However social media itself encourages outrage culture. Without a concerted effort by social media platforms to discourage this, outrage culture will continue.
Thread
1/n
And responding to outrage and conspiracy theories that garner thousands of shares with calm, patient, evidence-based responses that get a dozen just feels wrong.
So I say that science communicators should take their gloves off and go just as hard as the quacks do.
2/n
They should say the truth: that 99% of diet industry books are grifty, at odds with evidence, cynical, etc.
They should say that quackery is rampant, in fact it is overwhelmingly dominant, in pop health because it sells.
3/n
Heart disease has dramatically declined since the advent of the dietary guidelines, in what can only be described as a massive success of public health.
I am going to be moving toward a monetized model of science communication. This means paywalled content, subscriptions, and other monetized ways of delivering health science content.
Here is why.
Thread
The biggest reason is this: what you don't measure you can't manage.
I can always stir up controversy, debunk, show how the infinite procession of Internet health morons and grifters are--despite their credentials, proclaimed intentions, and charisma--in fact morons and grifters.
Lots of references, very succinct and simple writing, many many elegant illustrations of pivotal experiments, teaching EBM concepts, and lots of calling everything and everyone a quack and cursing.
We can call it F*ck Health: How To Stop Listening to the Health Industry and Start Listening to Science for a Happier and Healthier Life
In a new clinical trial with 145 subjects, subjects were given drinks sweetened with aspartame, glucose, fructose, or high-fructose corn syrup for two weeks.