OK. From the comments I gather I need to clarify a few matters. Making facetious comments on HN rarely works as people often overreact to them. The trouble is a

OK. From the comments I gather I need to clarify a few matters. Making facetious comments on HN rarely works as people often overreact to them. The trouble is after seeing so many of these stories on HN and elsewhere over the years involving yet-to-be-proven claims I lose patience and have to comment. I cannot comment about the accuracy or validity of whether eating just two slices of ham increases the risk of type-2 diabetes as I'm not privy to the facts (actual data). Nevertheless, this article has the ring of 'cancer cure'-type stories about it that I've commented previously about on HN. Briefly, ever since I was a kid many decades ago I've noticed there's been a 'cancer cure' story in the media almost every week (I've previously mentioned why I've noticed this so I won't repeat it here). That said, if 0.1% of these 'cures' had come to pass—or had even been partially successful—then cancer would have been a past and forgotten disease. Yet after heart disease, cancer is still the number two killer in the US. So, what gives, what's wrong with these stories? Why aren't we getting the actual truth? Take this story: ever since I was a kid it's been drummed into me (and just about everyone alive) that eating lots of carbohydrates, sugar and such are an almost sure way to diabetes—and the best way to avoid it is to substitute a large part of that ≈4 calories (kcal)/gram energy from carbs with protein (≈4 kcal/g) and also to lesser calorific nutrition such as vegetables, lettuce etc. Now, in one fell swoop, are we are expected to take this reversal as gospel? Well, I'd suggest that an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence. OK, so where the hell is it? I'd suggest this headline is dangerously misleading in that it might give the wrong idea to many people and thus do more harm than good. This isn't the only recent instance. Take the case of ethanol: we're now told by 'authority' that no amount of ethanol is safe to consume! This is despite the fact that humans (and some animals) have been consuming it for eons. ...And despite the fact that: (a) The human body produces some ethanol as natural part of its digestion. Moreover, some unlucky individuals produce so much ethanol that they actually fail an alcohol breathalyzer test without consuming any alcohol. (b) The body has a natural enzyme that mops up ethanol called alcohol dehydrogenase, why then does the body produce this enzyme if no level of ethanol can be tolerated? Again, I'd suggest that we're not being told the whole truth by health professionals/researchers, and or they are deliberately exaggerating the facts for the point of emphasis. (c) Alcohol dehydrogenase, partially oxidizes ethanol to acetaldehyde which we are again told by experts is a carcinogen. Ipso facto, then our bodies are either out to kill us—or we are getting the wrong info from these so-called experts. Clearly, they have to do a much better job of explaining the actual facts to the lay public—not provide it with misleading bullshit as seems to be so often the case. (d) Similarly, the body even produces small amounts of methanol which it seems to manage with ease. That's right, the body manages to mop up the pickling carcinogenic formaldehyde that's the product of methanol oxidation. Please don't accuse me of saying methanol is safe to consume—I know it isn't, somewhere between 10 and 50ml will kill, if not then you'll be left blind and with damaged kidneys! So then what is the actual threshold level that's considered safe for methanol? Has anyone actually done the research on this? Where are the actual figures? (Perhaps I'm cynical enough to suggest we micro-dose with fomepizole to protect ourselves from self-induced methanol poisoning. Some of the stuff I've heard recently is as silly as that—or has about as much scientific validity.) BTW, my reference to ethanol isn't a case of sour grapes (no pun intended), the fact is I consume so little ethanol that my liver would be oxidizing orders of magnitude more of the stuff produced from the processing of my food than it would ever do so from anything I'd drink. Now take the example of mercury in fish. How much fish can be eaten before we're poisoned with Hg? Sure, there are guidelines, but there seems to be no definite evidence as to what amount is actually considered injurious to health. Furthermore, we need to be told both the short and long-term effects of eating fish. For instance, I like fish and eat lots of it. If I were to binge on fish for a given length of time and then stop then how long would it take for my body to flush out all the methyl mercury? Similarly, I once had lots of amalgam tooth fillings, how long has it taken my body to flush the methyl mercury from them? ...And how much damage have I likely suffered as a consequence? Again, where's the scientific evidence? I accept many of these facts are hard to ascertain, but I'd suggest most of the information we consumers receive is essentially misinformation brought about by politics and matters associated with research funding, and such. What really pisses me off is the fact that there is still little or no real consensus on any of this stuff by the scientific community despite a century or more of research. Moreover, researchers aren't even arguing over the minutiae, they're STILL arguing over the basic fundamentals. What the hell is going on? Simply, where are real facts to be found?