Cite the evidence and we can have an intelligent scientific debate (I
hope).  When you make a scientific claim, you cite the evidence for it.
There is a near mountain of evidence against dietary omega 3 and 6
PUFAs, but no evidence for them (with the exception of the temporary
interference with arachidonic acid metabolism that some omega 3s
accomplish - at the expense of dangerous omega 3 metabolites being made
instead).  If you are an intelligent, non-biased individual, let us
have a debate.  If you prefer a moderated debate, I can arrange that.
If you read my old posts, you can see my argument in detail.  How such
dangerous molecules ever came to be called "essential" by "scientists"
may be likened to witchcraft, in that things are perceived that really
are not there, but most people never question such assertions.  The
comparison is apt, but I prefer to simply examine the evidence.  My
detractors cannot even present their claims as a basic scientific
hypothesis.  Wouldn't someone claiming that something is witchcraft
also refrain from doing so?  They also will not debate me in a
moderated forum, and won't even negotiate with me on any of my
experimental offers.  However, if you just feed a dozen mice a diet of
30% fish and canola oil and compare their life spans to another dozen
fed 30% fresh coconut oil (with only trace amounts of fat from other
foods), you will understand why I am so concerned about thee
witchcraft, or whatever you wish to call it.

Another point you may want to consider: we are told that "saturated fat
is bad," or something similar.  Can you tell me what "saturated fat"
is?  I have reviewed hundreds of studies that use this phrase, but is
is NEVER defined.  How is that scientific?  On food in a supermarket,
the label will give the saturated fatty acid content as "saturated
fat," and that is fine (though again, each fatty acid type has unique
effects on the body), but in studies, lard and coconut oil, for
example, are both used as the "saturated fat" fed to one group of
animals, but chicken is not called a "saturated fat."  Yet lard's
saturated fatty acid content is MUCH closer to chicken than to coconut
oil, as it is to the fat in a Brazil nut.  Who decided that this was
acceptable?  It never was, officially, and appears to be based on
commonly-held notions that developed over time.  It is clearly
illogical, unless someone can demonstrate that a threshold amount of
saturated fatty acid content is somehow significant.  This has been
done in the case of the most common omega 6 PUFA, linoleic, which at
4-5% of overall calories (in a diet that supplies at least a minimum
amount of calories needed for energy) will raise your risk of the
"common cancers" significantly (see "Diet and Health" by the National
Research Council for a review of the studies which made this finding).
Instead, we have the raw demographic data, showing the incredibly low
rate of "chronic disease" in peoples who eat large amounts of coconut
products.  Again, read my old posts and you can get all the details.