And the page about childhood nutrition:
I wasn't reading carefully. I missed this. it doesn't change whether the other paper expired, is the current position of the academy, or whether papers that relied on it should be considered reliable unless they update.
it's written on the paper itself: it expired in december of 2021, and is no longer the position of teh academy.
You really need to take a look in the mirror and ask yourself why you’re trying so hard to lie about this.
Especially in the context of every other health authority around the world affirming that a properly implemented plant-based diet is safe and adequate for all stages of life.
every such position i've seen relies on the now-expired AND position. they should not be considered valid unless they have also been updated and no longer rely on an expired position.
You cannot draw that conclusion from that one article
the previous position expired. that is no longer the position of the academy. you can see all the current positions of the academy at https://www.jandonline.org/content/positionPapers
they let that position expire, and when they issued a new position, it specifically excluded them. the expired position is not their current position.
their previous position was that a vegan diet could be healthy for children or pregnant or lactating people. that is no longer their position.
you're the one who can't seem to count.
it is functionally equivalent to voting for the candidate furthest away from that non-voter’s preference.
no, it's not.
where's the money, Lebowski
so you know non votes don't get counted for Trump
it's the exact paper linked in the initial comment to which I replied.