diff --git a/frontend/src/Config/Helpers/CardFormat.elm b/frontend/src/Config/Helpers/CardFormat.elm
index 500632d..afdbaf3 100755
--- a/frontend/src/Config/Helpers/CardFormat.elm
+++ b/frontend/src/Config/Helpers/CardFormat.elm
@@ -176,6 +176,8 @@ cardImageMaker size1 size2 image urlLink =
                     || urlLink
                     == Path.toString Path.Blog_Nagragoodrich
                     || urlLink
+                    == Path.toString Path.Blog_Quacksmashing
+                    || urlLink
                     == Path.toString Path.Interviews
                     || urlLink
                     == Path.toString Path.Nutridex
diff --git a/frontend/src/Config/Pages/Blog/Records/NagraGoodrich.elm b/frontend/src/Config/Pages/Blog/Records/NagraGoodrich.elm
index 23ae0e9..34390be 100644
--- a/frontend/src/Config/Pages/Blog/Records/NagraGoodrich.elm
+++ b/frontend/src/Config/Pages/Blog/Records/NagraGoodrich.elm
@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ import Route.Path as Path
 articleNagraGoodrich : BlogArticle
 articleNagraGoodrich =
     { articleName = "Grading Tucker Goodrich: A Lesson in Debate Etiquette"
-    , articleDescription = ""
+    , articleDescription = "This article catalogs the results of Nagra's and my debate preparation. Our hard work paid off in the sweetest way possible. Matt was able to expose an enormous number of dodges, strawman arguments, and outright contradictions from Tucker. It exceeded all of our expectations and truly highlighted the weaknesses of Tucker's arguments. The number of self-defeating points Tucker attempted to defend in order to stay ahead in the debate was remarkable— a true treat."
     , articleLink = Path.toString Path.Blog_Nagragoodrich
     , articleAuthor = "Nick Hiebert"
     , isNewTabLink = False
diff --git a/frontend/src/Config/Pages/Blog/Records/QuackSmashing.elm b/frontend/src/Config/Pages/Blog/Records/QuackSmashing.elm
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..16b3e58
--- /dev/null
+++ b/frontend/src/Config/Pages/Blog/Records/QuackSmashing.elm
@@ -0,0 +1,330 @@
+module Config.Pages.Blog.Records.QuackSmashing exposing (..)
+
+import Config.Pages.Blog.Types exposing (..)
+import Route.Path as Path
+
+
+articleQuackSmashing : BlogArticle
+articleQuackSmashing =
+    { articleName = "The Hitchhiker's Guide to Quack-Smashing"
+    , articleDescription = "This article explores the prevalence of quackery on social media, focusing on how to identify and confront it. The article categorizes quacks and delves into their behaviours and motivations. It emphasizes that quackery often stems from flawed epistemic frameworks rather than ignorance of scientific facts. The article suggests a method for addressing quackery by questioning the underlying reasoning behind a quack’s beliefs, forcing them to confront the deficiencies in their reasoning."
+    , articleLink = Path.toString Path.Blog_Quacksmashing
+    , articleAuthor = "Nick Hiebert"
+    , isNewTabLink = False
+    , articleImage = "quacksmashing"
+    , articlePublished = "Dec 24, 2022"
+    , articleBody = """
+By no stretch of the imagination is there any shortage of quackery on social media. Chances are excellent that if you’ve spent any appreciable amount of time on social media, you have encountered some number of quacks and some sort of quackery that they espouse. You might not even be aware that you’re looking at quackery while you’re being exposed to it. So, the aim of this article will be to attempt to simplify the processes of both identifying quackery and dealing with quackery.
+
+Fundamentally, the issue is not merely that quacks are just interpreting studies incorrectly or affirming crazy beliefs. Those are just symptoms of the problem, rather than being the root cause of the problem. Typically, the problem is occurring within their epistemic framework, and is the very thing that is actually leading them to form their crazy beliefs to begin with. As such, a universally efficacious way to get under a quack’s position and expose them as a raving lunatic is to press them on their epistemic standards in one way or another. That is to say, subject their belief-formation process to a thorough stirring, so that their insanity is allowed to bubble to the surface for all to see.
+
+This means dragging them down to a level that is inferentially prior to their current understanding, and away from the level of research and studies. Just like the scientific method is inferentially prior to studies or study design, scientific epistemology is inferentially prior to the scientific method. If your starting point is on the level of studies and study design, following the inferential lineage backward will eventually bring you to a level where the premises will all be principles, virtues, or axioms. This is the level we need to bring the quack to in order to address the fundamental flaws in their reasoning.
+
+The ultimate aim of this process is to expose errors in the quack’s reasoning, not to necessarily convince them of anything. Of course, the hope is that they correct the complications in their belief-formation process, such that they cease to be a quack by the end of the discussion. However, this isn’t a very likely outcome, but this is nonetheless the outcome that you should be aiming for in order to have the best good faith conversation possible. To explore why this outcome isn’t particularly likely, we’ll have to explore what a quack is, and why they’re typically so immovable. So, let’s get into some definitions.
+
+# QUACK DEFINITION
+
+>_A quack is a type of scientific delinquent— one who brandishes the trappings of science, yet whose scientific standards are obstinately in violation of those considered most virtuous within the contemporary philosophy of science._
+
+It was no easy task to get to the bottom of what is so objectionable about the quack’s behaviour. It took interviewing multiple domain experts and trashing dozens of revisions, but I think I finally have something that is workable and minimally assailable for the time being. Essentially, the trait that quantifies over all quacks is a fundamental lack of respect for the rules of scientific inquiry.
+
+If we were to think of science as a country with laws, a quack would be a contemptuous sort of outlaw within that country. But, quacks are not only rule-breakers by nature, they also actively turn their noses up at the rules— almost relishing in their own intransigence. Despite the commonalities, quacks can usually be categorized in at least one of three distinct ways: **deranged**, **dense**, or **dishonest**.
+
+**Deranged**
+
+1. **The Zealot**: one who has assimilated quackery into their identity, and will be emotionally damaged if the quackery is challenged.  
+    
+2. **The Contrarian**: one who espouses quackery due to strong anti-establishment and/or conspiratorial and/or paranoid tendencies.  
+    
+3. **The Narcissist**: one who is simply so self-assured of their own infallibility that they cannot fathom that their beliefs could be quackery.  
+    
+4. **The Aggrieved**: one who feels wronged by some conventional scientific paradigm and is seeking vindication or revenge through quackery.  
+    
+5. **The JAQ-off**: one who slyly hat-tips to quackery, often in an ostentatious or cheeky manner, but claims to be just asking questions when challenged.  
+    
+6. **The Circlejerker**: one who is deeply impressionable and merely forms the beliefs of whatever community will accept them.
+    
+
+**Dense**
+
+1. **The Zombie**: one who has made little to no effort to form their own beliefs, but rather just recapitulates the beliefs of influential people.  
+    
+2. **The Imbecile**: one who lacks the requisite intelligence and/or cognitive faculties to form rational beliefs of their own accord.
+    
+
+**Dishonest**
+
+1. T**he Grifter**: one who espouses quackery, not necessarily because they believe it to be true, but rather for some ulterior motive such as money or clout.  
+    
+2. **The Yo-Yo**: one who spouses both quackery and non-quackery, often to the point of self-contradiction, depending on the context.
+    
+
+This probably isn’t an exhaustive list of quack species and subspecies, and will likely be updated in the future. For now, these are the most common types of quacks you’re likely to encounter online or on social media. Most quacks you will encounter will be of the deranged variety, and of them, the majority will be either contrarian or narcissistic. The narcissistic quacks are hardly worth engaging with, unless it is for the benefit of an audience. But other than that, you’ll never convince them of anything because they’re cocksure of their own perfection. Contrarians may be swayed by reason, but it is not particularly likely.
+
+Much like the narcissistic quack, the dishonest quacks are also not likely to be worth engaging with, except for the benefit of onlookers to whom you seek to reveal the quack’s dishonesty. Dishonest quacks, especially grifters, will tend to sway their affirmations in lockstep with the trends of the time. For example, many grifters who were pushing low carbohydrate diets back in 2017 are now pushing raw, grassfed carnivore diets in 2022. It just depends on what’s trending at the moment. It’s a game to them. Engaging is typically pointless and you’re justified in disengaging, in my opinion.
+
+Altogether, you have the best chance of convincing dense quacks, because they’re less likely to be as intransigent as other varieties. These types of quacks don’t typically believe quackery due to some emotional commitment or ulterior motives. Usually they’re just either uneducated or dumb. However, if they’re too dumb to understand the difference between good evidence and bad evidence, convincing them may be ultimately beyond your reach. But it is nonetheless worthwhile to attempt reasoning with them. The best discussions will likely be had with the zombie variety of quack, as they’re usually the closest to just being truly naive, and they’re not necessarily dumb.
+
+Now that we have a bit of a handle on what constitutes a quack, let’s move on to the next definition we need to cover:
+
+# QUACKERY DEFINITION
+
+>_Any ostensible hypothesis that either fails to satisfy any critical theoretical virtue of a scientific hypothesis (i.e., testability, fruitfulness, scope, parsimony, conservativism) or satisfies fewer theoretical virtues compared to the prevailing scientific hypotheses against which it is intended to compete._
+
+Given that a proposition is a statement that can be either true or false, a scientific hypothesis can be thought of as basically being an empirically testable proposition. For example, say that we wanted to develop a theory to explain the rising of the sun each morning. We could generate a few different hypotheses. Hypothesis A might suppose that the sun rises because God is pulling it across the sky. Hypothesis B might suppose that the sun rises because it is revolving around the Earth. Hypothesis C might suppose that the sun rises because the Earth is spinning.
+
+Let’s linger on hypothesis A for a moment to discuss some of its issues. Firstly, it’s completely unclear how hypothesis A could be tested, so whether or not it genuinely qualifies as a hypothesis is questionable. Those with a background in science have likely been exposed to the principle that unfalsifiable hypotheses are to be avoided, and hypothesis A is an example of that. Testability is arguably the most important aspect of a scientific hypothesis. Without testability, there is no empirical investigation. Without an empirical investigation, there is no science. The hypothesis ends up being completely ad hoc (which we will discuss later).
+
+On the other hand, hypothesis B certainly has the capacity to make predictions. One could create a model wherein the sun travels around the Earth, and observations can certainly be made that are consistent with that model. Hypothesis C could be tested similarly. One could construct a model wherein the Earth is spinning and the sun is fixed in place, and observations can be made to see if that model pans out.
+
+So far, hypothesis B and hypothesis C don’t seem to underdetermine phenomena differently, and the observations seem equally expected on both hypotheses. However, what if we also made the observation that there are other planets out there in space, and we also observe that those planets seem to move in relationship to the sun in a way that suggests that the sun is a fixed object. This observation is more expected on hypothesis C than hypothesis B. The observed phenomena are underdetermined on hypothesis B, and thus hypothesis C would come out on top until there is a better hypothesis to supplant it.
+
+Great! We have established what it takes for a proposition to be a scientific hypothesis, as well as what it takes for one scientific hypothesis to prevail over another. Now let’s move on to discuss the different criteria that such hypotheses need to satisfy in order for them to be competitive within the domain of science. These are the epistemic virtues we touched on earlier— the standards by which the viability of a tentatively competing scientific hypothesis will be measured. [¹](https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/display/document/obo-9780195396577/obo-9780195396577-0409.xml) [²](https://books.google.ca/books/about/How_to_Think_About_Weird_Things_Critical.html?id=YR4iAAAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y)
+
+# THEORETICAL VIRTUES
+
+1. **Testability**: A hypothesis is scientific only if it is testable, that is, only if it predicts something more than what is predicted by the background theory alone.  
+    
+2. **Fruitfulness**: Other things being equal, the best hypothesis is the one that is the most fruitful, that is, makes the most successful novel predictions.  
+    
+3. **Scope**: Other things being equal, the best hypothesis is the one that has the greatest scope, that is, that explains and predicts the most diverse phenomena.  
+    
+4. **Parsimony**: Other things being equal, the best hypothesis is the simplest one, that is, the one that makes the fewest assumptions.  
+    
+5. **Conservatism**: Other things being equal, the best hypothesis is the one that is the most conservative, that is, the one that fits best with established beliefs.
+    
+
+All else equal, if an alternative hypothesis fails to outcompete a prevailing hypothesis on any of these measures, why form the belief that the alternative hypothesis is more likely to be true compared to the prevailing hypothesis? Beyond the testability of a hypothesis, the extent to which a hypothesis fails to satisfy any of these theoretical virtues will determine the “ad-hocness” of that hypothesis. An ad hoc hypothesis is also known as a “just-so story”, which is a phrase you may have heard before.
