Agreed! The apples and oranges argument is getting old and blanket statements can be dangerous to the uninformed.
I happen to have Gilbert's Syndrome (my body produces an excess amount of RBC) This is a hereditary condition that has no visible symptoms. The only reason I know I have it is because I believe in regular and thorough blood tests. Now someone with this particular condition who chooses a long EQ cycle runs the risk of "blood sludge" being that EQ increases RBC count. Now, as I do enjoy a good EQ cycle now and again by being well informed in compound effects and sides as well as my own physiology I have learned I can run EQ successfully by expelling a pint of blood a wk. (may sound a little creepy but I'm a solutions guy)
Now this is just an example of how the one size fits all advice and preference pushing can go wrong. Its one thing to have personal preferences, its another to be pushing this as better than that to a majority crowd of novices
However, I do have a big problem with the amount of industry money that is involved in so much of our research and guidelines. The AHA takes millions of dollars a year from pharmaceutical companies and I think it would be a mistake to overlook the impact that large sums of money have on decisions. That is not to say that any of the many incredible individuals involved in the development of these guidelines have done anything but fantastic work. I don’t think that this is an issue of individual conflicts of interest. Money, however, can have subtle effects. We know that even accepting gifts as small as pens can leave medical students feeling beholden to drug companies. I think there is ample evidence that the influence of money on medical guidelines and research in general is clearly detrimental.