So a lot of this is just straight up wrong but it's so scattershot it's difficult to even address. I fail to see what this has to do with learning about what carnism is.

The stuff about wild animals is just the naturalistic fallacy, like that argument applies equally well against treating illness because in the wild the weak and sick die brutally. It's like, ok? so what? We're not wild snapping turtles, or musk rats, or great white sharks. We can behave in different ways.

The stuff about health is just wrong, there are definitely a few high profile people who have claimed malnutrition however having such broad medical knowledge you will know self reporting sucks and can't be relied on. You'll also know that people tend to rationalise their actions and about the power of the placebo and nocebo effects. Unless they were clinically examined it's not worth much.

The stuff about obsessing over food and time/expense is also false. Most of us just eat whatever and do fine. I mean I have no deficiencies and and only take d3 (Australia, pale, sun is unsafe unprotected had to take when carnist too) and b12 which is cheap. Actual studies reflect similar rates of deficiencies to meat eaters with a few differences like iron being slightly more common than some plant nutrient and generally better serum levels of cholesterol.

All of this is also beside the ethical point. Like it's entirely possible that the moral thing to do is just hard, or even self destructive. Like most people would agree that if you had to take food from someone else who would starve or starve yourself the moral thing is to starve. Fortunately it's entirely possible to live a healthy life on a plant based diet, but even if it wasn't ethics would probably demand being almost entirely plant based and eating the minimum amount of animal products obtained with the least impact to survive which isn't the compromise you're advocating.

Banned for carnist propaganda. It expires in a month, please don't come back with these hot takes when it expires