4 ms·

tl;dr: someone came up with the idea of a xanthan-based thickener for adding to liquids for post-stroke adults, xantham is made using bacteria, and they outsour

tl;dr: someone came up with the idea of a xanthan-based thickener for adding to liquids for post-stroke adults, xantham is made using bacteria, and they outsourced the production to an established manufacturer or such products. Turns out hat manufacturer didn't actually ensure that there were no live bacteria in the final product, people started marking the substance as suitable for premature infants, and babies have died from the worst possible bacterial infections imaginable as a result. For those who don't want to spend 20 minutes reading an article that's written by someone 1/4th journalist, 3/4th aspiring novelist.

LeifCarrotson 7y ago
It's frustrating how light the article is on data while being so full of anecdotes.
stallmanite 7y ago
Thank you for the summary. If this is indicative of your style I wish you a long and prolific career in journalism. We need more writing like this.
- raphlinus 7y ago
  Pomax is already very well known for excellent technical writing, making arcane topics such as Bézier curves accessible to a wide audience.
ssivark 7y ago
> Turns out hat manufacturer didn't actually ensure that there were no live bacteria in the final product, people started marking the substance as suitable for premature infants, and babies have died from the worst possible bacterial infections imaginable as a result. That's a reckless and misleading summary, to put it politely. For starters, here is something the article says: Did the cold processing method and the failures in sanitation cause NEC? [...] Nobody’s sure. The FDA’s current theory is that the problem is the xanthan-gum thickeners themselves, because of the way they interact with an immature gut. ---- Yes, the article does spend some time up front on anecdotes for emotional response, but overall I felt it was quite well-written, trying to capture the nuances on different facets of the story -- quite unlike the above (aggravatingly shitty) "TL;DR" which presents a spurious simplification. Reality is NOT THAT SIMPLE; deal with it. For anyone who actually wants to understand, I recommend reading the full article.

LeifCarrotson 7y ago

It's frustrating how light the article is on data while being so full of anecdotes.

stallmanite 7y ago

Thank you for the summary. If this is indicative of your style I wish you a long and prolific career in journalism. We need more writing like this.

raphlinus 7y ago
Pomax is already very well known for excellent technical writing, making arcane topics such as Bézier curves accessible to a wide audience.

ssivark 7y ago

> Turns out hat manufacturer didn't actually ensure that there were no live bacteria in the final product, people started marking the substance as suitable for premature infants, and babies have died from the worst possible bacterial infections imaginable as a result. That's a reckless and misleading summary, to put it politely. For starters, here is something the article says: Did the cold processing method and the failures in sanitation cause NEC? [...] Nobody’s sure. The FDA’s current theory is that the problem is the xanthan-gum thickeners themselves, because of the way they interact with an immature gut. ---- Yes, the article does spend some time up front on anecdotes for emotional response, but overall I felt it was quite well-written, trying to capture the nuances on different facets of the story -- quite unlike the above (aggravatingly shitty) "TL;DR" which presents a spurious simplification. Reality is NOT THAT SIMPLE; deal with it. For anyone who actually wants to understand, I recommend reading the full article.