If “highest number of n=1 studies wins” is your yardstick for causal inference then you’re part of the reason the keto crowd isn’t taken seriously. Wish I could sugar coat it more but that’s the reality, and I think some people on that side of the fence could do with some home truths.

> They don't wave around CVD risks: they show you that all the pro "SFA is bad because of CVD" crowd is also full of biases and very bad science and pharma sponsored studies that shill statins etc...

That is hand waving. The implicit claim being made by your statement is that because researchers have biases (true of all researchers) or they’re sponsored by interested parties (also true of keto studies, and not necessarily an indication of an issue with any given study) or also push medications or supplements (again, also true of keto studies) then we should treat all hypotheses tested in ways that contain these “flaws” as identical in validity.

However, that’s absurd. The evidence in favour of the claim that substituting PUFA in place of SFA reduces CVD incidence is absolutely mountainous in comparison to the evidence base supporting the claim that ketogenic diets cure mental health disorders.

In both cases, there exist sponsored studies, biased researchers and medication peddlers that support the hypothesis. Yet it sounds like you are willing to believe one but not the other. So what explains the difference in your attitude towards the two? Why do you believe it’s likely that keto cures these mental health issues but not that SFA consumption increases CVD incidence?