Again, a vegan or vegetarian lifestyle is only workable with supplements. It doesn't matter if 80% of the population were either of those because truth or facts don't change based on the amount of people believing it. A vegan or vegetarian wouldn't be able to live in the wilderness long term even with all of the veggies or fruits that they could want. They have to take supplements because of how unhealthy it is. They are no different than flat earthers because they deny basic facts but about what the human body needs to sustain itself in the long term. 

Perhaps some perspective could help

https://www.thinkingnutrition.com.au/broccoli-bad-for-you/
Long-lived people don’t avoid dairy foods, or soy or gluten. They don’t calculate the glycaemic index of their meals. They don’t ruminate on if the grains they are eating are stopping the absorption of other nutrients. They don’t take supplements. They eat. They move. They enjoy. They socially engage with their community in person. They live.

You can villify meat and dairy products all day, in the end it hasn't stopped earth's population explosion in the slightest.

Suggestion:  trim down your quotes, your reply was about 80% quotes!  New content is the reason to read a message, not re-reading old ones.  Quotes are useful, but shouldn't be the majority of the content.

Since you'd repeatedly made the assertion, but without any citations for me to consider, I did a web search and couldn't find any peer reviewed and broadly accepted evidence for your claim of a risk to thyroid on a vegan diet.  Is it something you're assuming or is there any good science behind it?  Veganism dates back thousands of years, and there are lots of people who've never eaten meat in their life.  I'm unaware of any epidemic of buddhists suffering thyroid issues, for example.

Excercise has little to do with weight management.  Starting in the '80s there was an explosion in exercise culture that continues to this day, and yet people's waistlines continue to get worse.  Successful weight management is about eating the right fuel in the correct amount.  If a car's gas tank is always full to the point that it overflows when you put more gas in, is the correct response to drive the car more or to put less fuel in?  If you exercise more you probably need to eat more, but that doesn't change the fact that putting in the right amount of fuel is still the key.  The right kind of fuel plays a role too, you don't want to put regular gas in a car designed for diesel.  If weight management were about exercise then it would be nearly impossible for people who can't exercise (joint issues, bedridden, quadrapelgics, etc.) to practice weight management, and yet they absolutely can if they put in the right fuel in the right quantities.

Vegan diets are mostly devoid of fat?  Got any metrics for that?  Seems like another unsupported assumption on your part.  Some vegans focus on low fat diets (high-carbers).  Others focus on eating huge amounts of fat (vegan ketogenic diets).  People who eat a lot of processed food are probably getting a lot of coconut in their diet, as that's a common base for vegan processed food (remember, not all vegans are focused on whole foods).  On a personal level, every once in a while I run through what I eat in a day through cronometer.com, and my strictly plant-based diet is about 30% fat, thanks to me consuming abundant nuts and seeds (especially chia and flax).  So your assumption that all vegan diets must be low in fat is not true.  Do you have any proof for your claim, or are you just making an assumption here?

It's playing "out of context shenanigans" to say that animal foods tend to be higher in heavy metals and PCBs (and immuno-suppressive), whereas plant foods are lower in heavy metals and PCBs (and are immuno-supportive)?  Ummm...  OK.  Seems to me that's an important one-two punch in favour of eating plant-based foods, and yet you completely dismiss it's important relevance to one's health.  It's being pointed to as a key reason that vegans get far less cancer (especially far less colon cancer).  I'd say that's very significant, and I fail to see how that's in any way out of context.

I'm glad you have the word of a single individual that most B12 supplements are animal based, and that you can't be bothered to look up a citation.  Based on you claiming it I *did* look it up and did not find any support for your claim.

You have a deep lack of understanding about omega 3s.  Every single statement you made about them is incorrect.  I will break down what you said and point out what is incorrect:

"Plant-based omegas are ALA, which have to be converted into EPA or DHA to be used."

Incorrect, your body needs all three types of omega 3 fatty acids, ALA included.  If you consumed only EPA and DHA, your body would have to convert some of them to ALA.

"The conversion rates for those are 21% and below, even lower for men."

Intakes vary greatly based on a variety of factors.  If you only consume ALA, then the conversion rate rises significantly.  You don't necessarily want a high conversion rate if you consume DHA and EPA, as your body needs to maintain a healthy level of ALA too.  Traditionally research on conversion rates are almost always done on omnivores.  They have more recently discovered that vegans tend to develop higher conversion rates, and that vegans probably have conversion rates closer to what ancient humans had.  Ancient humans in Africa who didn't live on the coasts probably ate very little fish and/or algae, so it would make sense that they would convert at an appropriate rate to guarantee their survival.  Vegans who consume appropriate amounts of ALA can have similar blood levels of DHA and EPA as fish eaters:  https://www.nutraingredients-usa.com/Article/2010/11/08/Omega-3-ALA-intakes-enough-for-EPA-DPA-levels-for-non-fish-eaters

"So no, they're not readily absorbed- like most plant nutrients, everything you get from flax and algae have to be converted into something else before your body can take it. Th e reason it's more readily absorbed by fish meat is because ]it was already processed by the fish. It'st kind of silly how you pretty much already pointed out the flaw in vegan logic, but acted like it was nothing."

You go on and on and on here about something you appear to know nothing about, since it's based on a fundamental misunderstanding on your part that only DHA and EPA is useful, which is patently incorrect.  As I speculated in a previous post, you've confused conversion and absorption, but it turns out your misunderstanding runs deeper as you additionally believe ALA is useless (which is completely wrong)  My concern is you are clearly deeply misinformed, and yet recommending people make diet choices despite your almost total lack of understanding about this point (and many other points you've raised).

