It happens quite often around here. I post something about what Gerald or Geraldine Guru says about fill in nutrition topic du jour, and more often than not I get at least one comment notifying me that Gerry has changed his/her stance on said topic. I'm then told that it is the mark of a thoughtful and serious person, as they have changed their position based on new information. If this were the case, I would agree. But more often than not, this is not new information ... outside of their world.
The sad reality in this greater community is that the demographic most influenced by Gary Taubes was not scientists (thankfully) or the medical community (sadly, some have been), but the guru community. They picked up and ran (and boy did they run!) with TWICHOO. And make no mistake, many in the paleo/primal community were heavily influenced by this and seemingly did not engage in any independent, critical thinking, let alone research of their own prior to writing their own various books.
As has been discussed in the comment section here recently, "paleo" is not new. It's also not the romanticized notion we have in this modern era. Let's call our nutritional eras BG and AT -- for Before GCBC, and After Taubes. The last couple of years have been (hopefully the beginning of) the BT era -- Beyond TWICHOO.
This BT era has caused lots of problems for the Gerry Gurus in our midst. They can change their stances, but there are always those books and blog posts and podcasts out there ... some more troublesome than others. And many have undergone varying degrees of nuance -- from clever shifts in the semantics to out-and-out reversals. If one points these out, we're reminded of the "goodness" of Gerry's actions in bringing information to the masses. You see, they are even credited with being magnanimous for doing so! Oh ... and good scientists too, because when faced with new information counter to one's hypothesis, the good scientist retools the hypothesis.
This would all be fine and dandy, if the information was really new. And it is not. This is why I often harp on the dates on the various journal articles we discuss here. Many from years, even a decade or more BG. Many discussed in general media critiques from the early AT era. Bottom line, there is no excuse for books published in 2009,10,11,12 to contain the blatant falsities they do. Compounded by the certitude with which these unsubstantiated ideas were put forth.
Others can choose for themselves whether or not to let these folks off the hook. I'm not here to tell anyone how to think, who to be grateful to for exposing them to something that improved their lives, etc. But it doesn't change the reality. The truth. That most of the Gerald and Geraldine Gurus in this greater community have profited off of promulgating MISINFORMATION. Parroted, made up, misrepresented and/or misinterpreted MISINFORMATION.