In response to Jay and this not being a religion: speaking in my case and for me, here is why I have counter-consensus views about carbs:
I am obese, and have tried many, many diets, and have hurt my heart by exercise, and have had roux-en-y gastric bypass - in other words: even though I have no biochem or med credentials, I nevertheless am responsible for the body I am in, and must do my best to provide proper stewardship for it even though I don't happen to have a PhD in anything. And perhaps Butters is in a similar position: s/he has tried what the CW pontificates, and it didn't work, and at that point Butters began questioning the CW and its basis - EVEN THOUGH BUTTERS MAY NOT (AND I DO NOT) HAVE THE NECESSARY TECHNICAL BACKGROUND TO UNDERSTAND STUDIES THAT PRESUPPOSE CALCULUS AND INORGANIC CHEMISTRY AND BIOCHEMISTRY AND PHARMACOLOGY AND STATISTICS AND PHYSICS AND...ETC.
I hope this explanation has clarified for you how people can have counter-consensus views while at the same time they have not seen (or understood) studies themselves.
I find that one of the problems with CarbSane's comments, to further illustrate my point, is that she quotes highly technical studies in her posts but offers no "translation" in most of them, so laypeople come away from reading her stuff without a clear and jargon-free summation; and as a result the impression she leaves is of someone with an emotional ax to grind but with little ability to communicate to the great scientific unwashed. It doesn't make me doubt her scientific expertise, but it does make me want to avoid reading her posts.
Not everyone in the world with an opinion about diet must base that opinion on highly technical peer-reviewed studies. Right?