The second point I'd make is that not every issue has two equal sides. In this debate, we have one side supported by a lot of sound scientific studies, the Center for Disease Control, and countless physician groups (ADA, AMA, ADHA, AAP, and so on); the other side has cherry picked studies that are generally flawed, not analogous, or in some cases retracted, and the support of nearly no reputable researchers in the applicable field. It's one thing to have a Medical Doctor or someone with a PhD on your side; it's another to have people working in the specific field on your side. If you have a heart valve problem, and your heart doctor and heart surgeon recommend a specific treatment, it's probably a good idea to listen to them instead of going to a podiatrist and asking him what he thinks about heart valve treatments. So when we're trying to figure out how to interpret research, we need to respect the opinions from inside the field differently than those outside the field.