Yes they do a lot of research of case history, precedents and rulings. Understanding the complexities of specific scientific processes can take many decades, supported with ones own laboratory research.
This is why often authors like those you listed above tend to gain momentum from the media and from their own internet pages. Many laypeople don’t understand these scientific concepts as they use complex terms which might appear a little frightening and confusing. Many rely on popular forms of media, such as a book written by someone who looks credible, for information of interest. While information within these books may have some factual basis, a good researcher always reverts to the original research papers to verify conclusions which may have been drawn by others. To rely on opinions or conclusions from someone who is not an expert in the field, is fraught with danger as the same person may have their own ‘barrow’ or agenda to push.
No this is not the case. There are many example or people who were ‘outsider’ who are well respected. One such example is Einstein, who was very much an outsider in the early days of his career. He became respected as he took the time to do his own research to prove the theories/hypotheses he developed.
What the ‘establishment’ distrust I beleive falls into these:
- persons calling themselves experts in a particular field and misusing research research or investing their own to push their own agendas (e.g. anti-vaxxer groups)
- those who are loose with science for their own financial again (as highlighted in other posts i have made about the vitamin supplement industry)
- those who don’t beleive in science, especially that which has been proven, peer reviewed and research replicated by other independent groups (the anti-big pharma groups are an example).
If one wishes to write a popular article/book about a specific topic, one needs to demonstrate they have the necessary background, qualifications and/or experience. Otherwise such books could be considered as opinions and encouraging debate to the topic at hand.
Debate is good, as it challenges the norm. However, these alternative views need to be supported by science, not opinion.
This is a major concern and will impact on the individuals health in the long term, and the health system as well.
One also also needs to realise that sugar is only one way to load calories/energy into foods. Fats/oils is another.
There seems to be general consensus in the medical, nutrition and health sectors that high calorie diets with more sedentary lifestyles. Genetics also play a factor has the human body digestive system is based on a infrequent high energy intake meal…potentially followed by fasting (hunter and gather style). This fasting/lack of food made the body develop metabolic process to store excess food energy during a feast, namely fat deposition. During period of fasting (food calorific levels less than that required for everyday life), these deposits were used as a energy supply.
Today with modern conveniences, we can have high energy meals every meal. The human body thinks there is still a fasting even coming, so will store fat and keep doing so.
