The copyright act of 1978 (as amended) prohibits the reproduction of this copy IN ANY FORMAT, (See Clause 5 Terms and Conditions) without prior permission of the original publisher.

Publication

SATURDAY STAR

Page

15

Date

Sat 01 July 2017

AVE (ZAR)

105868.55

DARYL ILBURY

On February 5, 2014,world-renownedscientistTim Noakesfired offa tweetinto ahighly volatilemediaspace;thefalloutthreatenedtodestroyhiscareer.This is theuntoldbackstory.Veteranjournalist andwriter Daryl Ilburyunveilsa combustiblemix ofignorance,suspicionandacademicwrongdoing,played out in a highlydisruptedmediaspace,whereconsumersdemandsnappyanswerstohighlycomplexquestions.It's thestory ofsociety'shistoricaldistrustofscience, thefractious relationshipbetweenscienceandmainstreammedia, theintricaciesofhumannutrition, and thebrutalfallout whenasoft-spokenscientistwitha tastefor socialmediaandaflair forchallengingconventionvoicedhismaverickopinion.

Ca ment)

io."4

Mn a a a k

The beefmy first interview with(Tim Noakes) in 2012,every time our paths

crossed we'd catch up and comparenotes, and I would invariably com-ment on how he still had traction inthe media-a major achievement forany science story

Each time he seemed to vacil-late between being upbeat and frus-trated, and this was reflected in thetone of his language.

On one occasion on August 5,2014, Noakes presented a talk at theSci-Bono Discovery Centre in down-town Johannesbur g as part of itsNational Science Week celebrations.I had been invited to introduce himand facilitate a question and answersession afterwards.

As is usual at a Tim Noakestalk the audience boasted passion-ate suppor ters, easily identifiableby the well-thumbed Noakes booksclutched close to their chests, theirenthusiastic nodding at the appro-priate moments, and the echoes ofadulation in their eyes.

But these weren't adoring fans,they were people - mostly mid-dle-aged - to whom Noakes wassomething of a saviour.

They each had a story about howthey had been on chronic medica-tion for crippling life-threateningillnesses, but since changing theirdiet had cast aside their pills, to walkunaided, with a renewed spring intheir step.

Such adulation can be unhealthyfor a personality , and make no mis-take Tim Noakes is a personality . Itcan poison humility and strip awaymeekness, and embolden a belief ininvincibility .

It's why much of my career as abroadcaster was spent tackling popstars and politicians puffed up by asense of impor tance.

As I listened to Noakes on thisoccasion I suspected he had befallenthe curse.

He remained firm on the linethat for people, like himself, whowere insulin-resistant, a diet thatwas low in sugar-releasing carbohy-drates and high in energy-supply ingfats was the best course of nutri-tional action, and that the growingscientific evidence suppor ted this.However, his talk and his answersto the questions afterwards werepunctured by seemingly unscientificoutbursts.

There were lots of anecdotes, andas any scientist should know, the

‘ ‘ IN THE years that followed

"otk ‘>’-ar Vos

ay Cs

Ne i at ox "aslMekka ka Pons

si nage atus- ie “Lfiwumfiggee

Tim Noakes wasa scientist whoembraced the socialmedia to tweetabout scientificsubjects,especiallymetabolicsyndrome -the cluster ofconditions such ashigh blood pressure

Fre A and sugar levels,”‘f—aggzfiq excessbodyfat

around the waist,and abnormalcholester ol levels,all which canincrease the riskof heart disease,stroke anddiabetes. Noakessaid there was adifferent way ofdealing with thesyndrome- andit wasn't the oldasceticway either.

PICTURE:JASONBOUD

AUTHORFACTFILE

Daryl IIburydrawson over 30years'experiencein the mediaasabroadcaster, columnist, journalist,writer and editor, with over 250articlespublished in a numberof leadingtitles, includingtheFinancial Times, Sunday Times,Saturday Star, Mail & Guardian,BusinessDayand SundayTribune,and Leadershipand Gurumagazines.Heisalsothe author ofA Fox'sTale.Heholdsa degree inclinicalpsychology,a post-graduateHDEin clinicalassessmentandcounselling,and amaster'sdegreein sciencejournalismfrom City,Universityof London.

plural of anecdote is not data; butI ascribed those to his skill at com-municating science and connectingwith the audience. But there werealso the repeated claims that power-ful forces were attempting to protectwhat was akin to dogma, and thatpharmaceutical companies made a

Into this cultureof food stepped

Tim Noakes

profit from sick people who couldotherwise get healthy simply bychanging their diet.

I had tried to corroborate theseemingly wild things he was sayingwith the seasoned academic I knewhim to be.

Because of the demands of peerreview, scientists are renowned fortheir careful, qualified phrasingwhen answering questions, but theProfessor Tim Noakes addressingthe nodding audience was perfectlycomfor table making what seemed tobe wild accusations. Looking backon the notes I made that day I canseewhere I scribbled the word 'para-noid? and circled it.

Afterwards I caught up withNoakes and challenged him, sayingI had found it quite uncomfor tablelistening to him talking about con-spiracies to silence him.

He smiled and said, 'But, Daryl,

it's true; trust me, it'll soon all comeout.' I was unaware at that stage thathe knew an official complaint hadbeen made against him.

