u/Enterobactin

Hello,

I’m back with part 3 in my series of Substack articles (not paywalled) on Nick Norwitz MD PhD. Fair warning, it's long at about a 30 minute read. If anybody thinks I'm just giving superficial critiques after this, then I don't know what a deep critique looks like. I honestly don't know how an institution like Oxford can consider this being up to the standard of a doctoral thesis. Nick completed their doctorate in only 2 years, which sounds impressive until you actually look at the document. It's littered with typos and figures with basic mistakes and, as I go through in the article, most of it is just a literature review. Only one of the studies they carried out had any real data, in my opinion. That study was just testing whether a ketone drink had any effect on endurance exercise on a small number of Parkinson's disease patients. The second study testing the drink had no effect, and the third study was cancelled due to the pandemic. The last "study" is a case report Nick did on themselves. Oh, and the ketone ester drink they try to test in the thesis? It was invented by the supervisor that Nick was doing their research/thesis under and owns the company that manufactures and sells the drink. Some of Nick's research is linked to on the website to buy the drink. Nick also shows that they "developed" a revolutionary nutrition tracking tool that is basically just a fancy Excel spreadsheet.

You can find the article here

I’m open to any feedback or criticism, or if you think I’ve made any mistakes feel free to point them out.

Hello,

I’m back with my second Substack article (not paywalled) on Nick Norwitz MD PhD. When I posted the first part, some of the feedback I got was that my critique was superficial, which I think is fair. My primary critique was that him framing something as a study when it’s definitively not is misleading, and I would agree that in a vacuum that’s superficial. However, in this article I hope to make it clear that I’m quite confident he’s misleading you about his disease by either exaggerating or outright lying. I suspect the reason he blocked me on Substack after our interaction is because he doesn’t want to be called out further or exposed. And I think that fits the pattern of him being intentionally misleading to create the narrative he wants.

As an example, you’ll see that with misleading wording he heavily implies that the disease sent him to palliative care. Well, with some digging it turns out he was just in the palliative care ward because the hospital had nowhere else to put him and not because he was on his death bed. I have IBD, specifically Crohn’s disease, so I have no problem admitting that it’s somewhat personal for me. However, I get into the very technical details of IBD and show some of my own medical records as a comparison to what Nick claims. Unless Nick is willing to share his medical records, which I’m more than willing, I don’t think anyone should believe him that he had severe ulcerative colitis or that his ketogenic diet did anything dramatic for it.

You can find the article here

I’m open to any feedback or criticism, or if you think I’ve made any mistakes feel free to point them out.

This is part 1 in a series of Substack articles I've written on Nick Norwitz. I thought they were a problem a long time ago, but as I dug more and more it's actually quite horrifying how bad/incompetent they are. My articles will dive deeper and deeper into him culminating in dissecting his PhD thesis, which is atrocious.

He actually deleted his reply to me and blocked me on Substack when I called him out (I have a short article on that too).

Nick Norwitz MD PhD Doesn't Know What a Study is

I'm open to any feedback or criticisms. Or if you find any mistakes feel free to point them out.

I made a Substack post debunking/criticising Dave’s video about Destiny. However, I’m not focused on debunking the claims Dave made about the I/P conflict. Rather, I’m demonstrating the case that the video is clearly a deviation from his other content and, as others have pointed out here, he’s using all the same tactics as the vaccine skeptics and flat earthers he debates. Basically, the video is a hit piece and Dave’s standards of evidence have gone out the window. I made a neutral comment on Dave’s video pointing out a simple inaccuracy and it was deleted.

Professor Dave is a Disappointing Science Communicator