FYI, they recruited a science advisor for their latest episode on COVID conspiracies. Coincidentally, they're also an epidemiologist and have a Substack (https://gidmk.substack.com). Hopefully this will improve their accuracy, but I haven't listened to the episode yet!
Oh I'm so glad to hear this! I'm just sorry it took so long hah! They really can't undo the harm they have done by putting out so much misinformation, but it's a good step in the right direction. This guy looks like exactly the kind of person I wish had the platform that MP does. But being reasonable and rational about science isn't as clickable as rage-bait from MP, unfortunately.
Totally agree! I've had a couple of my non-scientist friends parrot back scientific misinformation from this podcast to me. Even though I'm a Ph.D. chemist and try to explain why MP is woefully incorrect, they just don't listen.
Based on his posts, he seems to disagree with MP's vilification of long-term weight loss drugs, so it's good they're not just getting a "yes man"!
We desperately need better science communicators! I've been enjoying the Unbiased Science podcast recently, but I have no formal medical training to critique a lot of what they're saying.
I have mixed success trying to convince people, as well. It's a microcosm of the political and ideological state of our world right now. People will continue to believe whatever they want, even in the face of strong evidence to the contrary. We definitely need better science communications, but I think we also need society to be more ok with uncertainty and nuance. The reason science communication struggles so much is that people want sensationalism and black/white thinking, but science doesn't work that way. It's hard to communicate science properly when those on the receiving end need more definitive answers than science can offer at a given time, you know?
It does look like this epidemiologist puts out really good content about nutrition and health, etc. So definitely not a yes-man! I hope that they will continue their relationship with him and maybe get him to speak on some of the stuff they are less open to criticism about.
It's incredibly difficult to explain the nuances of science to people who've not spent time performing research. I was always taught to make very careful statements with plenty of qualifiers when writing up results for publications, but science journalists don't seem to have that same training. If I had a dime for every sensationalist headline that read like "New treatment may cure cancer!", I'd be rich. And my field (materials science/chemistry) is almost as bad, with every new material promising to revolutionize how we generate/store energy.
Part of the problem is from people just reading the Abstract/Conclusion section of papers, especially the last couple of sentences where the authors speculate on potential applications. And then there's the whole other issue of linguistic positivity from having to really sell your research to editors/peer-reviewers and funding agencies.
Oh my gosh, yes. Among epidemiologists, we joke about how the answer is almost always, "it depends." You'll almost never get a definitive answer from an epidemiologist in the way that you want, because so many factors play into every risk assessment. The headlines drive me crazy! Even reputable news sources, like the NYT, have awful click-bait headlines. It's gotten to the point where I'm not even sure where to send people for good nuanced discussions of science/health news.
Your point about linguistic positivity is so on-point. I have colleagues who tell me how frustrating it is to have to include language in grant applications that speculate on future impacts to human health when what they are doing is fruit fly research. Not that there WON'T be a future impact, but that it really shouldn't be a factor in receiving funding for important research (until we get to the translational or clinical stage, that is). It's so good to hear from like-minded people like you!!
FWIW I believe the Nazi stuff comes from disgraced former video essayist James Somerton.
Also the idea that Micheal doesn’t think that the pull up is a good measure of upper body strength tells me he doesn’t know anything about exercise science.
Oh man, you just sent me down quite the rabbit hole with James Somerton. That guy is truly unhinged. I would not be shocked if Michael picked up something from that, given his propensity to distort or fabricate history. And yes, Michael clearly has no understanding of exercise science or physiology! Thank you for reading and for commenting!
This was so incredibly well done! Thank you!
Thank you, AV! I appreciate you reading it!
Another great post!
FYI, they recruited a science advisor for their latest episode on COVID conspiracies. Coincidentally, they're also an epidemiologist and have a Substack (https://gidmk.substack.com). Hopefully this will improve their accuracy, but I haven't listened to the episode yet!
Oh I'm so glad to hear this! I'm just sorry it took so long hah! They really can't undo the harm they have done by putting out so much misinformation, but it's a good step in the right direction. This guy looks like exactly the kind of person I wish had the platform that MP does. But being reasonable and rational about science isn't as clickable as rage-bait from MP, unfortunately.
Totally agree! I've had a couple of my non-scientist friends parrot back scientific misinformation from this podcast to me. Even though I'm a Ph.D. chemist and try to explain why MP is woefully incorrect, they just don't listen.
Based on his posts, he seems to disagree with MP's vilification of long-term weight loss drugs, so it's good they're not just getting a "yes man"!
We desperately need better science communicators! I've been enjoying the Unbiased Science podcast recently, but I have no formal medical training to critique a lot of what they're saying.
I have mixed success trying to convince people, as well. It's a microcosm of the political and ideological state of our world right now. People will continue to believe whatever they want, even in the face of strong evidence to the contrary. We definitely need better science communications, but I think we also need society to be more ok with uncertainty and nuance. The reason science communication struggles so much is that people want sensationalism and black/white thinking, but science doesn't work that way. It's hard to communicate science properly when those on the receiving end need more definitive answers than science can offer at a given time, you know?
It does look like this epidemiologist puts out really good content about nutrition and health, etc. So definitely not a yes-man! I hope that they will continue their relationship with him and maybe get him to speak on some of the stuff they are less open to criticism about.
It's incredibly difficult to explain the nuances of science to people who've not spent time performing research. I was always taught to make very careful statements with plenty of qualifiers when writing up results for publications, but science journalists don't seem to have that same training. If I had a dime for every sensationalist headline that read like "New treatment may cure cancer!", I'd be rich. And my field (materials science/chemistry) is almost as bad, with every new material promising to revolutionize how we generate/store energy.
Part of the problem is from people just reading the Abstract/Conclusion section of papers, especially the last couple of sentences where the authors speculate on potential applications. And then there's the whole other issue of linguistic positivity from having to really sell your research to editors/peer-reviewers and funding agencies.
Oh my gosh, yes. Among epidemiologists, we joke about how the answer is almost always, "it depends." You'll almost never get a definitive answer from an epidemiologist in the way that you want, because so many factors play into every risk assessment. The headlines drive me crazy! Even reputable news sources, like the NYT, have awful click-bait headlines. It's gotten to the point where I'm not even sure where to send people for good nuanced discussions of science/health news.
Your point about linguistic positivity is so on-point. I have colleagues who tell me how frustrating it is to have to include language in grant applications that speculate on future impacts to human health when what they are doing is fruit fly research. Not that there WON'T be a future impact, but that it really shouldn't be a factor in receiving funding for important research (until we get to the translational or clinical stage, that is). It's so good to hear from like-minded people like you!!
FWIW I believe the Nazi stuff comes from disgraced former video essayist James Somerton.
Also the idea that Micheal doesn’t think that the pull up is a good measure of upper body strength tells me he doesn’t know anything about exercise science.
Oh man, you just sent me down quite the rabbit hole with James Somerton. That guy is truly unhinged. I would not be shocked if Michael picked up something from that, given his propensity to distort or fabricate history. And yes, Michael clearly has no understanding of exercise science or physiology! Thank you for reading and for commenting!