The point wasn't to do a systematic review of the literature, but rather to counter your argument whereby those skeptical of the lipid hypothesis are equivalent to climate change deniers.
If you're actually interested in this stuff, I invite you to cultivate a genuine interest in the matter and use this nifty little link to get to all the paywalled papers your heart desires: http://sci-hub.io/
Further, I'd be happy to share what I think good guidelines are for separating wheat from chaff in nutritional epidemiology studies.
>Also, the B12 boogeyman? Just take a weekly supplement and be fine.
I mean no disrespect, but I find this answer to be as comical as it is widespread. In one fell swoop, you've (A) implied that vegan diets are not balanced (B) ignored the body of literature surrounding the (possible) toxicity of artificial vitamins (C) undermined your sustainability argument. Moreover, B12 is but one example; I again invite you to make liberal use of sci-hub, pubmed and google scholar.
>So now vegans are purportedly dying by the millions from B12 vitamin toxicity?
That's a very, very strange interpretation of what I wrote.
On the purely academic point, it's even more ridiculous in that one doesn't have to die from a bad diet in order for it to be unhealthy. Your comment is both a red-herring and a straw-man at the same time!
>The level to which someone will go to justify their addiction to animal foods is truly remarkable.
As I suspected, it's really not about health, is it?
## Edit, re your comment below:
I see the misunderstanding. You skipped the part where I said those where the first two results of a search that took me 5 seconds. You can find other examples pertaining to deficiencies in lean body mass, vitamin D, and (IIRC) testosterone in men. The cortisol literature also gives very mixed results, so while I suspect the causes are actually not related to veganism per se, I seriously question the purported protective effects thereupon.
Again, I've given you all the tools to learn about this on your own, but you'd apparently rather quote "plant positive" than cultivate an interest in science.
The point wasn't to do a systematic review of the literature, but rather to counter your argument whereby those skeptical of the lipid hypothesis are equivalent to climate change deniers.
If you're actually interested in this stuff, I invite you to cultivate a genuine interest in the matter and use this nifty little link to get to all the paywalled papers your heart desires: http://sci-hub.io/
Further, I'd be happy to share what I think good guidelines are for separating wheat from chaff in nutritional epidemiology studies.
>Also, the B12 boogeyman? Just take a weekly supplement and be fine.
I mean no disrespect, but I find this answer to be as comical as it is widespread. In one fell swoop, you've (A) implied that vegan diets are not balanced (B) ignored the body of literature surrounding the (possible) toxicity of artificial vitamins (C) undermined your sustainability argument. Moreover, B12 is but one example; I again invite you to make liberal use of sci-hub, pubmed and google scholar.