This is such a strange article. The article mostly ignores any discussion of why vegans are vegan -- although it mentions religion at one point... which is not commonly associated with veganism -- and then the "Conclusion" is 75% a confused personal gripe about whether or not veganism is actually doing anything good. The author even seems to confuse veganism and vegetarianism:

"At first, a vegan diet seems to make complete sense for many people from the animal welfare point of view. This is in fact being challenged by more and more people who are coming to understand the devastation caused by monocrop agricultural practices. Animals are exploited for milk production as much as they are for meat production, maybe even more so."

Yes, animals _are_ exploited for dairy at least as much as they are for meat which is why vegans do not consume dairy.

"Yes, a keto vegan diet is possible [...] Preferably, and this is key, it should include eggs, dairy and bivalve crustaceans"

Then it's not a vegan diet! I can't trust nutritional (content marketing) advice from someone who can't even keep themselves clear on what diet they're talking about.

Paraphrased from the article: "Yes, but we don't recommend it."

>The vegan diet could be full of white bread, soda, and seed oils, or it could be rendered less harmful by prioritizing higher-protein plants like legumes and fats from avocado or olive oil (and even some bivalve sea creatures!)

Really twisting the overwhelmingly common definition of a vegan diet.

Why is anyone taking the veto diet seriously?