I was respectful enough to wade through the links you've given, even though you had nothing to say about their content yourself, and tried to pick out the bones in what was was a lengthy and tedious exercise. If you don't think that my interpretation was fair and balanced then let's have yours. You've raised several issues that are at best controversial in scientific terms, and part of the balance in this discussion is to ensure that that is pointed out. Otherwise, it could appear that, by providing what are ostensibly "scientific" links without comment, you support their content and are arguing from authority.

Nutrition is an area in which many people have spotted lucrative potential. We have superfoods, supplements, probiotics, prebiotics and myriad diet books pushed at us constantly, ranging in value from near-science to snake-oil. My point of view is that, here in the West, with the rich and diverse range of foods available to us, most people can get by with little or none of this stuff by following (mindfully) an ordinary, sensible, balanced diet which avoids excesses of anything and which is largely based on fresh, good-quality ingredients. Anyone with a medical issue which indicates particular dietary needs should consult medical professionals, not be vulnerable to falling prey to the moneygrabbing sharks waiting in the wings with their cod science, their fad diets and often harmful (and often expensive) wares. If that cautionary note is dissed here, instead allowing people's cherished fads to go unchallenged, then the discussion is not balanced.