John J wrote:
>
> At this point in time, choosing between these two schools of medical
> science, is a matter of 50% gut feeling and 50% superstition. I'd
> still put my money on saturated=bad, but who knows what will be the
> accepted truth in 10 years?

This is a logical fallacy known as the
false dichotomy. It assumes that there
are two equally valid viewpoints. This is
commonly used in medical pseudoscience,
for example when people say that vaccines
cause autism. To many people, it seems
reasonable to think there are two sides
to this issue and some uncertainty over
which is right. These are people who
have only a superficial knowledge of the
subject, and who don't understand there's
only one side supported by reliable science.
The other side is only supported by highly
questionable (and outright fraudulent)
studies and promoted by hucksters who have
their own reasons for opposing evidence-
based medicine.

There are reliable studies going back at
least 60 years showing the bad effects of
a diet high in saturated fat. That kind of
evidence isn't going to be overturned in
10 years, and it's unlikely it will ever be
substantially changed. There may be some
refinement along the edges -- I wouldn't be
surprised if some adverse effects were found
with respect to extremely unsaturated fats
like safflower oil and flaxseed oil -- but
the basic theme of saturated = bad is not
going to change.