This seems like the formulaic kind of BS that is stuck to the end of just about every study that shows that fat and meat do not have the bad effects the study was looking for.

It reminds me of when I was a grad student studying Chinese archaeology. You'd read this perfectly straight-forward, scientific archaeological article in a mainland Chinese journal, and then at the end they'd insert some boilerplate claptrap about how this showed the oppresion of the people by the monarchy, or the glorious ingenuity of the working masses, etc... It was obviously put in there without much conviction, but purely because it is considered "what you must do". It was always so funny and incongruent and we could point to it as evidence of a failed dogma that was on its way out.

Plane