Science Feedback

Science Feedback

5/26/2025, 9:10:57 AM

TikTok videos promoting nicotine patches as a panacea for a wide variety of conditions, including Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, ulcerative colitis, and even autism, have collectively accrued millions of views. Many of these videos feature Bryan Ardis, a chiropractor who previously spread misinformation about COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines. While nicotine patches have a valid medical use as a form of nicotine replacement therapy for people quitting smoking, there’s *no credible evidence backing up these claims of nicotine as a miracle cure* . When something sounds too good to be true, it’s a signal to exercise a healthy dose of skepticism. We go over the evidence for this claim in our review: https://science.feedback.org/review/no-evidence-chiropractor-bryan-ardis-claim-nicotine-cures-parkinsons-other-diseases/

Science Feedback

5/30/2025, 10:58:31 AM

https://science.feedback.org/what-caused-iberias-blackout/ After Spain and Portugal lost electricity on 28 April 2025, renewable energy opponents were quick to blame solar and wind for destabilizing the peninsula’s electric grid. But it’s too early to blame anything for the blackout. As of this writing, authorities are still investigating the blackout's cause. Electric grids are tremendously complex, and blackouts like this usually happen only when multiple things go wrong at once. Even experts may need a month or more to sort out what happened. What we do have is a preliminary sequence of events. There’s been a lot of speculation based on these events, and it may be the case that renewables have some relation to the blackout’s cause – but, as experts told Science Feedback, we can’t know for sure. We can say, however, 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗮𝗱𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗲𝘄𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗴𝗿𝗶𝗱 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗮𝘂𝘁𝗼𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗺𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝗶𝘁 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘃𝘂𝗹𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗸𝗼𝘂𝘁𝘀. Electric grid operators are well aware how to adapt grids for solar and wind. Fossil fuel defenders and other renewable energy opponents like to blame wind and solar for all sorts of problems – but, as in this case, their claims often mislead.

Science Feedback

6/20/2025, 1:10:19 PM

In May, The Guardian investigation reported that more than half of the top 100 mental health-related TikTok videos contained misinformation. Using the same method, Science Feedback discovered several TikToks that showed wellness influencer #garybrecka making inaccurate and misleading claims about depression and SSRI drugs: https://science.feedback.org/review/tiktok-outdated-inaccurate-claims-depression-gary-brecka/ We break down some of these claims below: 𝘊𝘭𝘢𝘪𝘮 1: 𝘋𝘦𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘭𝘰𝘸 𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘰𝘯𝘪𝘯 ❌ ✅ While depression is popularly understood as a “chemical imbalance” in the brain due to low serotonin, research has shown that multiple factors, including non-serotonin neurotransmitters and certain personality traits, can contribute to depression. Serotonin alone doesn’t explain depression. Philip Cowen, a professor of psychopharmacology at Oxford University, told Science Feedback: > “The idea that a complex heterogeneous condition like depression can be caused by a deficit in a single neurotransmitter is not accepted by mental health professionals.” 𝘊𝘭𝘢𝘪𝘮 2: 𝘐𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘰𝘯𝘪𝘯 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘶𝘵 𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘰𝘯𝘪𝘯 𝘭𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘯 ❌ ✅ While about 90% of #serotonin in the body is made in the gut, serotonin made outside the brain cannot cross the blood-brain barrier. This means that gut levels of serotonin don’t meaningfully change brain levels. 𝘊𝘭𝘢𝘪𝘮 3: 𝘚𝘚𝘙𝘐 𝘥𝘳𝘶𝘨𝘴 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 ❌ ✅SSRI drugs don’t work for every person with depression. But there are plenty of drugs—not just SSRIs—that are effective in some people and not in others. Evidence from randomized clinical trials shows that SSRI drugs are effective in many.

