It seems crusading editor Fiona Godlee's BMJ is out front again with another sensationalism-over-science "study": Re-evaluation of the traditional diet-heart hypothesis: analysis of recovered data from Minnesota Coronary Experiment (1968-73). This is spawning the predictable press coverage, such as This study 40 years ago could have reshaped the American diet. But it was never fully published.
Firstly, the idea that any single RCT would change history -- given that the likes of Nina Teicholz, Zoe Harcombe and others have drilled into us the fact that RCTs in this area were scarce (and will remain so) -- truly does border on the pathological at this point. An appropriate RCT, of adequate size and duration, conducted with suitable compliance and verification, could conceivably turn any number of hypotheses on their heads. But such a trial would be next-to-impossible. Besides, even if this RCT-to-end-all-RCTs-&-nutritional-unknowns were to begin tomorrow, there would be no more-certain answers than we have today for at least a decade, better yet two or three. And that right there is the monumental frustration. EVERYBODY KNOWS THIS. The current revisionist revisitation of studies from almost a half century ago does nothing for anyone.