What I find frustrating is we know what complaints will be made about this data in advance of doing the study, so why did they do this study? I get that they brought something new by articulating it well and bringing some data sources together in a slightly different way and so on, but what meaningful, tangible change is there to our knowledge with this study?
To be clear, no shade on the researchers, they did the best with the system they have. I mean the system as a whole. When we have study after study which shows that saturated fat is not the cause of heart disease and one side of the argument just refuses to change their mind to match the evidence it seems the scientific system is broken and will not move forward.
A conference on an issue like this would also not work because those same issues would turn up. A panel with 10 researchers would include many who are directly funded by industry. They can't leave that baggage at the door and think clearly. That simply isn't human nature. We can't expect people who have a vested interest in the outcome going a certain way to act with detachment and clarity. They are and always will be biased.