Science Feedback

6/3/2025, 1:52:23 PM

https://science.feedback.org/human-driven-climate-change-largely-responsible-last-50-years-worsening-fire-weather-western-north-america-new-study-shows/ With the *North American fire season* rapidly approaching, wildfires will soon ignite debates over what caused them to spread. Though there are many factors – one is becoming increasingly clear: *human-driven climate change.* A growing body of evidence supports this, and a new study just stacked on key evidence. On 17 May 2025, new insights were published about what’s driving fire weather – the hot, dry, and windy conditions that help wildfires start and spread – in Western North America. Fire weather in that region has been worsening for 50 years, and new findings suggest that human-driven climate change – distinct from natural changes – is effectively responsible for all of it. While the trend itself was already well-established, this study overcame a long-standing challenge scientists have encountered: how do we determine how much of this trend comes from natural changes vs. human-driven climate change? Researchers achieved this using a well-established technique called ‘optimal fingerprinting’ – used to identify human vs. natural influence – in a novel way by applying it at a regional scale to assess fire weather. But this is just one paper, so what’s its significance? To answer that question in a fair way, Science Feedback interviewed one of the paper’s authors, and three scientists with relevant expertise who were not involved in the study. The common ground between the four scientists? *All agreed that the paper applied well-established methods in a novel way, and the results reinforced scientists’ understanding of the ties between human-driven climate change and worsening fire weather in North America.*

Science Feedback

6/9/2025, 12:06:29 PM

https://science.feedback.org/review/social-media-claims-urine-therapy-benefits-not-backed-scientific-evidence/ *Drink your pee, heal your body? 😯* That’s a practice that certain wellness influencers, like chiropractor Daniel Pompa and former model Troy Casey, have promoted. Some also claimed that urine’s curative properties are because urine contains stem cells. To learn more about the scientific credibility of this claim, Science Feedback turned to Yuanyuan Zhang, an associate professor at the Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine, who studies stem cells. *Here is what the science tells us:* * Urine does contain a small amount of stem cells, but this doesn’t mean drinking urine heals the body * One of the main obstacles is the human digestive system. The odds of stem cells surviving the passage through the digestive tract is “ *highly improbable* ” due to stomach acid and digestive enzymes, Zhang told us * Scientists are looking at how urine-derived stem cells can be used to treat diseases. But this process is *highly controlled and specialized.* Stem cells need to be isolated from urine, cultivated in the lab, then injected or transplanted to the site of injury or disease ↪︎ Simply drinking urine just won’t cut it! * Drinking urine comes with risks ↪︎ Urine contains bacteria and waste products: putting these back into the body poses a risk of illness, especially if done in the long run In summary, *there’s no evidence that drinking one’s urine treats diseases* . In general, pee is best left where it normally goes: down the toilet.🚽

Science Feedback

6/19/2025, 10:55:12 AM

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗰𝗹𝗼𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗜𝘃𝗮𝗻𝗽𝗮𝗵 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝘀𝗮𝘆 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝘀𝗼𝗹𝗮𝗿 𝗽𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿?☀️ You may have seen headlines or posts claiming that the Ivanpah solar plant's scheduled shutdown is proof that #solarenergy doesn’t work. But here’s what’s actually going on: 🔹Ivanpah is a concentrated solar power plant, or CSP plant, which generates electricity by bringing water to a boil – the steam spins a turbine that turns a generator. This is very different from how the solar panels on rooftops or solar farms work – they aren’t mirrors, and they generate electricity inside themselves. 🔹Why is it shutting down early? Not because solar is failing — but because solar panels (known as photovoltaic or PV panels) have become much cheaper and more efficient since Ivanpah opened in 2014. In short, it's now more cost-effective to use solar panels instead. 🔹 So, what’s the real story? Some online sources are using Ivanpah’s story to cast doubt on all solar energy or government investments in #renewables. But that’s a misrepresentation — Ivanpah isn’t representative of most solar technology in use today. 📌 Solar isn’t static. Like any tech, it changes fast. Ivanpah was one hailed as the future of solar power, but the future can change very quickly. Read more in our latest Insight article: https://science.feedback.org/a-large-solar-plant-in-california-is-closing-what-does-it-mean-for-solar-power/

Science Feedback

6/13/2025, 1:50:59 PM

https://science.feedback.org/glacier-collapse-recently-buried-swiss-village-heres-what-scientists-say-triggered-event/ On 28 May 2025, the Swiss Alpine village of Blatten was tragically buried after the Birch Glacier collapsed, sparking immediate questions online about climate change’s role. It’s a fair question, given the clear links between climate change and glacier loss. However, pinpointing its role in any single event is challenging—*it’s a single event that did in fact occur while Earth’s climate is changing, so we can’t ‘test’ the alternative* . That is, we don’t have an Earth ‘replica’ without human-caused climate change to see what would have happened. Scientists were quick to investigate the event and provide the best-available insights about potential ties between this event and climate change in a fact sheet published by ETH Zürich: The disaster happened in a chain of events with no single cause, but many contributing factors, including the partial collapse of a mountain peak which deposited rocks on the glacier, which added excess weight to it. Science Feedback discussed with five glaciologists researching glaciers in Switzerland. Here was a key takeaway: *although climate change was not the sole factor, it likely played a role in the events that unfolded.* As glaciologist Christian Huggel put it: > “Considering all these processes, it would be absurd, ignorant or dishonest to state that anthropogenic warming has not played any role in the ice-rock avalanche disaster in Blatten.”

