I mean that if you were actually looking for "the best and accurate information" to judge the technical merits of two seemingly contradictory recommendations from epidemiologists, you would have looked to people with some sort of real knowledge of epidemiology and not a random group of lay people (e.g. the membership of RF).Sure and you blindly follow. Did you have a point?
Your OP fits the pattern of JAQing off much better than it does what you're saying.