Trouble is they likely thought that the CDC advice was from a reputable source. For me as a pragmatist rather than a perfectionist (I have a combination of both!), I see the article as having a hugely more positive impact on the innocently uninformed than negative. Yes, I do agree that the 30 min advice is crap, and it would have been better if the author had contradicted what the CDC advise. But if there had been a choice to have the article published as it stands, or not at all, I would still have chosen to have it; the nett effect is heavily weighted towards beneficial I feel, given the target audience. Do we know if the CDC have been advised how wrong this piece of advice is?