In medical statistics, Berkson's paradox refers to the error in estimating how strong a risk factor something is for a disease because one improperly generalizes from a sick population. Dr. Harris's medical knowledge is impressive and valuable. But, he sees a biased sample of humanity. Cures for sick people aren't necessarily the basis of preventative treatment. So, what he sees work for sick people need not translate in advice for those who want to maintain rather than recover health.
To push the envelope, why is his experience helping to diagnose the sick relevant to preventative medicine like proper nutrition?
In sum, I'd be interested in the community's thoughts on how Paleo approaches to treating disease differ from maintaining health. In particular, other than for parsimony's sake, why should we assume them to be the same, when evidence exists that they aren't? For example, the steps to prevent coronary artery occlusion will lead to death after a certain degree of occlusion. (At the risk of a reduction to absurdity, exercising to prevent a bad ticker is a good idea, exercising with a sufficiently bad ticker is a bad idea.)
Thanks in advance for your thoughts and time, Mike