We have come to this point because I challenged the validity of so called facts.The mention of the dietary fat fallacy, is just an example to illustrate that what we at some stage take as gospel (pun intended) can prove to turn quickly into an ugly machination with an even uglier agenda. .
The critic you link is a party interested in maintaining the status quo that has prevailed for the last 70 years, and made the fortune of the food and the pharmaceutical industry. Dietitian are indoctrinated from the start of their career to predicate that obesity is the fault of the individual. "Eat less and move more is the mantra. "
Regardless of opinions or semantics on what is a fact, when my illustration is fast becoming vox populi and is long out of the periphery and into mainstream, to challenge this fact is not the point.
I see with sadness a massive lack of humility in this discussion. Arrogance to claim who is a valid interlocutor and who is not, followed by intricate skirmishes on semantics or far fetched points of debate. Each participant trying to steer the attention on some puntual argument they think they can defend successfully.
The classic example of experts making nonsense claims like geocentrism and even heliocentrism should be enough to call for caution when claiming absolute knowledge.
Facts, ( something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information ) rely on what we know or was proven at some point in time. Is that set in stone? Really? think again, history is a long string of lies omissions falsehoods and contradictions, not enough to prop up a so called fact with any certainty.
Socrates of perhaps Plato, (who knows), tell it much better:
Scio me nihil scire