+
+While it goes without saying that ad-hocness is undesirable in science, it is important to emphasize that this is the crux of the quack’s rhetoric. Quackery is like an artichoke of idiocy, and just-so story-telling is at the heart of it. You have to peel it slowly to expose the fuckery. This sort of delinquent fabulism takes many forms, and it’s not always obvious when a hypothesis is ad-hoc and failing to satisfy one or more theoretical virtues compared to another hypothesis. But, hopefully your intuitions can be adequately primed with a few examples. Let’s examine this scientific hypothesis:
+
+>_Vegetable oils are the cause of heart disease._
+
+At first glance, this hypothesis appears to be extremely attractive in its parsimony. It appears to be making very few assumptions, as it is reducing the cause of heart disease down to a single variable. However, this is an illusion. This hypothesis must actually bootstrap an enormous number of assumptions in order to compensate for its lack of scope and fruitfulness. Not only does the totality of the empirical evidence weigh heavily against this hypothesis, it’s not clear what novel predictions the hypothesis has generated, if any at all.
+
+The primary issue is that the hypothesis is lacking in scope because it does not account for the majority of our observations regarding vegetable oils and heart disease. Typically, the quack will attempt to compensate for this shortcoming by casting doubt on existing research— “those findings are wrong because epidemiology is pseudoscience”. What the quack doesn’t realize is that this actually decreases the parsimony of their hypothesis. This leaves them with an ad-hoc story that is not particularly unifying, fruitful, or parsimonious. Let’s examine another hypothesis:
+
+>_Ancestral foods protect against all illnesses.”
+
+On the face of it, this hypothesis might appear similar to the first in that it lacks scope and fruitfulness, and in turn compromises its own parsimony. However, it may be even worse than that. If ancestral foods are referring to foods that humans consumed during some prehistoric time period, then the hypothesis is actually untestable. Humans no longer have access to those foods, and as such the hypothesis is almost entirely ad hoc, and the theoretical virtues that it upholds are few to none.
+
+The more sensitive you become to when a hypothesis is failing in its virtuousness, the more straightforward it will be to identify and dispatch quackery. For instance, consider what has been described above in previous examples, and examine these other quack hypotheses carefully:
+
+> _Red meat protects against mental illness._  
+> _Sunlight protects against skin cancer._  
+> _Blueberries cure Alzheimer’s disease._  
+> _Refined carbohydrates cause obesity._  
+> _Milk products impair bone health._  
+> _Soy products feminize men._  
+> _Vegan diets cure cancer._
+
+Remember that quacks fundamentally don’t care about scientific rigour, and virtually all quackery will follow a similar structure at its core— an utter lack of respect for the rules we just discussed. Thus, there is a virtually universally efficacious way of uprooting quackery. Simply interrogate the quack about how their hypothesis better conforms to the rules compared to other hypotheses, and watch them crumble.
+
+Once you start scrutinizing quackery like this on this basis, you will quickly realize that quacks are just master fabulists— iron chefs of word salads. Mind you, quacks will never admit to this. Even when their bullshit has been revealed to them point blank, the exact lack of rigour that got them to be in their current state will end up keeping them smiling through their humiliation.
+
+At this point it would be worthwhile to discuss the **Quack’s Trichotomy**. This concept has been borrowed from Lance Bush’s anti-realist metaethical thesis. While it was originally a way of categorizing different types of moral realism, it would appear to be highly applicable to categorizing different types of quackery as well.
+
+Basically, quackery will ultimately reduce down into one of three categories: **false**, **trivial**, or **unintelligible**. As discussed above, most quackery will end up being false (or at least more likely to be false than true). But, there are some other common cases to explore. Identifying just what kind of utterances the quack is making will be helpful in figuring out whether or not it’s even worth entertaining their madness. Consider the following three interpretations of this hypothesis:
+
+>_Red meat is healthy._
+
+**False Interpretation**
+
+Perhaps the tentative quack cashes out the term “healthy” into some sort of claim about red meat not increasing the risk of heart disease. This can be tested, and it turns out that when the best available data is aggregated together, across multiple domains, red meat consumption reliably associates with an increased risk of heart disease. This means that this hypothesis would just be false, or more likely false than true.
+
+**Trivial Interpretation**
+
+Let’s just say that all the tentative quack means by “healthy” is that they themselves just feel really good on a diet that is high in red meat. In this case, the hypothesis is actually going to be “I feel really good on a diet that is high in red meat.” This is not anything that anyone would contest, as it’s clearly true. However, it’s trivially true, and a pointless proposition to utter. We need not debate this. This claim may not necessarily make them a quack, but we should probably just leave this idiot to their fuzzy feelings and move on.
+
+**Unintelligible Interpretation**
+
+In this case, we’ll imagine that the tentative quack doesn’t unpack the utterance any further, and just continues to insist that red meat is “healthy”, over and over. If no further clarification is offered, this interpretation of the hypothesis is just gibberish. What is healthy supposed to mean? To me, “healthy” is a relational concept that joins many relata— X is healthy for Y compared to W relative to standard Z (where healthy is defined as an exposure that increases the lag-time to the onset of illness compared to a different exposure). Unless their meaning is unpacked in an intelligible way, their utterance doesn’t even rise to the level of being a proposition. They’re literally just gibberating, and we need not debate their ramblings. Leave them to their delusions.
+
+In an exceedingly small minority of cases that fall outside of the scope of the **Quack’s Trichotomy**, the tentative quack’s proposition will be true and convincing, rather than being false, trivial, or unintelligible. In this case, the proposition likely isn’t quackery and you likely just mistook the proposition as quackery due to miscommunication. If this happens, you should just accept the proposition and feel good that you learned a new fact today. Enjoy it when it happens. But again, this almost never happens.
+
+There is one final trope we need to explore, though. Every so often, you will encounter someone who is committed to extraordinarily high standards of evidence. For example, quacks in the nutrition blogosphere will sometimes claim the following:
+
+> “Evidence cannot be obtained in nutrition science unless you have studied the effects of a food in a multi-generational, quadruple-blind randomized controlled metabolic ward crossover trial in human clones.”
+
+This is not really a hypothesis. It’s just a claim that directly pertains to scientific epistemology itself, which means we must deal with this in a unique way. In this case, we should simply ask them what theoretical virtue would be either violated or unable to be satisfied unless we had such evidence for our hypothesis? As such, it would be worthwhile to get into a few definitions regarding what constitutes evidence.
+
+# EVIDENCE DEFINITION
+
+>_That which is more expected on a given hypothesis compared to the negation of that hypothesis._
+
+On this definitions, falling short of achieving a trial design like the one described above does not bar us from making discoveries that are more or less expected on different hypotheses. Thus, failing to achieve such a trial design is not a barrier to discovering any sort of evidence. If a short trial with a limited number of people finds an effect of some intervention, that effect is still going to be expected on a hypothesis that predicts it. So, it’s still evidence.
+
+Now we’re ready to start tackling quackery ourselves. Next up, we’ll go through a universally applicable procedures for smashing quackery. The beauty is that the procedures leave the burden of proof squarely on the quack, and pressure test their epistemic standards. This means that you probably don’t even need to show up with studies of your own if you don’t want to. The ball will mostly be in their court, and the burden of proof will be squarely theirs. By the end they’ll find themselves looking up from within their own grave and they will have nobody but themselves to blame for them being there.
+
+Before we move on to the quack-smashing debate procedure, it's recommended that you download the included [dialogue tree](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QQaN6HRwzp3kY2DAcnHVBxeX6jBhrvkw/view?usp=share_link) and refer to it while reading.
+
+# PHASE ONE: CLARIFICATION
+
+**Step 1: Ask for a proposition**
+
+Essentially, a proposition is what is known as a truth-apt statement. Meaning that it is a statement that can be either true or false. You can think of a proposition like a claim. A common tactic among quacks is to dance around some implied commitment without ever actually explicitly making any claims.
+
+Quacks are notoriously unclear when they communicate. Sometimes quacks will simply gesture in your direction with a series of vague utterances that merely have the appearance of communicating disagreement. For example, a quack might say to you:
+
+> _Read the studies you idiot!_  
+> _Follow the money to know the truth!_  
+> _We’ve been lied to for over fifty years!_
+
+Notice how vague these statements are. Quackery thrives on vagueness. You must straightforwardly ask the quack for their position— “I’m sorry, I just want to understand what you mean. What do you think is true that people who believe this study think is false?” Be firm, and stand your ground. Press them until they give you an utterance that at least has the appearance of something propositional.
+
+**Step 2: Evaluate their ostensible proposition**
+
+Once you have a proposition, we begin the clarification phase. During this step you are aiming to demystify anything that you find unclear. If there are terms over which there may be disagreement, such as relational terms with missing relata, you must ask for clarification.
+
+If clarification is required, proceed to **step 2.1**. If clarification is not required, proceed to **step 2.2**.
+
+**Step 2.1: Ask for clarification**
+
+Essentially what we need from the quack is a clear, contestable proposition. Scrutinize every word in their proposition if necessary. This is not to bog down the debate, but to make sure that there is as close to a complete, unambiguous shared understanding of the terms being used by the quack as possible. In the vast majority of cases, asking the quack simple clarifying questions about their proposition will make it fall apart on the spot.
+
+If the tentative quack’s explanation devolves into bullshit like rambling or gibberish, just walk away from the idiot. If it appears intelligible and it’s just some trivial utterance that isn’t worth discussing, we can start assessing its truth value.
+
+# PHASE TWO: ARGUMENTATION
+
+**Step 2.2: Check for modal claims**
+
+If we manage to obtain an intelligible proposition from the quack, we can begin checking for modal language. Modal language typically refers to concepts like impossibility, necessity, possibility, or contingency. Be sensitive to when your interlocutor is using words that function as synonyms for any of these terms. For example, words like “can”, “able”, “may”, “could”, or “capable” should all be taken as synonyms for the modal term “possible”, whereas words like “unable”, “cannot”, “couldn’t”, “unable”, “incapable”, should all be taken as synonyms for the modal term “impossible”.
+
+Additionally, if your interlocutor suggests that something is necessarily the case, that should be taken as just another way of saying that the contrary is impossible. As such, impossibility and necessity are modal terms that can essentially be captured by the same modal operator. Similarly, if your interlocutor suggests that something is possible, all they’re saying is that it's necessarily not impossible, which is to say that it's contingent upon something else. So, much like impossibility and necessity, possibility and contingency can also be interpreted interchangeably, under the same modal operator. At the end of the day the terms can ultimately be cashed out into what is impossible or possible.
+
+To be clear, these terms are just operators, and don’t mean much unless they’re in reference to a given modality. Modalities are just means by which these modal operators can be understood. There are two primary modalities that are commonly discussed in the philosophy literature— physical and logical. For example, something is logically impossible if it entails a contradiction, and something is physically impossible if it violates a law of physics.
+
+Of course there are other modalities. In fact, there are probably infinite numbers of modalities on which an operator like impossible can be understood. For instance, while it’s certainly logically and physically possible to murder someone in any country, it is legally impossible to murder someone in most countries. Though we don’t really use modal language in this way.
+
+Overall, impossibility can be interpreted as something that is incompatible with a given rule/standard or set of rules/standards, and possibility can just be interpreted as something that is compatible with a given rule/standard or rule/standard set.
+
+In most cases, if the modal operator they’re invoking relates to possibility, then it’s probably not even worth continuing the discussion. In the vast majority of cases it’s just trivial to claim something is possible. If the proposition contains a modal operator related to impossibility, proceed to **step 2.3**. If their proposition does not contain a modal operator, proceed to **step 2.4**.
+
+**Step 2.3: Ask which law is broken on their stated modality**
