I think that pretty much covers it, doesn't it? You don't have time to read the actual science underpinning DG and make your own judgment or factor its history, but people's disagreement is "ignoring science". And it's OK because some people secretly agree with you!
Also, the NHMRC definitely looked at evidence outside of this in their review. I'm confused by that statement
-
-
A SR of observational studies would only achieve a Level B/C evidence bc of the hierarchy we subscribe to. So really - its the hierarchy we subscribe to that I am saying "is not the only way to science" -
-
When it comes to "what to eat to achieve health" we've applied a limited methodology - partly because the questions we've posed are focussed on "absence of disease" "reduced risk of disease" rather than "health"
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
is NOT science. The public deserves far better. Health professionals deserve better too. Bc we have and do trust "NHMRC/DAA" and I am saying, I did too, but now, well, I think the public are right to be a little outraged here.