Are any other citations suspect? Concerning the overall argument of the paper, that citation was in support of a very minor point concerning whether dietary cho

Are any other citations suspect? Concerning the overall argument of the paper, that citation was in support of a very minor point concerning whether dietary cholesterol is necessary. Obviously the main point of the paper was to explain our relative ignorance of nutrition as a whole. The sub points appear intended to show that Rhinehart is not even properly informed of the details that have evidence, let alone the massive unknown. In summary, its unfair for you to summarize what you did not entirely read. Read it in its entirety and find more insufficient citations before you debunk everything.