With so many epidemiology papers published each month, everyone in a giant academic industry essentially created by Harvard School of Public Health in the 1980s is pushing out "correlation" between some common food or chemical and some disease or health benefit, it is hard to get noticed.

One way corporate journalists will notice is if a Republican says it. A WHO "miracle drug" was dragged through the mud for suggesting it might be a therapy for COVID-19 - after a Republican listed that peer-reviewed research.

There is an environmental playbook that hasn't changed in decades - because it works.
Find something useful that is a successful industry, advocate and lobby for an alternative to replace it, then turn against the alternative after it's successful.

It sounds cynical but if you look at hydroelectric power, natural gas, GMOs, and ethanol, they were all once demanded by environmental groups. Then when they succeeded, those same groups declared them bad.

Right now, solar is "the new new" - it's for wealthy white people, the biggest donors to activists, it's in opposition to the natural gas activists lobbied for until 20 years ago, and they can pretend the strip mining to get the precious materials to make panels and batteries doesn't exist.

A California nutritionist who routinely extols supplements, fad diets, and alternatives to medicine is prominently covered by corporate media for claiming food diaries using twins shows that vegan diets are healthier.

Yet it is so full of confounders that even IARC epidemiologists would have to ask awkward questions about his conclusion using that methodology.