Decolonizing the midwifery curriculum: Jettisoning the Caldwell-Moloy pelvic types.

As faculty in two different midwifery education programs, we have stopped teaching the Caldwell-Moloy classifications of the female pelvis, as have faculty in several other US midwifery programs. In this commentary, we explain the rationale for this change. We review the roots of the Caldwell-Moloy pelvic classification and the lack of contemporary scientific support for either classifying pelvic types or using such a classification for clinical decision-making, and propose an alternative approach to teaching assessment of the bony pelvis.

The one with the rumour: COVID-19-related conversations on Pakistani Twitter.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic has been a massive crisis exacerbated by the spread of misinformation on social media. Twitter is a highly popular microblogging platform in Pakistan, and the large population there lacks digital literacy, making them vulnerable to various forms of online and digital propaganda. This study aims to analyse the content of COVID-19-related tweets from Pakistan. STUDY DESIGN: The current study is a content analysis of COVID-19-related tweets in Pakistani Twitter during the early stages of the pandemic, with a particular emphasis on misinformation, political content, health-related content, risk framing, and rumours. METHODS: The Twitter data were obtained and anonymised by a third party for this study. The selected tweets were manually coded, and the following thematic tweet categories were identified: Science, Data, Pseudoscience, Healthcare, Conspiracies, Policies and Politics, Humour, and Pandemic life. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Results indicated that the Policies and Politics category contained the majority of tweets (46.3%). Most science-based tweets focussed on nonpharmaceutical interventions (68.8%). As anticipated, the categories of Pseudoscience and Conspiracies were found to contain the most misinformation. Additionally, the number of likes and retweets for different tweet categories were compared, and no significant differences were found.

Conspiracy thinking and the long historical shadow of Romanticism on authoritarian politics.

Background: Similar effect sizes have been reported for the effects of conspiracy, pseudoscientific, and paranormal beliefs on authoritarian attitudes, which points to a conceptual problem at the heart of the conspiracy literature, namely lack of clarity as to what uniquely defines conspiracy beliefs and whether those unique elements contribute distinctly to authoritarian ideologies. To our knowledge, this is the first study to test empirically the predictive power of variance unique to each construct against covariance shared among these constructs when predicting authoritarian and anti-democratic attitudes. Methods: Online survey was administered to 314 participants in 2021 that included a battery of demographic and psychological measures. Hierarchical factor models were used to isolate unique variance from shared covariance among responses to items representing conspiracy, paranormal and pseudoscientific beliefs. Structural equation models were used to test their unique and shared effects on authoritarian and anti-democratic attitudes. Results: We found that our combined measurement model of paranormal thinking, conspiracism, and pseudoscience exhibited exceptional model fit, and that each construct was strongly predictive of both SDO and RWA (r = 0.73-0.86). Once the shared covariance was partitioned into a higher order factor, the residual uniqueness in each first order factors was either negatively related or unrelated to authoritarian and anti-democratic attitudes. Moreover, the higher order factor explained the gross majority of variance in conspiracy (R2 = 0.81) paranormal (R2 = 0.81) and pseudoscientific (R2 = 0.95) beliefs and was a far stronger predictor (ß = 0.85, p < 0.01) of anti-democratic attitudes than political partisanship (ß = 0.17, p < 0.01). Strong partisan identifiers of both parties showed much higher romanticism scores than party moderates. Conclusion and limitations: When predicting authoritarian and anti-democratic attitudes, we found no empirically unique contributions of conspiracy beliefs. Instead, we found that a shared factor, representing a 'romantic' mindset was the main predictor of authoritarian and anti-democratic attitudes. This finding potentially explains failures of interventions in stopping the spread of misinformation and conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theory researchers should refocus on the shared features that conspiracy thinking has with other unwarranted epistemic beliefs to better understand how to halt the spread of misinformation, conspiracy thinking, anti-science attitudes, and even global authoritarianism.

The suggestive nature of words. Media coverage of homeopathy, acupuncture, reiki and Bach flower remedies in Spanish press 2011-2016.

The maxim of proponents of pseudoscience is to spread ignorance through false perceptions of its scientific status. One of its most attractive - and simultaneously harmful - manifestations is complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). Despite the scientific evidence against them, CAM has taken hold in today's society as a therapeutic model for a growing segment of the population. We analysed 379 articles on homeopathy, acupuncture, reiki and Bach flower remedies published in mainstream Spanish newspapers (El País, El Mundo, La Vanguardia, El Periódico and ABC) for the period 2011-2016, finding that disinformation is participated in actively by the Spanish press. CAM content was detected in these newspapers, together with a lack of an editorial perspective. In most of the cases, the uncritical articles were found in the interpretive genre and the society section. We also characterized the pseudoscientific discourse aimed at the public, finding that it is irrational and fraudulent in sowing fear and distrust regarding science. On the basis of theories invalidated by the scientific method and on appeals to the emotions, pseudoscience not only threatens scientific knowledge, but directly undermines public health by encouraging the abandonment of conventional medicine. In order to remedy this situation, better scientific training, informative screening and editorial commitment is urgently needed in the Spanish press.

