Unbiased Science

Despite popular claims that raw milk helps with lactose intolerance due to 'natural enzymes' or 'good bacteria,' scientific evidence shows the opposite. A Stanford randomized controlled trial found raw milk performed worse than or equal to pasteurized milk for lactose digestion, and both types contain identical amounts of lactose (4.8%). Yes, people drank raw milk historically - and many got sick and died doing so, which is precisely why pasteurization was developed. Nostalgia isn't a public health strategy. When we see children hospitalized with severe kidney complications from preventable raw milk infections, we can't simply say 'let people learn the hard way.' This is particularly urgent now, as H5N1 avian flu cases are spreading and can be transmitted through raw milk. Our mission isn't to control people's choices but to ensure those choices are based on scientific evidence rather than dangerous misinformation. The science is clear: raw milk offers no benefits for lactose intolerance while carrying serious risks, particularly for children. Sources: https://lnkd.in/e7D3WHe2 https://lnkd.in/eEq98qyH https://lnkd.in/eSND3ND5 https://lnkd.in/eSWeHiKC https://lnkd.in/exvp-PeW https://lnkd.in/eR3Ah-aA https://lnkd.in/eD474avD https://lnkd.in/eQJ-CYsq

Yes, we could remove dyes from our food—they're not essential for nutrition or safety. But before acting, we must consider the potential impact: increased food waste, higher costs, and challenges with natural alternatives. The real question isn't whether we can, but whether we should—especially given the lack of evidence of harm within established safety limits. Read our newsletter for a deep dive into this topic! 🔗https://lnkd.in/eFpUxpWv

Pasteurization kills harmful bacteria while keeping the good stuff (calcium, protein, vitamin D) intact. Before becoming standard practice, illness (and even death) associated with consumption of raw milk was widespread - especially for kids. Science is awesome! 🥛

The greatest triumph of public health is also, paradoxically, its greatest challenge: When it works perfectly, it becomes invisible. We no longer see children in iron lungs, paralyzed by polio. We don't lose our siblings to diphtheria or watch our children struggle to breathe through whooping cough. The horrors that our grandparents considered routine have faded into history books, replaced by the luxury of forgetting why we needed these protections in the first place. This invisibility comes at a cost. While medicine celebrates its heroes - the surgeon who saves a life, the oncologist who defeats cancer - public health's victories are measured in the disasters that never happened, the epidemics that never spread, the deaths that never occurred. We've become so accustomed to safe drinking water, clean air, and vaccine-preventable diseases being actually prevented that we've forgotten the massive infrastructure and constant vigilance required to maintain this safety. Today's parents questioning the need for vaccines have, thankfully, never seen a child gasping with pertussis or watched measles sweep through a classroom. They haven't witnessed the summer panic of polio season, when swimming pools closed and parents kept children inside, desperate to avoid the paralyzing virus. This generational amnesia is, ironically, a testament to public health's effectiveness. We've done our job so well that the threats we protect against seem theoretical rather than real. Threats to public health infrastructure mean that we risk returning to a past we've forgotten, where preventable tragedies were commonplace rather than rare. Public health cannot survive on the memory of past victories. Its continued success requires active support, robust funding, and public trust. As we face new challenges - from emerging diseases to climate change - we must remember that public health's invisibility when it succeeds doesn't make it any less essential. In fact, it makes it more important than ever.

A comparison of childhood vaccination schedules between the United States and Switzerland by Amanda Ruggeri and Unbiased Science shows that, aside from flu and COVID-19 jabs, both nations recommend the same numbers of vaccine doses for the standard childhood schedule: 32 in the U.S. and 32 in Switzerland. Differences lie in implementation approaches. These are shaped by each nation's healthcare system and population needs. Switzerland utilizes combination vaccines, particularly a hexavalent vaccine that combines DTAP, polio, HiB, and hepatitis B into a single shot. The United States typically administers these separately, which can lead to a misconception about overall vaccine quantity. Where schedules do differ, it's down to public health authorities' analysis of local health patterns and population characteristics. For example, the US universally recommends hepatitis A vaccination because of higher disease rates in certain regions and greater population mobility between high and low-risk areas. Switzerland, with different disease patterns and a more geographically concentrated population, includes meningitis B in its schedule as a vaccine that is supplementary but recommended to all children, while the US targets it to specific risk groups based on local epidemiology and outbreak patterns. These differences stem from each nation's unique healthcare landscape. The US system, with its diverse population and varying access to healthcare, relies more heavily on school entry requirements to ensure high vaccination rates. Switzerland's system, which includes strong primary care infrastructure and a model whereby every resident is required to have health insurance, relies on voluntary compliance. In their different contexts, these approaches have resulted in similar levels of vaccine coverage. Does this surprise you? Pop any questions in the comments. Good-faith questions and discussion are always welcome, but we reserve the right to delete false claims that we judge to be deliberate, intentional, or simply counterproductive to genuine discussion. And, as always, any comments dehumanizing any people or group of people will be removed and the user blocked.

