Note to our followers: Our nearly 13-year run of daily publication of new content on came to a close at the end of 2018. Publisher Gary Schwitzer and other contributors may post new articles periodically. But all of the 6,000+ articles we have published contain lessons to help you improve your critical thinking about health care interventions. And those will be still be alive on the site for a couple of years.

I realize that I wrote about the following things on my Monday morning email digest, but if you don’t subscribe to that email, you didn’t see what we wrote.  (One solution:  sign up to subscribe to the emails.  It’s free.)

Some things we saw that we really liked:

  • Richard Smith’s feature in The BMJ,  “Are some diets ‘mass murder’?” Poor nutrition science is a global, uncontrolled experiment that may lead to bad outcomes, he writes.
  • Diets often provide the fodder for TV medical talk shows. Another study published in The BMJ concludes: “Recommendations made on medical talk shows often lack adequate information on specific benefits or the magnitude of the effects of these benefits. Approximately half of the recommendations have either no evidence or are contradicted by the best available evidence. Potential conflicts of interest are rarely addressed. The public should be skeptical about recommendations made on medical talk shows.”
  •  Dr. Ezekiel Emmanuel’s webinar, for at the USC Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism, explaining his controversial, “Why I Hope to Die at 75.”


  • On the Journal of the American Medical Association‘s Patient Page, an article and this graphic to help women better understand the tradeoffs between benefits and harms in mammography screening.

Comments (2)

Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.

Joe Hagedorn

December 22, 2014 at 6:18 pm

I’m puzzled by why you would like the editorial, “Are some diets ‘mass murder’?” It seems to contradict much of what your site stands for. I agree that the introductory section is quite good and that it is true that nutritional researchers have not found convincing evidence that saturated fats are as bad as once believed. However, the bulk of the article is an uncritical repetition of claims from the book “Big Fat Surprise.” It amounts to something of a conspiracy theory.

Many have wrote in to the response section and pointed out numerous errors and cherry-picked evidence describing history of the dietary recommendations regarding fat. I would recommend reading Seth Yoder’s response in particular.