debate

so your saying there could be variables that arent being accounted for in this? I'm open to that being the case, sure, but i don't see why pubmed is better then a website that is created for searching scientific papers, and it even evaluates the study to show there are no conflicts of interest if you want a metaanalaysis i can give you this famous one https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4191896/ i don't really understand why a diet that literally reduces your risk of all cause mortality is less then because it can require supplementation (which all diets require)

@momoichi I read ur other article that u linked about cardiovascular diseases, I would agree with you that in Ischemic heart cases and liver problems we ask patients to avoid meat. Every diet has its benefits, and vegan diets are really beneficial in certain diseases more. If u look at the full results u will see that it says "There was no significant difference in overall (all-cause) mortality between the diet group" and it also shows many cases where low meat eaters and fish eaters have more health benefits than vegans or non-vegans. Eg. Pancreatic cancers, respiratory diseases, and other causes of mortality.

All diets don't require supplements. The very reason we take supplements is cause when a diet does not provide us the balanced nutrients ^^

but heart disease is the biggest killer in America. can you show me where it cites that its superior with those illnesses?

meat is artificially fortified with nutrients. thats a form of supplementation. milk is fortified unnaturally as well, so you cant tell me you arent eating supplements.

I was saying that it had less participants. You need atleast 100+ participants in a data if u r representing a country with 93% accuracy and atleast 400 participants if u need 95% accuracy

And Pubmed is a better site cause it is heavily peer reviewed and well recognized all over the world. It's similar to NEJM journal of medicine.