ACSH Science Dispatch

The trillions of microbes that live in and on the human body—collectively known as the microbiome—appear to have profoundly important effects on our health. This raises a potential concern: some of our most significant public health interventions—vaccines, antibiotics, sanitation—are designed to kill or limit exposure to harmful germs. Have we gone too far in our war against microbial exposure? Let's take a closer look.

How much fiber do you really need to maintain optimal metabolic health? Ferocious partisans on either side of the debate will give you opposing answers, each supported by superficially compelling scientific evidence. But who's actually telling you the truth? It's complicated.

In early October, Brazil faced a nationwide health emergency as adulterated alcohol, primarily white spirits like vodka and cachaça, was laced with toxic methanol—an industrial chemical used to falsely boost alcohol content.

Authorities suspect organized crime diluted liquor to evade taxes or increase profits, triggering widespread contamination that sickened hundreds of people—with symptoms like blinding headaches, vomiting, and organ failure—and killed at least 10 people.

Are there any public health lessons to learn from this tragic episode?

Yet another junk epidemiological study claims that "ultra-processed" foods are addictive. The research is little more than a conclusion desperately in search of evidence. Let's take a look at its critical flaws.

We should genetically engineer ticks and release them into the environment, so they can infect people with a meat allergy. That's a real—and thoroughly wicked—proposal from two bioethicists at Western Michigan University. Join us as we dissect possibly the dumbest idea the academy has ever produced.

The digital revolution has radically shifted how we consume information. Reading lengthy think pieces and books has given way to limitless hours of doom scrolling and streaming. The widespread access to content enabled by internet access has many upsides, but are we really wired for our new tech-saturated environment? Let's take a closer look.

Last month, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. launched a new wave of hysteria by announcing that Tylenol could be linked to autism. The result was a predictable partisan squabble with both sides lining up behind their preferred studies and experts. Let's put aside the partisanship and try to make sense of the competing scientific claims.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s supporters are eager to rein in direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical ads, claiming they mislead Americans about important health topics. But this anti-pharma coalition faces an awkward dilemma. After pushing regulatory rollbacks at FDA last year, they're now hindered by the very limitations on agency authority they demanded. Do we need to ban pharma ads, and is there a viable way to do it?

Join Cameron English and Dr. Chuck Dinerstein on Episode 135 of the Science Dispatch podcast as they discuss:

Genes and heart health: Is there a specific gene that increases heart-disease risk in black people? More importantly, does that knowledge improve our ability to treat individual patients?

Fragmented health care: Why is medicine so compartmentalized—divided into isolated specialties that treat specific body organs and ailments—and does this fragmentation hinder patient care?

In the last four years, 27 US states have enacted bans or severe restrictions on so-called "gender-affirming care" for children—a marked increase from just one state in 2021. Some experts say the rapid shift in the legal landscape is premature because science has yet to provide a definitive answer about the risks and benefits of the drugs and surgeries utilized to transition children. Does this argument stand up to scrutiny? Let's take a closer look.