Now a big group of experts is calling for the retraction of this criticism, because of numerous “errors”. In fact there are no less than 180 people, many of them prominent scientists with long careers behind them, signing the letter. And 180 dinosaurs can’t be wrong, can they?
- CSPI: Scientists Call for Retraction of BMJ Feature on Dietary Guidelines
- CSPI: Letter Requesting BMJ to Retract “Investigation”
The low-fat diet is dying. There’s no good health reason to avoid natural saturated fat, like butter. Most informed people know that now, most people that is… except for the aging experts in charge.
Two ways to shut your critics up
There are two favored tactics of people in charge who happen to be wrong, when they want to silence their critics. Number one is appeal to authority. They are running the show, so they must be right. Right? Why get 180 signatures to a letter? The number is clearly over the top (while still only a tiny percentage of all the nutrition researchers out there).
The second favored tactic is attacking the critic instead of the message (ad hominem attacks). This includes mentioning that your critic has written a book on the subject, as well as finding any little error or perceived error. The implication being that if there are any small errors there’s no reason to believe the main message either.
Was a report published in February of 1980 or was it in fact published in May of that year? Did the Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommend to not eat eggs or did they, in fact, only advise people to switch to egg whites or egg substitutes? That’s the level of nitpicking going on.
History goes on
Nothing in this niggling about details or bloated list of signatures can change the arc of history. The low-fat diet has been proven to be useless for preventing heart disease and the least effective diet for losing weight. The asteroid has already hit and the 80s style fat phobia, like recommending skim milk, is a dying. No appeal to authority can change that.