Originally recorded in 2017 by BSI co-founder Greg Glassman, this talk hones in on a critical issue that BSI considers a major breaking point in scientific integrity: the "Replication Crisis."

Investigators and the media need to be more careful interpreting and reporting “cancer mortality”

Mounting evidence is showing that cancer is indeed a metabolic disease, and not the result of genetic mutations. Given this cause, Thomas Seyfried et. al., explain methods for treating cancer, including diet, drugs effecting energy metabolism, and hyperbaric oxygen therapy.

In this second installment, BSI's Emily Kaplan breaks down the difference between corollary studies and causal studies. Corollary studies can show relationships between data sets, they do not establish cause.

While some research claims eating red meat and processed meat can be harmful, the evidence does not support this. Any harm is generally reported as relative risk, with little to no change in absolute risk. Also, the harms of eating meat tend not to be causal, with all negative associations disappearing when meat is consumed as part of a healthy diet.

If you’ve ever taken Statistics 101 – or participated in any basic research work – you’re probably familiar with the old adage “correlation does not […]

JAMA, recently published an essay lamenting that the National Institutes of Health would be slowing awards for "misinformation research," aka, studies to justify censorship.

BSI’s Emily Kaplan explains the difference between absolute risk and relative risk, using a fictitious example to illustrate how results can be made to sound profound, when they really aren’t.

Despite recent scandals of research misconduct and error, the academic world still seems determined to look the other way.