| We live in the time when there is sharp decline in trust of public institutions and academia. What is considered 'safe' to use, or 'unsafe' -- is debated at the level of a layman (a person without specialized knowledge in chemistry, biology, immunology, etc). We cannot all be specialists in human biology, finance, internet security / etc.
And that's being exploited by powerful organizations. When the above happens, and we feel taken-advantage-of we tend to 'default' to our 'localized' experiences and instincts. For me, and I am sure many others I do 2 things a) I trust the NIH positions and articles before 1994 or so, much more than the most recent ones (on the topics that rely on observational statics) b) I tend to do research on these topic across countries (especially if I can translate, of non-English speaking countries). Forums like this one, may amplify just one side of the view (recently publish observational stats, English-speaking ). My suggestion, if I may offer one -- continue to be cautious and use information sources that are 'balanced'. |