Cherry picking bits and pieces of research and then escalating them to much more general claims then they actually make really is the essence of good quality qu

Cherry picking bits and pieces of research and then escalating them to much more general claims then they actually make really is the essence of good quality quackery though. "avocados, for example, contain so much unsaturated fat that they can be carcinogenic and hepatotoxic" is exactly what he says in the article text. That explicitly read as "consumption of avocados can cause cancer", not the much weaker claim "it's possible that there's a mechanism by which avocados might cause cancer or be hepatotoxic but we don't actually know", which is what you actually get if you look at those reference. Even the quotes he chooses are mismatched to what he says in the text. The liver one is about dietary avocado oils specifically, not avocados generally, and has the weakest possible conclusion that the chicks have something "suggestive of early stages of fibrosis" for unrefined but not refined. It's beyond just in vivo and animal model limitations, it: doesn't address dietary avocado consumption and doesn't conclusively show liver toxicity. That this reference is so weak, and yet the one he chose, is itself quite damning.