> If they had tried and been rejected, it might begin to be fair to compare them to the distinguished researchers you mention. I might have been misunderstood.

> If they had tried and been rejected, it might begin to be fair to compare them to the distinguished researchers you mention. I might have been misunderstood. I am not defending Theranos or claiming they deserve any accolade or even sympathy. I am just pointing out that the romantic view that "science triumphs" is not, historically, supported by evidence on time scales shorter than a few decades. As most people's careers -- scientists included -- are on that time scale, it is a bad idea to assume that "science triumph" for any specific person or company. > How do you know this is true? I've been following these issues for a while. To borrow Gary Taub's analogy - the guides ("eat this much or that much, mostly carbs, low fat, moderate protein") are similar to an advice about how to make a nightclub popular: "get more people in". Yes, if you manage to do that consistently and with sustainable effort, then everything will be fine - yet the compliance rates are ridiculously low (as your link points out). But now we have the people, rather than doctors, to blame for non-compliant behavior, so the ADA and medical institution is not to blame. However, there are studies (no time to look for refs right now, sorry), showing that people on low-carb, high-fat, medium protein (i.e. "keto" style) have a much, much higher compliance rate, and much better outcomes (in term of controlling blood sugar and reversing type 2) -- yet the recommended ADA (IIRC, can't find it right now) is 60% carb, 30% protein, 10% fat. That's high fat, mind you - not high protein.