Remember, if you ever question a so-called "scientific consensus" then you are a science denier. Presumably this should include politically incorrect scientific consensuses such as that men and women are different, but such consensuses rarely gets brought up for some inexplicable reason.
Regardless, in completely unrelated news...
In the 1960s, the sugar industry funded research that downplayed the risks of sugar and highlighted the hazards of fat, according to a newly published article in JAMA Internal Medicine.
My positive experience with the Paleo diet (and science!) certainly makes me believe this. And this from NPR, which is like the most mainstream of all mainstream sources.
But the drumbeat of muh science denier is quite tiring. Regardless of whether this is with regards to global warming, GMO or whatever. It simplifies the issue to a black and white affair and leaves no room for nuanced positions like Bjorn Lomborg (whom I mostly agree with).
It also ignores that science can be misused, financially or politically influenced (like say with the Sacklers and Lysenkoism respectively) and also, that science relies on heterodox positions to push it forward. We are in the middle of major replication crises in psychology and pharmacology. Yes, there are those who stupidly deny basic scientific principles or scientific consensuses on flimsy grounds. That by no means implies we should just accept the current consensus on various topics without further scrutiny.
Oh, and stay away from sugar as much as possible. It's really bad from you.
"Every day is a new life to the wise man."
The Righteous Mind
Star Slate Codex
Consulting by RPM