Maybe not. However there is no smoke without fire. I would not dismiss the thinking behind the various study outcomes completely. But I can see why you might want to. I think I posted a serious question earlier where I asked if we are saying that the certain cancer related charity was completely off track with their thinking. What is your answer to that? Is it too much to expect a balanced view?
Post 47
https://www.wcrf-uk.org/uk/preventi...tions/limit-red-meat-and-avoid-processed-meat
And don’t forget, I eat red meat. I am just not being sucked into a tribal way of closing down open thought on the matter.
I only once got the slipper at primary school, when my best friend at the time had an altercation with another boy. I wouldn't have minded but I wasn't even there at the time; smoke means nothing, facts count.
Hong Kong has the longest lived persons in the world, they consume the most meat. Various tribes eat mainly meat, no bowel or colon cancer of note. Gaucho's eat plenty of red meat, Red meat consumption has gone down, yet cancer rates are up. Meat has been a staple for millennia, the cancer issues are correlated with modern living; I know this is not causation, but is are the following things coincidence, high sugar / carbs, man made oils = higher rates of diabetes, obesity, cancers, pcos, high blood pressure, the list is too long and much higher in the last 50 years in any society that has similar variables .
What often happens in this space, is that there are bad studies say 10 of them. Then a group performs are combined study on the 10 (meta analysis), the stats would be accurately wrong, you can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear.
I would hope you would agree that if high insulin and being overweight are proven greater risk factors for cancer, should meat be singled out when no explanations have been given for the paradox of "real" high meat consumption in real populations where meat is biased towards, would it not be reasonable to see a straight correlation between between meat consumption and cancer in most circumstances. Persons have been doing Atkins, LCHF, Keto and Paleo in recent times, I am yet to see a study or indication that these populations have more cancer than others, why.
Why should we accept results that don't even meet the right tipping point, and the pretend that 20% is what the ordinary man or woman in the street would recognise as 20%, rather the 1. whatever % i.e. the truthfully "absolute" risk - this is slight of hand and a joke. If you earn £100.00 and I say you are getting a 20% increase, would you not expect £120.00, if I presented you with £101.40 for example you would rightly call me a con man.
It insults our intelligence that not one of these studies crosses the boundaries of the scientific method that is being used. It is like having your fingerprint tested and not having an acceptable match, yet this still be used to convict you. Whilst this is going on, the really dangerous diets are getting a free pass especially into the psyche of our children.
