Science Facts & Fallacies

This crisis is a serious threat to scientific progress. Dubious results fuel skepticism of mainstream medicine, legitimizing radicals like RFK, Jr. who claim academic publishing is corrupt to its core—merely a vehicle for boosting Big Pharma’s profits. Addressing the problem requires systemic changes: punishing bad behavior in the academy, promoting open data sharing, enforcing rigorous peer review and incentivizing replication studies. Journals and funding agencies must prioritize negative results, and institutions should reward transparency over sensationalism.

Without these reforms, the scientific method’s foundation—reliable, verifiable evidence—could crumble, slowing progress and risking additional harmful policies or applications. By fostering a culture of integrity, science can regain credibility and advance more efficiently, ensuring discoveries are robust and trustworthy for future generations.

But the question remains: will the science community consistently implement these critical solutions? Join Dr. Liza Lockwood and Cam English on this episode of Facts and Fallacies as they tackle the replication crisis with GLP contributor Dr. Kevin Folta.

Kevin M. Folta is a professor in the Horticultural Sciences Department at the University of Florida and host of the Talking Biotech podcast. Follow Professor Folta on Twitter @kevinfolta

Dr. Liza Lockwood is a medical toxicologist and the medical affairs lead at Bayer Crop Science. Follow her on X @DrLizaMD

Cameron J. English is the director of bio-sciences at the American Council on Science and Health. Follow him on X @camjenglish

While Purdue Pharma did indeed oversell OxyContin and many people used the drug recreationally, these were almost always individuals with long histories of substance abuse. The vast majority of patients prescribed OxyContin for legitimate medical purposes did not misuse it. Moreover, by 2001, this widely maligned pain reliever accounted for less than 10 percent of nonmedical opioid use. In reality, there is a large body of research showing that OxyContin poses minimal addiction risk when used as prescribed by a physician.

By the early 2010s, as addiction rates soared and prescription opioids became harder to obtain due to regulatory crackdowns, many users transitioned to cheaper, illicit alternatives like heroin. This second wave, peaking around 2010–2013, saw heroin overdose deaths triple. The crisis evolved further with the third wave starting in 2013, dominated by synthetic opioids such as fentanyl, often laced into other drugs by cartels. Fentanyl-related deaths skyrocketed, accounting for over 70% of opioid fatalities by 2022. Fortunately, this trend has slowed in recent years.

Overlooked amid all this controversy are patients afflicted by painful chronic diseases, who have been denied access to prescription opioids in the name of fighting drug abuse. This severe response to the overdose epidemic often forces sick people with no history of substance abuse to drink alcohol daily or seek out illicit opioids for pain relief—or just commit suicide.

Is there a way to resolve this tragic state of affairs without actively encouraging recreational drug use?

Join Dr. Liza Lockwood and Cam English on this episode of Facts and Fallacies as they break down America’s overdose epidemic with patient advocate Bev Schechtman

Bev Schechtman is vice president of the Doctor-Patient Forum, a non-partisan, community-based organization that works to support pain patients and their physicians with access to lifesaving pain relief. Follow her on X @ibdgirl76.

Dr. Liza Lockwood is a medical toxicologist and the medical affairs lead at Bayer Crop Science. Follow her on X @DrLizaMD

Cameron J. English is the director of bio-sciences at the American Council on Science and Health. Follow him on X @camjenglish

There was a critical problem, however: the internal company documents explicitly refuted a causal association between Tylenol use and autism. Johnson & Johnson’s experts, tasked with evaluating the possible link between acetaminophen and the neurodevelopmental disorder, panned the low-quality evidence cited by critics. “There is no proven link between the two [our emphasis],” a 2012 email from one company scientist plainly stated. A second email in the same chain of messages explained why: “Review of the cases identified confounders or lack of information which preclude a causal assessment.”

Kopp excluded these clear refutations of the Tylenol-autism link from her story, though she implied that the company’s tone had shifted by 2018, quoting one J&J scientist as saying “The weight of the evidence is starting to feel heavy to me.” But an internal evidence review prepared for company executives the same year confirmed that its experts remained skeptical of the association. Evaluating all the evidence available at the time, they noted that studies linking Tylenol to autism were hampered by confounding, meaning another factor beyond acetaminophen exposure was the likely cause of autism. “There are limitations of the individual studies that make it challenging to conduct a meta-analysis,” the presentation concluded.

