Actually what the article promotes is the current scientific consensus, and what it denies is the long since dismissed by research concept of saturated fat as the problem for heart disease.

So it's exactly the opposite of what you describe.

By what measure? Just googling "saturated fat heart disease" shows that every public health body recommends limiting saturated fat intake before you even get into our best metaanalyses.

Let me translate that from newspeak for those who aren't read in. If truth destroys the planet, it is no longer truth because truth is something that is useful for getting people to do things that benefit humanity in the long run. We call that kind of truth that doesn't benefit humanity "science denialism." We need to make people choose the correct decision when they are tied to the tracks and faced with a trolley problem by making sure they believe the correct truth about the situation.

Well why, what makes you call this science denialism? What is wrong with the article?

Nina Teicholz is a beef industry shill who doesn't use good evidence to make her claims.

And the article mentions seed oils (a "low carb" social media guru talking point) without any evidence against it. The evidence on seed oils shows that they promote positive human health outcomes. https://www.the-nutrivore.com/post/a-comprehensive-rebuttal-...

Btw here's Seth Yodal's rebuttal to Nina Teicholz's book:

- Part 1: https://thescienceofnutrition.wordpress.com/2014/08/10/the-b...

- Part 2: https://thescienceofnutrition.wordpress.com/2014/06/30/the-b...

Nobody would listen to Nina if she weren't telling people what they desperately want to hear: that actually butter and beef are superfoods and "they" want to keep you from knowing that.

Thanks for the warning.

I didn’t know about this publication at all. Wikipedia doesn’t even have a page about it.

This other site describes it as qanon nuttery.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evie_Magazine