“Is this article consistent with the latest thinking and knowledge in science?”
“Would experts in this field endorse the main message of this article?”
These are the types of questions our “feedbacks” are designed to answer. If the feedback is positive, you can generally assume the information you’re reading is of high credibility. If it’s negative, however, you may want to read with extra care and attention — some of the information contained and conclusions reached are not consistent with science.
New Scientist article accurately summarises polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) research but overstates significance of animal studies
in New Scientist, by Alice Klein
"I think that the title overstates the position with the present level of knowledge and is too sensationalist. The ‘ovarian cysts’ stated to typically characterize PCOS are not cysts but follicles and this may be misleading. On the positive side, the quotes from Professor Robert Norman are spot on and accurately quoted (see Annotations below)."
— 17 Jan 2019
Research showing benefits of exercise on ageing immune system correctly reported by Time
in Time, by Alexandra Sifferlin
"The overall message of the article is a fair reflection of current scientific opinion that being physically active regularly throughout life most likely promotes healthy ageing of the immune system. However, it is very unlikely that being regularly active prevents ageing of the immune system, although it may slow or limit some of the negative effects."
— 11 Jan 2019
Time article on bone marrow transplant trial for multiple sclerosis treatment mostly accurate but needs more important details and context
in Time, by Alice Park
"The article contains some inaccuracies and simplifications, but is overall accurate. It is not clear which article and whose scientific data it refers to. Such information should be mentioned in the article. The type of stem cells that were used for the procedure is also unclear. Immune system renewal after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation has actually been demonstrated a long time ago..."
— 07 Jan 2019
2018’s most popular health article promoting cannabis’ safety found to be biased and misleading
in urhealthguide, by John Regan
“The article fails to point out that only very limited, low-quality evidence supports the use of cannabis for treating chronic pain. The article also fails to describe the potential harms of cannabis. Although it does not cause fatal overdose, it does cause intoxication and impairment, and driving under the influence is dangerous. Also, both acute and chronic use of cannabis cause cognitive impairment which can interfere with an individual's safety and productivity.”
— 20 Dec 2018
Scientists discuss the widely shared Huffington Post article “Everything You Know About Obesity Is Wrong”
in Huffington Post, by Michael Hobbes
The article failed to place the science in context and overstated scientific confidence, resulting in flawed conclusions. Reviewers also pointed out the bias present in the article which discussed only the negative aspects of obese people’s interactions with society and the medical establishment, while glossing over how both groups have worked to help promote healthy living and weight loss in the obese, such as in the implementation of sugar taxes and the development of medical interventions like bariatric surgery.
— 17 Dec 2018
Viral news article misinterprets classification of processed meat as carcinogenic in claiming it is “as harmful as cigarettes”
in Truth Reporter, by vinit
"The classification of processed meat as “Group 1” – carcinogenic to humans means that the evidence is as strong as for other risk factors included in the Group 1 category, including tobacco. It does not mean that the risk is the same. While Cancer Research UK estimates that 19% of all cancers are caused by tobacco, processed meat is estimated to cause 3% of all cancers. The presentation of the facts in this article is therefore inaccurate, confusing and misleading to the readers."
— 05 Dec 2018
Time article accurately describes distinguishing features between influenza infection and infection by other respiratory viruses
in Time, by Markham Heid
"Generally accurate. However, the main issue is that influenza viruses can also cause a "cold", i.e. upper respiratory tract infection. A "cold" is a symptom/diagnosis whereas "influenza" is a virus that can cause symptoms such as a cold. There could be a better distinction by saying there are lots of viruses (flu, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), human metapneumovirus (HMPV), rhinovirus, coronavirus, etc.) that cause respiratory infections including 'colds' and 'chest infections'."
— 28 Nov 2018
 Note: These feedbacks do not constitute endorsements of the author’s political or economic ideology, rather they are assessments of the scientific foundations and reasoning of the argumentation contained within each article.