Did you know that rice and rice products can contain varying amounts of naturally occurring inorganic arsenic? While this might sound alarming, rice remains a nutritious staple food that has sustained populations worldwide for generations. The key is understanding how to make informed choices while respecting cultural food traditions and nutritional needs. Arsenic is a naturally occurring element found in the Earth's crust that can contaminate water and soil. The inorganic form of arsenic is more toxic than the organic form, and is the type primarily found in rice. Rice accumulates arsenic more readily than other crops because its roots are adapted to thrive in flooded, water-saturated conditions where arsenic is more bioavailable. For many cultures, rice is not just food - it's an essential part of daily life and cultural identity. It can absolutely be enjoyed as part of a healthy, balanced diet. The key is making informed choices about variety and preparation methods. Research shows associations between high, long-term exposure to inorganic arsenic and adverse health effects. However, the evidence on health risks from the relatively low levels typically found in food is less conclusive. On average, white rice contains around 92 parts per billion (ppb) inorganic arsenic, while brown rice tends to be higher at 154 ppb because arsenic accumulates in the bran and germ layers. However, brown rice also offers important nutritional benefits, including fiber and essential nutrients. To make informed choices about rice consumption: 🍚 Consider rinsing rice thoroughly before cooking 🍚 Try cooking rice in excess water (6-10 cups per 1 cup of rice) and draining the excess - this can reduce arsenic by 40-60% 🍚 Include a variety of grains in your diet when possible 🍚 Weigh personal factors like cultural preferences, nutritional needs, and dietary restrictions The goal isn't to avoid rice but to make informed choices that work for you and your family. Whether you choose brown or white rice, or how you prepare it, should depend on your personal health goals, cultural preferences, and nutritional needs. Sources: https://ow.ly/i4F850U6XBX https://ow.ly/50tp50U6XC1 https://ow.ly/CeBU50U6XCa https://ow.ly/JbPw50U6XC6 https://ow.ly/bw3050U6XC4 /https://ow.ly/LZnc50U6XC9 https://ow.ly/rFAe50U6XC8 https://ow.ly/L6Kq50U6XBZ. https://ow.ly/ZNcX50U6XBV. https://ow.ly/k27l50U6XC7 https://ow.ly/eKcj50U6XC0 https://ow.ly/WuHI50U6XBY https://ow.ly/bFlh50U6XC2. https://ow.ly/LEuC50U6XBW https://ow.ly/kXff50U6XC3 https://ow.ly/C1FS50U6XCe https://ow.ly/1Z1y50U6XCb https://ow.ly/tcZU50U6XCg https://ow.ly/ohx550U6XCf https://ow.ly/9JVH50U6XCc

Many of you have sent Dr. Leana Wen's opinion piece published today in WaPo on fluoride. In our latest newsletter, we discuss a CRITICAL ELEMENT missing from that article and the larger discussion on water fluoridation: health equity. We have lots more content planned on this hot topic, so stay tuned. In the meantime, check out our newsletter: https://lnkd.in/ed4GbcP4

I recently completed a Certificate in Public Relations from Cornell University, a move that might seem unexpected for someone trained in public health, biostatistics, evaluation science, and research design and methodology. However, this decision directly supports my core mission: PUBLIC HEALTH AND SCIENCE DESPERATELY NEED BETTER COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES. Right now, evidence-based public health measures are being challenged by sophisticated misinformation campaigns that leverage emotional appeals and fear to create division and distrust. To help address this challenge, I pursued advanced training in media communication, strategic planning, crisis management, and change communication. These new PR skills complement my scientific expertise, enhancing my ability to: 💡 Effectively share critical public health information with diverse audiences 💡 Proactively address emerging challenges 💡 Manage crisis communications 💡 Build strategic communication plans that resonate with the public 💡 Navigate complex media landscapes Science isn't just about discovering truth - it's about ensuring that truth reaches and resonates with the people who need it most. This training strengthens my ability to bridge the gap between scientific evidence and public understanding.

A new episode of Unbiased Science is now LIVE! In this episode ("The ABCs of The FDA"), Dr. Jess Steier and Dr. Sarah Scheinman welcome Dr. Namandjé Bumpus, Principal Deputy Commissioner of the FDA, who shares insights into the agency's operations and her path from academia to FDA leadership. The scientists explore the complexities of drug approval processes, the FDA's organizational structure, and its commitment to safety and transparency. Dr. Bumpus discusses the agency's efforts to advance health equity and adapt to emerging technologies, while addressing the critical challenge of maintaining public trust. This conversation offers listeners a unique glimpse into the inner workings of the FDA and its role in protecting public health. We were extremely honored to have the opportunity to speak with Dr. Bumpus, and we think you will enjoy the conversation! Tune in now: Apple: https://lnkd.in/e9hxa-gH Spotify: https://lnkd.in/eEjikbbU YouTube: https://lnkd.in/e5MmMU6E Show Notes: https://lnkd.in/enZ6NtfV

Stuffy nose? Reach for phenylephrine! Well, not anymore. Last week, the FDA announced it is proposing to remove oral phenylephrine as an active ingredient that can be used in OTC drug products for the temporary relief of nasal congestion after an agency review of the available data determined that oral phenylephrine is not effective for this use. As a result, my social media feed is overflowing with the following message: THE FDA PULLS DRUG FROM THE SHELVES— WHAT ELSE ARE THEY WRONG ABOUT? While some view this decision as a regulatory failure, a closer examination reveals the opposite: it shows the FDA's commitment to evidence-based decision-making and continuous scientific review. We discuss this in detail in our latest newsletter: https://lnkd.in/e7Q6Qtjs