What is your obsession with this baby blood drinking? Not sure where you are getting that from. Ancel Key's made a significant contribution to the Allied War effort in WW2. And he is also widely praised for his starvation studies done started during the war and continuing on after. It is probably because of everything he did in the first 50 years of his life that he was able to garner so much respect for the research he did in the 2nd half of his life. Regardless of what he did after that, in of itself, his contribution to the war effort during WW2 was what I was focusing on.
What Keys has done since then? His science was flawed, go figure?! lol, he was in his 40s BEFORE the end of WW2. That should give you some perspective. He was old and set in his ways. As he got older his science started to be more and more biased, but he wasn't a quack. He was right in part, and the media helped create the problem you seem to be blaming totally on him by doing what they do, they try to MAKE news and focus on sound bytes, not comprehensive looks at studies and research. He was publishing articles in the 80s still, and was in his 80s by then. How many 80 year olds do you know who aren't kind of set in their ways? And he was a middle aged man before the US even got involved in the war. People back then were even more set in their ways than people today.
But like I said, he got the nation thinking that they need to watch what they eat, and he was right about that and his contribution to the war effort shouldn't be dismissed either. You think UMn people should be ashamed of him??? And your saying he supposedly was a cherry picker? Are you so sure about that? He may not have been totally right in all of his conclusions, but it wasn't because of cherry picking as much as a too narrow focus on finding evidence to back up what he had already determined to be true. He was in no way a quack, but he was a brilliant man, but as history has shown us, even brilliant men can come to false conclusions and/or can fall prey to bias or narrow mindedness or focusing their research in an effort to find something they believe is true. Whatever. For every Ancel Key's that may have been a little off about SOME of his conclusions, but not all, there is a Norman Borlaug and dozens of other food and health scientists that were trained at UMn that more than make up for what some guy born in 1904 did wrong when he was in his 60s-80s and beyond. And also Keys was one of the few that did not buy into some of the trendy fads that were widely accepted by most others for sometimes long periods of time, only later to be found that he was right. So was he perfect? No. Was he brilliant and did he make some major and significant contributions? Yes.