In the years that followed, Noakeslost little momentum. He seemedto pop up anywhere to talk abouthis research and that of othersthat showed that a simple changein an eating lifestyle could havea dramatic effect on people withmetabolic syndrome - that so-calledcluster of conditions such as highblood pressure and sugar levels,excess body fat around the waist,and abnormal cholester ol or trigly-ceride levels, which, together, canincrease the risk of heart disease,stroke and diabetes.

But most of all he became veryvocal on social media, especiallyTwitter. If academic science has apublishing nemesis, it is Twitter.Substantiv e scientific knowledgegrows through the veracity ofdetailed intellectual academic dis-cussion in peer-review journals,which is by known persons andaccompanied by data and furtherdetailed evidence.

Twitter, however, is accessible toanyone, embraces anonymity andallows unsuppor ted claims, limitedto 140 characters or less. It there-fore acts as an energy ramp for thatethereal source of popular reason-ing, usually prefaced with 'you knowwhat they say'.

This is why when I teach sci-entists how to communicate theirresearch, there is a noticeablereluctance to embrace social media.

Younger scientists seem more opento the idea, but generally there's adisinclination to engage in a mediaspace they see as frivolous, evendangerous.

For them it's a place for pop starsto share pics of their new shoes,attention-seeking politicians to ped-

We are told thatwhat we eat ishow we look

dle their idle thoughts, frustratedjournalists to keep their opinionsalive, and where people called @dogfar t69 can wield the social fidel-ity that should only be accorded tophilosophers. For scientists, if pub-lishing had an axis of intellectualintegrity , scientific journals wouldbe at one end, Twitter at the other.

Although there's a merit of truthin all of this, what is unavoidable isthat many leading scientists do useTwitter, especially those who seethe value in communicating theirresearch outside the confines of aca-demia and engaging directly withpeople about it.

Nevertheless, when Noakes firedoff his first tweet, in April 2012,according to many scientists hewould have been turning his backon the exclusivity of academia, andfurther embracing popularism. Forothers it would have posed some-

The HealthProfessionsCouncil of SAchargedTimNoakes withunprofessionalconductfor giving'unconventionaladvice' to abreastfeedingmother on Twitter.The complaintwas laid by ClaireJulsing-Strydom(left). Followinga hearing on thematter, the HPCSAdismissedthecharge.PICTURE:TRACEYADAMS

thing of a threat.Given the popularity of Noakes,

his academic seniority and theunfettered reach of social media,his opinions on diet and lifestylewould have unlimited reach andimmeasur able impact.

However, there's a flipside: socialmedia also acts as a leveller, dishingout brutal rebuke if collectiv ely war-ranted. Say something ridiculousand it'll earn instant and continuousretaliation.

It's why Twitter is a never-endingbattleground of wills that can separ-ate opinion into binary constructs,and the belief, when it comes to sci-ence, that things are either right orwrong.

When it comes to something socomplex as human biochemistryand nutrition, the resultant tensionis virtually tangible, and sentimentsometimes borderline feral.

Why is this? Why is the matter ofwhat we eat a source of such bitterdisputation? If food simply servesthe function of providing energyfor our bodies, why should we bebothered with issues of aesthetics?

The answer lies in our emotionalconnection with food: it is intimatelyintertwined with issues of socialidentification and self-awareness.Foods are anchor points in religiousand cultural identities; for example,the eating, or not, of pork, beef, milkand shellfish.

Meals are the centrepieces offamily ceremonies, social discourseand intimate encounters; we 'gettogether for a braai', 'meet for cof-

fee', 'do business over lunch or 'havea romantic dinner '.

But more than that, what we con-sume is connected with our self-im-age. It is part of the regime thatdefines us and tells others who weare; whether or not we eat free-rangemeat or meat at all, if we dine onsushi and champagne or burgersand beer.

We are also socially catalogued bythe brands we consume and wherewe consume them. But importantly,we are told that what we eat is linkedto how we look. Magazine coversboast photoshopped models and reci-pes to help you look that good, andsocial media feeds off this fascina-tion with our body image.

The impor tance of food is alsocaptured in our media consumption.Walk into any leading bookstore andyou will probably find that the sec-tion or shelves dedicated to 'Foodand Cooking' will outsize any other;your local Sunday newspaper will nodoubt have a section dedicated to allthings food; pop stars and Hollywoodactors are quick to endorse theirlatest weird diets, which their slav-ish fans suck up; food-bloggers com-mand page views that mainstreamnews titles could only dream of; andthere are popular TV channels dedi-cated entirely to food and cooking.

Into this turgid culture of foodand identity stepped Tim Noakes onFebruary 5, 2014, when he replied toa question posted two days earlier onTwitter, addressed to him and Sally-Ann Creed, a nutritional therapist(and co-author with Noakes of TheReal Meal Revolution).

It was from a breastfeedingmother, Pippa Leenstra: 'Is LCHFeating ok for breastfeeding mums?Worried about all the dairy + cauli-flower = wind for babies?? Noakes'sreply was the following: 'Babydoesn't eat the dairy and cauliflower .Just very healthy high fat breastmilk. Key is to ween (sic) baby ontoLCHE

It's not an offensive tweet by anystretch of the imagination, neitherdoes it fall foul of any media law- it's not libellous and there's noencouragement of harm to others.People could disagree with him andhad a voice to do so; that's the pointof social media: it is a platform forpublic discussion.

@ This is an extractfrom Tim Noakes:The Quiet Maverick by Daryl bury,published by Penguin at a recom-mended retail price of R220.