Meta-analysis is a method of combining and analyzing data from multiple studies on the same topic to reach a more conclusive answer than any one study could provide. The individual studies linking acetaminophen and autism were so limited—so hampered by confounding—they couldn’t be combined for a meta-analysis, J&J scientists found.

The most recent evidence review, published in August 2025, purporting to show a link between Tylenol and autism didn’t include a meta-analysis for the same reason. “[W]e did not conduct [a meta-analysis] due to significant heterogeneity across studies in exposure assessment…” the authors wrote. In sum, the advocates of the acetaminophen-autism association were forced to concede publicly the same point J&J’s scientists made privately.

What do we make of all this? The best evidence to date indicates that the risk of autism is heavily influenced by a variety of genetic factors. For example, multiple studies have shown that pregnant women with neurodevelopmental disorders experience more pain during pregnancy and thus tend to use more Tylenol, explaining the association between the drug and subsequent autism diagnosis in their children. “So let’s be clear,” GLP contributor Dr. Andrea Love observed in a recent story, “autism is overwhelmingly genetic, sometimes influenced by biological and developmental factors like maternal fever, but not acetaminophen.”

Bottom line: The Daily Caller report is fundamentally flawed. It selectively cited private communications and scientific research to support a predetermined conclusion. There is no evidence showing that Tylenol causes autism.

Join Cam English on this episode of Facts and Fallacies as he examines Daily Caller’s allegation in more detail.

Cameron J. English is the director of bio-sciences at the American Council on Science and Health. Follow him on X @camjenglish

In reality, no such epidemic exists. Childhood cancer (ages 0-14) remains rare, with about 9,550 new U.S. cases projected for 2025—stable at roughly 15 per 100,000 children annually. Incidence rates have slightly declined by 0.8% per year from 2015-2021, driven by drops in brain tumors. For adolescents (15-19), rates rose modestly by 0.7% annually, and for young adults (15-39), by just 0.3% from 2013-2022—far from “soaring.”

Cancer mortality tells an even clearer success story: Death rates have plummeted 70% in children and 63% in adolescents since 1970 (p 11), thanks to better treatments—now at approximately 1% of all cancer deaths. Survival exceeds 86% for young patients. While specific cancers like colorectal and breast show slight upticks in people under 50 (1-2% annually), these are tiny increases, and they aren’t occurring in an age group anybody typically describes as young.

Scapegoating chemical exposure for these rare cancer cases lacks evidence and obscures the fact that child health has improved dramatically, with overall mortality halved since the 1960s. It’s time for reporters, social media influencers and public health officials to focus on evidence and quit exaggerating risk.

Join Dr. Liza Lockwood and Cam English on this episode of Facts and Fallacies as they debunk the media-driven “youth” cancer scare.

Dr. Liza Lockwood is a medical toxicologist and the medical affairs lead at Bayer Crop Science. Follow her on X @DrLizaMD

Cameron J. English is the director of bio-sciences at the American Council on Science and Health. Follow him on X @camjenglish

The argument goes like this: since AGS triggers harmful symptoms—severe stomach pain, low blood pressure, dizziness, vomiting, diarrhea (and death in very rare cases)—people infected with the condition would switch to more climate-friendly protein sources to avoid harm. The researchers framed this proposal as a form of moral bioenhancement. “It helps [the public] satisfy their obligation not to eat meat, an obligation they would otherwise be disinclined to satisfy,” they wrote in the journal Bioethics. “The allergy presents only after eating meat: no meat, no allergic reaction.”

Since no sane person would volunteer to receive a serious, chronic food allergy, the authors proposed spreading Alpha-Gal Syndrome indirectly through “genetically engineer ticks so that they proliferate AGS.” They argue that ticks are the most viable transmission mechanism, while speculating that “it may be feasible for a person to take synthetic AGS to grocery stores and secretly inject it into beef, pork, lamb, etc.”

After their paper was savaged on Twitter, one of the authors claimed the proposal was only a thought experiment, “a hypothetical ethical framework for discussion when asked about the intent,” The College Fix reported. Still, that response raises a troubling question: why even speculate about genetically engineering insects to harm innocent people? As one of us (Cameron) pointed out in response to the “thought experiment” defense, dangerous policies that cause real harm commonly begin as hypotheticals bandied about by well-meaning intellectuals.

Join Dr. Liza Lockwood and Cam English on this episode of Facts and Fallacies as they make the case against engineering insects to spread food allergies.

