It just occurred to me that the debate of carbs-vs-calories is an attempt to change the dominant paradigm, but we don't need to do this. All we need is a safety officer within the group who's sole function is to disagree with the group's paradigm. This is so much easier to do than to try to change a group's paradigm directly. Taubes et al are all trying to convince one group of people who believe it's all about calories. It just can't be done. I mean, it can, but only as they all die one by one and get replaced with new members who believe differently. It's a slow process. Introducing a safety officer into the group - along with a comprehensive protocol to follow - has an immediate effect.

Let's think. Cancer would benefit tremendously from this. Diabetes, obesity, childhood epilepsy, Alzheimer's, multiple sclerosis, basically all diseases of civilization would benefit equally.

To put it differently, a safety officer tempers overzealous experts. This would have the secondary effect of sieving out the bad experts we read about every day on this forum.

I'd even go as far as making a law that requires any official advocacy group include a safety officer. AMA, ADA, etc. And since those official organizations have a highly public profile, also require an equally high public profile for the opinions of the safety officer. So for example, on the ADA's website, we'd have the standard advice as it stands now, but with the addition of an obvious link to the safety officer's opinion (context appropriate or whatever), which must be in full disagreement with the standard advice, and include all known alternatives to it.

Heck, official dietary recommendations would be the first thing to take the hit. Imagine reading all about how this diet is thought to be best, but then right next to it is a link to literally the history of human dietary habits that would include all the work of Price, Stefansson, Keys, Gardner, and anybody else who contributed to the mountain of dietary knowledge.