In an argument, if you're trying to convince the other person to support your beliefs, you wouldn't use clearly biased sources like you did here. I have no argument with you specifically but just pointing it out for the future that people will dismiss any biased sources you give them, which is probably not what you want the outcome to be in an argumentative fashion.
You mean Kaiser Permanente? And Harvard Medical School? And The American Institute for Cancer Research? And the British Dietetic Association? And the Mayo Clinic?
The site you linked is affiliated with vegan causes, is it not? Just because the sources are from those institutions does not mean they aren't cherry picked for that specific cause. I can also quote journals with conclusions justifying omnivorous consumption as well [0] but those would be just as cherry picked.
Mate, the website is just a collection of links to the actual research. I’m being asked for sources, I give tons of very credible sources, and your retort is to just claim that now they are cherry picked?
Sure, we can ALWAYS find a source that supports whatever claim we want to make. But let’s look at the general scientific consensus.
The overwhelming majority of research indicates that veganism is perfectly healthy. That’s what I linked! Your single journalistic summary of summary about non-causal associations between meat eating and depression don’t undo the general scientific consensus.