>Right but wasn't that advice basically the state of the field at the time?
Then perhaps it wasn't a field that should feel confident enough to give public policy/health suggestions?
>That we know different now doesn't mean the scientists then should have acted on information unavailable to them.
Most of the issue was because BS studies, referenced but not replicated papers, assumptions and the like. Not because they lacked some more precise instruments or such.
It's not like Einstein's theories, which complete Newtons, giving more accurate predictions at edge cases, while Newton's are still accurate enough for everyday calculations (e.g. ballistics).
It's like claiming X (e.g. on fat) and finding out that it's actually -X, or that X is irrelevant.
Then perhaps it wasn't a field that should feel confident enough to give public policy/health suggestions?
>That we know different now doesn't mean the scientists then should have acted on information unavailable to them.
Most of the issue was because BS studies, referenced but not replicated papers, assumptions and the like. Not because they lacked some more precise instruments or such.
It's not like Einstein's theories, which complete Newtons, giving more accurate predictions at edge cases, while Newton's are still accurate enough for everyday calculations (e.g. ballistics).
It's like claiming X (e.g. on fat) and finding out that it's actually -X, or that X is irrelevant.