Scientific Integrity Requires Publishing Rebuttals and Retracting Problematic Papers.

Recently, an article by Seneff et al. entitled "Innate immunosuppression by SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccinations: The role of G-quadruplexes, exosomes, and MicroRNAs" was published in Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT). Here, we describe why this article, which contains unsubstantiated claims and misunderstandings such as "billions of lives are potentially at risk" with COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, is problematic and should be retracted. We report here our request to the editor of FCT to have our rebuttal published, unfortunately rejected after three rounds of reviewing. Fighting the spread of false information requires enormous effort while receiving little or no credit for this necessary work, which often even ends up being threatened. This need for more scientific integrity is at the heart of our advocacy, and we call for large support, especially from editors and publishers, to fight more effectively against deadly disinformation.

Authority Brings Responsibility: Feedback from Experts Promotes an Overweighting of Health-Related Pseudoscientific Beliefs.

The popularity and spread of health-related pseudoscientific practices is a worldwide problem. Despite being counteracted by competent agents of our societies, their prevalence and spread continue to grow. Current research has focused on identifying which characteristics make us more likely to hold pseudoscientific beliefs. However, how we hold these beliefs despite all the available information against them is a question that remains unanswered. Here, we aimed to assess if the development of health-related pseudoscientific beliefs could be driven by a positive bias in belief updating. Additionally, we aimed to explore whether this bias could be exacerbated, depending on source credibility. In this study, participants (N = 116) underwent a belief updating task where they offered their agreement with various health-related pseudoscientific statements before and after receiving supporting and discrediting feedback from (a) experts (doctors), (b) peers, or (c) a random number generator. Our results suggest that when receiving feedback from experts (but not from peers or random feedback), the participants preferentially integrated supporting information relative to discrediting information about health-related pseudoscience. We discuss the implications of this biased belief updating pattern on health-related pseudoscientific research and suggest new strategies for intervention focused on increasing awareness, training, and consensus among healthcare practitioners.

Anarcha Lets Blood September 4, 1836.

There are at least two Anarchas that appear in J. Marion Sims's autobiography. One, is the famed Anarcha from the Wescott Plantation who endured numerous experiments at Sims's hands, but there is also the Anarcha that appears earlier in Sims's self-story described here. She was described as a mulatta who assisted in a bloodletting of Sims himself. These two Anarchas appear to Sims as turning points in his own thinking, experience, and practice of and with medicine. I imagine this Anarcha speaking here, toward his description of her and the practice of bloodletting in the larger scope of Sims's infamous medical practices. To view the original version of this poem, see the supplemental material section of this article online.

Pseudoscience and fraudulent products for COVID-19 management.

As of now, the COVID-19 pandemic has become uncontrolled and is spreading widely throughout the world. Additionally, new variants of the mutated viral variants have been found in some countries that are more dangerous than the original strain. Even vaccines cannot produce complete protective immunity against the newer strains of SARS-CoV-2. Due to such a dreadful situation, lots of fear and depression have been created among the public. People are looking for the treatment of the disease at any cost and there is a race in the market to provide treatment and make money, whether it is effective or not! In such a condition, many fraud products, remedies, and myths have come into the market, which is falsely claimed to be effective for the disease and can harm the patients. Hence, FDA has banned such products and remedies. In this review, we have compiled all such fraudulent and pseudosciences identified for COVID-19. Currently, in the pandemic time, health agencies are approving the repurposed medicines based on the small-scale clinical data for emergency uses that become ineffective (most of the cases) after large randomized clinical studies. Proper vigilance strategies need to be defined by the regulatory agencies of the nation and routine awareness programs shall be arranged for educating the people and healthcare workers on routine updates.

Neuroscience Knowledge and Endorsement of Neuromyths among Educators: What Is the Scenario in Brazil?

