Not to Junior Mod, but: Reported.
For making base accusations.
Yeah, the Pit is reserved for those with an acid tongue.
Bah, he’s just trying to get a reaction.
That depends on your definitions of “skeptic” and “status quo”. The people I don’t understand are the ones who zealously defend whatever the current paradigm is, until its proven wrong, then immediately zealously defend the NEW paradigm, until it too is proven wrong, etc. ad nauseam. That doesn’t seem like much of a strategy to me. Also, it’s usually these same folks who try to apply the same standards of certainty to nutritional research that are used in harder sciences. That’s just not realistic…but the real reason they do so is usually to avoid having to chsnge their unhealthy diets.
. . . Well, I suppose there’s a toxic dose of anything including water, but is that what she meant?
This is all a mild form of CT. The special knowledge, the conspiracy of medical experts, Big Pharma, it’s more fun to believe they’re trying to kill us all and hide the secret information that will save instead of believing they just want to make money (plus a little God complex thrown in from the medical world).
But if the result is less crowded planes and the suckers revealing themselves by their magic health secrets it’s fine with me. I don’t know why I haven’t gone into the Holistic Medicine business yet.
Or you can just come by my office, where the coffee tastes like ass…
“Repeat after me: pharma being shit does not mean magic beans cure cancer.”
What about the 56/100% of Ivory that is impure?
I’m wondering if journalism EVER existed. Maybe Woodward and Bernstein were outliers.
Congratulations on your straw man collection.
Skeptics (and the scientific community as a whole) would like to see good science before accepting a radical proposition, especially one which defies accepted rules governing the physical world or elementary logic. Regardless, scientists love to see new and exciting ideas get proven.
There is no reason nutrition-related research should get a special pass when it comes to sound science. And it has nothing to do with wanting to eat junk food. I agree with the great majority of scientists that GM foods are safe to consume. That doesn’t mean we think it’s a good idea to subsist on Fritos.
As for leading researchers not being active as skeptics, I give you Paul Offit M.D., a prolific writer and debunker of woo, who also co-developed a lifesaving rotavirus vaccine.
Yes they were. There’s usually a few crusading journalists around, but they’re vastly outnumbered by the rest.
Excellent. Thank you.
Why, oh WHY do you insist on filling your body with toxic chemicals? Neither of those are organic or even sustainably made! :eek:
I was a newspaper reporter once. You needn’t be a crusader to be a real journalist. You just have to really, really care about digging up all the relevant facts and checking them and getting them straight. If you do that, sometimes someone else will respond by mounting a crusade.
It’s cool, it’s a homeopathic dose.
Well, not ALL of you. And you need some Monster to wash them down.
I may be a sceptic middle aged male who’s a little bit overweight but I have no illusions about why this is so. I eat and drink too much and don’t exercise enough.
I also (and here’s the key point) don’t go around telling people what they should eat or drink or how much they should exercise, and if I did I wouldn’t speak complete and utter horseshit.
Do you see how this might distinguish me a little from the type of blogger the OP is talking about? Just a little?
About that claim that female nutrition skeptics are “an extremely rare breed”: this runs counter to my experience, seeing that there are a lot of women professionals in the nutrition field, who have written numerous online articles about nutrition fads and fallacies.
One prominent female skeptic who’s made contributions on this subject is Harriet Hall*, a retired Air Force flight surgeon and family doctor, who writes for the Skeptical Inquirer and Science-Based Medicine.
*she used to have a column in Oprah’s magazine, but apparently her point of view didn’t go down so well with Madame Woo.
Really? How did that work? When you published a “story,” was it just a headline followed by a reference to someone else’s article?