Cookie Preferences
By clicking, you agree to store cookies on your device to enhance navigation, analyze usage, and support marketing. More Info
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
April 17, 2025
.png)
This New York Times article, “5 Takeaways from New Research about ADHD”, earns a poor grade for accuracy. Let’s break down their (often misleading and frequently inaccurate) claims about ADHD.
The Claim: A.D.H.D. is hard to define/ No ADHD Biomarkers exist
The Reality: The claim that ADHD is hard to define “because scientists haven’t found a single biological marker” is misleading at best. While it is true that no biomarker exists, decades of rigorous research using structured clinical interviews and standardized rating scales show that ADHD is reliably diagnosed. Decades of validation research consistently show that ADHD is indeed a biologically-based disorder. One does not need a biomarker to draw that conclusion and recent research about ADHD has not changed that conclusion.
Additionally, research has in fact confirmed that genetics do play a role in the development of ADHD and several genes associated with ADHD have been identified.
The Claim: The efficacy of medication wanes over time
The Reality: The article’s statement that medications like Adderall or Ritalin only provide short-term benefits that fade over time is wrong. It relies almost entirely on one study—the Multimodal Treatment Study of ADHD (MTA). In the MTA study, the relative advantage of medication over behavioral treatments diminished after 36 months. This was largely because many patients who had not initially been given medication stopped taking it and many who had only been treated with behavior therapy suddenly began taking medication. The MTA shows that patients frequently switched treatments. It does not overturn other data documenting that these medications are highly effective. Moreover, many longitudinal studies clearly demonstrate sustained benefits of ADHD medications in reducing core symptoms, psychiatric comorbidity, substance abuse, and serious negative outcomes, including accidents, and school dropout rates. A study of nearly 150,000 people with ADHD in Sweden concluded “Among individuals diagnosed with ADHD, medication initiation was associated with significantly lower all-cause mortality, particularly for death due to unnatural causes”. The NY Times’ claim that medications lose their beneficial effects over time ignores compelling evidence to the contrary.
The Claim: Medications don’t help children with ADHD learn
The Reality: ADHD medications are proven to reliably improve attention, increase time spent on tasks, and reduce disruptive behavior, all critical factors directly linked to better academic performance.The article’s assertion that ADHD medications improve only classroom behavior and do not actually help students learn also oversimplifies and misunderstands the research evidence. While medication alone might not boost IQ or cognitive ability in a direct sense, extensive research confirms significant objective improvements in academic productivity and educational success—contrary to the claim made in the article that the medication’s effect is merely emotional or perceptual, rather than genuinely educational.
For example, a study of students with ADHD who were using medication intermittingly concluded “Individuals with ADHD had higher scores on the higher education entrance tests during periods they were taking ADHD medication vs non-medicated periods. These findings suggest that ADHD medications may help ameliorate educationally relevant outcomes in individuals with ADHD.”
The Claim: Changing a child’s environment can change his or her symptoms.
The Reality: The Times article asserts that ADHD symptoms are influenced by environmental fluctuations and thus might not have their roots in neurobiology. We have known for many years that the symptoms of ADHD fluctuate with environmental demands. The interpretation of this given by the NY Times is misleading because it confuses symptom variability with underlying causes. Many disorders with well-established biological origins are sensitive to environmental factors, yet their biology remains undisputed.
For example, hypertension is unquestionably a biologically based condition involving genetic and physiological factors. However, it is also well-known that environmental stressors, dietary
habits, and lifestyle factors can significantly worsen or improve hypertension. Similarly, asthma is biologically rooted in inflammation and airway hyper-reactivity, but environmental triggers such as allergens, pollution, or even emotional stress clearly impact symptom severity. Just as these environmental influences on hypertension or asthma do not negate their biological basis, the responsiveness of ADHD symptoms to environmental fluctuations (e.g., improvements in classroom structure, supportive home life) does not imply that ADHD lacks neurobiological roots. Rather, it underscores that ADHD, like many medical conditions, emerges from the interplay between underlying biological vulnerabilities and environmental influences.
Claim: There is no clear dividing line between those who have A.D.H.D. and those who don’t.
