THE article imputes to me, falsely and damaging to my honor and professional reputation, the advice of “large and excessive consumption” of red meat, saturated fat, eggs and salt. Such a statement is factually incorrect and is not supported by my public content, which is educational in nature and does not constitute individualized clinical advice.
The statement that I was “confronted with the fact that my speech is incompatible with the scientific consensus” does not correspond to reality. No such confrontation occurred. My statements were used outside the context in which they were made, leading to a distorted representation of their meaning.
The classification of my work as “pseudoscience” and “misinformation” ignores the existence of legitimate scientific debate on nutritional topics. Systematic reviews published in Annals of Internal Medicine questioned the robustness of the evidence supporting recommendations to reduce red and processed meat consumption (Johnston et al.2019).
The state-of-the-art article Journal of the American College of Cardiology recognizes that the effects of saturated fat depend on the food matrix and the global metabolic context and cannot be assessed in isolation (Astrup et al.2020). Large international studies have also shown complex associations between food consumption, fat and mortality, contradicting simplistic interpretations (Dehghan et al.2017).
Questioning nutritional guidelines in light of this evidence does not constitute misinformation — it constitutes legitimate scientific debate. Furthermore, the incorporation of evidence into clinical practice can take several years (Rubin, 2023), recommending caution before classifying divergent positions as false or pseudoscientific.
Sara Marilyn
