A new major study finds that alcohol causes cancer, so government worked to bury the study. Time and time again we get presented with the fact that small amounts of drinking correlate with improved health in various ways, fooling many into thinking a little alcohol is healthy.
That seems a pretty uncritical way to frame the issue.
It turns out when you put a few people who believe that nutritional research with it’s correlational observational studies is crap into leadership positions, they don’t take that kind of nutritional research very seriously. MAHA was never about trusting the existing nutrition researchers, so this should not be surprising.
If you do report on the issue, I think it would make sense to focus on the actual merits of a policy choice instead of just “Trump administration doesn’t like the status quo that nutritional experts propagate—Nutritional experts are so worthy of respect that disrespecting them is bad”.
That seems a pretty uncritical way to frame the issue.
It turns out when you put a few people who believe that nutritional research with it’s correlational observational studies is crap into leadership positions, they don’t take that kind of nutritional research very seriously. MAHA was never about trusting the existing nutrition researchers, so this should not be surprising.
If you do report on the issue, I think it would make sense to focus on the actual merits of a policy choice instead of just “Trump administration doesn’t like the status quo that nutritional experts propagate—Nutritional experts are so worthy of respect that disrespecting them is bad”.