The flaw is that I didn't quantify how much you should eat? I think that's something you can figure out......

No, we actually do know. There have been plenty of studies on this topic. It's only controversial to crazy people who follow fad diets.

btw, a lot of the problems mentioned in the second half of this article still exist today

My hypothesis is that, people who've been cutting back on an essential nutrient for a while do better if they get more of it.

Thus, if you've been trying the low-fat diet for a while, then your body will appreciate the change when you finally start giving it enough fat.
If you've been on a low-protein diet (yes, it existed for a while), then your body will appreciate the change when you finally start giving it enough protein.
If you've been on a low-carb diet for a while, then your body will appreciate the change when you finally start giving it enough carbohydrates.

I read some scientists a few years back who suggested instead of looking at whether we should cut back on particular nutrients, we should instead look at the quality of the nutrients we are getting. Because all three nutrients are essential.

That is a good idea.

Well that is something different, then.

I subscribed to Science for a while, and that more-or-less matches the quality of article I found there.

I'm a bozo, yes agreed, but you're wrong.

If it can't be detected statistically, how can it be detected?

If you read more than the summary, you'll see the effect of those genes (while significant) amounted to about half an IQ point.

In other words, other effects are drastically more important in determining a person's IQ (because IQ varies so dramatically). These genes are like a rounding error, and it's not likely that we'll find genes that have a greater effect.

The reason the summary is like that (apart from summaries always being wrong) is because those were the only genes related to intelligence that could be found anywhere after an exhaustive search. The effect from those genes (though it is significant) is so small, that even if it translated directly into IQ, it would give you exactly half an IQ point. The effects of any other genes is likely to be even smaller.

An effect of half an IQ point is not sufficient to explain the huge variance in IQ among the population, so there is something much more important than genetics in determining IQ.

The scientists in that story also failed to find specific genes affecting the skill levels (they looked). In other words, they found a correlation, but not a causation.

Peer review filters out the stuff that is obvious crap, stuff that doesn't even fit the form of a proper scientific article. The purpose is not to say that articles are true, but rather to get rid of articles that are obviously wrong.

If the scientists are lying about their data, it's hard for peer review to catch that. That's why reproducibility is important. If it's a result you care about, you can reproduce it.

np

Sure. It's in the first paragraph, Women’s Committee Against Genocide and the New Movement in Solidarity with Puerto Rican Independence.

That's not surprising, your reading comprehension sucks. When they say, "Join us and build an anti-imperialist women's movement to defeat imperialism," who exactly do you think they're considering as the enemy? Hint: they mention it several times previously in their paper. This is a chance to work on your reading comprehension and improve it.

And the other paper makes it even more obvious what they were advocating. Once again, your reading comprehension needs work.

It was a question about association, not guilt.

Except them saying they supported violence.

Are you drunk?