This is Why you Shouldn’t Believe that Exciting New Medical Study
By Julia Belluz,
Vox
| 03. 23. 2015
Untitled Document
In 2003, researchers writing in the American Journal of Medicine discovered something that should change how you think about medical news. They looked at 101 studies published in top scientific journals between 1979 and 1983 that claimed a new therapy or medical technology was very promising. Only five, they found out, made it to market within a decade. Only one (ACE inhibitors, a pharmaceutical drug) was still extensively used at the time of their publication.
One.
But you'd never know that from reading the press. Take a recent miracle procedure for multiple sclerosis. MS is a degenerative disease with no cure. In sufferers, the immune system attacks the protective layer around the nerves, disturbing the communication between brain and body — and causing a cascade of devastating symptoms: unsteady and jerking movements; loss of vision, bladder and bowel control; and eventually, early death.
In 2009, a breakthrough: a charming Italian researcher, Dr. Paolo Zamboni, claimed to have cured his wife's MS by "unblocking" the veins in her neck. He theorized MS wasn't an autoimmune disorder but a vascular one...
Related Articles
By Oscar Lopez, The Guardian | 07.19.2026
Diogo Amaro met his future husband, Loup, in Paris and from the first date, he made one thing clear: he wanted to have children.
“Right off the bat, I was like: ‘If I’m going to be in a relationship with...
By Emily Packard Dawson and Lainie Friedman Ross , The Hastings Center for Bioethics | 07.16.2026
Major news outlets recently reported – based on a bioRxiv preprint – that scientists had edited genes in human embryos with “startling precision.” The scientists’ decision to release this work ahead of peer review, coupled with the extensive media coverage...
Media coverage of recent developments in embryo gene editing might seem to suggest that gene-edited babies are close to becoming a reality. As tech billionaires eager to profit off of techno-eugenics invest in “designer baby” technologies, attempts to normalize heritable genome editing – which remains unsafe and raises significant ethical and societal concerns – are especially dangerous. It’s worth taking a closer look at these developments and what they mean, in a way that pushes back on narratives normalizing the...
The title of this book is clever, not least because it is borrowed from a very secret society of a dozen Stanford students. Theo Baker, a gregarious computer science freshman, was interviewed by the hyper-rich anonymous entrepreneur who quietly assembled the members. The unspoken suggestion was that he might consider hiring some of the members in service of acquiring his next billion. (Either Baker was not offered a place or he is not admitting it.) Such are the ways of...
