When Good Theories Make Bad Medicine
Bobby Dubois, MD, PhD, recently wrote an article “The Hype: Why Good Theories Aren’t Good Medicine” that I found particularly intriguing.1 Dubois, a physician who has written on longevity, wellness, and health, suggested that many of the current popular therapies for health and wellness are not based on sufficient evidence to justify using them. He says that a “cool mechanism plus compelling antidotes plus credentialed endorsements do not equal reliable evidence”1 and then cites several examples.
One concerned supplements said to enhance adenosine triphosphate output in mitochondria. Dubois notes that just because the supplement may stimulate mitochondrial function does not mean it will noticeably increase energy in humans. He also points out that there are no randomized clinical trials proving the benefits of this therapy.
Then he discusses several historical examples of promising theories that did not stand up to scientific evaluation, such as dietary cholesterol and cardiovascular disease. At one time eating eggs, especially the yellow, was widely believed to lead to an increase in cardiovascular problems. Subsequent large-scale studies demonstrated that consumption of eggs has little negative effect on the heart.
On another topic, Dubois says that the use of cardiac stents did not outperform standard medical approaches in preventing heart attacks. The same negative result was found when detailed studies published in the New England Journal of Medicine found the use of cement injected for vertebroplasty performed no better than a placebo.
Dubois also discusses ideas based on scientific studies that were overhyped without rigorous human trials. One famous example was the hypothesis by Nobel Prize winner Linus Pauling, PhD, that vitamin C would prevent colds. Subsequent Cochrane Reviews contradicted this opinion.
DuBois asserts that studies need to address the following questions before a therapy is recommended for wide use:
- Has it been tested in people?
- Who profits?
- Are claims measurable and reproducible?
He also suggests the use of placeboes and appropriate randomized controlled trials before scientific conclusions are made on how significant the benefit is to the general population.
The ability to admit that uncertainty remains is also key to transparency. While anecdotal evidence has a place, only studies done on human beings with careful controls can tell us what actually works. Experts who tout a compelling mechanism or armed with laboratory data on mice or human antidotal data do not reach the level of actionable evidence. Dubois ends by stating the next time a supplement or therapy seems too good to be true, take a pause.
In an era where mechanisms are marketed as miracles, clinicians must resist the pull of plausibility and demand proof grounded in rigorous human trials. Before embracing the next promising therapy, pause compelling theory is never a substitute for reproducible evidence.
Reference
- Dubois B. Beyond the hype: why good theories aren’t good medicine. Sensible Medicine. Available at sensible-med.com/p/beyond-the-hype-why-good-theories?utm_source=publication-search. Accessed February 13, 2026.
From Decisions in Dentistry. February/March 2026;12(1):5.
