@Oddthinking The recent veg-oil thing: have you read the fuct-chequer article on Insider that forms the basis of the answer? It really exemplifies most of what's wrong with what now counts as 'factchecking'. Zero research into the problem domain. Lots of eminence testimonials. One study as "the research". And that is behind a paywall, so the chances of those FCs not having read it itself increases quite a bit?

Further: the studies this 'research' bases its conclusions on do not support the claimed reach in that review!

That makes the question asked hear an analysis of hearsay on TikTok.

That makes the answer here an oblique to the problem counterclaim based on a very superficial and unproductive 'fact-checking' article mixed up with barely connected ad hominem and some spicy opinionated commentary (which doesn't build a bridge out of a swamp but leads further into the woods). In short: echo chamber construction and amplifier for a poorly written article.

This echo chamber problem really gets worse. Answering hearsay with equally bad hearsay distorting and conflating its own sources? That cannot be the way. And yet the (non-HNQ!) votes seem to indicate that this it what we like?

It is absolutely guaranteed that not a single listener to the advertised podcast can be convinced by what is written here on Echochamberofthemob:SE.

That Insider article (and the epigonal answer here) says 'fear over too much ω6 is overhyped'.

'Therefore: that keto claim is not with evidence'.

Aha.

What do we actually hear on that keto podcast?

"People do not get enough omega6!"

Nobody 'checks' any sources anymore?

We read in effect: 'claimant is false because he says things 100% compatible with what those fuctcheckers also spat out?' And: 'claimant himself is wrong, because his heritage looks iffy' (not the claim).

You may now say that 'technically, this is a fine answer'. Coz. It has 'references, it's what skeptics crave'. Let's go Brawndo!

But perhaps you understand now that 'fact-checking' is by now a shot-down-in-flames & a burned-to-the-ground word and concept. Answers that rely on those are not needed on a site like this. If this site doesn't strive to be better —much better— than those evil 'fact-checkers', then it has zero purpose on its own, but is a metastasising malignincy. Same for: Testimonials & 'expert'- opinions. These are diametrically opposed to the site's stated mission.