I think this article was a very well written article. I also found it every entertaining. I think the way he approaches his topics is different. I am not sure that I have read anything written in this manner before. When he began his comparison of age recommendations between different studies on mammograms, this is something that I have heard differences on before. I have been told before that you need to start being checked at age 40 then the next time a study comes out the age changes. This is a topic that I try to pay attention to because of the dangers of Brest Cancer. It seems that someone is always changing the "recommended" age to start preventative checks. Some studies say that it is okay to get checked out as early as 25 or 30 while others are saying to wait until you are 40 or 50. I like that he questions when does risk out way false positives.
I also enjoyed the portion about the beer for lunch. Science has proven that alcohol can be good for a person in moderation. I also believe that when people see this they take it to the extreme saying they are drinking because it is good for you. People see what they want to see in a study like this. They see a drink a day is healthy for you so they take it up a notch and drink three. This is where the science gets blown out of proportion.
I didn't understand exactly what the whole point of this article was for. I understand he was asked to write about science claims he heard on a typical day, but why? He also covered some topics very thoroughly and some of them he barely touched on leaving me a little confused. He would point out a claim like the ban on silicone breast implants and then said that the statement was true but not much else. For the most part I did enjoy reading this article.