2 ms·

I think what you say makes perfect sense. And I agree completely with the question of "how do you decide what to test?" But in that respect, are the two approac

I think what you say makes perfect sense. And I agree completely with the question of "how do you decide what to test?" But in that respect, are the two approaches outlined in the article really at odds with one another? Would it have contradicted the "German" approach to use epidemiology to lead you towards hypothesis? My main point is that it seems the real problem wasn't so much one approach over another, as one side having an unjustified commitment to bacteria/virus as a root cause.

tim333 12y ago
The "German" approach could have got there in the end but slowly and with huge costs while a bit of common sense could have been quicker, cheaper and saved lives. It reminds me a bit of the obesity epidemic in the US which is probably down to too much consumption of sugary stuff but where the medical establishment only wants to look at FDA style lab studies which you can't actually do - you can't bring up a bunch of kids in a lab, one on sugary stuff, one on a more traditional diet. So millions die unpleasantly of something not much harder to fix than fixing beriberi by putting barley in the diet. At least not much harder to fix from a science point of view. Quite hard economically and politically as there are massive financial interests in pushing sugary junk on kids. I guess that's a bit like the situation in the article where politics were in play.