The Reality: This is absolutely and resoundingly false. The article’s suggestion that ADHD diagnosis is arbitrary because ADHD symptoms exist on a continuum rather than as a clear-cut, binary condition is misleading. Although it is true that ADHD symptoms—like inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity—do vary continuously across the population, the existence of this continuum does not make the diagnosis arbitrary or invalidate the disorder’s biological basis. Many well-established medical conditions show the same pattern. For instance, hypertension (high blood pressure) and hypercholesterolemia (high cholesterol) both involve measures that are continuously distributed. Blood pressure and cholesterol levels exist along a continuum, yet clear diagnostic thresholds have been carefully established through decades of clinical research. Their continuous distribution does not lead clinicians to question whether these conditions have biological origins or whether diagnosing an individual with hypertension or hypercholesterolemia is arbitrary. Rather, it underscores that clinical decisions and diagnostic thresholds are established using evidence about what levels lead to meaningful impairment or increased risk of negative health outcomes. Similarly, the diagnosis of ADHD has been meticulously defined and refined over many decades using extensive empirical research, structured clinical interviews, and validated rating scales. The diagnostic criteria developed by experts carefully delineate the point at which symptoms become severe enough to cause significant impairment in an individual’s daily functioning. Far from being arbitrary, these thresholds reflect robust scientific evidence that individuals meeting these criteria face increased risks for the serious impairments in life including accidents, suicide and premature death.
The existence of milder forms of ADHD does not undermine the validity of the diagnosis; rather, it emphasizes the clinical reality that people experience varying degrees of symptom severity.
Moreover, acknowledging variability in severity has always been a core principle in medicine. Clinicians routinely adjust treatments to meet individual patient needs. Not everyone diagnosed with hypertension receives identical medication regimens, nor does everyone with elevated cholesterol get prescribed the same intervention. Similarly, people with ADHD receive personalized treatment plans tailored to the severity of their symptoms, their specific impairments, and their individual circumstances. This personalization is not evidence of arbitrariness; it is precisely how evidence-based medicine is practiced. In sum, the continuous nature of ADHD symptoms is fully compatible with a biologically-based diagnosis that has substantial evidence for validity, and acknowledging symptom variability does not render diagnosis arbitrary or diminish its clinical importance.
In sum, readers seeking a balanced, evidence-based understanding of ADHD deserve clearer, more careful reporting. By overstating diagnostic uncertainty, selectively interpreting research about medication efficacy, and inaccurately portraying the educational benefits of medication, this article presents an overly simplistic, misleading picture of ADHD.
Li L, Zhu N, Zhang L, et al. ADHD Pharmacotherapy and Mortality in Individuals With ADHD. JAMA. 2024;331(10):850–860. doi:10.1001/jama.2024.0851
Lu Y, Sjölander A, Cederlöf M, et al. Association Between Medication Use and Performance on Higher Education Entrance Tests in Individuals With Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. JAMA Psychiatry. 2017;74(8):815–822. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2017.1472
.png)
A recent study delved into the connection between fidgeting and cognitive performance in adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. Recognizing that hyperactivity often manifests as fidgeting, the researchers sought to understand its role in attention and performance during cognitively demanding tasks. They designed a framework to quantify meaningful fidgeting variables using actigraphy devices.
(Note: Actigraphy is a non-invasive method of monitoring human rest/activity cycles. It involves the use of a small, wearable device called an actigraph or actimetry sensor, typically worn on the wrist, similar to a watch. The actigraph records movement data over extended periods, often days to weeks, to track sleep patterns, activity levels, and circadian rhythms. In this study, actigraphy devices were used to measure fidgeting by recording the participants' movements continuously during the cognitive task. This data provided objective, quantitative measures of fidgeting, allowing the researchers to analyze its relationship with attention and task performance.)
The study involved 70 adult participants aged 18-50, all diagnosed with ADHD. Participants underwent a thorough screening process, including clinical interviews and ADHD symptom ratings. The analysis revealed that fidgeting increased during correct trials, particularly in participants with consistent reaction times, suggesting that fidgeting helps sustain attention. Interestingly, fidgeting patterns varied between early and later trials, further highlighting its role in maintaining focus over time.
Additionally, a correlation analysis validated the relevance of the newly defined fidget variables with ADHD symptom severity. This finding suggests that fidgeting may act as a compensatory mechanism for individuals with ADHD, aiding in their ability to maintain attention during tasks requiring cognitive control.
