It has been thoroughly talked about (except for those trying to push an agenda) that nearly any diet related study is severely flawed. In most situations we ei

It has been thoroughly talked about (except for those trying to push an agenda) that nearly any diet related study is severely flawed. In most situations we either just simply can't collect data for a long enough period of time, struggle with people simply having different micro-biomes, or that when you make a change it often also has other unrelated changes that may be the actual cause instead of the change itself. For example, if you eat less meat you will need to get your nutrients from other sources. Those other sources may be more veggies, beans, etc. So it may not necessarily be related to meat on its own but because of the additional other things. That is something that you could get more of while still eating meat. If we want to have a moral conversation about eating meat, sure. But trying to bring up flawed studies can undermine your entire argument and make people less inclined to engage on the other conversations since you started your argument from a flawed place in the first place. Edit: Another example that often comes up, if someone is choosing to make healthier options with their food they may likely also be trying to be more active. Those 2 things are not necessarily related but are often done at the same time. How do you actually outline which of the 2 is actually benefiting the person? Edit again: Going further, look at just how easy it is for the food industry to get a study to show what they want, to support that their supplements or whatever other product is, is actually good for you. Last Edit: I find it quite interesting that in recent comments you complained about other studies being focused on Mice (and seemingly implying that it weakens their argument) and here you are citing a study being done on Mice without calling that out specifically?