoxically spend a lot of time telling you about all the health advice in their magazine and on their website. Now, any reputable journal will have some sort of mechanism for correcting errors. Everybody makes mistakes, or research that initially looks promising fails to pan out, and if you’re giving health advice it’s important that if you do make a mistake you correct it, otherwise people can get hurt. Even the tabloid newspapers will issue the occasional correction, albeit as grudging and buried as they feel they can get away with, but WDDTY’s editors claim to aspire to the highest journalistic standards. They’d surely be better than this, wouldn’t they?

Well, it seems not. Up to now, I’ve only had access to the last couple of dozen issues of the magazine, but based on that sample I’ve not noticed a single case of corrective action being taken. Not one…

In other news...

Become a health expert! Just collect five box tops!

WDDTY on...