Trying to find your way around this place? Like most expositions, we offer a map: 
I think this statement should be obvious, and for that reason alone, we've included it in the SCQ's list of truths.
This, by the way, is a web experiment run by the Quarterly. The background can be found here, and I'll note that I'm constantly surprised by its staying power. On a general google.com search, the list of truths still ranks in the top 10 for the keyword "truth."
In case, you're curious, the celebrity that comes to mind, is all the silliness associated with Jenny McCarthy, but a list of others in the comment section, would be lovely to have on hand.
Medicine & Health
Humanities & Social Science
Comments
Things can also get interesting when celebrities and science converge:
http://radiodiatribe.com/category/pharma/
Posted by: Timon | June 23, 2008 3:21 PM
When scientific celebrities and science don't mix - this happens.
Posted by: Dave S. | June 23, 2008 6:20 PM
Here's another good example. If you can't be bothered to read the
article, the url sums it up pretty well.
http://www.badscience.net/2008/04/cliff-richard-gloria-hunniford-carole-caplin-the-60bn-food-supplement-industry-and-the-quantum-xrroid-dude-refute-a-cochrane-meta-analysis/
Posted by: csrster | June 24, 2008 3:29 AM
I think it is 100% true that celebrities like Tye Pennington should not be trusted and, in fact, should be ashamed of themselves for peddling drugs they know nothing about, so they can make a buck.
However, I think Jenny McCarthy should be distinguished from people like Pennington. I am not saying that I think there is a relationship between autism and vaccines. I really have no idea...in fact, I have never thought about the two things together. But, just because she is a celebrity, a mom, a non-scientist (whatever) does not make this an illegitimate question. All too often scientific researchers do not study causes of diseases that are related to things like environmental contamination, industrialization, technology, etc...This is not necessarily because they are evil; it has to do with the ways that scientific research gets prioritized and funded, etc..etc..and so on.
In many different contexts (I'm thinking about AIDS activists, Breast Cancer Activists, Psychiatric Survivors, Environmental Activists), non-scientists or non-experts make legitimate contributions to debates about health and disease. Many times, they teach scientists something about how they should go about treating and understanding diseases.
Posted by: Lisa | June 24, 2008 10:05 AM