You are actually everything that is wrong with the animal rights community. Your type of blind following, passion before fact seeking knowledge, is why people discredit us.

I’m not going to address everything point for point that you said, because it’s all such complete and utter bullshit, but Ill hit the main points, and then show how your supportive articles, dont actually support you at all. (i’m pretty sure you didn’t actually read them either)

When did I say you weren’t a “real” vegan?

Yes, ‘most’ candies aren’t healthy, even in moderation. see the use of the word ‘most’ there. Holy shit, Most! Meaning, SOME will be okay, meaning MODER-FUCKING-ATION. Jesus christ youre dense.

“Just because meat helped us evolve into who we are does not mean that it's going to continue helping us evolve. It also doesn't mean that it's healthy.”

Regarding evolution: If homo-erctus was living on nothing but Faygo and cheetos, I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t have lived long enough to evolved. Although, arguably, both of these could be fine in moderation….

And then your articles. Had you actually read them, you would see that they just discredit everything you’re championing.

I’ll TLDR it for you, as evidently you didn’t read them.

The general conclusion of BOTH articles is that you should LIMIT your meat consumption, not that ALL MEAT IS BAD ALWAYS. You see, there is a difference in LIMITING, and ELIMINATING. I’m not sure why you can’t figure that out.

IN fact, to LIMIT something is to MODERATE it. FUCKING MODERATION.

Anyways, if you’re still reading, which I doubt, here are quotes from your articles, that dont support your thesis.

“There is general agreement that red meat consumption increases the risk of colon or colorectal cancer. This was the only food association with cancer that was labeled “convincing” in the recent report from the World Cancer Research Fund, American Institute for Cancer Research…”

(meaning chicken, pork, fucking veal, duck, dog, cat, whatever is “not convincing”, and these are pretty ok in moderation)

“…There are several hypotheses about mechanisms for an effect of meat (48), but the evidence is as yet not compelling for any.”’

(meaning, vegans are generally more health conscious, which may lead to the benefits despite, or in conjunction with their diets, this is further expanded later here:)

“One interpretation is that British vegetarians have an advantage compared with the general population but that other health-conscious subjects manage equal benefits without totally removing meat from the diet.”

(And if you read the conclusion, all they could figure out is that a) red meat in particular shows some causation, although it differs from the US and the UK, and that further studies are need. They also again, talk about the over all health consciousness of veg*ns and how that may skew the data. and FURTHER -more importantly to you citing things that disagree with you, that health conscious meat eaters can have similar benefits )

This isn’t saying your thesis, ‘all meat in any quantity is bad for you’. Not even close.

article two first paragraph -if you actually read what your referencing, which you clearly didn’t.

“Our review of the 6 studies found the following trends: 1) a very low meat intake was associated with a significant decrease in risk of death in 4 studies, a nonsignificant decrease in risk of death in the fifth study, and virtually no association in the sixth study; 2) 2 of the studies in which a low meat intake significantly decreased mortality risk also indicated that a longer duration (≥ 2 decades) of adherence to this diet contributed to a significant decrease in mortality risk and a significant 3.6-y (95% CI: 1.4, 5.8 y) increase in life expectancy; and 3) the protective effect of a very low meat intake seems to attenuate after the ninth decade. Some of the variation in the survival advantage in vegetarians may have been due to marked differences between studies in adjustment for confounders, the definition of vegetarian, measurement error, age distribution, the healthy volunteer effect, and intake of specific plant foods by the vegetarians.”

(low meat intake = eating meat in moderation)

(again, similar to the last article they acknowledge that this data may be skewed by the demographics, i.e. veg*ns living in affluent nations, and in general being more healthy because/or regardless, of diet. )

“It is noteworthy that prospective studies relating diet to mortality tend to be conducted in affluent nations in which there is a low prevalence of meatless diets [≈6% follow meatless diets in the United States (14)]—a design feature that can substantially limit the statistical power to detect a relation between meatless diets and survival. “

(and then their conclusion, in which they talk about low meat benefits for mortality)

“A summary of the findings from the 6 studies that directly related very low intake of all meats to all-cause mortality is shown in Table 1⇑. Five of the 6 studies indicated a decrease (from a 25% decrease up to almost a 2-fold decrease) in risk for very low meat intake relative to higher meat consumption. “

So yeah, please, FIND ONE fucking peer reviewed article that says that ANY amount of meat is bad for you. Please.