Side by side in my morning paper today were the following headlines:
"Drinking coffee reduces risk of basal cell skin cancer"
and
"Cutting Back on Meat Can Lengthen Your Life"

The first actually referenced a peer-reviewed study which showed that higher levels of coffee consumption was correlated with lower levels of the incidence of basal cell melanoma.

The second is essentially a puff piece which quotes no scientific research whatsoever to support the claim in the headline and is really just a recap of Clinton's decision to go vegan with some commentary from one of the doctors on CNN's staff thrown in.

My question is how do newspaper reporters and editors who write the tripe as illustrated by the second article live with themselves? Shouldn't somebody, somewhere involved in the process of approving that headline think that perhaps, just maybe, there should be some type of scientific support for the claim being made somewhere in the article?

Thanks for letting me rant.

I'm totally with you. I would even ask why the writers of the first type of headline can live with themselves. I think it's unethical to report epidemiological research as if it was news of general interest, instead of reporting it as low-level scientific data of interest only to scientists who MIGHT do clinical studies which then MIGHT be of general interest. It's part of the manipulation of ignorant faith in the trappings of science.

A timely thread. I came across this glaring piece of misinformation in the infamous Daily Mail:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...ls-obesity.html

So many errors in it I don't know where to start. The journalist is clearly clueless.

Summary: Cut down on red meat and fat and you will avoid type 2 diabetes.

When I found out I had celiac disease back in 2005, I read just about everything I could get my hands on for this subject and became very knowledgeable on gluten and everything related to it. A few years back when "gluten" became the new dietary fad, I noticed right away how terribly superficial and frequently inaccurate the articles about gluten/celiac were. I think uninformed people write the articles based on very little information, and they tend to pick up the worst of what is out there, then it all gets repeated and on it goes ad infinitum. Same with what we're discussing in this thread! Most of what is in the press is terribly superficial and generally all wrong. Too bad for the lazy and uninformed who read it.

I read the article and the comments..Out of 64 comments,55 stated Carbs are the problem,we need fat,and the government is wrong in it's message!!
Really happy to see that people are learning and spreading the truth,and no longer are buying into this rubbish!!