Okay, this is maybe the least political bit I can take in here, what the whole article was building to. And, a non-political observation I can make here; good sewer systems, clean water supply, vaccination etc. does do a lot for the common good. But that doesn't take away the value of individual hygiene. Similarly, if government had any idea what a healthy diet was, and how to get people to eat it, they could probably improve the health of the section of the population they're more directly responsible for feeding. But a zillion n=1's would still be out there--and if they don't choose to eat well, they won't benefit. Also real benefit to a population doesn't occur without individual benefit--it may only be impossible to know who benefits, which people would have died from some disease without the intervention. It's fine to apply probability, but it is individuals who benefit, even if you don't know which ones. And in some cases, getting enough people to participate in a change for there to be a measurable cross-population benefit ought to involve individual commitment. Any surgeon who took up proper sanitation before it was the consensus is likely to have saved lives. Dr. Bernstein didn't need a second diabetic to make his n=1 a success, he only needed it to establish that his results weren't unique to himself.

This should not be individual responsibility/experience vs. common responsibility. There are things I should do for my own health and for my neighbour's health.