That big study that discouraged PSA testing for men? There seems to have been "an inaccurate interpretation of PSA testing in the control group during the trial".
This seems encouraging:
Recently, a small clinical trial in England studied the effects of a strict liquid diet on 30 people who had lived with Type 2 diabetes for up to 23 years. Nearly half of those studied had a remission that lasted six months after the diet was over. While the study was small, the finding offers hope to millions who have been told they must live with the intractable disease.
From a UK newspaper, so the "chemist" in question is what we in the States would call a pharmacy or drugstore.
What the title means, of course, is that the CDC is trying to get Americans reclassified as ill. Why not? Probably would mean a bigger budget for several Federal agencies.
This piece has some enormous lessons.
1. "Science" can be go badly wrong when a small group of individuals, who've taken control of journals and funding in a field, decided to protect their positions at the expense of truth.
2. This is especially true if controlled experiments are few to none.
3. This is even more especially true if the federal government is involved.
Do 1 through 3 remind you of anything?
4. Nobody--absolutely nobody--should be allowed to tell the public what to do unless they've had a thorough grounding in the difficulties of establishing causality.
5. Unexpected effects are almost everywhere.
Related: salt, too, was terribly misjudged.
"Can holding in your urine really give you blood clots? Only sometimes."
I recently read Mr. Brady's book and learned some things. This article presents the core argument of the book.
Also by Mr. Brady: "The 10 Best Obesity Books. Ever."
UPDATE: First link fixed now. Thanks, Michael and David.
After 40 it's just patch, patch, patch.
(Mary Martin said "60," but I think she was too optimistic.)
I have the impression that similar advice applies for any kind of surgery.