That is true. Touche! (I’m sure there’s a way to add the correct accent to that last “e”, but I don’t know how to do that.)
But there are those who will not let you cite to anything that’s not “peer reviewed”. I think to myself, “but peer review (1) is a bias (remember when we all thought everything revolved around the sun; I’m sure a paper saying the opposite would never get through ‘peer review’), and (2) is meaningless”. Just listened to an interview with Nick Norwitz, where they have data on LMHRs to publish, and it’s taking forever, because of “peer review”.
And while I haven’t seen the videos of the original link, there’s a way to hide behind “scientific evidence” to make the point you want to make. I mean if all we did was read stuff out of the Harvard School of Epidemiology, we’d KNOW that red meat is bad for us. But those of us who eat mainly red meat, lost quite a bit of weight, feel great, have endless energy, and have had so many benefits by eating DEADLY red meat, well, we’re just N=1s anyway. Ignore us. And, while you’re at it, ignore the RCTs and other studies showing red meat isn’t bad.