This study provides valuable insights into the role of fidgeting in adults with ADHD, suggesting that it may help sustain attention during challenging cognitive tasks. By introducing and validating new fidget variables, the researchers hope to standardize future quantitative research in this area. Understanding the compensatory role of fidgeting can lead to better management strategies for ADHD, emphasizing the potential benefits of movement for maintaining focus.
With the growth of the Internet, we are flooded with information about attention deficit hyperactivity disorder from many sources, most of which aim to provide useful and compelling "facts" about the disorder. But, for the cautious reader, separating fact from opinion can be difficult when writers have not spelled out how they have come to decide that the information they present is factual.
My blog has several guidelines to reassure readers that the information they read about ADHD is up-to-date and dependable. They are as follows:
Nearly all the information presented is based on peer-reviewed publications in the scientific literature about ADHD. "Peer-reviewed" means that other scientists read the article and made suggestions for changes and approved that it was of sufficient quality for publication. I say "nearly all" because in some cases I've used books or other information published by colleagues who have a reputation for high-quality science.
When expressing certainty about putative facts, I am guided by the principles of evidence-based medicine, which recognizes that the degree to which we can be certain about the truth of scientific statements depends on several features of the scientific papers used to justify the statements, such as the number of studies available and the quality of the individual studies. For example, compare these two types of studies. One study gives drug X to 10 ADHD patients and reported that 7 improved. Another gave drug Y to 100 patients and a placebo to 100 other patients and used statistics to show that the rate of improvement was significantly greater in the drug-treated group. The second study is much better and much larger, so we should be more confident in its conclusions. The rules of evidence are fairly complex and can be viewed at the Oxford Center for Evidenced Based Medicine (OCEBM;http://www.cebm.net/).
The evidenced-based approach incorporates two types of information: a) the quality of the evidence and b) the magnitude of the treatment effect. The OCEBM levels of evidence quality are defined as follows (higher numbers are better:
Non-randomized, controlled studies. In these studies, the treatment group is compared to a group that receives a placebo treatment, which is a fake treatment not expected to work.
It is possible to have high-quality evidence proving that a treatment works but the treatment might not work very well. So it is important to consider the magnitude of the treatment effect, also called the "effect size" by statisticians. For ADHD, it is easiest to think about ranking treatments on a ten-point scale. The stimulant medications have a quality rating of 5 and also have the strongest magnitude of effect, about 9 or 10.Omega-3 fatty acid supplementation 'works' with a quality rating of 5, but the score for the magnitude of the effect is only 2, so it doesn't work very well. We have to take into account patient or parent preferences, comorbid conditions, prior response to treatment, and other issues when choosing a treatment for a specific patient, but we can only use an evidence-based approach when deciding which treatments are well-supported as helpful for a disorder.
Adults with ADHD are more likely to have accidents, drive unsafely, have unsafe sex, and abuse substances. These 'real world' impairments suggest that people with ADHD may be predisposed to making risky decisions. Many studies have attempted to address this, but it is only recently that their results have been aggregated into a systematic review and meta-analysis. This paper by Dekkers and colleagues reports 37 laboratory studies of risky decision-making that studied a total of 1175 ADHD patients and 1222 controls. In these laboratory tasks, research participants are given a task to complete which requires that they make choices that have varying degrees of risk and reward. Using the results of such experiments, researchers can score the degree to which participants make risky decisions. When Dekkers and colleagues analyzed the 37 studies together, they found substantial evidence that ADHD people are more likely to make risky decisions than people without ADHD. The tendency to make risky decisions was greatest for those who, in addition to having ADHD, also had conduct or oppositional disorders, which both have features that indicate antisocial behavior and aggressiveness. We can not tell from these studies why ADHD patients make risky decisions. One explanation is that it is simply the impulsivity of ADHD people that leads to rash, unwise decisions. Another theory postulates that risky decisions reflect deficits in one's sensitivity to rewards and punishments. If we are very motivated by reward and not aware of or affected by the possibility of punishment, then risky decisions will be common. The studies analyzed in the meta-analysis were not designed to demonstrate a link between risky decision-making in the lab and the real world, risky decisions that lead to accidents, and other outcomes. It is reasonable to hypothesize such a link, which is why clinicians should consider risky decision-making when planning treatments. If you suspect deficits in this area, it will not change your approach to pharmacologic treatment but, given the potential adverse consequences of risky decisions, you should consider referring such patients to cognitive behavior therapy for adult ADHD as this talk therapy may be able to teach ADHD adults how to cope with their decision-making deficits.
