I'm pretty sure it wasn't a random person on the internet asserting that they're researching the wrong things that changed their mind.
Actually, it was the "general public" who played a large role in getting the "doctors endorsing cigarette brands" squashed...as well as pressure from consumer advocacy groups directed at the surgeon general.
It's fine to defer to experts on certain things...however, that has to be counterbalanced that people can observe certain realities.
And certain topics are still quite subjective and prone to involuntary (and sometimes voluntary) biases.
Consider the spectrum of "Pulmonology <-> Dietetics / Nutrition Science"
Both are in the realm of medical science, yet, one is much more subjective than the other.
If a pulmonologist says "this is what's wrong with your lungs, and XYZ is the best approach for treating it", that carries more weight and a more authoritative "aura" than if a dietician with a PhD said "this is what's wrong with your diet, and here's what you should be eating"
You'd be hard pressed to find a pulmonologist that said "yeah, inhaling chemicals at factory is good for your lungs", they'd all pretty much be in agreement, and it's something that a non-educated person could concur with based on observations as well.
Yet, in the realm of dietetics, you can find every professional opinion ranging from vegan to paleo, each with several PhDs corroborating the theories....and its quite possible that a person can have a better experience with a diet that's not the one recommended by a particular dietician.
For this topic in particular, I'd suggest it falls on the spectrum much closer to the latter.
The idea of affirmation (and potentially starting process in early adolescence) could very end up being regarded as the "Food Pyramid" of the 2020's a few decades from now. Something for which there was a manufactured consensus of sorts (IE: "your funding gets stripped if you don't color in the lines"), that may have been well intentioned and trying to solve a real problem, but is found later to have some flaws that would indicate that they should've kept researching alternatives before trying to lock into one particular mindset.