To give an analogy, I feel a bit like a global warming scientist (I don't actually know anything about global warming-I just understand it's a scientific consen

To give an analogy, I feel a bit like a global warming scientist (I don't actually know anything about global warming-I just understand it's a scientific consensus with a really vocal but marginal minority). It's not just me, it's me and 99% of cardiovascular scientists vs. a few people scattered around the world. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and this paper glosses over literally hundreds of contradictory studies, cherry picks a few that sort of support it, and wraps it all with some rhetorical flourishes. It's not science. I usually take at least two Or three hours to review a paper. I'm not sure if I want to waste my time writing out line by line all of the mistakes. something like this will require even more time since I would feel the duty to to dig up dozens and dozens and dozens of papers which would contradict them. If that would change your mind, I'll think about doing it. Finally, I said it's "annoying" because I work really hard on all my reviews and papers to make sure what I am publishing is right. The goofballs slap some crap together with only a passing understanding of the evidence and get another line on their CV. Feel free to ignore this ad hominem but hopefully it helps to understand my perspective.