4 ms·

The problem with personal health news is that is is never news. A single study that contradicts conventional wisdom or purports a new finding is not meant to be

The problem with personal health news is that is is never news. A single study that contradicts conventional wisdom or purports a new finding is not meant to be digested by the general public. Ideally such a study would be published in a medical journal, and other researchers would then perform studies to corroborate or disprove the original; After a sufficient amount of evidence is gather a systematic review would be published, and the results of that would be distributed to doctors and health advice reporters, who would present the information to the general public in a clear, unified and easy-to-understand manner. In a perfect world. The reporting of every study only leads the general public to believe that nothing is certain (because dissenting views are published) and not take any of the advice seriously. It is almost as bad as politics.

tbrownaw 14y ago
Ideally such a study would be published in a medical journal, and other researchers would then perform studies to corroborate or disprove the original; After a sufficient amount of evidence is gather a systematic review would be published, and the results of that would be distributed to doctors and health advice reporters, who would present the information to the general public in a clear, unified and easy-to-understand manner. Ideally everyone would be rational, and honest, and have aligned interests, and trust eachother enough to all outsource their critical thinking to experts. Except... that sounds quite boring and I rather like being a somewhat-independent individual instead of a single-purpose cell in a larger collective organism/society. The reporting of every study only leads the general public to believe that nothing is certain (because dissenting views are published) and not take any of the advice seriously. Since things are in fact not certain, I would think this is a good thing?

tbrownaw 14y ago

Ideally such a study would be published in a medical journal, and other researchers would then perform studies to corroborate or disprove the original; After a sufficient amount of evidence is gather a systematic review would be published, and the results of that would be distributed to doctors and health advice reporters, who would present the information to the general public in a clear, unified and easy-to-understand manner. Ideally everyone would be rational, and honest, and have aligned interests, and trust eachother enough to all outsource their critical thinking to experts. Except... that sounds quite boring and I rather like being a somewhat-independent individual instead of a single-purpose cell in a larger collective organism/society. The reporting of every study only leads the general public to believe that nothing is certain (because dissenting views are published) and not take any of the advice seriously. Since things are in fact not certain, I would think this is a good thing?