[dog_boxer72]

If the study had said eating meat was essential for our pre-historic development they probably just wouldn’t publish it. Impartiality is hard.

[FrustratedMonky]

Sure. But there are plenty of "Carnivore", or "Keto" sites that do not publish studies showing the benefits of fiber or vegetables. It goes both ways, the plant people aren't more biased.

If a study comes out saying meat is great, "keto" sites promote it.

If a study comes out saying plants are great, "plant" sites promote it.

I don't think a site called 'plantbasednews' is hiding their bias.

[dog_boxer72]

Yes that’s why I would prefer studies done by some history department which at least theoretically is only biased towards finding out the truth

[FrustratedMonky]

I think the point is, that the study itself was fine, you can't discount it because you don't like the sites that report on it. The site that is 'biased' is reporting on a study that backs up what they want to promote, but that doesn't invalidate the underlying study. They didn't fund this study, and put pressure on skewing the results, they are just writing an article about it.