When the beverage industry, for instance, helpfully points out that no long-term, randomized trial has specifically implicated their sugary concoction in epidemic childhood obesity, we might consider that no such trial has ever implicated any given snowflake in an avalanche fatality, either. Perhaps avalanches are actually innocuous.
We already have evidence of declining levels of empathy in the population at large, with frequent recourse to technological interfaces rather than direct eye contact one of the reasons invoked. The doctor-patient relationship has degraded too much already in my opinion. I would hate to see it technologized out of existence.
Doctors don't much care for conditions we don't understand well, can't treat effectively, and can't even confirm with a blood test. The frustration that results often translates into one of medicine's more common, and most regrettable missteps: blaming the victim. Patients with syndromes are often overtly, or at least covertly, blamed for their symptoms and engender an "it's all in his/her head" attitude in their doctor.
When you go public with your opinions, you are apt at times to ruffle some feathers, intentionally or otherwise. I have dealt with this -- on television, on Twitter, and elsewhere -- many times. I have some suggestions for how best to dodge these bullets should you ever find yourself in similar crosshairs.
We can take milk, or leave it. Take milk fat, or leave that. Either way, we can have a good diet of wholesome foods in sensible combinations -- or not. But either way, we need to take seriously the reverberations of our dietary choices across the landscape of a shrinking planet, and the legacy of kindness or cruelty by which history will be invited to judge us.
The transcribed conversation in The Atlantic, starting with that headline, is rather the opposite of measured, taking the measure of prevailing sentiment, and apparently concluding that prevailing faith in nutrient supplements warranted some additional throttling. If enthusiasm for supplements is the action of concern here, this piece has opted to highlight the opposing reaction.
It's no big surprise that someone untrained in research methods would tell us all what the research really means and why the scientists on this committee -- all trained to do research and interpret it -- are just a bunch of hacks. But that the New York Times would allocate its imprimatur and rarefied real estate to an infomercial masquerading as an Op-Ed is a lamentably disappointing surprise.
Before the committee report is translated into official guidelines, there is a period of public comment.Some of the commentary will be from public health advocates, but much will be from industry. What exact dietary guidelines will emerge from this gauntlet remains to be seen. But given that, I like what I see so far. I think the advisory committee has done a stellar job.