OK now you are missing the point, which was that I pointed out that you tried to distinguish your disbelief in mainstream science re ψ, by arguing that the issue was philosophical not scientific - so I pointed out that the two overlap - in effect you do not think that the fact that the overwhelming majority of scientists dismiss ψ invalidates your belief in the likelihood of ψ.
Perhaps we're talking at cross-purposes: how is the consensus of the overwhelming majority of scientists on psi relevant? Isn't the relevant consensus that of those scientists who actually study it: parapsychologists? Those scientists have to take at least an agnostic philosophical position so as not to rule out psi as impossible in the first place: there would be no point in trying to study something which couldn't possibly exist. That's in part where I agree that there's an overlap between philosophy and science.
Similarly, on global warming, why would the consensus amongst outsiders to the field, especially those whose expertise consists in a day or two of googling, be relevant? Surely, the relevant consensus is that of climate scientists, who specialise in studying it?
Regarding the nutrition issue, here is another study of 220000 adults that found roughly what I was claiming - that the official health guidelines are wrong.
OK. And here are some other studies that you might want to take into account:
Dietary carbohydrate intake and mortality: a prospective cohort study and meta-analysis.
Published just two weeks ago, this meta-analysis found that (emphasis mine):
"Both high and low percentages of carbohydrate diets were associated with increased mortality, with minimal risk observed at 50-55% carbohydrate intake. Low carbohydrate dietary patterns favouring animal-derived protein and fat sources, from sources such as lamb, beef, pork, and chicken, were associated with higher mortality, whereas those that favoured plant-derived protein and fat intake, from sources such as vegetables, nuts, peanut butter, and whole-grain breads, were associated with lower mortality, suggesting that the source of food notably modifies the association between carbohydrate intake and mortality."
Low-carb diets 'are unsafe and should be avoided'
This is a news article from two days ago regarding a yet to be published study, which reported that (emphasis mostly mine; some of the emphasis in the original removed):
"the analysis using data from the survey found that those who consumed the least amount of carbs were 32 percent more likely to die prematurely from any cause. This was in comparison with participants who ate the most carbs.
Also, low carb consumers were 51 percent more likely to die from coronary heart disease, 50 percent more likely to die from cerebrovascular disease, and 35 percent more likely to die of cancer. The associations were strongest among older, non-obese people.
These results were replicated in the meta-analysis, which found that the overall risk of death from any cause was 15 percent higher in people who consumed the least amount of carbs, the risk of cardiovascular death was 13 percent higher, and that of dying of cancer was 8 percent higher."
Low-carbohydrate diets and all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.
Published in 2013, this meta-analysis concludes that (emphasis mine):
"Low-carbohydrate diets were associated with a significantly higher risk of all-cause mortality".
Fruit and vegetable intake and the risk of cardiovascular disease, total cancer and all-cause mortality—a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of prospective studies.
Published in June 2017, this meta-analysis involved hundreds of thousands of, and for some analyses over a million, subjects in total. It found that (emphasis mine):
"reductions in risk of cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality were observed up to an intake of 800 g/day of fruit and vegetables combined, whereas for total cancer no further reductions in risk were observed above 600 g/day" and that "An estimated 5.6 and 7.8 million premature deaths worldwide in 2013 may be attributable to a fruit and vegetable intake below 500 and 800 g/day, respectively, if the observed associations are causal".
You can find more papers referenced in Joel Kahn's article
Is the Low-Carb (animal based) Diet a High Coffin Diet? Two More Nails to Consider, from which I sourced all but the last of the above. Joel, for fairness, also includes three studies which
didn't find increased mortality for low-carb diets.
In any case, here's
an article from last year responding to the pre-publication noise about the study you referenced. An interesting admission at the start is that (emphasis mine) "
Yusuf, speaking at the Cardiology Update 2017 symposium, noted that he was no expert on nutrition".
Kim Williams, MD, is quoted remarking on the study (emphasis mine):
"I have the same concerns that Salim Yusuf actually expresses – this is not randomized data, so it can be hypothesis generating but not prescriptive, particularly because many of his statements conflict with existing scale. Some of these dietary issues may simply be distortion of scale – differences that are too narrow to show a clinical difference. For example, the PURE study had the highest category as >4 servings of vegetables and that was only a small fraction of the population (9,000 out of 150,000)."
David Katz is quoted offering an evidence-based counter-opinion (emphasis mine):
"We know, because it's on prominent display, that when countries with traditionally high-plant, high-carbohydrate, low-saturated-fat and low animal food diets switch to the more 'affluent' pattern of eating more meat, their rates of obesity and chronic disease rise. This is perfectly clear in both India and China."
And (emphasis mine):
"we might ask: well, what happens within a given population, where access to medical care is the same, when diet is changed? We have the answer. Randomized trials including the Lyon Diet Heart Study, PREDIMED, and others have shown, over a span of years and in multiple countries, that shifts to more plant foods, unsaturated oils, and less meat reduce heart disease, other chronic disease, and rates of premature death from all causes."
Finally, which seems appropriate to end on, a sensible and balanced comment from Yoni Freedhof, MD:
"I'm not sure that trading premature and perhaps dogmatic low-fat advice, for premature and perhaps dogmatic high-fat advice is supported by the medical literature to date. Seems to me that the most evidence-based advice around fats would be to try to replace saturated fats with unsaturated, to avoid trans, and that if the choice is between saturated fats and refined carbohydrates, the fats are the better choice."
So, maybe it's not quite so black and white as you're making out? Maybe we shouldn't be too quick to conclude that the truth is being suppressed?