Gary Taubes
Investigative science and health journalist, author of Good Calories, Bad Calories, Why We Get Fat, The Case Against Sugar and Rethinking Diabetes, and co-founder of the Nutrition Science Initiative.
Everything they publish, on ppll ↗
Gary Taubes did not write this page.
We collected these quotes from things they published elsewhere, and every quote links to where it was said. They have no account here and have not endorsed this site. Quotes are word for word; the short line under each one is our own restatement, not their wording. Their own site. Is this you? Claim it or ask us to remove it. Or tell us what is wrong here.
The line under a date shows how recently it was said: empty within a month, full after three years.
-
Their wordsIf there is a controversy, then there is credible evidence. It may not be compelling enough to believe the minority view, but to say “there is no credible evidence” is always to either misinterpret the existing evidence or to implicitly define the word credible as meaning that which agrees with my preconceptions.
↗RFK Jr Gives the NY Times Reason to Write About Keto and Schizophrenia. Good News?uncertaintyprinciples.substack.com 1st of 2 in this piece
-
Their wordsStill, the correct statement of the evidence is that a cure may be possible, even if we might personally consider that to be an unlikely possibility.
↗RFK Jr Gives the NY Times Reason to Write About Keto and Schizophrenia. Good News?uncertaintyprinciples.substack.com 2nd of 2 in this piece
- 8 weeks earlier
-
Their wordsI’ve come to believe that this approach will provide the most benefit for the most people. I worry about the complications of long-term drug therapy far more than I do long-term Medical Nutrition Therapy, provided, of course, that the MNT approach used is the correct one.
↗Diet or Drugs for Diabetes? Which Comes First?uncertaintyprinciples.substack.com
- 2 weeks earlier
-
Their wordsI do not believe that a “range of studies, from a range of places, using a range of methods, consistently showing a certain result” necessarily constitutes a strong signal. I would assume the opposite.
↗Signs of Bad Scienceuncertaintyprinciples.substack.com 1st of 5 in this piece
-
Our reading
It is human nature to overinterpret evidence, and the hardest part of science is not doing so.
Their wordsAs I learned, it’s human nature to overinterpret evidence; the insanely difficult part of science is not doing so.
↗Signs of Bad Scienceuncertaintyprinciples.substack.com 2nd of 5 in this piece
-
Their wordsOn the front-lines, though, where the evidence is de facto ambiguous, faith that something new and meaningful will be discovered becomes the currency necessary to make progress.
↗Signs of Bad Scienceuncertaintyprinciples.substack.com 3rd of 5 in this piece
-
Their wordsA critical point is that the more important the science, the more likely researchers are to lower their standards for what constitutes a “strong enough” signal. It should be the opposite.
↗Signs of Bad Scienceuncertaintyprinciples.substack.com 4th of 5 in this piece
-
Their wordsActing on weak evidence can feel justified in the moment, but it risks degrading the norms of scientific rigor. If ambiguous data are treated as sufficient to declare harm—or safety—the entire scientific enterprise absorbs the cost.
↗Signs of Bad Scienceuncertaintyprinciples.substack.com 5th of 5 in this piece
The line under a date fills as the words age, a quarter at a time: past a month, six months, a year, and three years. Empty means said within the last month; full, more than three years ago. It says when, not whether it still holds — a change of mind is marked on the claim itself.
Dashed means we only know the words existed by that date; they may be older.