+
+This step is pretty straightforward. If your interlocutor is claiming something is impossible, ask them on what modality is it impossible. If necessary, explain to them what modalities and modal operators are, just so they’re both clear on what you’re asking of them and what kind of claim they’ve actually made.
+
+If they cannot unpack the modality and the law that’s violated on that modality first give them the opportunity to amend their claim. If they refuse to amend the claim or are unable to unpack the claim, then proceed to **step 6**. If they actually manage to unpack the modality and the law that’s violated on that modality, and it’s convincing to you, you should probably just concede.
+
+**Step 2.4: Ask for a goalpost**
+
+Assuming there were no modal claims in our tentative quack’s proposition, we can proceed to the first step in the actual debate— requesting a goalpost. Basically, you will merely ask them what evidence would be required for them to affirm that their proposition is false. This is different than asking them what evidence it would take for them to reject their proposition. We want to know what it would take for them to affirm their proposition’s negation.
+
+This step isn’t vital, so it’s not a huge concern if our tentative quack doesn’t render a goalpost to you. However, keep in mind that if they can’t tell you their goalpost for affirming their proposition’s negation, they are essentially telling you that they don’t even know why they believe that their proposition is true. So, it’s up to you if you want to proceed further. If you want to stop here, just shame them for being a sophist and disengage.
+
+If you decide to continue, proceed to **step 3**.
+
+**Step 3: Ask for an inference for their proposition**
+
+This step is pretty straightforward. You’re just straight up asking for the argument for the proposition. After you’ve obtained a clear, contestable proposition from the quack, you must then ask them what the evidence is for their proposition. Asking the quack for evidence is perfectly fair. Don’t let them try to convince you otherwise. They bear the burden of proof, and the onus is solely on them to demonstrate the merits of their proposition.
+
+If they actually manage to render an argument, you can proceed to **step 3.1**. If they refuse to render an argument, proceed to **step 6**.
+
+**Step 3.1: Identify the type of inference**
+
+Basically there are two broad categories of inference someone can make. Either their inference is going to be a posteriori or it is going to be a priori. Both a posteriori and a priori inferences are forms of deductive arguments. However, in contrast to an a priori inference, an a posteriori inference requires synthesizing prior experience of the world. The truth or falsity of an a posteriori inference will rest on empirical evidence.
+
+**A Posteriori**
+
+> **P1)** An unmarried person is more likely to be depressed.  
+> **P2)** Jim is unmarried.  
+> **C)** Therefore, Jim is more likely to be depressed.
+
+An a priori inference doesn’t require prior experience of the world, and the truth of falsity of the inference will hinge on the definitions or meaning of the terms used.
+
+**A Priori**
+
+> **P1)** An unmarried man is a bachelor.  
+> **P2)** Jim is an unmarried man.  
+> **C)** Therefore, Jim is a bachelor.
+
+For the purposes of this article, we’ll just be focusing on a posteriori inferences. If you are interested in how to address a priori inference, please refer to the included dialogue tree at the top of this section. Otherwise, proceed to **step 3.2**.
+
+**Step 3.2: Check for modal claims**
+
+Generally speaking, if their inference is a posteriori and it contains a modal operator, they’re likely to be referring to a physical modality (but they could be referring to another modality).
+
+If they are invoking an operator that is related to impossibility, proceed to **step 3.3**. Once again, if the invoke a modal operator related to possibility, then it’s probably worthwhile to just agree and disengage, as it’s typically just trivial to claim that things are possible. If there are no modal operators in their claim, proceed to **step 3.4**.
+
+**Step 3.3: Ask which law is broken on their stated modality**
+
+The overall procedure is identical to **step 2.3**. If the quack can’t unpack the claim or they refuse to amend the claim, then proceed to **step 6**. If they actually manage to unpack their the modality and the law that’s violated on that modality, and it’s convincing to you, you should probably just concede.
+
+**Step 3.4: Evaluate their empirical evidence**
+
+During this step, it pays to have some critical appraisal skills to fall back on, but it’s not necessary. The most important thing to remember is that you have to be honest about what you find convincing and you have to be honest enough to amend your views according to new evidence.
+
+Keep the definitions of evidence that we discussed earlier in mind going forward. After the quack has rendered their evidence, examine it carefully. In the vast majority of cases it will be unclear how this evidence should be more expected on their hypothesis as opposed to some other hypothesis, even another hypothesis that you literally dream up on the spot as a counter explanation (which we will be covered in later steps). Consider the following proposition:
+
+>_Carnivorous diets made humans more intelligent._
+
+A bold proposition like this certainly requires substantial evidence, which is perfectly reasonable to request of the quack. Let’s say you ask for the evidence, and the quack renders something along the lines of this in response:
+
+>_Because plant agriculture decreased human brain size by 11%._
+
+Bearing all of the above in mind, critically evaluate their evidence and think hard about the assumptions it makes. If you don’t find anything objectionable, it is perfectly OK to admit that sufficient evidence for the proposition has been rendered, and that you concede the proposition on that basis.
+
+If the quack managed to render a goalpost to you in **step 2.4**, then proceed to **step 3.5**. If they did not render a goalpost to you, and their evidence is not convincing to you, then proceed to **step 5**.
+
+**Step 3.5: Compare their evidence to their goalpost**
+
+Check to see if their empirical evidence is actually consistent with the goalpost they described. If their empirical evidence is either consistent or stronger than the sort of evidence described in their goalpost, then simply proceed to **step 5**. However, if their empirical evidence is _weaker_ than the sort of evidence they described in their goalpost, then the quack has just straightforwardly contradicted themselves and you can proceed straight to **step 6**.
+
+**Step 5: Propose an alternative hypothesis**
+
+As with **step 3.4**, it pays to have some critical appraisal skills, but it is again not actually necessary. The only thing that you really require to proceed with this step is the creativity to dream up alternative hypotheses. But not just any alternative hypothesis. Your alternative hypothesis has to make the same prediction as their hypothesis, but also be mutually incompatible with their hypothesis.
+
+In reference to the evidence presented in **step 3.4**, while this evidence may sound hilarious to us, it may actually be convincing to some people, so contesting it is probably still a good idea. Don’t dismiss it outright. At this point, it may be true that the quack has already put their foot in their mouth. But continue to be a fair interlocutor, and give the quack an opportunity to either swallow it or pull it out. Hit them back with an alternative hypothesis that makes the same prediction:
+
+>_Perhaps agriculture actually increased the efficiency of the human brain, and there was actually no change in intelligence._
+
+Remember that it’s not at all clear why plant agriculture decreasing human brain size by 11% would necessarily, or even probably, be evidence for carnivorous diets making humans more intelligent. Perhaps plant agriculture increased the efficiency of our brains, such that our brains could achieve the same level of intelligence using less tissue. So, why would plant agriculture decreasing human brain size by 11% be more expected on the quack’s hypothesis as opposed to your alternative hypothesis?
+
+Now the quack is in a tough position, because he has to actually explain why the evidence in question is more expected on their hypothesis than the one you just cooked up on the spot. In the vast majority of cases, the quack will not be able to produce any compelling reason for why one hypothesis has more explanatory power over the other.
+
+Notice as well that we’re not asking them to substantiate their evidence, and we’re not scrambling to find studies of our own to refute their evidence. We’re just asking the quack why their hypothesis is more virtuous than ours. This is not a strategy that virtually any quacks are going to be prepared to deal with (because if they were, they probably wouldn’t propose stuff as stupid as they typically do).
+
+In the vast majority of cases, merely asking the quack why the evidence in question is more expected on their hypothesis, rather than your own hypothesis, will lead them to fold like a chair, right on the spot.
+
+If your interlocutor actually can demonstrate that the evidence they brought to the table is indeed more expected on their hypothesis than some alternative hypothesis, you have a few options. You retry **step 5**, and attempt to create another alternative hypothesis that will challenge the strength of their evidence even harder. Alternatively, you can concede the proposition for the time being and come back to it later, even if you don’t find it convincing. Just be honest. Conceding the debate doesn’t mean that your interlocutor was correct.
+
+Remember, you can always be agnostic (even about your own alternative hypotheses), and try to remember that you don’t need to affirm the negation of their proposition. The onus is not on you to prove anything in this exchange. Not a goddamn thing. Remember that.
+
+Assuming they’re unable to answer your question, it must be reiterated that it is very important to never allow the quack to flip the burden of proof on you. It’s their proposition, and the burden of proof is theirs and only theirs. A tip for identifying when the quack is trying to flip the burden of proof is when they attempt to ask questions that are not clarifying questions. Any question other than a clarifying question is always a dodge when you hold the line of questioning, and your line of questioning is only over when you’ve obtained all of the answers you require.
+
+If the quack rejects your alternative hypothesis, proceed to **step 5.1**. If the quack accepts your alternative hypothesis and admits that he has no justification for why their evidence is more expected on their hypothesis than your hypothesis, then proceed to **step 6**.
+
+**Step 5.1: Ask what’s wrong with your alternative hypothesis**
+
+Rejecting your alternative hypothesis could mean a couple different things. Either they’re calling the alternative hypothesis itself into question, or they are going to explain why their evidence is more expected on their hypothesis than your hypothesis. If they’re rejecting your alternative hypothesis, just ask them for the explanation. If their explanation is convincing to you, there are a couple of different options. You can either concede or return to **step 5** and press them with an even stronger hypothesis. It just depends on how comfortable you are giving it another shot.
+
+Alternatively (and altogether more likely), if they can’t give you a clear explanation as to why their evidence is more expected on your hypothesis, then proceed to **step 6**.
+
+# PHASE THREE: STEAMROLLING
+
+**Step 6: Demand that they concede their proposition**
+
+Once you find yourself in a position where you have not conceded the proposition and the quack is unable to render an argument in favour of the proposition, you’ve obtained all you need from the quack to begin steamrolling. Just refuse to proceed until you obtain either an argument for the proposition or a concession on the proposition itself. Anything other than these outcomes is not satisfactory. Don’t accept any “agree to disagree” cop-outs. Hold their feet to the fire and press the issue.
+
+The quack may try to spiral down on some tangent that isn’t germane to any of the previous questions you have asked them. In this event, redirect them immediately after their ramble. If their ramble is excessively long, feel free to cut them off. Tangents waste time, and it’s inappropriate to let tangents go to completion. Most quacks are bad faith actors, so concessions are too optically intolerable for them and rendering an argument for their claim is usually beyond their capabilities. Most will simply just disengage once you’ve gotten this far.
+
+Lastly, we have to talk about an exceptionally rare outcome you will almost never encounter on your quack smashing journey— the quack concedes the proposition. Congratulate and praise the quack for their honesty. In fact, they may not even be a quack anymore. You may have rescued them from utter insanity, and that’s certainly worth a pat on the back for both of you.
+
+Thank you for reading! If you like what you've read and want help me create more content like this, consider pledging your [Support](https://www.uprootnutrition.com/donate). Every little bit helps! I hope you found the content interesting!
+
+# BIBLIOGRAPHY"""
+    , articleReferences =
+        [ { author = ""
+          , title = "Theoretical Virtues in Science"
+          , journal = "Obo"
+          , year = "N/A"
+          , link = "https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/display/document/obo-9780195396577/obo-9780195396577-0409.xml"
+          }
+        , { author = "Theodore Schick, Lewis Vaughn"
+          , title = "How to Think About Weird Things: Critical Thinking for a New Age: Seventh Edition"
+          , journal = "N/A"
+          , year = "2013"
+          , link = "https://books.google.ca/books/about/How_to_Think_About_Weird_Things_Critical.html?id=YR4iAAAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y"
+          }
+        ]
+    }
diff --git a/frontend/src/Config/Pages/Blog/Records/SapienDiet.elm b/frontend/src/Config/Pages/Blog/Records/SapienDiet.elm
index f95ac3f..4e9050e 100755
--- a/frontend/src/Config/Pages/Blog/Records/SapienDiet.elm
+++ b/frontend/src/Config/Pages/Blog/Records/SapienDiet.elm
@@ -37,16 +37,16 @@ Brian's talk is riddled with half-truths, misunderstandings, bald-faced lies, an
 
