Not even just observational nonsense but categorical nonsense as well. If I call what is normally known as a mouse an elephant, proceed to point at what is normally called and elephant and truthfully proclaim "elephants are large", do I then get to point at my mouse which I have taken to called an elephant large? According to Dean Ornish the mouse is massive.
But Denise Minger and Chris masterjohn said it all already. Even though they were likely eating tons of conventional pork, eggs and chicken, which I don't consider to be anywhere near healthy due to overproduction of omega 6 fatty acids, if you adjust for animal products throughout all dociles there isn't even a correlation between animal products and disease, which actually goes contrary to my initial thoughts with only reading the abstract, since I expect conventional high-arachidonic acid foods to be disease-causing, but it didn't even happen. Confounding factors, I say,
You can't get an accurate description of dietary implications from taking all dociles which vary drastically as one coherent category. It would be like putting the Marijuana group with the crack cocaine group and trying to extrapolate the mean effect onto Marijuana. It's called confounding factors!
Stabbing conventional wisdom in its face.
Anyone who wants to talk nutrition should PM me!