Dr. Layne Norton

And I'm like, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.

So epidemiology is garbage unless it's epidemiology that you agree with.

But he's not alone in that.

There's a lot of people who did that.

And then here comes this like internet survey that was published by Harvard about people – I think it was in Harvard.

But it was like a self-reported internet survey of people like reporting like certain things improving on carnivore diet.

I'm like, wait.

So 20-year cohort studies with appropriate covariates are garbage.

But a self-reported internet survey, that's high-quality evidence.

OK.

I mean again, it's like –

If you're going to apply a certain type of logic, you have to be consistent with that.

And again, what I'll say is, hey, I just laid out how I don't think red meat is an independent risk factor for cancer.

I'm not convinced about that.

Very unconvinced about that.

But if red meat had the data that dietary fiber had about reducing the risk of cancer,

cancer, heart disease, and mortality, you carnivores would lose your absolute minds if anybody dared suggest that it wasn't good for you.

And so it just very clearly points out the asymmetrical application of logic.

And getting more into dietary fiber, it fulfills almost every single aspect of what I need to be considered strong evidence, which is we know the mechanisms,

in terms of insoluble fiber, decreases gut transit time, decreases the risk of diverticulitis, which probably is a risk factor for developing colon cancer at some point.