 This is just a post-hoc fallacy and a misunderstanding of the evidence being presented. Firstly, Brian's argument doesn't even get off the ground unless there is an assessment of what is causing the differences in longevity, and how the mortality stats are calculated. In this case, Brian is suggesting temporal connections that can't be verified to exist based on the data provided. More to the point, differential ecological associations between populations can't really tell us anything about differences in outcomes between individuals consuming the least meat versus individuals consuming the most meat.
 
-For example, there is a positive ecological association between smoking and life expectancy [[1]](http://www.thefunctionalart.com/2018/07/visualizing-amalgamation-paradoxes-and.html). But, we wouldn't infer from this association that cigarette consumption increases longevity. Those sorts of inferences are what prospective cohort studies and randomized controlled trials are for, as they are actually equipped to assess individual-level exposure and outcomes.
+For example, there is a positive ecological association between smoking and life expectancy [[1](http://www.thefunctionalart.com/2018/07/visualizing-amalgamation-paradoxes-and.html)]. But, we wouldn't infer from this association that cigarette consumption increases longevity. Those sorts of inferences are what prospective cohort studies and randomized controlled trials are for, as they are actually equipped to assess individual-level exposure and outcomes.
 
 ![][image1]
 [image1]: /blog/sapiendiet/image1.png 
 
 **Base Rate Fallacy** 
 
-According to Brian's source, Hong Kong's meat intake has been steadily increasing and didn't reach UK-levels of intake in 1972 and US-levels of intake in 1967 [[2]](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/what-the-world-eats/). If the hypothesis is that meat causes higher mortality via chronic disease, then people who started eating that much meat during those time periods would barely even be old enough to contribute substantially higher mortality statistics at the time of this report anyway. So, while it's true that Hong Kong now eats a lot of meat and enjoys longer lifespans, Brian is not appreciating the base rate of historical meat consumption for this population.
+According to Brian's source, Hong Kong's meat intake has been steadily increasing and didn't reach UK-levels of intake in 1972 and US-levels of intake in 1967 [[2](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/what-the-world-eats/)]. If the hypothesis is that meat causes higher mortality via chronic disease, then people who started eating that much meat during those time periods would barely even be old enough to contribute substantially higher mortality statistics at the time of this report anyway. So, while it's true that Hong Kong now eats a lot of meat and enjoys longer lifespans, Brian is not appreciating the base rate of historical meat consumption for this population.
 
-As an aside, it is also interesting to note that those in Hong Kong who followed a non-ancestral "Portfolio diet" (which is characterized by low saturated fats, sodium, and dietary cholesterol, as well as higher plant proteins, vegetable oils, high fruits, vegetables, and whole grains) were at a lower risk of dying from all causes, as well as dying of CVD or cancer [[3]](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34959911/). In fact, multiple sensitivity analyses were done to remove the possibility for reverse causality, and the reductions in risk are still apparent.
+As an aside, it is also interesting to note that those in Hong Kong who followed a non-ancestral "Portfolio diet" (which is characterized by low saturated fats, sodium, and dietary cholesterol, as well as higher plant proteins, vegetable oils, high fruits, vegetables, and whole grains) were at a lower risk of dying from all causes, as well as dying of CVD or cancer [[3](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34959911/)]. In fact, multiple sensitivity analyses were done to remove the possibility for reverse causality, and the reductions in risk are still apparent.
 
