The WHO and similar organizations are extremely conservative, so if they adopted this stance concerning meat its because there was some solid science to back it up.

I mean, they knew how people would react, and probably delayed this recommendation for a long time.

Every credible study that I see coming out, they all point in the same direction.

Check Dr Fhurman books, he is not vegan and even gives non-vegan recipes in his books. He is looking for the best human diet from a point of view of longevity and health, without ethical claims.

Here is his current food pyramid, he recommends less than 10% of calories from animal products https://www.drfuhrman.com/get-started/eat-to-live-blog/90/dr...

A study has shown that studies funded by a particular industry are 85 times more likely to bring results that favor the funding industry, so money has a huge influence.

The tobacco industry used this tactic for decades, the strategy is simple. To question the claims that a product is unhealthy, without ever actually denying it.

All they have to do is create doubt, and the public will be confused, throw their hands up in the air and eat whatever.

In the words of a famous memo leaked in the tobacco industry: "doubt is our business".

Here is a summary of the multiple tactics used by the tobacco industry, one of them is precisely to publish studies that aim at raising doubt, without actually addressing the health concerns - https://www.who.int/tobacco/media/en/TobaccoExplained.pdf

But I don't know if that is why the article was taken down, I'm just speculating. Probably the flagging happens automatically, after a certain number of manual flags.

Indeed there is a lack of transparency about why certain articles are taken down, at least a reason should be given.