Not all Self Proclaimed Science Advocates are to be trusted.
Earlier I wrote about how someone, and I don’t know who, is linking to a blog post I made about Dr. Darcia Narvaez’s disastrous post about breastfeeding. It has turned into an entire saga, which you can read in Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3.
I’ve found one of the people who’s been writing about me: Angela Braden the so called “Science Mommy“. Later I’ll detail how she’s anything but a science advocate, and her use of the term “Science Mommy” is just plain distasteful given the anti-science positions she seems to hold. More on that later.
For now, I’ll tell how I found out about this. Braden has written a few guest posts on Dr. Narvaez’s Moral Landscapes blog over at Psychology Today. I also noticed that she’s been commenting with me on the aforementioned “Myth of Breastfeeding is Optional” post described in Part 1 and Part 3.
I think that the two are, if not good friends, at least have a good working relationship. I’ve visited her website and found many positive references to Dr. Narvaez’s work over the years. She’s not active on her blog, but she’s been quite active on her Facebook page, as you can see below:
I want to take a moment to write about the Red individual’s comment. I’m the one who “bashed” her opinions. I think that’s a bit strong of a word, but I’ll let you be the judge.
She stated that infant formula contains GMOs and Taurine, and other toxic substances. They do contain GMOs and Taurine but these substances aren’t toxic. If you’re interested you can search for the thread in the comments section, I won’t repeat it here.
I just want to point out that informing someone who is wrong is not “bashing” someone’s opinions. I never called her stupid or any other name in the book. I merely informed her that neither taurine nor GMOs are harmful and that taurine in particular is a naturally occurring compound already found in meat and in breastmilk.
It’s a sad trend that has really begun to pick up speed with the dawn of Food Babe, but it started earlier. Wakefield was probably the first in recent memory to use the shroud of science (with his credentials and scientific sounding but in reality pseudo-scientific study) to hide their quackery.
Not all “Science Advocates” are created equal, it would seem. This shouldn’t be anything new, Bill Maher supports scientific consensus on Climate Change but rejects that same consensus on Vaccine Safety. Sherry Tenpenny is a licensed MD yet will tell her followers that Vaccines are poisons.
These are egregious examples, but some can be more subtle. Consider if you will the “Science Mommy.” She appears to be most active on her Facebook Page than her blog (don’t click on the link… Do not Link was down when I wrote this, I’ll try to update it with a DNL later), where you can read the little gem below:
The comment beneath her post was subsequently deleted.
The article she’s linking to is a guest blog post on Darcia Narvaez’s Psychology Today post about Sleep Training. I read it, and found it wanting but I’ve decided to boycott Psychology today because of Narvaez’s (or whoever’s) policy of deleting comments that caller her out on her quackery, which you can read about in Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3 of the saga.
Unlike true science advocates (I know, a bit of a No True Scotsman) Braden posts a bit of real science with a bit of pseudoscientific new age woo dressed up as science. For example, she posted another meme that is technically correct although grossly overstates the case:
Unlike the Sci Babe or Mommy PhD, two bloggers who are both scientists and science advocates (As I am, even though there are no letters behind my name), the “Science Mommy” is a new age Woo Peddler who occasionally will post technically scientifically accurate information, but most of the time uses the guise of “science” to falsely gain credibility.
I’ll just leave what few readers I have with this meme I worked up:
Why am I so upset by this blogger’s behavior? Is it because many of my comments were deleted, comments which I don’t believe were insulting or trollish?
But more to the point, this is a woman who advocates for pseudoscientific nonsense like eating your placenta, feeding breastmilk exclusively, that formula is dangerous, and apparently so are Vaccines and GMOs. Using the guise of a “Science” Communicator adds legitimacy to her claims. The harm, and my fear, is that parents will read this webpage and think that, because she claims to be a “Science” Mommy her claims are credible.
Not all Science Advocates are equal, I’m afraid. Judge the article by whether they provide citations, whether they disagree with established scientific consensus, and whether they behave in an intellectually honest way.