The Continued Battle Against Dangerous Nonsense
bbc.com
bbc.com
What is happening now is that people, specially celebs, are realizing they that production assembly lines are now commoditized and advertising has become less and less problematic, thanks to twitter, Facebook and other social media outreach. So, they don't need a multi national brand like Nestle, Kellogs etc to peddle their stuff - there is no need for "Tom Brady" approved Cola or something. They can reach directly to their core audience.
https://www.propublica.org/article/when-evidence-says-no-but...
Oxycontin was supposedly non-habit forming. Decades ago DES was sold to prevent miscarriages, but actually caused them, and gave those women's daughters vaginal cancer.
No one can actually be fully trusted, so people trust who they think is trust-able. I prefer the middle path... Consult with the professionals, but take their advice with plenty of salt [0].
However, ignoring how the article was funded, it is a good example of proper journalism.
Why on God's good earth is quackery still a thing?
"There is almost no evidence to support this monk-like approach to eating,"
Well, here is some evidence: Tom Brady.
"Brady's approach seems to be loosely based on the alkaline diet, which is the idea that you can control the pH of your blood through the food you eat. (Spoiler: you can't.)”
So Caulfield will now shoot down a diet that is not Brady’s diet?
“As noted in a 2016 systematic review of the relevant evidence, 'there is almost no actual research' to support the ideas behind the alkaline diet."
The study concludes that food and drink pH have no influence on cancer, as if cancer is the only health problem.
Is it proper journalism to pit nutty celebrities against science and say science wins because it is science?
Has science concluded that food has no effect on pH in the body? Can a daily green breakfast smoothie erode tooth enamel? Do meat and dairy cause osteoporosis? Is the relationship between food, pH, inflammation, and disease fully understood?
I won’t be spending $200 on Brady’s book, but there might be something to his monk-like approach to eating, especially as compared to say his offensive line’s approach.
At best, the use of these words is a deceitful marketing ploy used to manipulate people who don't understand chemistry. At worst (as is the case with "organic certification"), it is simply a scam used to con money out of producers and consumers.
The word "organic" takes on a very different meaning if you're describing a brake rotor compound, instead of a bunch of bananas in a supermarket, for instance. However it's by no stretch devoid of meaning in either context.
"Traditional [farming techniques]", a mouthful, might be a better descriptor, but traditional now refers to modern farming techniques, so it too would be confusing.