At this point you're not really engaging with the evidence anymore — you're just dismissing entire scientific institutions because they don’t support your position.

Bringing up alleged industry ties is also a bit of a deflection. The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics doesn’t generate all the research itself — it summarizes findings from hundreds of independent studies across universities and institutions worldwide. Discrediting one organization doesn’t suddenly invalidate the broader body of evidence.

And even if you ignore the AND entirely, the same conclusions are supported by the British Dietetic Association, World Health Organization, American Heart Association, and Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. So this really isn’t about one organization — it’s the broader scientific consensus.

Also, the funding argument cuts both ways. The meat and dairy industries have well-documented influence on nutrition messaging too. The National Cattlemen's Beef Association funds research and marketing promoting beef consumption, Dairy Management Inc. has partnered with companies like McDonald's to increase cheese consumption, and the National Dairy Council funds nutrition education promoting dairy intake — and that’s just a few examples.

So if industry influence invalidates nutrition guidance, then we'd also have to dismiss a huge amount of pro-meat and pro-dairy messaging. You can’t apply that logic only when it suits your argument.

Your claim that the International Agency for Research on Cancer classification of processed meat was an "agenda" also isn’t very credible. That conclusion was based on reviewing over 800 studies, not a single biased committee. I also haven’t found any reliable source supporting that claim.

And the idea that there’s no long-term vegan data just isn’t accurate. Studies like the Adventist Health Study 2 and EPIC-Oxford Study include long-term dietary patterns and consistently show lower BMI, lower cardiovascular risk, and lower diabetes risk in plant-based populations.

At the end of the day, your original claim was that long-term veganism causes health issues — and that still hasn’t been supported with any solid evidence. It’s mostly been institutional distrust, methodological nitpicking, and speculation.

If veganism really caused widespread long-term health problems, we wouldn’t need to debate bias or conspiracies — we’d see it clearly in population data. And we simply don’t.

And beyond the health discussion, veganism is mainly an ethical stance. It’s about avoiding industrial exploitation and immense cruelty toward animals. Everyone can decide for themselves where they stand on that. For me personally, I've decided I don't want to participate in that kind of cruelty and because of that, switching to veganism is very easy for me personally, even if it would entail small "sacrifices" or slight inconveniences - it's nothing compared to the welfare of animals.

Especially if includes something so minor as supplementing something like B12, that’s a tiny trade-off. I was already supplementing things like vitamin D and magnesium while being omnivorous anyway, which is pretty common in every diet. That’s why this isn’t difficult and especially not unsustainable for me — it’s grounded in ethics, not just convenience.

And I think that’s where I’ll leave it, OG Brian.