The tone is necessary. So much bullshit 'nutrition science', with defective methodologies, has been promoted by mainstream media (along with exaggerated nonsense on the "risks" of eggs, coffee, tea, spinach...) that it's appropriate for people to debunk these claims vigorously. These mainstream outlets shouldn't pretend the nocebo effect doesn't exist, and that their reporting won't harm people's health unnecessarily.
When better science comes around, then we can let the MSM get away with making these claims.
The 'bullshit' was mostly not spread by scientists, but by media. When the findings of scientific studies are twisted and manipulated, and when a study that shows X is treated as if it proved X, and Y, and Z, there's no better word for that than 'bullshit science'. The studies were far too low quality to prove anything, or even show us what's directionally correct.
What better term is there? It wasn't pseudoscience, because the studies were real, and addressed scientific topics. It wasn't scientific fraud, because again the studies were real. But the implications 'derived' from them by motivated media were completely made up. My dictionary calls that 'bullshit'.
It’s an ongoing process but I don’t think anyone can look at this field and see anything other than low quality science with no theoretical model explaining anything and results that often seem like they are driven by conclusions instead of the other way round. Maybe something has changed in the past 10-20 years but certainly the amount of contradictory conclusions in this field is quite high And not like any other more established scientific discipline. To me it’s more in the alchemy phase rather than modern chemistry.
When better science comes around, then we can let the MSM get away with making these claims.