[gberardi]

While I agree with you and believe in the dangers of saturated fats and high cholesterol, those sites look only marginally more trustworthy than the one you are complaining against and seem to make assertions that also have nothing readily available to back them up. It is easy for a person to say "Wow, finding good info is hard because it seems anyone can post anything and make it look like fact" and give up on finding an ideal diet.

It's funny that once you go into it, you find that diet is a very complex thing. I've concluded that I shouldn't need a supplement because I would like to believe that God and/or nature provided everything we would need before there were drug companies. After that, I don't know if continuing a vegan diet would be ideal because to support that idea I have to do the same thing that you are complaining about: use "proof" supported by a minority of scientists.

According to The China Study, I am supposed to ignore studies that say "everything in moderation" or that dairy is good for me, but then I need to justify my choices the ones that support a whole foods, plant-based diet?

Don't get me wrong. I thought it was well explained, and as I said, I haven't found anything that indicates animal-based food is anything better than not definitively proven to be bad for me. But perhaps there is something to the idea that processed food is bad, and that unprocessed food is perfectly fine, even if it was animal-based? As the website seems to indicate, some studies are passed off as a condemnation against red meat when in fact they may be just a condemnation against processed meat. While I don't think I could believe all of the "facts" it supposes, I have friends who would have a hard time believing the "facts" about the health benefits of being a vegan. My getting a cold over Christmas break didn't help convince anyone, either. B-)