Here's something about benefits of liver consumption (which is meat):

> It is important to remember the other end of the nutritional spectrum: those women whose diets may be lacking in nutrients. Doyle and colleagues reported that among women on low incomes low birth weight was significantly associated with poor intakes of thiamin, riboflavin, niacin, zinc and iron, all of which (together with other nutrients such as folate and vitamin B- 12) liver provides in generous amounts at low cost. Fetal nutritional insufficiency, low birth weight, and the associated risk of defects is thus likely to be a far greater problem on a population basis than the risk of defect associated with vitamin A toxicity.

> Most women do not need to take vitamin A supplements either before or during pregnancy, and those who do should be under medical supervision. There is justifiable concern about the excessive concentrations of vitamin A in liver, but it is equally important to remember that liver is a source of many nutrients and a desirable adjunct to the diets of many women, particularly those on low incomes. [1]

As for Mr Greger, I've checked out his work following your recommendation. His section about antioxidants doesn't instill confidence. The claims about wonder properties of antioxidants (preventing cancer being the primary one) are oft-repeated across the site, but this optimism should be more reserved:

> Randomized, placebo-controlled trials—which, when performed well, provide the strongest evidence—offer little support that taking vitamin C, vitamin E, beta-carotene, or other single antioxidants provides substantial protection against heart disease, cancer, or other chronic conditions. The results of the largest such trials have been mostly negative. [2]

The videos on Mr Greger site quote only one paper about the preventive effects of antioxidants. The other studies which don't support this premise are omitted.

Since antioxidant industry is significant ($65 billion in 2012 in the US alone [3]), this is not only a nice-sounding rhetoric, but a clever marketing as well.

At first I thought such sloppy reporting was only limited to one topic on this site. But there might be more. For example, the link between milk and autism [4] is also not as clear as it's being made on the website:

> In autism spectrum disorders, many parents resort to alternative treatments and these are generally perceived as risk free. Among these, the most commonly used is the gluten-free, casein-free diet. The objective of this work was to conduct a systematic review of studies published from 1970 to date related to the gluten-free, casein-free diet in autism spectrum disorder patients. Few studies can be regarded as providing sound scientific evidence since they were blinded randomized controlled trials, and even these were based on small sample sizes, reducing their validity. We observed that the evidence on this topic is currently limited and weak. We recommend that it should be only used after the diagnosis of an intolerance or allergy to foods containing the allergens excluded in gluten-free, casein-free diets. Future research should be based on this type of design, but with larger sample sizes. [5]

I wouldn't take everything on this site for granted.

1 - Nelson, Michael. "Vitamin A, liver consumption, and risk of birth defects." BMJ 301, no. 6762 (1990): 1176-1176.

2 - http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/antioxidants/

3 - http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/personal-care-surge...

4 - http://nutritionfacts.org/video/cows-milk-casomorphin-and-au...

5 - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24789114