And associations are evidence. You are, after all, also using a rationale of association here when you argue eating sugar gives people diabetes. And that's the sort of thing I mean when I say you don't appear to understand things, as you don't even understand your own argument.I don't think you have any evidence saying saturated fats are bad, all the studies are associations.
Your argument here is a bit like claiming "The moon is made of green cheese, the moon landing was a fake and NASA has been lying about it all, and Topeka is the capital of Kansas." Then, when being queried, saying "I was right that Topeka is the capital of Kansas, you're just moving the goalposts." No, actually, you moved the goalposts by just removing all the other bits of the arguments and/or their implications.And, again, the do-gooders were the ones that initially caused people to start eating worse, which is what I said and you tried to goalpost away from.
For instance, you said first:
So the US government says you should eat 75-2000mg of vitamin C a day. Therefore you claim that people should eat <75mg or >2000mg of vitamin C a day to be healthy. Go ahead. Eat zero vitamin C for six months, and then report back to us on how healthy you are. The wider context of your argument here is that the government is not a responsible or reliable actor in terms of good public health. You are just attempting to constrain the argument to a much narrower sub-claim in order to pretend you are right.Government intervention is the problem. If you do the opposite of what the government says, you'll eat healthy.
There are many problems with that sort of thing. But mostly, it's just dishonest.
But you're not willing or able to provide any relevant studies to make that point despite being repeatedly invited to, which tells us all we need to know.Who eats a ton of sugar and doesn't get diabetes? It can take decades to get diabetes but you will if you eat too much sugar and don't eventually change your diet.