Your description of the way in which medical and clinical nutrition research progresses represents an ideal, but not the reality. Even a cursory knowledge of the history of science – and medical science in particular – would tell you that. There are so many confounders in the stream (personalities, cultural prejudices, financial constraints and chicanery, political interference u.s.w) that the record of progress is seldom consistent or logical at all. It is more of a drunkard’s walk, albeit generally orientated towards the light.

I share your conviction that the standard scientific methods are our only hope of real progress, but only the historically illiterate would agree that the tools you cite are enough to ensure the smooth progression of knowledge!

Medical and clinical nutrition research is not muddled, but represents consistent and logical progression of knowledge acquired by systematic and careful controlled experimentation (for prospective clinical trials),or observation(for epidemiological studies, retrospective reviews or meta-analyses).

This is in direct contrast to the random musings or trial-by-media-soundbite ‘research’ epitomised by the ‘tonite-with-Trevor-McD’ approach of shoddy journalism, giving print and broadcast media coverage ‘legitimising’ the alternative view (ie unproven self-styled musings by mavericks whose musings lack the veracity of the proper clinical approach demanded of conventional medicine) – with the need to generate contentious argument to debase conventional medical and nutritional research.

The skill of journalism is, of course, placing such knowledge into context to generate interest in the reader – even if the ‘real’ clinical story does not appear as sexy as first thought….

‘Proper’ journo’s recognise this – even if it means the story has less impact. It’s at least a truthful representation.

Campbell’s attempts to disguise his central role in the ‘muddled world of medical research’ – with regards autism last week and nutrition this week – by pointing the finger elsewhere fails miserably.

It’s ironic that this article – just like his MMR article that preceded it – demonstrates beautifully the central role of the journalist (and this one in particular) of perpetuating ‘muddle’.

Sorry Mr Campbell. You haven’t atoned for your part in public confusion. You’ve just added more.
All for a few column inches.