Brody doesn't cite the report she hints at in the first paragraph. It's only fair to do this so we can actually get the whole context. On the other hand, she does title her article suggestively, ya? So, it must be all about Taubes again and his recent BMJ essay 2018-1-8. Besides the fact she doesn't cite it by name or at all, she calls it a report (which it is not) when it's called an essay (which it is) right on top of the page. Tks tks, misleading the reader are ya, Jane? Omission of citation and mischaracterization? Who knows, the reader might conclude the journalist isn't actually a professional, but merely an amateur. I wonder what character Brody would assign to her own text. Is it a report or is it an essay, hm? Methinks there's a whole lot of opinion in there and scant facts if any.

What if it's a rebut to Taubes and Teicholz op-ed of 2018-1-28? That would have given Jane a whole 24 hours to write hers. Methinks that's a whole day of preparation. Here's what I think. She wrote it well in advance (she had six months to mull over Sacks' advisory, ahem I mean AHA PRESIDENTIAL ADVISORY, published 2017-6-15), but simply tacked on a vague-yet-toothy first paragraph to fit the current hot potato.

Here's what Tom had to say about that only a few days after publication: The American Heart Association Bravely Admits They’ve Been Right All Along … Part Two