Science-Based Medicine

Science-Based Medicine
Type	website
Shortcut	WP:SBM
Status	No consensus
Deprecated	no
Blacklisted	no
Recency	2025
Domain sciencebasedmedicine.org
	In source code; External links in articles; Spamcheck tool
RfC
Link	Rfc
Date	2019

This page is a test version of a potential new layout for the Perennial sources project. It is a demo and not part of the live listings. See Talk.

This source in a nutshell: There is

no consensus on the reliability of Science-Based Medicine. See § Summary.

Science-Based Medicine is a source that has been repeatedly discussed at the Reliable sources noticeboard. This page collects and links information about previous discussions and current consensus, and summarizes it here for convenience.

Summary

Science-Based Medicine is considered generally reliable, has a credible editorial board, and has been cited by other reliable sources. It is also not a peer-reviewed publication with respect to WP:MEDRS. Since it often covers fringe material, parity of sources may be relevant. Article written by the site editors are considered WP:SPS and WP:BLP considerations apply.

Excerpt

Science-Based Medicine is a website and blog with articles covering issues in science and medicine, especially medical scams and practices. Founded in 2008, it is owned and operated by the New England Skeptical Society, and run by Steven Novella and David Gorski.

Discussions

Links

RSN

WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 141#Film review by David Gorski at ScienceBasedMedicine.org of Gabriel Cousens documentary Simply Raw

WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 247#sciencebasedmedicine.org

WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 351#Science-Based Medicine

Recency

2025

Rfcs

2019 Rfc

2025 Rfc

Notes

References

Original table row for comparison

(remove this when this source page is ready to go live)

Perennial sources
Source	Status (legend)	Discussions			Use
Source	Status (legend)	List	Last	Summary	Use
Science-Based Medicine WP:SBMWP:SBM 📌		2019	2025	Science-Based Medicine is considered generally reliable, has a credible editorial board, and has been cited by other reliable sources. It is also not a peer-reviewed publication with respect to WP:MEDRS. Since it often covers fringe material, parity of sources may be relevant. Article written by the site editors are considered WP:SPS and WP:BLP considerations apply.	1