Dr. Liza Lockwood is a medical toxicologist and the medical affairs lead at Bayer Crop Science. Follow her on X @DrLizaMD

Cameron J. English is the director of bio-sciences at the American Council on Science and Health. Follow him on X @camjenglish

Rather shamefully, the email was carefully tailored to avoid several awkward facts that refuted the firm’s litigation narrative.

First, the recall—and the subsequent litigation—stemmed from North Carolina health officials alerting the FDA to lead in Wanabana products, ultimately triggering the bankruptcy of the U.S. company and the closure of its Ecuadorian cinnamon supplier. By October 2024, the CDC reported 130 asymptomatic cases of elevated blood lead levels, four illnesses, and no deaths: isolated incidents caught by health officials, not a widespread crisis. An extensive 2025 review found that “… the daily inorganic arsenic exposure for most Americans … did not rise to a level that was a concern to pose elevated risks of harmful health outcomes,” a conclusion echoed by another expert who analyzed the data.

More broadly, the American Academy of Pediatrics (2021) notes that baby foods contribute minimally to overall metal exposure, while a 2016 study detected negligible lead in U.S. samples. The simple fact is that heavy metals are ubiquitous; zero exposure is impossible, and lead levels have plummeted since the 1970s. Trial lawyers are again peddling fear in pursuit of profit. U.S. baby foods are carefully tested and regulated. In rare cases where companies sell unsafe products, they face financial ruin.

Join Dr. Liza Lockwood and Cam English on this episode of Facts and Fallacies as they deconstruct an anti-chemical litigation pitch from a tort law firm.

Dr. Liza Lockwood is a medical toxicologist and the medical affairs lead at Bayer Crop Science. Follow her on X @DrLizaMD

Cameron J. English is the director of bio-sciences at the American Council on Science and Health. Follow him on X @camjenglish

Labels from the Non-GMO Project imply that genetically engineered crops are inherently harmful when they aren’t. The Project’s marketing capitalizes on consumer confusion, ignoring that genetic modification is an unavoidable feature of all plant breeding methods—including those that produce products affixed with the Non-GMO Project butterfly. The result? Consumers pay inflated prices without receiving any tangible health benefits.

Similarly, “hormone-free” meat claims are misleading, because all meat contains naturally occurring hormones. The term typically refers to meat from animals not given synthetic hormones. But in poultry and pork, synthetic hormones are already banned in the U.S., making the label redundant. For beef, the FDA ensures hormone residues are negligible and safe. Studies confirm no health risks from approved hormone use in livestock. The label creates a false dichotomy, suggesting conventional meat is unsafe. It also ignores the fact that hormone supplementation reduces the environmental footprint of animal agriculture, allowing farmers to produce affordable, sustainable proteins that promote healthy eating.

Detox programs, often marketed as cleanses or diets to “flush toxins,” lack scientific credibility. The human body has evolved efficient detoxification systems—primarily the liver, kidneys, and digestive tract—that eliminate harmful substances naturally. No quality studies support the need for detox diets or supplements. Claims of removing vague “toxins” are unquantifiable and often exploit wellness trends for profit.

These marketing strategies thrive on pseudoscience, misrepresenting complex processes to instill fear. Consumers seeking healthier choices are misled into paying premiums for products offering no proven benefits, diverting attention from evidence-based habits that actually promote better health.

Join Dr. Kevin Folta and Cam English on this episode of Facts and Fallacies as they discuss the flaws behind these popular but baseless marketing fads.

Kevin M. Folta is a professor, keynote speaker, and podcast host. Follow Professor Folta on X @kevinfolta

Cameron J. English is the director of bio-sciences at the American Council on Science and Health. Follow him on X @camjenglish

Although Truther’s approach has drawn criticism from some researchers who say he legitimizes the anti-vaccine movement, one thing can’t be denied about his strategy—it works. Curious listeners often stumble into his spaces with legitimate questions and concerns about vaccines, but it’s not uncommon for them to walk away with changed minds. While that outcome may surprise some science communicators, it shouldn’t. News stories published during the pandemic and research predating COVID showed that quite a few vaccine “deniers” could be convinced that vaccination was a smart choice; all they needed was someone to explain the science clearly and address their fears respectfully. Building trust is the way forward for vaccine advocates, in other words.

Ultimately, the key to communications approach isn’t winning an argument, but understanding the facts and reaching the right conclusion, which is harder to do when we isolate ourselves from different perspectives. “For me, it would just get kind of boring to lecture people or have a space where everyone agrees with each other,” Truther adds. “I actually want to understand why people disagree with me, understand arguments people have that are different from mine. To me, that brings us closer to the truth.”