 **Claim #2 (**[**5:13**](https://youtu.be/VYTjwPcNEcw?t=313)**):**
 
@@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ As an aside, it is also interesting to note that those in Hong Kong who followed
 
 **Red Herring**
 
-The aggregated difference in the lowest to highest red meat intake in this pooled analysis was ~60g/day, which is approximately two bites [[4]](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23902788/). It's unclear how this is capable of informing our judgements about the health value of red meat in the context of something like a Sapien Diet™. Not only that, but the contrast is occurring primarily at lower levels of intake.
+The aggregated difference in the lowest to highest red meat intake in this pooled analysis was ~60g/day, which is approximately two bites [[4](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23902788/)]. It's unclear how this is capable of informing our judgements about the health value of red meat in the context of something like a Sapien Diet™. Not only that, but the contrast is occurring primarily at lower levels of intake.
 
 ![][image2]
 [image2]: /blog/sapiendiet/image2.png 
@@ -68,18 +68,18 @@ Brian's own reference also confirms that meat intake in Asian populations is gen
 
 >_Per capita beef consumption has decreased to some degree in the past decade in the United States but still remains substantially higher than that in Asian countries. Beef consumption increased in China, Japan, and Korea from 1970 to 2007._
 
-In actuality, when we select Asian populations with the widest contrasts in red meat intake, with sound multivariable adjustment models, appropriate population ages, and adequate follow-up time, we see the increase in total mortality with red meat very clearly [[5]](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33320898/). Even when diet and lifestyle covariates are balanced between ranges of intake. These results are also consistent with results we see in American cohorts that also balance diet and lifestyle covariates reasonably well, such as the Nurse's Health Study [[6]](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22412075/).
+In actuality, when we select Asian populations with the widest contrasts in red meat intake, with sound multivariable adjustment models, appropriate population ages, and adequate follow-up time, we see the increase in total mortality with red meat very clearly [[5](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33320898/)]. Even when diet and lifestyle covariates are balanced between ranges of intake. These results are also consistent with results we see in American cohorts that also balance diet and lifestyle covariates reasonably well, such as the Nurse's Health Study [[6](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22412075/)].
 
 **Potential Contradiction**
 
-Additionally, Brian has [stated publicly](https://twitter.com/FoodLiesOrg/status/1419347985935257601?s=20&t=_2uz8-vTlkgxnFPP4DCqtg) that steak is a good source of iron and can protect against iron deficiency. This claim is in accord with the available evidence on red meat consumption and iron deficiency anemia, with unprocessed red meat associating with a 20% decreased risk of anemia in the UK Biobank cohort [[7]](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33648505/). Interestingly, unprocessed red meat was also associated with a statistically significant increase in the risk of many other diseases as well.
+Additionally, Brian has [stated publicly](https://twitter.com/FoodLiesOrg/status/1419347985935257601?s=20&t=_2uz8-vTlkgxnFPP4DCqtg) that steak is a good source of iron and can protect against iron deficiency. This claim is in accord with the available evidence on red meat consumption and iron deficiency anemia, with unprocessed red meat associating with a 20% decreased risk of anemia in the UK Biobank cohort [[7](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33648505/)]. Interestingly, unprocessed red meat was also associated with a statistically significant increase in the risk of many other diseases as well.
 
 ![][image4]
 [image4]: /blog/sapiendiet/image4.png 
 
 If the methods were sensitive enough to detect the inverse association with iron deficiency anemia, why not also conclude that the methods were also sensitive enough to detect the effect on heart disease as well? Why form differential beliefs about the causal nature of these associations?
 
-Furthermore, the association between red meat intake and heart disease is observable when meta-analyzed as well [[8]](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34284672/). For every 50g/day increase in red meat intake, there was a statistically significant dose-dependent relationship between red meat intake and heart disease.
+Furthermore, the association between red meat intake and heart disease is observable when meta-analyzed as well [[8](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34284672/)]. For every 50g/day increase in red meat intake, there was a statistically significant dose-dependent relationship between red meat intake and heart disease.
 
 Almost all of the most highly powered studies found positive associations between heart disease risk and red meat. Altogether, those studies also had the highest contrast in red meat, with Asian countries having the lowest contrast, as mentioned earlier. The majority of the included studies included adjustments for diet quality, used validated food frequency questionnaires, and had adequate follow-up time. The greatest increase in risk was found among studies with follow-up times exceeding 10 years. Removing all of the more poorly powered cohorts leaves us with a remarkably consistent relationship overall.
 
@@ -88,7 +88,7 @@ Almost all of the most highly powered studies found positive associations betwee
 
 This one change results in a 38.3% attenuation in the I², going from 41.3% to 13%. Which suggests that of the variance that was attributable to heterogeneity, poor statistical power could explain about 68% of it.
 
-Lastly, when cohort studies from around the world are meta-analyzed, we see the same thing for all cause mortality [[9]](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24148709/). Overall, there is a non-significant increase in all-cause mortality risk when comparing the lowest red meat intakes to the highest red meat intakes. Whiteman, et al. (1999) was the only study that found a statistically significant decrease in risk, and is the sole reason for the non-significant finding.
+Lastly, when cohort studies from around the world are meta-analyzed, we see the same thing for all cause mortality [[9](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24148709/)]. Overall, there is a non-significant increase in all-cause mortality risk when comparing the lowest red meat intakes to the highest red meat intakes. Whiteman, et al. (1999) was the only study that found a statistically significant decrease in risk, and is the sole reason for the non-significant finding.
 
 However, Whiteman, et al. also had one of the shortest follow-up times, one of the youngest populations (and thus one of the lowest death rates), and used a very poor adjustment model (only adjusting for three confounders). If a leave-one-out analysis is performed that excludes Whiteman, et al., a different picture is painted.
 
@@ -106,9 +106,9 @@ Anybody who wishes to complain about this reanalysis is free to try to explain t
 
 **Category Error**
 
-It's unclear what this means. As per the Duhem-Quine thesis, all scientific findings are correlational in one way or another [[10]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duhem%E2%80%93Quine_thesis). As such, the state of being "correlational" is not a differential property between any two modes of scientific investigation. For example, intervention studies are a form of observational study, because you're observing what happens when you intervene. So this objection just seems like confusion, because if there ever was a study that showed meat to be "bad", it would be straightforwardly correlational in nature. Assuming that what Brian means by "correlational studies" is actually just nutritional epidemiology, even that would still be wrong.
+It's unclear what this means. As per the Duhem-Quine thesis, all scientific findings are correlational in one way or another [[10](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duhem%E2%80%93Quine_thesis)]. As such, the state of being "correlational" is not a differential property between any two modes of scientific investigation. For example, intervention studies are a form of observational study, because you're observing what happens when you intervene. So this objection just seems like confusion, because if there ever was a study that showed meat to be "bad", it would be straightforwardly correlational in nature. Assuming that what Brian means by "correlational studies" is actually just nutritional epidemiology, even that would still be wrong.
 
-In 2021, Shwingshakl et al. published an enormous meta-analysis that compared the results of 950 nutritional randomized controlled trials to results from 750 prospective cohort studies [[11]](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34526355/). In the aggregate, results from nutritional epidemiology are consistent with results from nutritional randomized controlled trials approximately 92% of the time when comparing intakes to intakes (omitting supplements).
+In 2021, Shwingshakl et al. published an enormous meta-analysis that compared the results of 950 nutritional randomized controlled trials to results from 750 prospective cohort studies [[11](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34526355/)]. In the aggregate, results from nutritional epidemiology are consistent with results from nutritional randomized controlled trials approximately 92% of the time when comparing intakes to intakes (omitting supplements).
 
 ![][image8]
 [image8]: /blog/sapiendiet/image8.png 
@@ -136,7 +136,7 @@ This is just whacky, and it seems to be based on data from a 1950s textbook to w
 ![][image9]
 [image9]: /blog/sapiendiet/image9.png 
 
-First of all, if these two foods are weight-standardized, then the protein content of navy beans only makes sense if the navy beans were considered raw. Navy beans can't even be consumed raw because they're hard as fucking rocks. So, immediately this table is potentially misleading, having possibly presented an unrealistic comparison between these two foods. But, that's not the most egregious part of Brian's table. It's actually completely unnecessary to consider digestibility and biological value separately as Brian has [[12]](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26369006/).
+First of all, if these two foods are weight-standardized, then the protein content of navy beans only makes sense if the navy beans were considered raw. Navy beans can't even be consumed raw because they're hard as fucking rocks. So, immediately this table is potentially misleading, having possibly presented an unrealistic comparison between these two foods. But, that's not the most egregious part of Brian's table. It's actually completely unnecessary to consider digestibility and biological value separately as Brian has [[12](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26369006/)].
 
 > _"The PDCAAS value should predict the overall efficiency of protein utilization based on its two components, digestibility and biological value (BV; nitrogen retained divided by digestible nitrogen). The principle behind this approach is that the utilization of any protein will be first limited by digestibility, which determines the overall amount of dietary amino acid nitrogen absorbed, and BV describes the ability of the absorbed amino acids to meet the metabolic demand."_
 
@@ -145,14 +145,14 @@ Biological value is inherently captured by both of the standard protein quality
 ![][image10]
 [image10]: /blog/sapiendiet/image10.png 
 
-Aggregating DIAAS data across multiple protein foods paints a completely different picture than the one that Brian cobbled together [[13]](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28748078/)[[14]](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33333894/)[[15]](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34476569/)[[16]](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/fsn3.1809). Some plant proteins actually do quite well. But what are these numbers really representing? Ultimately the scores are going to be truncated by limiting amino acids more than any other parameter, and pairing complementary proteins will increase the DIAAS value [[17]](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34685808/). In fact, this is also true of the PDCAAS, as combining different lower-scoring plant proteins will often result in perfect scores [[18]](https://www.2000kcal.cz/lang/en/static/protein_quality_and_combining_pdcaas.php).
+Aggregating DIAAS data across multiple protein foods paints a completely different picture than the one that Brian cobbled together [[13](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28748078/)][[14](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33333894/)][[15](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34476569/)][[16](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/fsn3.1809)]. Some plant proteins actually do quite well. But what are these numbers really representing? Ultimately the scores are going to be truncated by limiting amino acids more than any other parameter, and pairing complementary proteins will increase the DIAAS value [[17](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34685808/)]. In fact, this is also true of the PDCAAS, as combining different lower-scoring plant proteins will often result in perfect scores [[18](https://www.2000kcal.cz/lang/en/static/protein_quality_and_combining_pdcaas.php)].
 
