this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2025
1003 points (98.5% liked)
People Twitter
8450 readers
1990 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician. Archive.is the best way.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
you should have quoted their true position, instead of an expired one then.
It's really weird that it seems the overriding purpose for your account is to attack vegans. You also must be really desperate, to go so far out of your way to miss the point, seeing the trees for the forest. I chose that article because it contains policy positions from several health authorities, not just one. But sure, maybe it would have been better to quote the others if one of them is technically expired, despite the fact that they actually do support the same policies, just with different wordings and in different papers. But let's look at some of the others that were sourced, and you just completely ignored. From Dieticians of Canada:
From the Association of UK Dieticians:
From the UK NHS:
And I can go on with others. But you're probably already going out of your way for another bad faith argument. By attacking my comment on the grounds of that statement being "expired", you distracted from what is relevant and matters: are the claims true. And yes, they still are, and they will continue to be. Properly planned vegan diets are nutritionally adequate for all stages of life.
your uk dieticians link is referencing the same now-expired AND position
if this were true, the AND would not have removed that claim from their latest position.
And now you're just outright lying. They explain directly in the updated paper why they changed things around - something that was already addressed in one of the articles I linked you to. Either you didn't bother to read it, or as I said before, you are a liar.
Those topics are literally just outside the scope of that particular paper. There's nothing about the paper itself, or any other resource on any of their other websites to suggest it means they've changed their position. From their position paper on nutrition in child care:
And from another of their articles, reviewed on June 5th 2024:
but they weren't outside the scope of their previous position.
it's clear they are making a weaker claim.
No, they are not making a weaker claim at all, especially given they make the exact same claims on their other website I already linked to. You are seriously one of the most obnoxiously dishonest, bad faith actors I have ever come across. Get your head out of your ass.
if you don't like intellectual honesty and scientific rigor, I'll be happy to help you find the block button