True. As I understood them though, the criticism was primarily about his message that fructose would be the key or only reason of metabolic syndrome, or his depiction of sugar as pure evil rather than as something which you can consume in small amounts, more than about the effects of fructose itself. (When not, connections between the critic and the sugar or food industry were quick to Google, thereby reducing the credibility to zero.) This may have changed since I spent time digging into it, though, so please expand if it has.
