Comment: I agree with some of your specific examples.

(See in situ)

reedr3v's picture

I agree with some of your specific examples.

I only object because often you make the very error of which you accuse others. You strongly tend to presume orthodox "science" is correct. but a quick review of the history of science is enough to notice it is a succession of scientific paradigms overturned with new information or understanding.

Today when government has intruded itself so powerfully into the channels of academia, including science departments and research facilities,the distortions and special interests are similar to those in economics. The results are nearly as disastrous IMO.

You focus on a few pop. presenters who do sensationalize, but you would more profitably pay attention to the growing influence of soundly based alternative researchers and reporters such as Chris Kresser and the many researchers whose works he reviews, and the more popular

Due to your own bias, you are largely unaware of revolutions taking place in health sciences. As always government agencies lock down progress by enshrining monopolies and "official" views.

Your own understanding needs balance. Yes traditional docs and scientist still make real contributions, but progress is immeasurably slowed by built in bureaucracy, departmental jealousies and politics.

The leaner, swift advance of understanding is outside official channels. You are closed to those advances and the poorer for it, IMO.