The rest of your post is you ranting and cherry-picking and making unsupported statements, all the while saying that me and researchers/scientists/doctors who don't agree with you are the people ranting and/or cherry-picking.  We're deeply into pot-kettle-black territory here, my friend.

The rest of your comments are full of assumptions, such as most vegans are unhealthy.  The data says otherwise.  The data says vegans have blood levels of protein similar to omnivores, blood levels of DHA/EPA similar to fish eaters, that vegans have fewer nutrient deficiencies than omnivores, that vegans average in the healthy BMI range and that omnivores don't, etc.  You assume vegans are unhealthy because they don't know how to be vegan.  However, you don't even know that your body needs plant-based omega 3s to survive (among the many other patently untrue statements you've made), so I'm pretty sure you don't know how to be a healthy omnivore.

This paleo narrative has been wildly debunked.  There is no support for the idea that vegan diets fail to meet nutrient requirements, and in fact large population studies suggest that vegans are statistically the least likely to be deficient.  The sugar in fruit is paired up with ample fibre and protein that slows the absorption of the sugar, and doesn't statistically contribute to weight gain.  Fruit is the number one type of food correlated to health and long life in large population studies (beans are leafy greens vie for the second and third spots).  The more fruit one eats, the lower one's risk of death from all-cause morality goes, and the less likely one is to suffer chronic disease.  The more fruit one eats, the less likely one is to be obese, statistically.  I'm not talking about a short-term diet, I'm talking about population studies that follow people for decades, even generations.  Don't take my word for it, take the word of the World Health Organization:  http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/fruit/en/index2.html

And didn't you just say that vegan diets are calorie deficient, and now you're saying eating carbohyrdrate foods leads to obesity, which is it?

Vegans on average have the same blood levels of protein as omnivores in most studies (and those studies that find a difference, tend to find *higher* blood levels of protein in vegans).  Your claims are patently untrue.  http://www.vrg.org/nutrition/protein.php

Additionally, your statement assumes high consumption of protein is good.  It's not.  Most people consume twice as much protein as is optimal for health.  Paleo people often consume as much as three times what is ideal for human health, so that's going in the wrong direction.  Paleo people are obsessed with avoiding phytates because they fear they have an anti-nutrient effect on iron and zinc, and yet consuming vitamin C deactives the anti-nutrient effect of phytates while leaving their wonderful anti-cancer properties in-tact.  However, high levels of protein have an anti-nutrient effect in the body far worse than phytates ever could.  Paleo "science" regularly fails peer review (if it's even submitted to peer review in the first place), so be careful of what you read from paleo sources.

You can't give me one example of a nutrient that comes from animal products that can't be garnered some other (and much healthier way) because no such nutrient exists.  You keep saying everyone else's information is false, but can't even validate your own information.  Whereas I can (and have) quoted the World Health Organization, the United Nations, and many respected health bodies to back up my claims.

Your claim with B12 is false.  There are plant sources of B12.  Animals don't produce B12, they get B12 from plants and bacteria (and, in the case of factory farmed animals, supplements) the same as humans can and do.  I'm not actually sure if you're fully reading my posts.  You're definitely not reading/comprehending much of the science that's out there.

Buddhist monks have lived in monasteries healthily for thousands of years without eating meat.  Your claims are completely false.  You don't understand the science, you're spreading misinformation, all the while claiming everyone else is spreading misinformation.  You make assumptions without trying to substantiate them to yourself, let alone anyone else, all the while saying everyone else is blind to the truth.  You'd fit in well with the flat earthers, you submit your own beliefs to a similar lack of scrutiny.

Interesting link.  I think I've read it before (failing that, I read something similar).  I agree that orthorexia can be a serious issue for some people.

I don't calculate the gclycemic index of my meals (no need, the odds of me getting diabetes from a plant-based diet focused around whole foods is next to non-existant).  I don't avoid gluten, lots of really healthy foods contain gluten, and I don't have celiac disease.  I don't avoid soy, as it's one of the healthiest beans on the planet, despite fear-mongering to the contrary.  I don't ruminate on the grains I'm eating creating malabsorption issues, because if you're eating the rainbow then you don't tend to suffer that effect (vitamin C improves the absorption of a raft of other nutrients, including iron).  I don't take supplements, aside from vitamin D in the winter (and only because I live in a northern climate).

I do avoid dairy.  As a species we only started eating dairy about 10K years ago, which is a blink of an eye evolutionarily.  The populations that consume the most dairy tend to have the most osteoporosis despite the dairy industry's calcium claims.  Plus there are plenty of ethical issues with dairy where I would be less happy with life if I were participating in them, so not consuming dairy contributes to a happier life for me, which is ultimately what the article you linked to is all about.

Meat and dairy aren't stopping Earth's population explosion as the health problems from them tend to come well after reproductive years, so I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.

It is one of the best thing you can do for yourself and the environment.

If you can't live with the horror of factory farming and going organic doesn't cut it then go for it.

Just make sure you know what you're doing as going Vegan can be bad for your health if you're ill informed.

Probably couldn't agree more. The oldest person to live "Jeanne Calment" just ate what tasted good to her, no tricks, no actively including or avoiding certain foods, she ate what she liked. Here's a fact file on her life if you want to know more in depth about her life; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanne_Calment

Whether you are an omnivore, vegetarian or vegan, just eat what you like and tastes good to you. Of course aim for a good healthy diet but you don't to go overboard about it and worrying about every little possible thing. Anyways I think I'm better off avoiding cancer by practicing good sun protection throughout my life rather than not eating my bowl of cereal in the morning.