I love how the website is copyright protected. Clearly not to protect the content, because the whole point is to spread lies, but to make it harder to post fair-use criticism of the nonsense they post. Or is that too harsh? Or not harsh enough? Am I being paranoid, or is this an appropriate response to finding yourself in a nutritional dystopia?

But I liked the bit about how important to them scientific transparency and accuracy is--but pointing out how extremely cliched these terms supposedly are. As in--at least this is how I read it--"our critics are virtue-signalling when they demand transparency and accuracy, but we're the real deal."

I'm sure there are some very nice sugar farmers. Some very nice tobacco farmers had to find something else to do with their lives. However nice they were, nobody owed them their lungs.

"a more accurate context of an overall diet"--that's the thing, much of the damage of sugar is to be found in the more accurate context of an overall diet. Is the worst diet the one highest in sugar? Step back--I won't gorge that much on pure sugar, though I know there are some who would. For me it was more things like donuts, pastries, ice cream etc.--yes, high in sugar, but a large portion of the food I ate more of because of sugar was starch and fat.