I agree that this article can be very misleading. Some of the statements make it absurdly obvious of its bias and narrow, cherry-picking standpoint it goes for.

Besides, I think most people suffering with TBI realise that diet is not something to compromise on and hence make choices not to totally eliminate meat in the name of promoting recovery.

I perhaps was one of those aussie vego stats in the report and can say that most vegetarians I know choose the lifestyle for health, social and environmental reasons for which they feel compelled to make a small personal shift. I don't find the stat at all surprising for 'levels of optimism in future' and alike seeing as these groups of people are generally more actively conscious of such things.

To claim that red meat is the primary source responsible for the difference in humans versus gorillas is stupid. Yes, introducing meat played a large role, but so did complex, nutrient rich grains ie carbs (that gorillas also didn't eat). And certainly not all human societies have evolved with red meat or other meats. Look at millions that follow Hinduism, buddhism or the mediterranean diet that is very low in meat. Shouldn't we expect to see depression epidemics across these parts of the world then?

I think the effect of diet is very individual to each person. But there are certainly good reasons for eating less meat compared to the average westerners diet today. And I am not including the exception being people in our condition with TBI/PCS of course. Higher levels of protein and fats are very important obviously. My 'flexi' diet was thrown out the window and changed months ago just after my accident. Similar to BeelzeBore, I find absolutism of being vego/vegan can be a very pretentious attitude, it's only human designed labels after all.