Numbers seem very scientific. They give any argument a veneer of credibility, even a dishonest one that misleads the public. Let's examine some common methods used to take advantage of the public's innumeracy and promote health scares online.

The body responds to molecules and nutrients—not origin stories or factory steps. Whether a chemical is lab-made or a food industrially processed, biology cares about composition, calories, sugar and fiber, not the production method.

Natural isn’t inherently safer, and processing isn’t inherently harmful. These are unpopular facts, but they are facts nonetheless.

Join Dr. Chuck Dinerstein and Cam English on the Science Dispatch podcast as they discuss:

• The Terms “Ultra-Processed” and “Synthetic” Are Flawed for the Same Reason

The terms “synthetic” and “ultra-processed” are widely (and opportunistically) used as warning labels and marketing strategies. Although they sound scientific, both rely on the same flawed logic: judging substances by how they are made rather than what they actually are.

The body responds to molecules and nutrients, not to whether they came from a factory, a farm, a kitchen, or a pinball arcade.

On the latest edition of the Science Dispatch Moms Takeover, ACSH’s Ana Dolaskie and Desiree English team up with Dr. Jess Steier (Unbiased Science) for a no-nonsense social media anxiety detox.

They tackle honey and infant botulism risks, viral pesticide panics, and celebrate evidence-based formula feeding.

Moms, are you tired of the fearmongering polluting your timeline? Join us for science-backed confidence in parenting.

Social media can feel like a minefield for parents. Every scroll brings a fresh wave of chemical scares, "toxic" warnings or the latest must-try health fad—if you want to be a "good mom," that is.

This week on the Science Dispatch podcast, two ACSH moms step into the host seats: video reporter Ana Dolaskie and science teacher Desiree English.

They push back against the fearmongering and offer evidence-based guidance to help parents navigate Instagram (and the rest of the internet) with confidence instead of anxiety.

Should we regulate sugar like opioids? It's a proposal with widespread appeal (at least in the academy). But when considered practically, the idea runs headlong into the complicated realities of food production, federal bureaucracy and individual behavior.

So-called ultra-processed foods (UPFs) are blamed for a litany of health problems—often based on shaky science. But recent headlines pushed the spurious correlations even further, alleging that some popular snack foods might be linked to behavioral problems in children. The problem? The study that generated all the headlines said no such thing.

Synthetic pesticides: they're the ultimate bogeyman in the mind of today's chemophobic health "influencer." As popular as this view is, it's badly misguided. The truth is that pesticides have dramatically reduced farming's environmental footprint—helping protect beneficial insects as food production grows.

As we celebrate World Bee Day, medical toxicologist Dr. Liza Lockwood joins us to discuss the lesser-known environmental and public health benefits of modern chemistry. Did you know, for instance, that the judicious use of pesticides helps control disease-causing weeds and microbes that used to kill people by the thousands? Let's take a closer look at one of science's most controversial topics on this episode of the Science Dispatch podcast.

Drug prohibition hasn't worked. Illicit opioids continue to kill thousands of Americans each year, and the problem grows worse as the illegal drug supply becomes increasingly toxic. With such a lackluster track record, is it time to consider a more radical solution to the overdose epidemic?

ACSH science advisor and addiction medicine specialist Dr. Lynn Webster joins us to discuss safe injection sites—medically supervised facilities where addicts can use drugs—as a tool to reduce overdoses. Is this a sensible public health intervention, or a dangerous policy that enables destructive behavior?

You can be religious or you can be scientific—you certainly can’t be both. That’s the framing many people bring to discussions where faith and evidence intersect. But is it really a fair way to approach the issue?

No, say Dr. Chuck Dinerstein and Cam English on this episode of The Science Dispatch. Historically, science and religion were close allies. Letting them collaborate again could offer better insight into some of our most pressing health and scientific questions.

Ketogenic diets can help some obese people lose a significant amount of weight when their health is at risk. But in recent months, social media influencers have also credited these very low-carb diets with a far more remarkable effect: treating, or even curing, schizophrenia.

Is there any truth to this claim, or is it just another social media fad racing ahead of the evidence?