Again I refer anyone to Robert Lustig who shows this and the pathways with regards gherlin in far better way than I could
I think your relationship with science is distorted. I have done science for a living for as long as I can remember.
Science works by critical mass. The days of "a man and his equation" are long gone and even in those days, there were a lot of scientists supporting the views of Newton, so it's not a case of the genius Vs the mass of ignorants. Historically we always liked to attribute discoveries to one individual (occasionally 2, if we really can't split a Watson from a Crick) but discoveries were a product of critical mass, not a moment of genius.
Referring to an "indie" author is always dangerous. There is a reason why there is a "scientific community" and there are "commonly accepted views"... humans like to think it's all a conspiracy to keep us in the dark ages, but it's not.
Without critical mass there is no life saving open heart surgery, there is no Mars Rover, there is no Boeing Dreamliner, there are no solar cells or whatever you think it is an advancement in mankind.
Following the "individual" is what Trump and Putin have based their campaigns upon and it's not good for the advancement of mankind.
Whilst the concept of critical mass is reasonable for total acceptance, there is no doubt at all that many things start with one or two people challenging the status quo. The concept that bacteria cause stomach ulcers was nonsense for many years and the researchers were laughed off the platform whenever they tried to present the data.
i remember vividly a professor of surgery reckoning that 5 patients per year would be treated with ranitidine whilst waiting for surgery in the west of scotland. It is now sold over the counter.
in hand surgery the concept of treating dupuytrens with needle aponeurotomy was laughable 12 years ago and colleagues threatened to report me to the GMC for doing it. Even 5 years ago a straw poll found only 10% of surgeons doing it. This autumn the whole audience did the procedure.
i could go on. For me the lack of a critical mass often means the idea is right but the time has not arrived.
The difference is that the status quo on nutrition actually works. IF people did stick to the NHS guidelines on nutrition, they would lower their risk of cancer, heart disease and type 2 diabetes. Problem is the majority don't.
So why mess up with something that works and has decades of proved science behind, to take a step in the far less reliable science of keto diet?
Ulcer was very much a disease in need of a cure at the time. The prescription drugs (Tagamet, Ranidil and such) were dealing with the symptoms but not with the problem.
I can think of diseases very much in need of a cure, where mavericks proposed alternative approaches that didn't work... if you are in the medical profession maybe you have heard of the Di Bella protocol, it caused a lot of stir in Italy in the late 90s.
A short nice summary from wikipedia
"In 1963 Di Bella began his studies about some types of blood cancer. During the late 1980s, Di Bella developed a cocktail of drugs, vitamins and hormones (Melatonin, ACTH and Somatostatin) which he argued would be useful in fighting cancer. Following national exposure in 1997 and 1998, several cancer patients from around Italy traveled to his clinic seeking access to his "miracle cure". In 1998 Italian medical authorities (Ministero della salute), declared his treatment to be without scientific merit.[3] The final rejection of Di Bella's method was expressed in a letter (written on 30 December 2005) by the Chairman of the Board of Health, Mario Condorelli, to Health Minister Francesco Storace: "The working group of the Board of Health considers that it has no evidence of the effectiveness of "multitherapy Di Bella" and therefore does not recommend a new clinical trial; this could be not only ineffective but also harmful to the patients by denying them (or procrastinating) access to anti-cancer drugs of proven effectiveness.".[6]
According to the American Cancer Society: "Available scientific evidence does not support claims that Di Bella therapy is effective in treating cancer. It can cause serious and harmful side effects. ... [These] may include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, increased blood sugar levels, low blood pressure, sleepiness, and neurological symptoms."[7]
Physician Silvio Garattini described Di Bella's therapy for cancer as a "totally irrational association of drugs supported by absolutely no scientific evidence or data whatsoever."[4] "