[snippy]

> It's ok to eat cholesterol now, right? All these "mistakes" give science a black eye.

You're confusing central planning and science. Governmental politics and advisory is a form of central planning, and in that realm mistakes are shunned upon.

Science is a protocol that, if duly practiced, will evolve our understanding towards the truth. But the path is not straight. And science does not give any way for determining whether we have found the truth at the present moment.

That's why in proper science everything is in constant flux. For some people that's terrifying, so they prefer central planning and static advisory from above.

[beagle3]

That's a "no true scotsman" argument.

"Proper science" is practically practiced by no scientist outside of Math and possibly Physics and Chemistry. Biology, medicine and nutrition, for example, are not "proper sciences".

E.g. the lipid hypothesis (cholesterol causes heart problems) does not, and never had, scientific support (In the "proper science" sense), and did have data against it for about 30 years, but it's very hard to find any scientist who would admit it. Similarly, the hypothesis that cholesterol intake makes a significant difference to serum levels was never proved, essentially disproved many times - and yet, it is taken as an axiom but most "scientists".

So, the fact that some "proper scientific practice" would have shown differently is of no practical consequence.