Unbiased Science

The flimsy arguments against this podcast only serve to highlight the misinformed narratives that inform the identities and egos of ignorant and credulous gullibles who are anything but the critical thinkers they esteem themselves to be. I see arguments from popularity, personal incredulity and authority that all demonstrate the pretentious arrogance of credulous gullibles who are confident that they know that which they demonstrably do not. I appreciate the playful whimsy and vulnerable transparency of the hosts. I feel that they get most things right or close enough and when they are wrong, they have corrected themselves on multiple occasions. That is what should happen on a science based skeptical podcast. Just because they didn’t offer a correction for your sacred cow doesn’t make the show less believable, it makes your sacred cow, bias confirmation and special pleading less believable. The good news is that ignorance is a curable disease. I wish everyone all the best in curing their own ignorance.

I ran to this podcast after finding them on IG. For years I’ve been scared of pesticides/heavy metals and other toxins in our food supply. I wanted to hear an unbiased report about it all. I’m starting to wonder if they’re owned by Bayer (Monsanto) bc they have a couple of episodes about organic vs. conventionally grown produce and they never mention the word glyphosate even once! I can’t fathom how you could discuss the pros/cons of organic foods without talking about glyphosate. Lost all credibility for me. They also don’t ask their guests the deeper questions that listeners of a science podcast want to hear. They’ll have doctors and scientists on that they basically chat with instead of asking the tough, real questions. Disappointing.

And not rigorous or analytical in their approach.

Whether food sensitivities are real or not, if individuals feel sensitivities, the goal should be to figure out why. The cackling and dismissiveness of this episode from scientists is cringe-worthy. You care about evidenced-based medicine but the episode is quite dismissive. When a patient’s response lines up with your POV, it’s valid but if it doesn’t, then they’re just wrong in thinking. (e.g., your Italy comment with wheat, yet your guest says herself that wheat is top 10 allergens in the U.S.) The guest needs to learn some empathy before laughing, sorry cackling, at almost every sentence spoken. People can get really sick with allergens and sensitivities. It’s not a joking matter. Not sure if it’s a nervous tick but it’s insensitive and no one is going to take you seriously.