Negate issues--I would say, no. Suppose you ate an all-cracker diet and got scurvy. Your twin ate all crackers and some oranges. The oranges didn't negate something poisonous about crackers (at least in reversing the scurvy), it addressed a lack. You can't separate the effects from the conditions under which the effects occur. In the old genes or environment debate, the answer is no. Do genes or environment cause blah? No. It's always genes and environment. There are no "issues with consuming a high-fat diet in general," there are conditions under which fat might contribute to issues. Otherwise, you're defining the very historically abnormal modern diet pattern as sort of the universal baseline.

Gotta be grassfed, gotta be organic, gotta be "good fats"--okay, but most of the studies showing benefits to a very low carb diet are basically Atkins without these stipulations. And--if I switched to a 70 grams per day life without bread type diet, I'd likely gain weight, it's what's happened to me in the past--but on a population basis, what randomized studies have shown disagrees that low carb diets lose all their power unless the diet is very strictly ketogenic, moderate approaches do show benefit. Some people will do better on a stricter program--some people who could benefit from a looser approach won't even show up, putting across that the diet needs to be stricter than it does can make it a harder sell.