The field of neuroscience has seen significant growth and interest in recent decades. While neuroscience knowledge can benefit laypeople as well as professionals in many different areas, it may be particularly relevant for educators. With the right information, educators can apply neuroscience-based teaching strategies as well as protect themselves and their students against pseudoscientific ideas and products based on them. Despite rapidly growing sources of available information and courses, studies show that educators in many countries have poor knowledge of brain science and tend to endorse education-related neuromyths. Poor English skills and fewer resources (personal, institutional and governmental) may be additional limitations in Latin America. In order to better understand the scenario in Latin America's largest country, we created an anonymous online survey which was answered by 1634 individuals working in education from all five regions of Brazil. Respondents stated whether they agreed with each statement and reported their level of confidence for each answer. Significant differences in performance were observed across regions, between educators living in capital cities versus the outskirts, between those teaching in private versus public schools, and among educators teaching different levels (pre-school up to college/university). We also observed high endorsement of some key neuromyths, even among groups who performed better overall. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to conduct a detailed analysis of the profile of a large group of educators in Brazil. We discuss our findings in terms of efforts to better understand regional and global limitations and develop methods of addressing these most efficiently.

Nothing to Cheer About: Endorsing Imaginary Economic Evaluations and Value Claims with CHEERS 22.

One of the more unfortunate features of health technology assessment is the tenacity with which leaders in the field and organizations such as the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) and the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) cling to an evaluation framework that fails to meet the standards of normal science. Believers subscribe to a meme that is clearly non-science (metaphysics and pseudoscience) and one that should have been discarded over 30 years ago. Certainly, subscribing to an impossible belief is not unusual; indeed it may make the belief that much stronger. Yet the meme is non-sustainable; it is also pointless as the economic evaluation claims are non-evaluable. There is no acknowledgement of the standards of normal science or the limitations imposed by the axioms of fundamental measurement. The purpose of this commentary is to make the case that the recent release of the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 22) checklist is misleading; CHEERS 22 fails to address the manifest deficiencies in the approach to economic evaluations endorsed by ISPOR and ICER. Instead, it continues to promote economic evaluations in healthcare that invent evidence and non-empirically evaluable value claims. Given the widespread publicity that has accompanied the release of CHEERS 22, the purpose of this commentary is to detail the deficiencies in CHEERS 22 and propose an alternative framework for economic evaluation in health care to meet the information needs of formulary committees. This means abandoning the standards for economic evaluations that have dominated health technology assessment for 30 years, notably the key role assigned to the mathematically impossible quality adjusted life year (QALY). The proposed new start recommends single attribute evaluable value claims that meet ratio or interval measurement standards and are supported by evaluation protocols.

The Public Discussion on Flat Earth Movement: An Analysis Based on the Esperantist­Epideictic Discourse.

The paper reflects on public discourses about science and pseudoscience, proposing the same discursive structure for both-the Esperantist-Epideictic genre. This genre of discourse might bring together characteristics that we understand as constituents of the public discourse on science. It also enables us to depict the process by which to maintain cohesion on a group's values. The discursive activity points to science as neutral, free, and independent of social influences captivating those already in this discursive sphere. The discursive hermeticity appears in the Esperantist content and the Epideictic form by avoiding the dialogical situations where there is no epistemological and axiological dispute. We thus, show that the Esperantist-Epideictic genre helps to understand the process of maintaining a cohesive group whose beliefs about the Flat Earth appear in social media. We use data from three sources: transcriptions from seminars held at that 1st FlatCon Brazil, most viewed videos on YouTube where affirmationists talk about Flat Earth, and semi-structured exploratory interviews conducted at FlatCon. Our findings indicate that some conceptions of validation of knowledge, scientific method, science bias, reality, and truth compound a distinct part in the current conversations about the Flat Earth movement. Moreover, the Esperantist-Epideictic genre of discourse can be an analytical tool for framing the echo chamber in social media while defending or attacking the Flat Earth movement. We conclude that in a time where there is a growing consensus that science is under attack, the ways in which its defenders are trying to stand up to it may be causing some harm.

Change the medium, change the message: creativity is key to battle misinformation.

Marshall McLuhan's groundbreaking work regarding the role of context and medium in communication is very relevant today. By limiting the medium of science communication to dense, jargon-rich academic journals, we restrict the impact of discovery to the scientific community. We are also allowing the propagation of misinformation, as the nonexpert is forced to resource unreliable media to answer their scientific queries. To compete with pseudoscience, we need to improve science literacy and make science accessible through the same media on which pseudoscience thrives. As scientists and educators, we believe it is our responsibility to reconceptualize science literacy as a lifelong process and take greater accountability over the future of science communication. We hypothesize that increasing the accessibility of scientific literature to the public through adopting mainstream media forms and increasing access to informal science education (ISE) opportunities will decrease the proliferation of pseudoscience. To accomplish this, we propose eight recommendations housed under three action areas: 1) modify undergraduate science education by increasing opportunities for informal science communication, 2) increase accessibility to informal science education, and 3) bridge the gap between formal and informal science learning opportunities.

