Article Reviews
“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.[1]
Viral New York Post article perpetuates the unfounded claim that the virus that causes COVID-19 is manmade
in New York Post, by Steven W. Mosher
Overall, Mosher’s argument is based on unfounded speculation and scientific inaccuracies. Such claims, which continue to be perpetuated even by public officials, have real-world repercussions. Peter Daszak, epidemiologist and president of the EcoHealth Alliance who has collaborated with WIV researchers, warned during an interview with the journal Science: “These rumors and conspiracy theories have real consequences, including threats of violence that have occurred to our colleagues in China.”
— 02 Mar 2020
ABC article effectively illustrates important climate trends for Australian readers
in Australian Broadcasting Company, by Tim Leslie, Joshua Byrd, Nathan Hoad
"This article is exceptionally good in delivering accurate information in an engaging way. There are many useful statements made about the effects of climate change on extreme weather globally and in Australia and these have been backed up by links to relevant peer-reviewed literature."
— 11 Dec 2019
New York Times accurately reports vaccine-derived polio outbreaks caused by low vaccine coverage
in New York Times, by Associated Press
"The content of the article is correct: attenuated polio strain type 2 contained in the oral vaccine can – in very rare cases – mutate and cause disease in under-immunized persons. However it might be good to specify that if the vaccine coverage is good, this will not happen (so the vaccine coverage has to be maintained, since it has prevented 13 million cases since 2000, according to the WHO)."
— 02 Dec 2019
Ian Plimer op-ed in The Australian again presents long list of false claims about climate
in The Australian, by Ian Plimer
"This article is a mixture of misdirection, misleading claims, and outright falsehoods. The author attempts to paint a picture of current climate change as simply a continuation of natural changes that have occurred in the past. But this neglects the clear evidence that climate change over the last two centuries has been shown to be largely man-made, that it is much more rapid that anything we have seen in the last two thousand years if not longer, and that it is occurring in the context of a globe with more than 7 billion human inhabitants."
— 26 Nov 2019
Daily Mail article misleads with clickbait headline claiming cowpox-derived virus will “kill every type of cancer”
in Daily Mail, by Zoe Zaczek
"This article substantially overhypes early pre-clinical work with a viral therapy that has not yet been tested in even the earliest stages of human clinical trials. The headline is particularly misleading as I can find only three published papers suggesting the therapy has efficacy in lung, breast and colorectal cancers in cell lines and mouse models only."
— 20 Nov 2019
New York Times op-ed claiming scientists underestimated climate change lacks supporting evidence
in The New York Times, by Eugene Linden
"Most of the specific facts and statistics in this op-ed are correct, but the overall effect is significantly misleading. The author’s central point is that scientists have been drastically underestimating the scope and the pace of climate change until just the past decade or so, and recent events such as permafrost melting, ice cap loss, and extreme weather events have caught them by surprise. This is simply not true."
— 18 Nov 2019
Telegraph article on climate change mixes accurate and unsupported, inaccurate claims, misleads with false balance
in The Telegraph, by Sarah Knapton
"This article is a prime example of false equivalence, putting fringe figures side by side with mainstream scientific findings while failing to distinguish between their respective credibility. It is rife with numerous factual errors and misrepresentations. Anyone unfortunate enough to read it will understand less of the science – as actually appears in peer-reviewed publications and conferences – not more."
— 18 Oct 2019
Letter signed by “500 scientists” relies on inaccurate claims about climate science
in clintel.nl, by Guus Berkhou, Reynald du Berger, Terry Dunleavy, Viv Forbes, Jeffrey Fos, Morten Jodal, Rob Lemeire, Richard Lindzen, Ingemar Nordin, Jim O'Brien, Alberto Prestininzi, Benoit Rittaud, Fritz Vahrenholt, Christopher Monckton
"The scientific content is completely inaccurate, undocumented, and fails to bring proof for its claims. The ending of the Little Ice Age in 1850 has no logical link with the fact that the Earth is warming now. Most past climate variations have been slower or less intense as the present one, and if they were as fast or severe they brought about mass extinctions in the biosphere. No explanation or proof is brought on the implausibility or inaccuracy of climate models (whose accuracy or uncertainty is precisely quantified and makes their use better than just random guesses)."
— 04 Oct 2019
Washington Post article provides accurate and insightful report on recent spate of vaping-related illnesses
in Washington Post, by Lena H. Sun and Lindsey Bever
"At the moment, it is not possible to know if these pulmonary diseases are related to propylene glycol, glycerol, nicotine, flavorings, or more likely, synthetic/natural drugs sometimes added to e-liquids. Although vaping has deleterious effects on the lungs, e-cigarette vaping has been shown to be safe for over 10 years now... I firmly believe that this new epidemic is linked to synthetic cannabinoids, which unfortunately could be popular among young people"
— 13 Sep 2019
The Atlantic provides accurate summary of research on gut microbiome, hypothesizes well-reasoned potential benefits of consuming fresh produce
in The Atlantic, by James Hamblin
"The article provides a well balanced discussion of current knowledge surrounding the gut microbiota and benefits of eating whole foods. The author could have provided more details on the limitations (possible confounding variables) of the initial referenced article, however this is a minor point. Furthermore, associations between the microbiota and weight gain/loss is currently unclear, which the author should have mentioned, particularly since reverse causation between obesity and a less diverse microbiota is highly possible"
— 02 Sep 2019
[1] 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.