> Characterizing stuff like vegetable oil as "industrial product"

I mean, it is. ADM and Cargill and the like are making this stuff using an industrial process.

He attacked the studies of the individual and used that to show that the man had no business writing the study in the first place and should therefore be discredited.

I'll take his characterization of the low-salt study as an example. He criticize that:

- Starting form a healthy diet and reducing salt "only" lowered blood pressure by 3 points. - Comparing junk food diat to healty diet.

The problem right here is that the reduction in slat did result in lower blood pressure for both groups. That it only reduced by 3 points only shows that the healthy diet... was already healthy. He then goes on to say that the reduced blood pressure when comparing junk food to the healthy diet was due to not consuming junk food... where did he come up with this exactly? He base this claim on nothing! (I don't doubt junk food is bad for you, but he claims that the study is un-scientific, but he comes to his own conclusion out of the blue... that's science?)

When you read all his rebutals an attacks, you come out with a sense that they're more or less based on his own pre-conceptions of what the results should be.

It's the typical loud-mouthed critics, which start from some truths but then veer into zealotry.

Yeah, I had a lot of the same issues with the rebuttal that I had with the original article. I found the personal attacks and negative characterization of products very distracting.