 ![][image11]
 [image11]: /blog/sapiendiet/image11.png 
 
 If beef is awesome in virtue of it getting a perfect score for protein digestibility, biological value, and limiting amino acids, then navy beans and wild rice must also be awesome too. If not, then I don't know what the hell Brian is talking about, or why he even brings the point up. It's also worth pointing out that certain animal foods, like collagen, actually score a zero on the PDCAAS as well.
 
-As an aside, even if plant protein was generally inferior to animal protein by some evaluative standard (such as the PDCAAS or DIAAS), it would not necessarily mean that it would be more desirable to consume animal protein over plant protein. That would depend on one's goals. In fact, animal protein is associated with a number of chronic diseases in a dose-dependent manner, whereas plant protein is inversely associated, also in a dose-dependent manner [[19]](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32699048/). This also holds true for Japanese populations, by the way [[20]](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31682257/).
+As an aside, even if plant protein was generally inferior to animal protein by some evaluative standard (such as the PDCAAS or DIAAS), it would not necessarily mean that it would be more desirable to consume animal protein over plant protein. That would depend on one's goals. In fact, animal protein is associated with a number of chronic diseases in a dose-dependent manner, whereas plant protein is inversely associated, also in a dose-dependent manner [[19](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32699048/)]. This also holds true for Japanese populations, by the way [[20](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31682257/)].
 
 **Claim #6 (**[**6:35**](https://youtu.be/VYTjwPcNEcw?t=395)**):**
 
@@ -160,7 +160,7 @@ As an aside, even if plant protein was generally inferior to animal protein by s
 
 **Red Herring**
 
-Here, Brian is referring to an analysis on red meat and colorectal cancer risk that was conducted by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) [[21]](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26514947/). If you dig into the IARC's methods, you can see that they had very specific, sound inclusion-exclusion criteria, which involved selecting cohort studies with the widest contrasts in red meat intake, clear definitions, sufficient event rates and participant numbers, and adequate adjustment models.
+Here, Brian is referring to an analysis on red meat and colorectal cancer risk that was conducted by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) [[21](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26514947/)]. If you dig into the IARC's methods, you can see that they had very specific, sound inclusion-exclusion criteria, which involved selecting cohort studies with the widest contrasts in red meat intake, clear definitions, sufficient event rates and participant numbers, and adequate adjustment models.
 
 >_A meta-analysis including data from 10 cohort studies reported a statistically significant dose-response association between consumption of red meat and/or processed meat and cancer of the colorectum. The relative risks of cancer of the colorectum were 1.17 (95% CI, 1.05-1.31) for an increase in consumption of red meat of 100 g/day and 1.18 (95% CI, 1.10-1.28) for an increase in consumption of processed meat of 50 g/day. Based on the balance of evidence, and taking into account study design, size, quality, control of potential confounding, exposure assessment, and magnitude of risk, an increased risk of cancer of the colorectum was seen in relation to consumption of red meat and of processed meat."
 
@@ -193,16 +193,16 @@ This is truly bizarre. It's incredibly unclear what Brian is trying to say here,
 
 **Equivocation**
 
-Firstly, this appears to be just a straight up equivocation of cancer types. Colorectal cancer and lung cancer are two different diseases, and the prevalence of these diseases are different in the general population. If Brian's criticism is that the relative risk of lung cancer from smoking is higher than the relative risk of colorectal cancer from red meat, then he's just confused. Massive differences in the magnitude of those effect estimates are expected, as the prevalence of a given disease will determine the maximum possible relative risk [[22]](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21402371/).
+Firstly, this appears to be just a straight up equivocation of cancer types. Colorectal cancer and lung cancer are two different diseases, and the prevalence of these diseases are different in the general population. If Brian's criticism is that the relative risk of lung cancer from smoking is higher than the relative risk of colorectal cancer from red meat, then he's just confused. Massive differences in the magnitude of those effect estimates are expected, as the prevalence of a given disease will determine the maximum possible relative risk [[22](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21402371/)].
 
 ![][image13]
 [image13]: /blog/sapiendiet/image13.png 
 
-Let's take a look at the prevalence of these diseases in Canada [[23]](https://cancer.ca/en/cancer-information/cancer-types.). The prevalence of lung cancer among Canadian non-smokers is 1 in 84 (1.19% prevalence). Prevalence of colorectal cancer, assuming red meat has nothing to do with colorectal cancer, is 1 in 16 (6.25% prevalence). The baseline prevalence of lung cancer is much smaller than the baseline prevalence of colorectal cancer, so comparing the two is dubious.
+Let's take a look at the prevalence of these diseases in Canada [[23](https://cancer.ca/en/cancer-information/cancer-types)]. The prevalence of lung cancer among Canadian non-smokers is 1 in 84 (1.19% prevalence). Prevalence of colorectal cancer, assuming red meat has nothing to do with colorectal cancer, is 1 in 16 (6.25% prevalence). The baseline prevalence of lung cancer is much smaller than the baseline prevalence of colorectal cancer, so comparing the two is dubious.
 
 In the case of lung cancer and colorectal cancer, the maximum possible relative risks would be ~53 and ~16, respectively. So it's not even mathematically possible for the relative risk of colorectal cancer from red meat to even approach the upper bounds for the relative risk of lung cancer from smoking that Brian submitted (assuming he meant 30x and not 30%).
 
-For this reason, it's best that we do an apples to apples comparison. In a massive 2009 analysis by Huxley, et al., which helped inform the IARC's analysis on meat and cancer, 26 cohort studies were included in their meta-analytic summation [[24]](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19350627/). Overall they showed a statistically significant 21% increase in risk of colorectal cancer with unprocessed red meat.
+For this reason, it's best that we do an apples to apples comparison. In a massive 2009 analysis by Huxley, et al., which helped inform the IARC's analysis on meat and cancer, 26 cohort studies were included in their meta-analytic summation [[24](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19350627/)]. Overall they showed a statistically significant 21% increase in risk of colorectal cancer with unprocessed red meat.
 
 However, they also included an analysis on smoking, which found a statistically significant 16% increase in the risk of colorectal cancer with smoking as well. Yes, that is right— there was a slightly stronger association between red meat and colorectal cancer than there was between smoking and colorectal cancer. But the two were likely non-inferior. Huxley et al. also found around the same magnitude of effect for many other exposures.
 
@@ -221,7 +221,7 @@ If Brian argues that red meat has never been studied in the context of a junk-fr
 
 Why should we be using anthropological data about ancestral diets to inform best practice in terms of modern diets for modern humans? And why is the property of being ancestral a reasonable sufficiency criteria for a food to be "better" than processed foods? This seems like a non sequitur.
 
-Favouring whole foods is heuristic, and not a rule. There are plenty of examples of processed foods being superior to whole foods, even foods that we could identify as ancestral. In fact, there are been specific analyses investigating the differential contributions of animal-based foods (red meat, poultry, fish, dairy, and eggs) and ultra-processed foods to disease risk within the context of a health-conscious population [[25]](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35199827/).
+Favouring whole foods is heuristic, and not a rule. There are plenty of examples of processed foods being superior to whole foods, even foods that we could identify as ancestral. In fact, there are been specific analyses investigating the differential contributions of animal-based foods (red meat, poultry, fish, dairy, and eggs) and ultra-processed foods to disease risk within the context of a health-conscious population [[25](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35199827/)].
 
 ![][image15]
 [image15]: /blog/sapiendiet/image15.png 
@@ -236,11 +236,11 @@ Overall, ultra-processed foods and animal foods are non-inferior to one another
 
 **False Claim**
 
-This claim is as hilarious as it is vague. Firstly, better compared to what? According to Brian's reference (which was an analyses of the association between White Oak Pastures' regenerative grazing methodology and carbon balance) it was assumed that carbon sequestration estimates were exclusively from beef, yet poultry accounted for almost half of the carcass weight (46.5%) of the entire system [[26]](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2020.544984/full). They also can’t even attribute the sequestration to cows because the study was cross-sectional in design.
+This claim is as hilarious as it is vague. Firstly, better compared to what? According to Brian's reference (which was an analyses of the association between White Oak Pastures' regenerative grazing methodology and carbon balance) it was assumed that carbon sequestration estimates were exclusively from beef, yet poultry accounted for almost half of the carcass weight (46.5%) of the entire system [[26](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2020.544984/full)]. They also can’t even attribute the sequestration to cows because the study was cross-sectional in design.
 
 This study isn't actually investigating temporal changes in soil carbon at all. To make matters worse, the author's darling figure, −4.4kg CO₂-e kg carcass weight−1 per year, was actually just produced from thin air, and the cross-sectional association between years of grazing and soil carbon stocks between pasturelands was just assumed to be reflecting grazing-mediated soil carbon sequestration. Utterly misleading sophistry.
 
-> _"Importantly, if we were to attribute the soil C sequestration across the chronosequence to only cattle, MSPR beef produced in this system would be a net sink of −4.4 kg CO2-e kg CW−1 annually."_
+> _Importantly, if we were to attribute the soil C sequestration across the chronosequence to only cattle, MSPR beef produced in this system would be a net sink of −4.4 kg CO2-e kg CW−1 annually._
 
 Even just ignoring the fact that this methodology creates mathematically atrocious pigs and chickens in terms of carbon balance in their model, the data provided suggests that 20 years worth of carbon sequestration are roughly equal to three years of plant composting. In second figure of the publication, they show a cross-sectional analysis of seven different degraded lands (previously used for crops) that are in the process of being restored over a varied number of years.
 
@@ -260,9 +260,9 @@ It's convenient that the time scale of the investigation by Rowntree, et al. cap
 
 Here we see three different scenarios for soil carbon sequestration rates from grazing agriculture. Even under the most generous estimates (the larger black hashed line), soil carbon sequestration plateaus at around 20 years.
 
