Despite the official-sounding name, nutritionfacts.org is run by Dr. Michael Greger, a passionate advocate of veganism and animal rights. This doesn't mean it should be dismissed, but it is at its root a political project — it is by no means neutral or objective with regards to the science.
The 200+ volunteers working with Dr Gregor have never even mentioned animal rights as far as I remember and Ive reviewed personally most of what they have published.
It is as unpolitical as you can get - a volunteer group doing an ongoing literature review of nutrition papers and publishing their condensed findings in video and constantly updated book form.
So yes it does aim to be objective with regards to science, thats the whole point. Which you would know if you spent more than 5 minutes researching before blessing the world with your knowledge.
It doesn’t take more than five minutes to realize that nutritionfacts.org is purely one-sided. You can’t find a SINGLE piece of science on there that disagrees with vegan orthodoxy.
What is the likelihood that this is the result of an evenhanded look at a broad range of scientific literature, vs. a careful cherry-picking of evidence to support a predetermined conclusion?
Here’s a trick: if you’re the only person who thinks a complex science is clear cut and obvious, maybe you’re the one who is missing something.
