I get the impression we're talking about completely different things here. I generally like to look at academic literature rather than lay summaries of it. Thus, when you provided the link to this guy's website (and thanks for that, by the way) I ignored most of his general topic summaries and went to the "Bibliography" pages under a couple of the headings I thought were more interesting (to be honest, not the ones relating to meat vs. non-meat diets; I think it's pretty clear that carefully-planned diets containing meat, and carefully-planned diets not containing meat, can both be about as healthy as any diet can be, so for me that's a non-issue). The first one I clicked on related to comparisons between the effectiveness of low-carb and low-fat diets. In this bibliography section, the website owner (I assume) has written single-sentence summaries of each article listed. Looking at a few of the articles, my impression was that his summaries and the conclusions of the authors were frequently different. This made me skeptical of the website, so I did a quick search about the author and discovered he's what I would consider to be a "fad-diet alternative-medicine" type of person. My original post in this thread was to warn others potentially looking at the website of this, in the hope that they wouldn't take the guy's word for it and thus be misled---basically, a suggestion to exercise skepticism regarding his claims.
In terms of specific examples of instances where I thought his summary of an article mismatched the researchers' conclusions, it was a few days ago that I looked into them so I can't remember which articles that led me to that conclusion (believe it or not, I'm not on Big Footy every day). However, to assess whether I had just (un)luckily clicked on some particularly bad ones, I took a look at the very first article he lists on the bibliography page, to see whether it also fits the pattern I remembered. The article is under the "Nutrient density and bioavailability" heading. This isn't the topic of the thread, or the discussion that's being conducted here, so I hope my assessment of it is pretty uncontroversial (and not, e.g., an indication of my "going tribal", whatever that means!). Here's what the website states concerning the article (website owner's comment in italics):
The website owner's comment is clearly based on a couple of sentences in the second-last paragraph of the article (pp. 1894--1895):
Note that the researchers' statement is conditional. If intestinal absorption of calcium is lower following consumption of soy than meat protein, then this might be why. The reason it's conditional is that they didn't find a significant difference between the rates of intestinal absorption (there was a non-significant trend). Now, in this case, I wouldn't say that the website owner's summary actually contradicts the relevant article, but it sure doesn't provide an accurate characterisation of it. It also gets rid of any nuance---for instance, that the experiment involved using soy with all the isoflavones removed, because the researchers thought they might have been responsible for previous findings that protein from meat leads to greater calcium loss that protein from soy. It seems to me that either the website owner hasn't read the article, or that he just didn't understand it when summarising it, or that he's read it and understood it but deliberately misconstrued it for whatever reason one might have to deliberately misconstrue a scientific article.
I would say I'm happy to provide further examples, but as interesting as reading random articles about diets and nutrition can be, I read enough scientific literature in my job not to want to do too much of it after work (unless it's something really cool). I hope this gives you some idea of why the website you linked to raised my hackles, though.
