Probably because writing intellectually honest defenses of contemporary western medicine isn&#x27;t something that SBM does. All their posts are exactly the same. If they were to cover this it would just be one or two semi-coherent paragraphs about Bayesian statistics, followed by a long rant about how even if Tylenol is dangerous it doesn&#x27;t matter because some random alternative medicine practice that has nothing to do with the topic at hand is the tool of the devil.<p>Every time I read some book that&#x27;s critical of something from modern medicine I look up what SBM has to say about it. Because after all I&#x27;m not a medical researcher, nor am I omniscient. But what I do know is that every time, without fail, SBM has written a &#x27;debunking&#x27; of that book that has nothing to do with the actual arguments or evidence from the book.<p>If you like SBM then I would propose that it&#x27;s because you&#x27;re not reading the actual books or primary sources they&#x27;re talking about. So everything they say &#x27;sounds correct&#x27;, but only because you have no basis for actually judging.