The pot calling the kettle black, this review itself reveals lack of education, research, experience, and science. Apparently, this reviewer hasn't tried the diet and hasn't observed others who have (reviewer lacks experience), and hasn't studied the well-documented research that has been done on such a diet and its effects on the teeth (reviewer lacks education and research). The one supposed example ("death by toothache") that the reviewer cites does not even involve this diet; it's about a tooth that went unaddressed by anything at all.
The irony is that this reviewer's review is precisely what is based on intuition: blind faith that, if the information in this book were true, then the American Dental Association would be implementing it. If that is not the reviewer's main reasoning, then I can't tell what is. The reviewer never cites any relevant education, research, experience, or science. What science can this reviewer point to as evidence that Rami Nagel's protocol is ineffective?
Beware of false reasoning, which often takes a straw-man argument: 1) citing the "death from toothache" to discredit Rami Nagel, whose daughter is alive and well; 2) comparing Nagel's protocol to intuitive healing, though Nagel's protocol is drawn from tangible research, experience, and observations. And be alert when you see the ad hominem attacks: attacking someone personally, as in calling him a quack, yet not assessing his protocol or its results.
These are reflex tactics to discard any education, research, experience, and science that challenges the reviewer's intuitive faith in authority -- in the American Dental Association. The American Dental Association is but a dominant trade organization, and, despite its dominance, it is not a disinterested philanthropic society or even a government agency; it is a private trade organization established and maintained specifically to support and advance its own brand of professional practices and market share. There is nothing inherently wrong with that; what is wrong is mistaking a trade organization, no matter how powerful or having the word "American" in it, as the keeper all truth in its whole field.
About teeth, this mistake is especially misleading because training of ADA dentists is not even training or specialization in the field of preventing tooth decay per se: a dentist is a doctor of dental surgery. Cavity prevention is effectively counter to the American Dental Association's trade, mainly the implementation of dental surgery to address existent damage. (ADA endorsements of particular corporate toothpastes, versus traditional tooth cleansers, and dentists' performing regular dental cleanings, though they make one's teeth gleam and keep one in touch with the dentist, do not significantly PREVENT cavities.)
The greatest argument against Nagel's protocol that this review applies is a tacit reliance on social proof: the ADA is big and powerful, and most people follow the ADA, and the ADA doesn't use Nagel's protocol, and so Nagel's protocol is invalid -- until the ADA researches and endorses Nagel's protocol. If that's not the reviewer's implied reasoning, then I don't know what is. The reviewer gives no education, research, experience, or science at all against the efficacy of Nagel's protocol.