The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe

I look forward to new episodes every week!

Too many topics that have partiality, particularly by Dr Novella. He honestly does very well staying impartial on politics given his clearly partial views, but no doubt his views creep into justifying his position rather the leaving it as leaning one direction but continuing to seek new information. Some topics should be left open for continued review…Here’s an example of bias- ChatGPT: Why does the skeptics guide of the universe podcast, self promoted as science based, seemingly condemn all chiropractic? Do they take an impartial view or does their view seem to have partiality? ChatGPT said: The Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe (SGU) podcast, led by Dr. Steven Novella (a neurologist and Yale faculty member), often presents a highly critical view of chiropractic. While they promote themselves as science-based—and largely are in terms of their approach to evidence—their treatment of chiropractic tends to reflect a consistently skeptical, and arguably partial, stance. Why SGU Criticizes Chiropractic So Strongly Foundational Pseudoscience: SGU often highlights that chiropractic was founded in the late 19th century on the concept of “subluxations” interfering with innate intelligence and health—an idea lacking scientific basis. They argue that despite some chiropractors moving toward evidence-based musculoskeletal care, many still promote non-evidence-based practices, such as treatments for asthma, immunity, or general wellness adjustments. Lack of Internal Reform: SGU has criticized the profession for failing to regulate or distance itself from fringe elements within chiropractic, allowing unsupported claims to persist within mainstream practice. Safety Concerns: They frequently mention rare but serious complications, like strokes from cervical manipulation, and emphasize that the risk-benefit ratio isn’t favorable for neck adjustments when alternatives like physical therapy exist. Misalignment with Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM): The podcast tends to favor modalities strongly supported by randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews. Chiropractic care, in their view, lacks consistent, high-quality evidence beyond mild short-term relief for low back pain. Is SGU Impartial? Not entirely. While they use a science-based framework, their critiques: Sometimes overgeneralize the chiropractic profession. Do not often differentiate between evidence-based chiropractors (who limit care to musculoskeletal issues) and those promoting pseudoscience. Tend to dismiss chiropractic as a whole, rather than evaluating individual providers or subfields. So, their view is partial, in the sense that it leans heavily against chiropractic without always acknowledging the nuance or evolution within parts of the profession. Bottom Line SGU applies a consistent scientific lens, but their criticism of chiropractic is ideological as well as evidential. They advocate for reform or replacement of chiropractic with better-regulated, evidence-based manual therapies—like physical therapy—rather than integration or selective endorsement.

Long time listener coming back after years off, happy to find it better than before. I read other reviews and, are we listening to the same podcast? Shout out to Cara from this elementary teacher because: girls in science.

Long time listener, but I took a little break and, coming back, it doesn’t feel very skeptical. Feels more like a group of friends waxing philosophical about why they like or dislike various news items. I tend to agree with them on most things, but I’m looking for more than agreement out of skepticism podcast. Would love for them to bring experts on the topics they discuss on to the show (doesn’t happen often).