Background:
ADHD treatment includes medication, behavioral therapy, dietary changes, and special education. Stimulants are usually the first choice but may cause side effects like appetite loss and stomach discomfort, leading some to stop using them. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is effective but not always sufficient on its own. Research is increasingly exploring non-drug options, such as transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), which may boost medication effectiveness and improve results.
What is tDCS?
tDCS delivers a weak electric current (1.0–2.0 mA) via scalp electrodes to modulate brain activity, with current flowing from anode to cathode. Anodal stimulation increases neuronal activity, while cathodal stimulation generally inhibits it, though effects vary by region and neural circuitry. The impact of tDCS depends on factors such as current intensity, duration, and electrode shape. It targets cortical areas, often stimulating the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex for ADHD due to its role in cognitive control. Stimulation of the inferior frontal gyrus has also been shown to improve response inhibition, making it another target for ADHD therapy.
There is an ongoing debate about how effective tDCS is for individuals with ADHD. One study found that applying tDCS to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex can help reduce impulsivity symptoms in ADHD, whereas another study reported that several sessions of anodic tDCS did not lead to improvements in ADHD symptoms or cognitive abilities.
New Research:
Two recent meta-analyses have searched for a resolution to these conflicting findings. Both included only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using either sham stimulation or a waitlist for controls.
Each team included seven studies in their respective meta-analyses, three of which appeared in both.
Both Wang et al. (three RCTs totaling 97 participants) and Wen et al. (three RCTs combining 121 participants) reported very large effect size reductions in inattention symptoms from tDCS versus controls. There was only one RCT overlap between them. Wang et al. had moderate to high variation (heterogeneity) in individual study outcomes, whereas Wen et al. had virtually none. There was no indication of publication bias.
Whereas Wen et al.’s same three RCTs found no significant reduction in hyperactivity/impulsivity symptoms, Wang et al. combined five RCTs with 221 total participants and reported a medium effect size reduction in impulsivity symptoms. This time, there was an overlap of two RCTs between the studies. Wen et al. had no heterogeneity, while Wang et al. had moderate heterogeneity. Neither showed signs of publication bias.
Turning to performance-based tasks, Wang et al. reported a medium effect size improvement in attentional performance from tDCS over controls (three RCTs totaling 136 participants), but no improvement in inhibitory control (five RCTs combining 234 persons).
Wang et al. found no significant difference in adverse events (four RCTs combining 161 participants) between tDCS and controls, with no heterogeneity. Wen et al. found no significant difference in dropout rates (4 RCTs totaling 143 individuals), again with no heterogeneity.
Wang et al. concluded, “tDCS may improve impulsive symptoms and inattentive symptoms among ADHD patients without increasing adverse effects, which is critical for clinical practice, especially when considering noninvasive brain stimulation, where patient safety is a key concern.”
Wen et al. further concluded, “Our study supported the use of tDCS for improving the self-reported symptoms of inattention and objective attentional performance in adults diagnosed with ADHD. However, the limited number of available trials hindered a robust investigation into the parameters required for establishing a standard protocol, such as the optimal location of electrode placement and treatment frequency in this setting. Further large-scale double-blind sham-controlled clinical trials that include assessments of self-reported symptoms and performance-based tasks both immediately after interventions and during follow-up periods, as well as comparisons of the efficacy of tDCS targeting different brain locations, are warranted to address these issues.”
The Take-Away:
Previous studies have shown mixed results on the benefits of this therapy on ADHD. These new findings suggest that tDCS may hold some real promise for adults with ADHD. While the technique didn’t meaningfully shift hyperactivity or impulsivity, it was well-tolerated and showed benefit, especially in self-reported symptoms. However, with only a handful of trials to draw from, it would be a mistake to suggest tDCS as a standard treatment protocol. Larger, well-designed studies are the next essential step to clarify where, how, and how often tDCS works best.
