The critique video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wE0BQDc_6dY

Link to the response from Dave: https://feldmanprotocol.substack.com/p/a-respectful-response-to-the-science

First, Dave talks about how they use (de)generative AI to review the papers. That explains a lot.

On the "Fabricated IQR Metric", Dave says that it was actually the semi-interquartile range and they just mislabled it. This is not a major mistake in terms of effect, but it's a major display of incompetence.

Dave then says this doesn't matter because they've been "extraordinarily transparent". Of the many ways I could describe this fiasco, transparent is NOT one of them. The original paper didn't even publish the number for change in plaque volume, which they said would be published before the study started. Dave merely uses the aesthetic of dialogue and transparency.

https://preview.redd.it/ya42fxbct2ih1.png?width=1150&format=png&auto=webp&s=e9c4d3bf29b8609f49ffab1049e864b61ed8a96f

On the power calculation, Dave says,

>It’s a narrow point, but one I’d like to grant — running a power calculation after the fact can’t convert “we didn’t detect an effect” into “there is no effect.” I think this is good feedback on the specific wording nuance.

But in his response to another point in this same article, he claims that the miscalculated LDL exposure isn't a problem because, "the absence of association with plaque holds across every variant we tested" So he's still promoting the BS.

After responding to the other points with further obfuscation, Dave then shares this AI-Generated chart that paints himself as the victim:

https://preview.redd.it/yq2bq7l2s2ih1.png?width=1432&format=png&auto=webp&s=f766c7895d45b6d54199a8f8fcd7c6bc3b6b6e4e

That didn't happen.
And if it did, it wasn't that bad.
And if it was, that's not a big deal.
And if it is, that's not my fault.
And if it was, I didn't mean it.

https://preview.redd.it/zebc1qsj2mhh1.png?width=1916&format=png&auto=webp&s=0dfce88979837357adc5cd2172dfef22da048130

in nature, the lowest lifeform is the plants who consume water, soil, rocks and photosynthesize. they are so weak because movement means getting away from their only source of nutrition and they'd die. then there's the herbivore that is capable of completely ignoring all plant toxins plants have and get every nutrient they need into their meat. then there are the carnivores who can kill the herbivore and get every single nutrient that they need from their meat at an increased availability and easy access.
it's always been this way in nature. there exists no such thing as an obligate omnivore. there never existed an omnivore. either your nutrition comes from being able to break down plant toxins or killing an animal.
we are predators. meaning if we killed and ate an animal we would get every single essential nutrient we needed. the only reason a herbivore cannot hunt for meat is because they literally do not have the hunting gear to hunt the meat down in the first place. if they ever got access to meat, it would be so nutritious that they would take the opportunity every chance they could.
so all the misinfo about "cholesterol" "sat fat" etc. is stupid because if they truly were bad for you, then they were bad for the animal that was slaughtered before aswell. but the animal that was slaughtered before you ate their meat functioned perfectly healthy and even thrived compared to you.

send this to a vegan. we do not have the ability to break down plant toxins.

"The hearts and aortae of 50 Masai men were collected at autopsy. These pastoral people are exceptionally active and fit and they consume diets of milk and meat. The intake of animal fat exceeds that of American men. Measurements of the aorta showed extensive atherosclerosis with lipid infiltration and fibrous changes but very few complicated lesions. The coronary arteries showed intimal thickening by atherosclerosis which equaled that of old U.S. men. The Masai vessels enlarge with age to more than compensate for this disease. It is speculated that the Masai are protected from their atherosclerosis by physical fitness which causes their coronary vessels to be capacious."

https://academic.oup.com/aje/article-abstract/95/1/26/167903?redirectedFrom=fulltext

"This cases series presents evidence for the presence of calcified plaques in the mummified remains of 3 young Inuit individuals living 500 years ago, suggesting the presence of atherosclerosis despite their vigorous lifestyle and marine-based diet. While we cannot know the incidence of ancient ischemic events, cardiovascular deaths were rare among mid-20th century Inuit people, similar to contemporary Amazonian Tsimane people, who have low-grade atherosclerosis and low incidence of cardiovascular death. The etiologic complexity of atherosclerosis confounds identification of single factors, such as ω-3 fatty acids, as causal or protective."

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6991216/

Appeal to Nature

The argument:

1. That which is natural is good or right.
2. N is natural.
3. Therefore, N is good or right.

The logical fallacy is 1. However, in the case of Keto/Carnivore, even if we grant that 1 is true, 2 isn't true either.

From Wikipedia:

>The appeal to nature is frequently utilized in commercial advertising because it successfully leverages a deep-seated cognitive heuristic known as the "naturalness bias." This bias causes consumers to quickly and automatically associate the term "natural" with positive attributes such as health, purity, and moral goodness, often overriding the need for scientific evidence. In consumer psychology, research demonstrates the tangible effects of this fallacy on purchasing behavior. For instance, a study by Pornpitakpan (2004) found that framing food or cosmetic products as "natural" not only significantly increased purchase intent but also resulted in a more favorable overall attitude towards the brand. 

Appeal to Incredulity

the argument:

1. I cannot imagine how P could be true; therefore P must be false.
2. I cannot imagine how P could be false; therefore P must be true.

This fallacy is especially clever, because it leverages the audience's incompetence as a warrant.

Let's combine it with the first fallacy:

"I don't understand how a carnivore diet be bad. We've been eating it for thousands of years."

This fallacy is especially insidious because it subtly shifts the burden of proof away from the person making the claim.

False Dilemma

A false dilemma, also referred to as false dichotomy or false binary, is an informal fallacy based on a premise that erroneously limits what options are available. The source of the fallacy lies not in an invalid form of inference but in a false premise.

Example:

"For most people, you can't eat a lot of carbs or be at a healthy weight."

Notice how I added the qualifier "for most people" to seem reasonable. But anyone overweight hearing this will implicitly believe they are "most people"

Special Pleading

Special pleading is an informal fallacy wherein a person claims an exception to a general or universal principle, but the exception is unjustified.

Examples:

1. "I only eat grass fed butter. Those studies don't apply to me."
2. "I'm a lean mass hyper-responder. I'm a unique phenotype that's protected from the dangers of high LDL."
3. "I have a CAC of zero. I'm safe from heart disease despite high LDL."

Now, the user of this fallacy will almost always try to dress it up in some other sciency mumbo-jumbo that is not evidence, or just mechanistic speculation.

https://preview.redd.it/qq0p93zvw6ah1.png?width=1946&format=png&auto=webp&s=29f271727b46f26d55d2bc6a1f27924d9fb7e472

1 is unjustified because there is no scientific evidence. 2 is unjustified because there is no scientific evidence that LMHR are protected from plaque formation (although Norwitz supporters in bad faith will act like you're claiming LMHR don't exist). 3 is unjustified because a Coronary Artery Calcium (CAC) score is a lagging indicator of heart disease. It measures calcified, hardened plaque that has built up in your arteries over many years. Because this buildup is the result of long-term atherosclerosis, the score reflects past damage rather than immediate, acute risk.

They are adding this into your food and you don't even know it:

1. It's a chemical you can't digest
2. It's highly processed.
3. It's shown in studies that people/mice who consume too much die.
4. It's used in industrial machines. ewww
5. It's not solid at room temperature.

I'm not talking about Seed oils, or wood pulp, I'm talking about dihydrogen monoxide. Or as they call it, water.