-However, current estimates suggest that if we switch to more plant-predominant diets by the year 2050, we could reforest a large proportion of current pastureland, which acts as a substantial carbon sink (~547GtCO2) [[27]](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-00603-4). The effect of that over 30 years is to neutralize about 15 years of fossil fuel emissions and 12 years of total world GHG emissions.
+However, current estimates suggest that if we switch to more plant-predominant diets by the year 2050, we could reforest a large proportion of current pastureland, which acts as a substantial carbon sink (~547GtCO2) [[27](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-00603-4)]. The effect of that over 30 years is to neutralize about 15 years of fossil fuel emissions and 12 years of total world GHG emissions.
 
-If we switch to plant-predominant diets by 2050 we could sequester -14.7 GtCO2 per year by reforesting pasture land, compared to other agricultural methods that make use of grazing land for pasture. Merely the introduction of pasture grazing increases land use by almost double compared to a vegan agricultural system [[28]](https://experts.syr.edu/en/publications/carrying-capacity-of-us-agricultural-land-ten-diet-scenarios).
+If we switch to plant-predominant diets by 2050 we could sequester -14.7 GtCO2 per year by reforesting pasture land, compared to other agricultural methods that make use of grazing land for pasture. Merely the introduction of pasture grazing increases land use by almost double compared to a vegan agricultural system [[28](https://experts.syr.edu/en/publications/carrying-capacity-of-us-agricultural-land-ten-diet-scenarios)].
 
 ![][image18]
 [image18]: /blog/sapiendiet/image18.png 
@@ -273,7 +273,7 @@ In fact, there are stepwise decreases in the per-person carrying capacity of dif
 [image19]: /blog/sapiendiet/image19.png 
 
 
-As mentioned earlier in this article, there are plant agriculture methods that are also touted as "regenerative", that also may have greater soil carbon sequestration potential per hectare than current "regenerative" grazing livestock methods [[29]](https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms6012). It would be interesting to see a head-to-head comparison of wheat versus meat, using "regenerative" methodology, on soil carbon sequestration overall.
+As mentioned earlier in this article, there are plant agriculture methods that are also touted as "regenerative", that also may have greater soil carbon sequestration potential per hectare than current "regenerative" grazing livestock methods [[29](https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms6012)]. It would be interesting to see a head-to-head comparison of wheat versus meat, using "regenerative" methodology, on soil carbon sequestration overall.
 
 **Claim #10 (**[**13:15**](https://youtu.be/VYTjwPcNEcw?t=795)**):**
 
@@ -281,9 +281,9 @@ As mentioned earlier in this article, there are plant agriculture methods that a
 
 **False Claim**
 
-It has been calculated that even if all grasslands were repurposed for grazing, this could provide everyone on earth with 7-18g/day of animal protein per person on Earth [[30]](https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/publications/grazed-and-confused/). The authors also provided a hyper-idealized, candy-land scenario they also calculated that 80g/day of animal protein per person on Earth. However, this would require all pasturable land on Earth being used. As an aside, the authors also calculated an additional scenario that included waste from plant agriculture, but it probably won't be very relevant to Brian's idealized world, because plant agriculture would be extremely minimal on the Sapien Diet™.
+It has been calculated that even if all grasslands were repurposed for grazing, this could provide everyone on earth with 7-18g/day of animal protein per person on Earth [[30](https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/publications/grazed-and-confused/)]. The authors also provided a hyper-idealized, candy-land scenario they also calculated that 80g/day of animal protein per person on Earth. However, this would require all pasturable land on Earth being used. As an aside, the authors also calculated an additional scenario that included waste from plant agriculture, but it probably won't be very relevant to Brian's idealized world, because plant agriculture would be extremely minimal on the Sapien Diet™.
 
-The remaining two scenarios encounter some issues when we think of what would be required to sustain people on meat-heavy diets, because 80g of protein from the fattiest beef still would not provide enough calories per person. We would appear to need multiple planets. But we should use a grass-fed example to do the calculations, so I've chosen White Oak Pastures' ground beef as the example meat. We'll also be multiplying the results by 2.5 to account for the extra land used by rotational grazing and/or holistic management [[26]](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2020.544984/full).
+The remaining two scenarios encounter some issues when we think of what would be required to sustain people on meat-heavy diets, because 80g of protein from the fattiest beef still would not provide enough calories per person. We would appear to need multiple planets. But we should use a grass-fed example to do the calculations, so I've chosen White Oak Pastures' ground beef as the example meat. We'll also be multiplying the results by 2.5 to account for the extra land used by rotational grazing and/or holistic management [[26](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2020.544984/full)].
 
 ![][image20]
 [image20]: /blog/sapiendiet/image20.png 
@@ -298,19 +298,19 @@ Essentially, we would need to figure out a way to extend the pasturable land bey
 
 We're not even scratching the surface, though. The authors of 'Grazed and Confused?' likely did not consider the suitability of each grassland in their calculation, because current suitability thresholds are set for crop production, rather than livestock. The issue is that grass itself could be considered a crop, so it's unclear why suitability considerations that have been established for crop production wouldn't also apply to pasture-raised animal production.
 
-The IIASA/FAO define the suitability of a given grassland as a threshold of a 25% ratio of actual yield per acre and potential yield per acre [[31]](https://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/eprint/13290/). Had these suitability criteria been considered by the authors of 'Grazed and Confused?', their models likely would have produced much smaller estimates. This is because much of the available grassland is either unsuitable or poorly suitable to begin with.
+The IIASA/FAO define the suitability of a given grassland as a threshold of a 25% ratio of actual yield per acre and potential yield per acre [[31](https://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/eprint/13290/)]. Had these suitability criteria been considered by the authors of 'Grazed and Confused?', their models likely would have produced much smaller estimates. This is because much of the available grassland is either unsuitable or poorly suitable to begin with.
 
 ![][image22]
 [image22]: /blog/sapiendiet/image22.png 
 
-These suitability criteria have been used by livestock agriculture advocates to argue against the scalability of crop agriculture and for the scalability of grazing-based livestock agriculture [[32]](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2211912416300013). However, [Avi Bitterman](https://twitter.com/AviBittMD) demonstrated on his [Discord server](https://discord.gg/YtfQNPnk) that these individuals are not symmetrically applying this standard and it would actually turn out that current "regenerative" grazing systems wouldn't be likely to even meet the suitability standards themselves.
+These suitability criteria have been used by livestock agriculture advocates to argue against the scalability of crop agriculture and for the scalability of grazing-based livestock agriculture [[32](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2211912416300013)]. However, [Avi Bitterman](https://twitter.com/AviBittMD) demonstrated on his [Discord server](https://discord.gg/YtfQNPnk) that these individuals are not symmetrically applying this standard and it would actually turn out that current "regenerative" grazing systems wouldn't be likely to even meet the suitability standards themselves.
 
-According to figures produced by White Oak Pastures, their "regenerative" grazing system is far less efficient than conventional feedlot approaches [[33]](https://blog.whiteoakpastures.com/hubfs/WOP-LCA-Quantis-2019.pdf). Overall, White Oak Pastures uses 150% more land than conventional approaches to yield only about 20% of what a conventional farm can produce, and only 90% of the average slaughter weight.
+According to figures produced by White Oak Pastures, their "regenerative" grazing system is far less efficient than conventional feedlot approaches [[33](https://blog.whiteoakpastures.com/hubfs/WOP-LCA-Quantis-2019.pdf)]. Overall, White Oak Pastures uses 150% more land than conventional approaches to yield only about 20% of what a conventional farm can produce, and only 90% of the average slaughter weight.
 
 ![][image23]
 [image23]: /blog/sapiendiet/image23.png 
 
-This would give us a "suitability" estimate of around 7%, which would likely drastically reduce the amount of grassland that would be considered suitable for "regenerative" grazing agriculture as well. It would be doubly important to adhere to this standard when critiquing "regenerative" plant agricultural methods, in order to ensure an apples-to-apples comparison [[29]](https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms6012).
+This would give us a "suitability" estimate of around 7%, which would likely drastically reduce the amount of grassland that would be considered suitable for "regenerative" grazing agriculture as well. It would be doubly important to adhere to this standard when critiquing "regenerative" plant agricultural methods, in order to ensure an apples-to-apples comparison [[29](https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms6012)].
 
 **Claim #11 (**[**13:54**](https://youtu.be/VYTjwPcNEcw?t=834)**):**
 
@@ -320,7 +320,7 @@ This would give us a "suitability" estimate of around 7%, which would likely dra
 
 Here, Brian presents us a with figure from the USDA showing the available cropland in the United States as of 2007, and suggests that we simply have enough land for "regenerative" grazing. No analysis or even conceptual model of how this could be done was actually provided. He just expects us to take it for granted that the claim is true. But is it actually true?
 
-As with the issues for this narrative that were entailed from the land requirement estimates detailed in the 'Grazed and Confused?' report, this narrative again encounters similar issues here. Firstly, a complete grazing agriculture scenario has been modeled, and the results suggest that the United States wouldn't get anywhere close to plausibly being able to meet their current demand for beef with grazing agriculture [[34]](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aad401). We'd simply need more land. About 30% more land.
+As with the issues for this narrative that were entailed from the land requirement estimates detailed in the 'Grazed and Confused?' report, this narrative again encounters similar issues here. Firstly, a complete grazing agriculture scenario has been modeled, and the results suggest that the United States wouldn't get anywhere close to plausibly being able to meet their current demand for beef with grazing agriculture [[34](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aad401)]. We'd simply need more land. About 30% more land.
 
