Science journalists and prescribing psychiatrists were less responsible about this, and so the general public may well have ended up with an inaccurate picture.Likewise, when Taubes published his book, the ideas he wrote about (at least the correct ones) seem to have been accepted by some specialist researchers, known only as vague inklings among non-specialist researchers, poorly reflected at all in the official dietary guidelines, totally new to the world of journalism, totally new to doctors (who mostly still haven’t gotten the message), and totally new to the general public.
The only debate is whether we’ve successfully contained it to a small effect, or whether it’s hopelessly contaminated the entire process (I tend to lean more toward the optimistic side; for a true pessimist, read Dr. The same is true in nutrition, where a lot of studies are sponsored by groups with names like ‘The United Dairy Farmers Council’ or ‘The League For Wheat’.In education research this could be teachers and principals who directly decide how classes will get taught. A lot of these issues make a lot more sense in terms of different theories going on at the same time on different levels of the pyramid.In sociology it might be the police chief trying to institute a new crime-fighting program. I get the impression that in the 1990s, the specialist researchers, the non-specialist researchers, and the organs and administrators were all pretty responsible about saying that the serotonin theory was just a theory and only represented one facet of the multifaceted disease of depression. Last week we discussed whether Gary Taubes gets to be admitted to the small but prestigious pantheon of correct contrarians.And the strange part was that there was a lot less argument about how correct he was than about how contrarian he was.This whole process gets even more complicated when you consider enemy action.In psychiatry, drug companies have established defensive chokeholds at various points on the pyramid, trying to promote pro-pharmaceutical results and sink anti-pharmaceutical ones.Taubes’ main theory – that low-carb diets could solve the obesity epidemic – hasn’t fared the test of time very well. Large parts of mainstream nutrition science have eased up on dietary cholesterol, dropped the recommendation against fat, gotten tougher on sugar, and accepted that the science should focus on how to regulate complex satiety mechanisms rather than just counting calories.Given how hard it is to fight the scientific consensus and win, even those few minor victories would potentially be remarkable.The counterargument is that these are other people’s ideas and he gets no credit for them.Suppose David Icke says that the Queen is a lizard person, and also that the royal family is secretly descended from German nobles and isn’t British at all.