Applications of operant demand to treatment selection I: Characterizing demand for evidence-based practices.

Various treatment approaches have been determined efficacious for improving child behavior outcomes. Despite a variety of evidence-based options, consumers often disregard empirically supported treatments to pursue alternatives that lack empirical support, such as 'fad' therapies. The choice to pursue therapies lacking empirical support has been considered a 'gamble' on therapeutic outcomes and this form of risky choice has historically been explained using various cognitive heuristics and biases. This report translates quantitative analyses from the Operant Demand Framework to characterize how caregivers of children with behavioral issues consume treatment services. The Operant Demand Framework is presented, its utility for characterizing patterns of treatment consumption is discussed, and a preliminary application of cross-price analyses of demand is performed to illustrate how various factors jointly influence treatment-related choice. Results indicated that caregivers endorsing interest in receiving behavioral parent training regularly pursued pseudoscientific alternatives as a functional substitute for an established therapy, despite explicit language stating a lack of evidence. These findings question the presumption of rationality in models of treatment choice and degree to which scientific evidence influences the consumption of therapies. This report concludes with a discussion of Consumer Behavior Analysis and how quantitative analyses of behavior can be used to better understand factors that enhance or detract from the dissemination of evidence-based practices.

Reducing Health Misinformation in Science: A Call to Arms.

The public often turns to science for accurate health information, which, in an ideal world, would be error free. However, limitations of scientific institutions and scientific processes can sometimes amplify misinformation and disinformation. The current review examines four mechanisms through which this occurs: (1) predatory journals that accept publications for monetary gain but do not engage in rigorous peer review; (2) pseudoscientists who provide scientific-sounding information but whose advice is inaccurate, unfalsifiable, or inconsistent with the scientific method; (3) occasions when legitimate scientists spread misinformation or disinformation; and (4) miscommunication of science by the media and other communicators. We characterize this article as a "call to arms," given the urgent need for the scientific information ecosystem to improve. Improvements are necessary to maintain the public's trust in science, foster robust discourse, and encourage a well-educated citizenry.

Pseudoexpertise: A Conceptual and Theoretical Analysis.

Some people publicly pretend to be experts while not being ones. They are pseudoexperts, and their presence seems to be ubiquitous in the current cultural landscape. This manuscript explores the nature and mechanisms of pseudoexpertise. We first provide a conceptual analysis of pseudoexperts based on prototypical cases of pseudoexpertise and recent philosophical work on the concept of expertise. This allows us to propose a definition that captures real-world cases of pseudoexpertise, distinguishes it from related but different concepts such as pseudoscience, and highlights what is wrong with pseudoexpertise. Next, based on this conceptual analysis, we propose a framework for further research on pseudoexpertise, built on relevant empirical and theoretical approaches to cultural cognition. We provide exploratory answers to three questions: why is there pseudoexpertise at all; how can pseudoexperts be successful despite not being experts; and what becomes of pseudoexperts in the long run. Together, these conceptual and theoretical approaches to pseudoexpertise draw a preliminary framework from which to approach the very troubling problem posed by persons usurping the capacities and reputations of genuine experts.

Counterintuitive Pseudoscience Propagates by Exploiting the Mind's Communication Evaluation Mechanisms.

Epidemiological models of culture posit that the prevalence of a belief depends in part on the fit between that belief and intuitions generated by the mind's reliably developing architecture. Application of such models to pseudoscience suggests that one route via which these beliefs gain widespread appeal stems from their compatibility with these intuitions. For example, anti-vaccination beliefs are readily adopted because they cohere with intuitions about the threat of contagion. However, other varieties of popular pseudoscience such as astrology and parapsychology contain content that violates intuitions held about objects and people. Here, we propose a pathway by which "counterintuitive pseudoscience" may spread and receive endorsement. Drawing on recent empirical evidence, we suggest that counterintuitive pseudoscience triggers the mind's communication evaluation mechanisms. These mechanisms are hypothesized to quarantine epistemically-suspect information including counterintuitive pseudoscientific concepts. As a consequence, these beliefs may not immediately update conflicting intuitions and may be largely restricted from influencing behavior. Nonetheless, counterintuitive pseudoscientific concepts, when in combination with intuitively appealing content, may differentially draw attention and memory. People may also be motivated to seek further information about these concepts, including by asking others, in an attempt to reconcile them with prior beliefs. This in turn promotes the re-transmission of these ideas. We discuss how, during this information-search, support for counterintuitive pseudoscience may come from deference to apparently authoritative sources, reasoned arguments, and the functional outcomes of these beliefs. Ultimately, these factors promote the cultural success of counterintuitive pseudoscience but explicit endorsement of these concepts may not entail tacit commitment.