1.

2.
3.
4.

5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.

What is the basis for the story? Untested assertion

What is the affiliation of the scientist? Employed by an industry or advocacy group
What is the funding source for the study? Industry group or other partisan source
A) Did the researchers attempt to eliminate reasonable alternative hypotheses? No
B) Is the experimental treatment the only difference between the control group and the
experimental group? No
Was the sample of individuals in the experiment a good cross section of the population? No
Was the data collected from a relatively large number of people? No
Were participants blind to the group they belonged to or to the expected outcome of the study?
No
Were data collectors or analysts blinded to the group membership of participants in the study?
No
Did the news reporter put the study in the context of other research on the same subject? No
Did the news story contain commentary from other independent scientists? No
Did the reporter list the limitations of the study or studies on which he or she is reporting? No

1. Is there any guarantee that something written on a website is true?

No, there is no guarantee it is true. If there are no sources to back up the information, then you
have no idea whether or not its true or false information being given.
2. The website that suggested that emotion can block cancer therapies presented no evidence to
back up this claim. What would you do if you wanted to know whether that claim had any
merit?
I would conduct my own research to see whether or not that claim had any validity or not.
Without good evidence of the claims being made, its impossible to know whether or not what
they are saying is true.
3. The study on shark cartilage was published in a non-peer reviewed journal. Does this fact add or
subtract from the credibility of this article?
It definitely subtracts from the credibility of this article. If something has been proved to be true,
then it is sent to other scientists to be peer reviewed and proven wrong or right. Without the
peer review, we do not know if other scientists looked at this theory before it was published.
4. What other information do you need to determine whether the one-year survival rate of the
shark cartilage study has any real meaning?
They need to have a larger sample group, and whether the hypothesis has been proven wrong.
It also needs commentary from other scientists.
5. Would the fact that the author of the shark cartilage study owns a company that sells the
product make you more or less skeptical of his findings? What about the fact that sharks actually
do get cancer?
It would make me much more skeptical, even more so than I already was because this claim was
farfetched already and now its even more biased. Now that the fact that sharks do get cancer
has been pointed out, the business has lost their credibility.
6. While most medical doctors have dedicated their lives to helping people in need, a few will
promote products and services simply to make money. Should you always believe the word of
someone with an advanced degree?

No, because they might be biased if money has anything to do with why they are promoting a
product. Everyone should look into the product more closely, rather than trusting someone who
is a doctor just because they have a medical degree.
7. Why do you think that so many people fall prey to dubious cancer cures?
I think people fall prey because they are desperate for something to work and to cure them. Im
sure if I were in that position, I might try anything too; no matter how far off it sounds. Some
people may not even recognize what they are getting themselves into when they are looking
into it.