There's a substantial hole in the logical argument of the article "a substantial portion of these deaths could be prevented". Obviously everyone studied will d

There's a substantial hole in the logical argument of the article "a substantial portion of these deaths could be prevented". Obviously everyone studied will die despite the articles implication that giving up steak results in eternal life. They'll just die of something else. It is also not intuitive that merely not dying from a cardio problem will result in a longer life. Surely you can eat less meat and be less fat merely by skipping some meals and smoking a pack or two of cigs or dipping tobacco, and it seems like cardio death rates would drop, but overall death rate due to lung cancer would probably increase to a net systemic higher level. It doesn't have to be that extreme. Maybe something as simple as replacing a bloodthirsty steak with a nice glass of vegan corn syrup soda could cause a net increase in death rates while slightly dropping cardio death rates. There are also peculiar side issues such as declaring fish to be healthy not-meat means mercury intake would explode and the fisheries will be wiped out sooner than if we didn't. The net long term effect of wiping out the fisheries for all time might be worse than merely eating land based meat for that time interval. Finally there are peculiar geographic problems where urban vegans absolutely refuse to admit there is some land suitable solely for beef production, or the hipster quinoa fad which for a grain isn't as bad as most but the fad primarily resulted in starvation in south america.