McDougall is the same vegan activist who still hypes the discredited China Study as evidence animal protein causes heart disease.
Aside from the lack of originality, there is an ever-increasing amount of evidence demonstrating harm of such a diet.
Ha! What evidence? Can McDougal come up with any clinical trials that directly compare low-carb/paleo eating with his own recommendations?
The linked article cites a great many studies, but not a single one of them is a clinical trial directly testing low-carb diets. Some studied risk factors and claim a low-carb diet raises them, others noted spikes in cardiovascular events and other diseases just when low-carb diets were becoming popular or when the population as a whole ate less wheat.
Then to top it all off, he links to that obnoxious low-carb vs plant-based video which compares images of proponents of both sides, claiming the "paleo-pushers" are fat, while the vegan gurus are all lean (actually, more like victims of malnutrition). As if this proves anything. The video mistakenly does not use Mary Enig's photo when mentioning her book (she's actually thin) and conveniently ignores many of the major players in Paleo like Sisson and Robb Wolf. But McDougall himself appears in this video more than once as a shining example, so it's no surprise he's just overjoyed to show it to you, despite his immense confirmation bias rumbling in the background.
Why can't McDougall just perform a study that directly compares a low-carb diet with a high-carb vegan diet with coronary disease risk factors? The answer is that these studies HAVE been done, and every single one of them shows greater improvement in risk factors on a low-carb diet.
No clinical study has shown that a high-carb diet improves coronary risk factors more than low-carb. I challenge McDougall to find one. Because of this fact, McDougall is left to chip around the edges with arguments about weak statistical correlations, observational studies, experiments on lab animals, and clinical studies performing tests which are so far removed from reality their conclusions are irrelevant.
McDougall talks a good talk, but he'll never tackle the issue head on and call for a direct clinical study, because he knows he will be discredited.