That what worries me is "He fed a group of mice a high-fat diet around the clock for 18 weeks...". I fail to see any trace of scientific experiment run on peopl

That what worries me is "He fed a group of mice a high-fat diet around the clock for 18 weeks...". I fail to see any trace of scientific experiment run on people. There is some anecdotal evidence "I’ve employed what’s called intermittent fasting, or time-restricted eating, to help patients with an array of chronic conditions". How it helped? Helped everyone? What about control group? The only cited research is that: "Among 2,400 women with early-stage breast cancer who provided information on their eating rhythm, roughly 400 suffered from new tumors within seven years. But women who fasted for 13 hours nightly had 26% less risk of recurrence than the control group". Was this only difference between those two groups of women for seven years? Maybe those who were fasting has been doing for 7 years 100 other things and that was the reason they didn't get cancer? But "Fasting cures cancer" looks like a great headline. Clicks are coming. Will we see in 3 months another article, also based on such vague research, claiming the opposite? This kind of "science" and journalism contributes to general lack of trust in science. Eggs are bad, next week, eggs are good. Fat is bad. Fat is good. Cholesterol causes heart diseases. No it does not. Yes it does. Global warming? Phew, next week they will announce that global winter is coming. Doctors say vaccines are good and safe. Better be careful, those are the same guys who were paid to say that margarine is healthy and butter not, while it turned out the opposite...