Background:
The development of ADHD is strongly associated with functional impairments in the prefrontal cortex, particularly the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, which plays a key role in maintaining attention and controlling impulses. Moreover, imbalances in neurotransmitters like dopamine and norepinephrine are widely regarded as major neurobiological factors contributing to ADHD.
Executive functions are a group of higher-order cognitive skills that guide thoughts and actions toward goals. “Executive function” refers to three main components: inhibitory control, working memory, and cognitive flexibility. Inhibitory control helps curb impulsive actions to stay on track. Working memory allows temporary storage and manipulation of information for complex tasks. Cognitive flexibility enables switching attention and strategies in varied or demanding situations.
Research shows that about 89% of children with ADHD have specific executive function impairments. These difficulties in attention, self-control, and working memory often result in academic and social issues. Without timely intervention, these issues can lead to emotional disorders like depression, anxiety, and irritability, further affecting both physical health and social development.
Currently, primary treatments for executive function deficits in school-aged children with ADHD include medication and behavioral or psychological therapies, such as Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT). While stimulant medications do improve executive function, not all patients are able to tolerate these medications. Behavioral interventions like neurofeedback provide customized care but show variable effectiveness and require specialized resources, making them hard to sustain. Safer, more practical, and long-lasting treatment options are urgently needed.
Exercise interventions are increasingly recognized as a safe, effective way to improve executive function in children with ADHD. However, systematic studies on school-aged children remain limited.
Moreover, there are two main scoring methods for assessing executive function: positive scoring (higher values mean better performance, such as accuracy) and reverse scoring (lower values mean better performance, such as reaction time). These different methods can affect how results are interpreted and compared across studies. This meta-analysis explored how different measurement and scoring methods might influence results, addressing important gaps in the research.
The Study:
Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving school-aged children (6–13 years old) diagnosed with ADHD by DSM-IV, DSM-5, ICD-10, ICD-11, or the SNAP-IV scale were included. Studies were excluded if the experimental group received non-exercise interventions or exercise combined with other interventions.
Cognitive Flexibility
Using positive scoring, exercise interventions were associated with a narrowly non-significant small effect size improvement relative to controls (eight RCTs, 268 children). Using reverse scoring, however, they were associated with a medium effect size improvement (eleven RCTs, 452 children). Variation (heterogeneity) in individual RCT outcomes was moderate, with no sign of publication bias in both instances.
Inhibitory Control
Using positive scoring, exercise interventions were associated with a medium effect size improvement relative to controls (ten RCTs, 421 children). Using reverse scoring, there was an association with a medium effect size improvement (eight RCTs, 265 children). Heterogeneity was moderate with no sign of publication bias in either case.
Working Memory
Using positive scoring, exercise interventions were associated with a medium effect size improvement relative to controls (six RCTs, 321 children). Using reverse scoring, the exercise was associated with a medium effect size improvement (five RCTs, 143 children). Heterogeneity was low with no indication of publication bias in both instances.
Conclusion:
The team concluded, “Exercise interventions can effectively improve inhibitory control and working memory in school-aged children with ADHD, regardless of whether positive or reverse scoring methods are applied. However, the effects of exercise on cognitive flexibility appear to be limited, with significant improvements observed only under reverse scoring. Moreover, the effects of exercise interventions on inhibitory control, working memory, and cognitive flexibility vary across different measurement paradigms and scoring methods, indicating the importance of considering these methodological differences when interpreting results.”
Although this work is intriguing, it does not show that exercise significantly improves the symptoms of ADHD in children. This means that exercise, although beneficial for many reasons, should not be viewed as a replacement for evidence-based treatments for the disorder.
A recent Wall Street Journal article raised alarms by concluding that many children who start medication for ADHD will later end up on several psychiatric drugs. It’s an emotional topic that will make many parents, teachers, and even doctors worry: “Are we putting kids on a conveyor belt of medications?”
The article seeks to shine a light on the use of more than one psychiatric medication for children with ADHD. My biggest worry about the article is that it presents itself as a scientific study because they analyzed a database. It is not a scientific study. It is a journalistic investigation that does not meet the standards of a scientific report..
