https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/07/the-sugar-conspiracy-robert-lustig-john-yudkin https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/07/the-sugar-co...

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/07/the-sugar-conspiracy-robert-lustig-john-yudkin https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/07/the-sugar-co... "In 1972, a British scientist sounded the alarm that sugar – and not fat – was the greatest danger to our health. But his findings were ridiculed and his reputation ruined. How did the world’s top nutrition scientists get it so wrong for so long?" Without advancing an argument for Lisp, I'd just note that it's possible - in any discipline - for something to be decades (or more) ahead of its time. Of course, that wouldn't mean that everything old is avant-garde just because it said it was. But, if people are still or suddenly looking at it, and looking at it hard, I would at least take that as a signal to give it some due consideration. It's apparently fighting age, and winning to some degree.