Replacing "corrupted nutritional science" with just "science", as if they deny science as a concept, is a very dishonest rhetorical trick. We have seen very bad nutritional advice given under the guise of "nutritional science" for years, and now we know that advice was very bad. We're still not entirely sure, as far as I know, how good nutritional advice looks like, in many cases, and it may be completely appropriate to point to some nutritional advice as bad nutritional science. And yes, using such advice can cause disease - just as using "science" at the time which denied the germ theory was the cause of many cases of disease. It's a very far cry from denying whole science or even nutritional science.

Using it with the tone that "Big Doritos" is buying off Facebook to help silence dissenting voices in nutrition is disingenuous.

Sure there is lots of bad advice floating around - but claiming a conspiracy requires some hard evidence be put forth.

Depending of what you call "conspiracy". Does US Government promoting disastrous nutritional advice for decades and pushing the food industry to produce what we now recognize as extremely unhealthy products qualify as "conspiracy"? Does reluctance of the industry to recognize just how bad those are because they sell extremely well and some are likely to be physiologically and psychologically addictive - constitute a "conspiracy"? Maybe not, since it happens in the open and evidence of it is literally in front of our own eyes every time we go to the supermarket. Does it make anything better if it's not qualified as "conspiracy"?

Not only are you dishonest about them denying “science”, but you’re embarrassingly uninformed about a topic that you speak with such smug superiority about. Are NPR and Harvard also nut job conspiracy whackos?

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074...