“Dr. Novella is a firm believer in using the law to enforce his personal dictates as to what constitutes good health care upon the population.”

I have not seen that to date, but I have limited experience of what he has written. I only commnet here about the particular article you referenced here.

BJ

“From everything I can tell, the evidence that salt is harmful is weak at best.”

And, yet, if you read those quotes from Dr. Novella that I posted above, it is obvious that he agrees with you. The evidence that salt is harmful IS weak.

“But even if the evidence were overwhelming, we don’t need pompous people like Novella trying to tell us what to do!”

I guess we differ on the meaning of his article. He seems to be at pains to make suggestions only, not dictate what you should do and those quotes above bear that out in my opinion.

“This is the rhetoric of a control freak [recommendations from one’s doctor should supercede any general recommendations for the population], one who wishes to elevate members of his profession to a God-like status.”

So far I have not read anything he has said which is against what is called “informed choice”. He is, however, concerned that people make an INFORMED choice by using science based information instead of information that seems to be nothing more than someone’s personal opinion.

“It’s up to each one of us, NOT some damned doctor, to determine how much salt we take in!”

Medical professionals merely try to determine, as accurately as possible, based on the results of clinical studies, what a safe level of salt intake is. They sometimes get it wrong but the nature of science is that eventually errors are corrected. But it is government who, to some extent, “tell you what to do” by legislating certain measures.

In the case of salt, the evidence, according to Dr. Novella, is not clear. Yet our government (hence the “we”, in case anyone is still wondering), has decided to act. Dr. Novella hopes that they at least base their actions on science not political ideology.

regards,
BillyJoe

On numerous occasions I have observed him state these beliefs, usually prefaced with ‘I believe in a free market but…’

The comment about removing political ideology is not aimed at himself; it’s aimed at those of us whose morals would lead us to withold submission to his dictats.

This is the rhetoric of a control freak, one who wishes to elevate members of his profession to a God-like status. It’s up to each one of us, NOT some damned doctor, to determine how much salt we take in!

From everything I can tell, the evidence that salt is harmful is weak at best. But even if the evidence were overwhelming, we don’t need pompous people like Novella trying to tell us what to do!

In that article, Dr. Novella writes that science – not political ideology – should dictate what medical treatments are effective.

It is similar to his theme in the article that prompted this blog. Quote: “from a scientific point of view – and ignoring the role of political ideology…”

You should be applauding him.

regards,
BJ

“The subject of his last sentence is “we”, meaning that he is including himself in the group of people choosing to fight the war.”

Your interpretation of that sentence is a little perverse in my opinion. Here it is again with the preceding sentence:

“In any case it seems that the War on Salt has begun. I only hope this is a war we choose to fight with science.”

In mean time perhaps I will leave everyone with the following quotes from his article, and they can decide for themselves where he stands:

“Salt reduction reduces blood pressure, but only a little.”

“However, most of these studies are short term. Longer term studies are still needed.”

“Some reviews claims that salt reduction…reduces cardiovascular risk. Meanwhile, other reviews claim the evidence is inconclusive on long term effects.”

“Given all this it seems reasonable (from a scientific point of view – and ignoring the role of political ideology) to take steps to reduce the amount of salt in processed and restaurant food, while continuing to study the impact of such measures.”

“Part of the reason salt is added to processed food is because it helps preserve it – give it a longer shelf life.”

“People also develop a taste for salty food, and a sudden decrease in salt content may be unsatisfying, leading people to seek out higher salt foods.”

“It should also be noted that salt requirements and tolerance may vary considerably from individual to individual – based upon genetics, and certainly underlying diseases. Therefore recommendations from one’s doctor should supercede any general recommendations for the population.”

regards,
BillyJoe

He even goes further. Note he doesn’t say that he hopes the government will choose to fight the war with science. The subject of his last sentence is “we”, meaning that he is including himself in the group of people choosing to fight the war.

QED.

Where, in his whole piece, does Steven Novella say he supports the government’s war on salt?
Quote: “In any case it seems that the War on Salt has begun” – does that sound like a ringing endosement of “the war on salt”.
Quote: “I only hope this is a war we choose to fight with science” – does that not sound that he has misgivings about “the war on salt” and that he hopes at least this time they fight the war based on the scientific facts, not political rhetoric?

Against this you offer: “the naive monstrous morals of a toddler.”
May I gently suggest that you look yourself in the mirror.

regards,
BillyJoe