Join Dr. Liza Lockwood, Cam English and Real Truther on this episode of Facts and Fallacies as they discuss the best way to combat vaccine skepticism.

The Real Truther hosts The Real Truther Show every Tuesday and Thursday on X. Follow him @thereal_truther.

Dr. Liza Lockwood is a medical toxicologist and the medical affairs lead at Bayer Crop Science. Follow her on X @DrLizaMD

Cameron J. English is the director of bio-sciences at the American Council on Science and Health. Follow him on X @camjenglish

How does this process work? IVF is a fertility treatment where eggs are retrieved from ovaries, fertilized with sperm in a lab, and resulting embryos are transferred to the uterus. Embryo selection, often through preimplantation genetic testing (PGT), involves screening embryos for genetic abnormalities before implantation. While these technologies offer hope to many, they come with notable risks.

Technical challenges

The first problem is that IVF isn’t seamless. Multiple embryo transfers increase the chance of twins or higher-order pregnancies, raising complications like preterm birth and low birth weight. Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, a potential side effect from fertility drugs, can cause abdominal pain, bloating, and in rare cases, blood clots. There’s also a slightly elevated risk of birth defects and hypertensive disorders. If more people opt to use IVF as a means of “designing” their babies, there’s a chance these negative outcomes will become more frequent.

Then there are concerns about the accuracy of embryo screening. Polygenic risk scores are not iron-clad guarantees, they’re statistical associations based on limited population data. While they’re accurate up to a point, they can’t account for every variable that influences the traits we’re interested in, for example environmental factors that affect disease risk. In short, PGT can’t tell you when or even if a particular trait will materialize—only that it might.

Ethical dilemmas

But assuming these reproductive technologies work as intended, the greatest concerns stem from unresolved ethical dilemmas. For instance, what happens when parents select an embryo with a lower risk of cancer but a higher risk of diabetes? Or consider a scenario where someone wants a child with a physical deficit like deafness? These scenarios raise the question of regulation. Who determines how these reproductive technologies are used, and what basis do they make these decisions? The risk of abuse by governments is obvious.

Philosopher Jonathan Anomaly is a well-known proponent of embryo selection and the author of Creating Future People: The Science and Ethics of Genetic Enhancement. While he acknowledges the validity of these myriad concerns about designer babies, he argues that they’re surmountable with technological improvements and sensible rules that balance parental autonomy with common sense.

Is embryo selection the start of a biomedical revolution, or a gateway to a totalitarian future? Join Dr. Liza Lockwood and Cam English on this episode of Facts and Fallacies as they explore the messy ethics of embryo selection with Jonathan Anomaly.

Jonny Anomaly is a former professor and currently head of communications at Herasight, a company that provides polygenic embryo screening. Find him on X @JonathanAnomaly

Dr. Liza Lockwood is a medical toxicologist and the medical affairs lead at Bayer Crop Science. Follow her on X @DrLizaMD

Cameron J. English is the director of bio-sciences at the American Council on Science and Health. Follow him on X @camjenglish

In hyperreal environments like Instagram and X, fine-tuned narratives—cultivated by capable but ethically suspect storytellers like Robert F. Kennedy, Jr—create a “reality” that feels authentic but lacks an original reference point. Author and legal scholar Ron Chapman argues that these platforms surgically exploit psychological truths to guide decisions, fostering a world where emotion trumps fact. Combined with the prevailing social dogma that “my lived experience” is the ultimate standard of morality, hyperreality distorts our judgement—driving us to make decisions that could harm ourselves and others.

The core challenge in hyperreality for both content creators and consumers is balancing persuasion’s power with ethical responsibility. But how do we do that exactly?

In his book Truth and Persuasion: In the Digital Revolution, Chapman explores how influence shapes our world in an era of competing truths, examining how persuasion is crafted, consumed, and contested across political speeches, TikTok trends, and brand campaigns. It offers a roadmap to decode, resist, and responsibly wield influence in a digital age dominated by social media algorithms and viral content.

Join Dr. Liza Lockwood and Cam English on this episode of Facts and Fallacies as they explore the consequences of hyperreality with Ron Chapman.

Ron Chapman is a federal criminal defense attorney and author of the book Truth and Persuasion. Visit his Substack and follow him on X @RonChapmanAtty.

Dr. Liza Lockwood is a medical toxicologist and the medical affairs lead at Bayer Crop Science. Follow her on X @DrLizaMD

Cameron J. English is the director of bio-sciences at the American Council on Science and Health. Follow him on X @camjenglish