Rotterdam wrote:Guess I'm wondering what makes "our" experts more believable than others?
Their intellectual framework is broader and more solid. For example, more conservative claims, longer term observations, broader cultural observations, multiple lines of reasoning: epidemiology, laboratory, clinic, etc.
But the others are believable enough to a segment of the population. There can be a kernel of truth in some of what they say. Wheat is typically highly processed and keeps terrible company, for example. The typical diet is so bad, that just eating more naturally improves people's lives.