Saturated Fat Controversy

[FlatAssembler]

Try phlogiston theory

I don't think was systematic disregarding and suppression of contrary evidence, as Nina Teicholz claims happens in nutrition. That was more like a nonsensical interpretation of evidence, when they found some substances gain weight when they burn, they claimed there was a substance named phlogiston which has negative mass and which goes away when burning. But that wasn't really disregarding and suppression of contrary evidence. And it's hard to tell if there was ever a point in time in which most chemists believed in that, like nearly all nutritionists today believe saturated fat cause heart disease.

luminiferous ether.

That was a hypothesis which seemed reasonable, but it was very hard to test. Still, as soon as they found a way to test it, they rejected it. It was not even remotely a suppression of contrary evidence.

Take a gander at our old food pyramid.

I am not sure what you are referring to.

Or maybe spontaneous generation?

Again, that was nonsensical (not the simplest) interpretation of evidence. It wasn't suppression of contrary evidence. Besides, it wasn't really a scientific consensus, there have been scientists who subscribed to the theory of biogenesis since ancient times, such as Empedocles.

Howsabout heirachical universe theory?

I don't know anything about it. What about it? When was there suppression of contrary evidence?

Lamarckian (and other) transumutation theories.......

Hey, listen, Lysenkoism (a form of Lamarckism) comes somewhat close to it. However, the most obvious difference is that Lysenkoism was widely supported by most scientists (but not nearly all of them) under one political regime (in the Soviet Union) and for a short period of time. The idea that saturated fat cause heart disease is supported by nearly all nutritionists in nearly all countries, and it has been like that for over a century now, so it's not really like Lysenkoism.
And, as far as I know, in every single of those cases, that theory was refuted by an expert in that field, not some journalist.

You and all of us are natural omnivours.

A natural diet of humans is hard to determine. And, even if we could determine that with reasonable certainty, it hardly follows that natural diet is the optimal diet. A natural diet certainly included non-sterile food, and there is no doubt that's not optimal.
Perhaps the best proxy we have for an optimal diet for humans is the content of human milk. Since it contains very little protein, so too does an optimal diet of humans contain very little protein.

Veganism taken to it's logical conclusion, requires that you must rely upon artificial dietary supplements.

And it seems to me that carnism, taken to its logical conclusion, requires claiming nutritional science is not a real science, much like Nina Teicholz claims.