For "had some flaws" - read "fudged the data".
See the link to the BMJ paper in post #11 above.
Again, problems with one study from the 50s do not invalidate the huge amounts of better studies and high quality evidence since then.
Still denying the causal link between LDL and heart disease today is getting to be like denying the link between smoking and lung disease.
For neutral readers of this thread, do bear in mind that this site is run by a commercial entity with a literal vested interest in promoting low carb diets, and many of the mods working for them are active in these threads defending high fat diets and questioning mainstream consensus positions on heart disease risk.
It's interesting that if you look at other popular diabetes forums such as the well known charity org uk one, you won't find anywhere near this slant.
Also to clarify, I'm not anti low carb myself, or anti keto, or anti animal fat. Individual responses vary widely, and the trade offs with weight loss and BG control benefits might make sense for some for some periods.
There's also obviously a wide continuum of low carb diets, from the eggs and bacon fried in butter every day type, all the way to just reducing refined carbs like white bread, rice and pasta, while keeping things like beans, starchy vegetables, whole grains and fruit.
Dietary science is complicated, positions evolve and absolute certainty is rare.
However, discounting all the negatives and risks of low carb diets seems actively dangerous, particularly in the context of a public website providing information and guidance for a group already at much higher risk of heart disease.
If someone diabetic has high LDL and has found that a low carb high sat fat diet makes that LDL worse for them, then encouraging them to ignore consensus position on LDL risk and continue with the high fat doesn't look wise to me.