It would suit Group A if the needs of Group B were completely obliterated. If Group A, through whatever social or genetic luck causes them to not need some special substance or service, has no requirement outside a certain arbitrary standard, they seem to think NOBODY does. We see it in politics and society -- I don't need financial assistance to go to college (because my parents are rich), so why do you think you should get help (even though your widowed mother scrubs hotel bathrooms to feed you)? I didn't require special rules to make it to that corner office (well, i AM an alpha-male) -- why should you think you deserve anti-discrimination laws so you can get there too (i'm clearly better executive material)?
We see it in nutrition philosophy, too. Joe was a much-wanted first child of healthy upper-class parents, and had a stay-at-home mother who breastfed him for a full year; he never had an infection in his life. He's naturally lean and athletic, and can eat anything. Jack is the fourth child of the "help" in Joe's house -- his parents struggle to feed their family with the cheapest commodities they can get. Jack has one of the many possible autoimmune diseases out there -- he can't possibly compete with Joe academically or in physical activities, can he?
But according to the health-and-weight-loss world, it's his and his parents' fault that he's overweight and unable to exercise ... and "VLC IS DEAD." The ketosis that could clear his brain-fog and straighten out his hormones isn't suggested by the Free Clinic, because some doctor-friend of Joe's dad at the university said "just eat plain food, and not too much. oh, and don't forget the raw potatoes."
LC is THERAPEUTIC. It's curative of many ills, but an awful lot of people don't even know about that ... and why? Because Group A doesn't like it or need it. Because it suits their prejudices to ascribe the "failings" of Group B to their characters, rather than to KNOWN MICROBIOLOGY. Because Group A may not even be aware of how lucky they are, and how "but for the grace of god" they might have turned out a member of Group B.
It's pure selfishness that causes some writers to denigrate practices that are beneficial to others. One woman doesn't LIKE low-carbing even though she knows it's effective, so she lies about it and backs herself up with "troo scienz." A certain man abruptly changed his printed position on aspects of diet because it cemented his professional connections. If these people even conceded that some people benefit from rather tight carb-intake control, couldn't some sufferers have been helped? But no -- they'd rather insist on the failed techniques of starvation and asceticism. They'd rather brand the people who fail thereby as addicts, lazy and gluttonous. One HAS to conclude that their nastiness is mentally rewarding to them -- that the one is happy she's not the only fat person around, having failed at her own philosophy, and that the other is glorying in his self-righteousness as a naturally-lean young male.