 > _"Increases in cattle population, placements, and slaughter rates are demonstrated in figure 2. The increased slaughtering and placement numbers would also require a 24% increase in the size of the national beef cow-calf herd, proportional to the increased annual grass-finishing placement rate, in order to provide additional cattle to stock the grass-finishing stage. Increases in both the cow-calf herd and the grass-finishing population together would result in a total increase to the US cattle population of an additional 23 million cattle, or 30% more than the current US beef cattle population as a whole"_
 
@@ -339,13 +339,13 @@ If Brian wants to criticize vegans for indulging idealized pie-in-the-sky fantas
 
 It's not clear what point this is trying to make. It seems like a failed appeal to hypocrisy to me. But, let's try to tackle the proposition in the most charitable way possible. Let's assume that Brian means to say that the Sapien Diet™ leads to fewer animal deaths than vegan diets that rely on plant agriculture (which is a claim that he has made before). In this case, this is just an empirical claim and needs to be supported by some sort of evidence.
 
-In Brian's presentation, he supports this claim with a study of wood mouse predation after harvest, which showed that up to 80% of mice were preyed upon by predators upon the harvesting of cereal crops [[35]](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/000632079390060E?via%3Dihub). What Brian isn't taking into account is that this can actually be used to are for less mouse predation on cropland as opposed to pastureland. Let me explain.
+In Brian's presentation, he supports this claim with a study of wood mouse predation after harvest, which showed that up to 80% of mice were preyed upon by predators upon the harvesting of cereal crops [[35](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/000632079390060E?via%3Dihub)]. What Brian isn't taking into account is that this can actually be used to are for less mouse predation on cropland as opposed to pastureland. Let me explain.
 
 If you cut down your crop, you will expose the mice to predation. This is true. However, this also applies to pastureland. On pastureland, there is no substantial amount of tall forage that mice can use for shelter. The mice are exposed all year round. Which actually allows for the possibility that cropland could temporarily shelter mice from predators in a way that pastureland can't.
 
 Furthermore, during [my debate](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8p39Gwct1Y) with Brian, his cited evidence was the single cow that was killed when he paid a visit to his friend's cattle farm. Needless to say, this is not very good evidence, and this is not the evidence we will be using to steelman Brian's position. Instead, let's actually look at literature that compares the wildlife carrying capacity of plant verses grazing agricultural scenarios.
 
-In 2020, Tucker et al. published a comprehensive comparative analysis of mammalian populations across a number of human-modified areas, such as cropland and pastureland [[36]](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ecog.05126). Overall, their findings suggest that there is higher taxonomic diversity with increasing pastureland as opposed to increasing cropland.
+In 2020, Tucker et al. published a comprehensive comparative analysis of mammalian populations across a number of human-modified areas, such as cropland and pastureland [[36](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ecog.05126)]. Overall, their findings suggest that there is higher taxonomic diversity with increasing pastureland as opposed to increasing cropland.
 
 ![][image25]
 [image25]: /blog/sapiendiet/image25.png 
diff --git a/frontend/src/Pages/Blog.elm b/frontend/src/Pages/Blog.elm
index cefecfb..774770a 100755
--- a/frontend/src/Pages/Blog.elm
+++ b/frontend/src/Pages/Blog.elm
@@ -36,6 +36,7 @@ import Config.Helpers.Response
 import Config.Helpers.Viewport exposing (resetViewport)
 import Config.Pages.Blog.Records.HunterGatherers exposing (articleHunterGatherers)
 import Config.Pages.Blog.Records.NagraGoodrich exposing (articleNagraGoodrich)
+import Config.Pages.Blog.Records.QuackSmashing exposing (articleQuackSmashing)
 import Config.Pages.Blog.Records.SapienDiet exposing (articleSapienDiet)
 import Config.Pages.Blog.Records.SeedOils exposing (articleSeedOils)
 import Config.Pages.Blog.Types exposing (..)
@@ -152,7 +153,8 @@ blogList device =
                 _ ->
                     List.map desktopBlogMaker
               )
-                [ articleNagraGoodrich
+                [ articleQuackSmashing
+                , articleNagraGoodrich
                 , articleSapienDiet
                 , articleSeedOils
                 , articleHunterGatherers
@@ -259,7 +261,7 @@ articleMaker article =
 infoRow : String -> String -> Element msg
 infoRow label value =
     row [ width fill ]
-        [ el [ width <| px 105 ] <|
+        [ el [ width <| px 85 ] <|
             paragraph
                 [ F.color colourTheme.textLightOrange
                 , paragraphSpacing
@@ -285,5 +287,5 @@ articleRows article =
     [ infoRow "Author:" article.articleAuthor
     , infoRow "Published:" article.articlePublished
     , infoRow "Duration:" (String.fromInt (wordCount article.articleBody // 225) ++ " minutes")
-    , infoRow "Word Count:" (String.fromInt (wordCount article.articleBody))
+    , infoRow "Words:" (String.fromInt (wordCount article.articleBody))
     ]
diff --git a/frontend/src/Pages/Blog/Quacksmashing.elm b/frontend/src/Pages/Blog/Quacksmashing.elm
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..33e7dad
--- /dev/null
+++ b/frontend/src/Pages/Blog/Quacksmashing.elm
@@ -0,0 +1,195 @@
+module Pages.Blog.Quacksmashing exposing (Model, Msg, page)
+
+import Config.Data.Identity exposing (pageNames)
+import Config.Helpers.CardFormat
+    exposing
+        ( cardContentSpacing
+        , cardFormatter
+        , cardMaker
+        , cardSubTitleMaker
+        , cardTitleMaker
+        , desktopCardMaker
+        , desktopImageBoxSize
+        , desktopImageSize
+        , fieldSpacer
+        , mobileCardMaker
+        , mobileImageBoxSize
+        , mobileImageSize
+        , topLevelBox
+        )
+import Config.Helpers.Format exposing (..)
+import Config.Helpers.Header
+    exposing
+        ( Header
+        , headerMaker
+        )
+import Config.Helpers.Markdown exposing (..)
+import Config.Helpers.References exposing (makeReference)
+import Config.Helpers.Response
+    exposing
+        ( pageList
+        , topLevelContainer
+        )
+import Config.Helpers.StrengthBar
+    exposing
+        ( barMaker
+        , barPadding
+        )
+import Config.Helpers.ToolTip exposing (..)
+import Config.Helpers.Viewport exposing (resetViewport)
+import Config.Pages.Blog.Records.QuackSmashing exposing (articleQuackSmashing)
+import Config.Pages.Blog.Types exposing (BlogArticle)
+import Config.Pages.Contact.Types exposing (..)
+import Config.Pages.Interviews.Types exposing (..)
+import Config.Pages.Products.Types exposing (..)
+import Config.Style.Colour exposing (colourTheme)
+import Config.Style.Transitions
+    exposing
+        ( hoverFontDarkOrange
+        , transitionStyleFast
+        , transitionStyleSlow
+        )
+import Effect exposing (Effect)
+import Element as E exposing (..)
+import Element.Background as B
+import Element.Border as D
+import Element.Font as F
+import Html
+import Html.Attributes as H exposing (style)
+import Layouts
+import Page exposing (Page)
+import Route exposing (Route)
+import Shared exposing (..)
+import View exposing (View)
+
+
+page : Shared.Model -> Route () -> Page Model Msg
+page shared route =
+    Page.new
+        { init = init
+        , update = update
+        , subscriptions = subscriptions
+        , view = view shared
+        }
+        |> Page.withLayout toLayout
+
+
+toLayout : Model -> Layouts.Layout Msg
+toLayout model =
+    Layouts.Navbar {}
+
+
+
+-- INIT
+
+
+type alias Model =
+    {}
+
+
+init : () -> ( Model, Effect Msg )
+init () =
+    ( {}
+    , Effect.none
+    )
+
+
+
+-- UPDATE
+
+
+type Msg
+    = NoOp
+
+
+update : Msg -> Model -> ( Model, Effect Msg )
+update msg model =
+    case msg of
+        NoOp ->
+            ( model
+            , Effect.none
+            )
+
+
+
+-- SUBSCRIPTIONS
+
+
+subscriptions : Model -> Sub Msg
+subscriptions model =
+    Sub.none
+
+
+
+-- VIEW
+
+
+view : Shared.Model -> Model -> View Msg
+view shared model =
+    { title = pageNames.pageHyperBlog ++ " (quackSmashing)"
+    , attributes = []
+    , element = articleContainer shared.device
+    }
+
+
+articleContainer : Device -> Element msg
+articleContainer device =
+    topLevelContainer (articleList device)
+
+
+articleList : Device -> Element msg
+articleList device =
+    column
+        (case ( device.class, device.orientation ) of
+            _ ->
+                pageList
+        )
+    <|
+        List.concat
+            [ (case ( device.class, device.orientation ) of
+                _ ->
+                    List.map articleMaker
+              )
+                [ articleQuackSmashing ]
+            ]
+
+
+articleMaker : BlogArticle -> Element msg
+articleMaker article =
+    column
+        topLevelBox
+        [ cardMaker
+            [ cardTitleMaker (String.toUpper articleQuackSmashing.articleName)
+            , cardFormatter
+                [ cardContentSpacing
+                    [ column
+                        fieldSpacer
+                        [ cardSubTitleMaker
+                            [ articleImage articleQuackSmashing.articleImage
+                            , renderDeviceMarkdown articleQuackSmashing.articleBody
+                            , articleReferences article
+                            ]
+                        ]
+                    ]
+                ]
+            ]
+        ]
+
+
+articleReferences : BlogArticle -> Element msg
+articleReferences article =
+    column
+        [ width fill
+        , height fill
+        , paddingEach
+            { top = 10
+            , right = 0
+            , bottom = 0
+            , left = 0
+            }
+        ]
+        [ column [ width fill, F.size 15, spacing 10 ] <|
+            List.map2 (\x y -> makeReference x y)
+                article.articleReferences
+                (List.range 1 (List.length article.articleReferences))
+        ]
diff --git a/frontend/static/blog/quacksmashing.png b/frontend/static/blog/quacksmashing.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..af60fc3
Binary files /dev/null and b/frontend/static/blog/quacksmashing.png differ
diff --git a/frontend/static/blog/quacksmashingthumb.png b/frontend/static/blog/quacksmashingthumb.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..ca378ab
Binary files /dev/null and b/frontend/static/blog/quacksmashingthumb.png differ