The WJS brings attention to several issues that parents and prescribers should think about. It documents that some kids with ADHD are on more than one psychiatric medication, and some are receiving drugs like antipsychotics, which have serious side effects. Is that appropriate? Access to good therapy, careful evaluation, and follow-up care can be lacking, especially for low-income families. Can that be improved? On that level, the article is doing something valuable: it’s shining a spotlight on potential problems.
It is, of course, fine for a journalist to raise questions, but it is not OK for them to pretend that they’ve done a scientific investigation that proves anything. Journalism pretending to be science is both bad science and bad journalism.
Journalism vs. Science: Why Peer Review Matters
Journalists can get big datasets, hire data journalists, and present numbers that look scientific. But consider the differences between Journalism and Science. These types of articles are usually checked by editors and fact-checkers. Their main goals are:
Is this fact basically correct?
Are we being fair?
Are we avoiding legal problems?
But editors are not qualified to evaluate scientific data analysis methods. Scientific reports are evaluated by experts who are not part of the project. They ask tough questions like:
Exactly how did you define ADHD?
How did you handle missing data?
Did you address confounding?
Did you confuse correlation with causation?
If the authors of the study cannot address these and other technical issues, the paper is rejected.
The WSJ article has the veneer of science but lacks its methodology.
Correlation vs. Causation: A Classic Trap
The article’s storyline goes something like this: A kid starts ADHD medication. She has additional problems or side effects caused by the ADHD medications. Because of that, the prescriber adds more drugs. That leads to the patient being put on several drugs. Although it is true that some ADHD youth are on multiple drugs, the WSJ is wrong to conclude that the medications for ADHD cause this to occur. That simply confuses correlation with causation, which only the most naïve scientist would do.
In science, this problem is called confounding. It means other factors (like how severe or complex a child’s condition is) explain the results, not just the thing we’re focused on (medication for ADHD).
The WSJ analyzed a database of prescriptions. They did not survey the prescribers who made the prescriptions of the patients who received them. So they cannot conclude that ADHD medication caused the later prescriptions, or that the later medications were unnecessary or inappropriate.
Other explanations are very likely. It has been well documented that youth with ADHD are at high risk for developing other disorders such as anxiety, depression, and substance use. The kids in the WSJ database might have developed these disorders and needed several medications. A peer-reviewed article in a scientific journal would be expected to adjust for other diagnoses. If that is not possible, as it is in the case of the WSJ’s database, a journal would not allow the author to make strong conclusions about cause-and-effect.
Powerful Stories Don’t Always Mean Typical Stories
The article includes emotional accounts of children who seemed harmed by being put on multiple psychiatric drugs. Strong, emotional stories can make rare events feel common. They also frighten parents and patients, which might lead some to decline appropriate care.
These stories matter. They remind us that each data point is a real person. But these stories are the weakest form of data. They can raise important questions and lead scientists to design definitive studies, but we cannot use them to draw conclusions about the experiences of other patients. These stories serve as a warning about the importance of finding a qualified provider, not as against the use of multiple medications. That decision should be made by the parent or adult patient based on an informed discussion with the prescriber.
Many children and adults with ADHD benefit from multiple medications. The WSJ does not tell those stories, which creates an unbalanced and misleading presentation.
Newspapers frequently publish stories that send the message: “Beware! Doctors are practicing medicine in a way that will harm you and your family.” They then use case studies to prove their point. The title of the article is, itself, emotional clickbait designed to get more readers and advertising revenue. Don’t be confused by such journalistic trickery.
What Should We Conclude?
Here’s a balanced way to read the article. It is true that some patients are prescribed more than one medication for mental health problems. But the article does not tell us whether this prescribing practice is or is not warranted for most patients. I agree that the use of antipsychotic medications needs careful justification and close monitoring. I also agree that patients on multiple medications should be monitored closely to see if some of the medications can be eliminated. Many prescribers do exactly that, but the WSJ did not tell their stories.
It is not appropriate to conclude that ADHD medications typically cause combined pharmacotherapy or to suggest that combined pharmacotherapy is usually bad. The data presented by the WSJ does not adequately address these concerns. It does not prove that medications for ADHD cause dangerous medication cascades.
We have to remember that even when a journalist analyzes data, that is not the same as a peer-reviewed scientific study. Journalism pretending to be science is both bad science and bad journalism.
_logo%201.svg)
