As opposed to all the citations others in this thread are offering (by which I mean, in most cases, absolutely none at all)? :) Nutritionfacts.org draws conclusions from studies. But you can look at the studies they're citing and draw your own conclusions, and the link is useful for that alone. Fox News is not nearly as well cited as Nutritionfacts.org, which is a key difference. And I suspect Nutritionfacts.org commands a lot more respect than Fox News. :) And I've provided other citations than Nutritionfacts.org in recent posts, including one from the Baltimore Examiner (which is hardly a vegan mouthpiece, though I'd argue Nutritionfacts.org isn't either since they're simply evidence based). |
A citation from a biased source is a good a no citation at all. As for whether or not nutritionfacts.org commands more resepct is a matter of opinion. Fox news does in fact back up most of their claims with evidence. The evidence is often partial or highly skewed in favor their narrative, just like CNN, and from what meager amount I have read (a handful of articles and a couple of their videos) Nutritionfacts.org does the exact same thing. But hey we all can draw our own conclusions as you say.
My conclucion is that it is not a valid source of scientific informaiton and is a site full of articles and videos with cherry picked information to suit their personal narrative.