Science Feedback

6/2/2025, 4:32:47 PM

*Are COVID-19 vaccines reducing women’s fertility?* 💉👶 That’s what YouTuber John Campbell suggested in a recent video, citing a preprint based on Czech data. The paper reported fewer births among vaccinated women aged 18 to 39 compared to unvaccinated women. Sounds alarming—until you look closer. The problem? The paper didn’t account for *confounding factors like age differences between the groups* . And age matters a lot when it comes to having kids. As Dr. Victoria Male, a reproductive immunology expert at Imperial College London, told us: > older women are both more likely to be vaccinated and less likely to have children—not necessarily because of reduced fertility, but because fertility naturally declines with age or they’ve already had kids. Without adjusting for age and other confounding factors, this kind of result says nothing about vaccines’ effect on fertility. It’s a classic example of *correlation ≠ causation* —a mistake we keep seeing from online influencers. ​​🛑 A few more red flags: * The first author of the paper has previously *spread COVID-19 misinformation* * The cited study is a *preprint* —so it hasn’t gone through peer review. Peer review isn’t perfect, but the process helps shed light on errors and methodological limitations. Without it, it becomes easier for such issues to fly under the radar. 💬 We broke down why Campbell’s claim is misleading and pointed to studies that found *no link between COVID-19 vaccines and infertility:* https://science.feedback.org/review/czech-data-doesnt-show-covid-mrna-vaccines-reduce-fertility-john-campbell-video/

Science Feedback

2/24/2025, 11:16:50 AM

https://science.feedback.org/review/contrary-to-wide-awake-medias-misleading-claims-wind-turbines-are-greener-than-fossil-fuels-by-multiple-measures/ You often see opponents of wind energy claim that wind turbines are CO2-intensive to build and that their blades produce a lot of waste at the end of their life. But these claims lack context. We need to compare them to their competition: fossil fuel power plants. Coal and gas power plants are far more CO2-intensive than wind turbines, no matter where in the world they’re built. On average, even when we account for the greenhouse gases from all parts of each power source’s life, *gas and coal emit 35 and 75 times more greenhouse gas than wind turbines* , respectively, to generate the same quantity of electricity. Building a fossil fuel power plant is less emissions-intensive than building an equivalent amount of wind turbines. But the simple fact that wind turbines (and solar panels) don’t burn greenhouse-gas-emitting fossil fuels to generate electricity means that coal and gas plants will emit significantly more greenhouse gas over their lifetime. Likewise, wind turbine blades do go to landfill after their lives – but across the globe, they create a small amount of waste compared to what fossil fuels produce. Extracting and transporting oil leaves behind toxic sludge, and coal-burning leaves behind ash that power plant operators must dispose of. It’s estimated that the world’s coal power plants produce more waste in a single year than its wind turbines will produce in 35 years.

Science Feedback

2/18/2025, 10:56:40 AM

https://science.feedback.org/review/viral-copypasta-posts-mislead-about-cancer-causes-promote-unproven-cancer-remedies/ Have you seen a post showing a list of recommendations for people with cancer paired with a picture of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.? Near-identical posts were recently viral on Facebook. They are 𝙘𝙤𝙥𝙮𝙥𝙖𝙨𝙩𝙖 posts—blocks of text copied and pasted by multiple users across social media. Such posts contained misinformation about cancer causes and treatment, including a list of unproven and disproven remedies such as “detox” baths, alkaline water, no-sugar diets, hydrogen peroxide, amygdalin (the so-called vitamin B17), vitamins, and antiparasitic drugs like ivermectin and fenbendazole. ❌ None of these alleged treatments have demonstrated benefits in people with cancer, and some of them can lead to serious or potentially fatal complications. 𝙘𝙤𝙥𝙮𝙥𝙖𝙨𝙩𝙖 tactics are frequently used to amplify the spread of misinformation, manipulate public opinion, or promote scams. They help misinformation spread and stay online longer, even if the original post is deleted, making it harder to trace its source.