I was vegetarian for 15 years, omnivore 30 year after that, so I have little ethical bias.
My current perception especially reading nutritionfacts.org is that vegan does provide general health advantage compared to omnivore, but my personal experience is that I cannot sustain the low fat (under 15%cal/30gr fat) version of it, which is required to negate diabetes.
So I’ll go back to veg/pesco/obo/lacto/meat to reverse diabetes which I do have, and except the potential risk of cardio/cancer/other that I don't have yet but might develop in the future.
One more point. It seems that although vegan provides better health in most areas compared to omnivores, vegans tend to have higher rates of dementia like issues. (probably due to lack of fat/b12 ? ).
I prefer brain function to most other organs.
I am responding as your post indicates that firstly Veganism is healthier and meat eating is likely to cause cancer. For me neither point is accurate. I'm afraid I do have to say there is not a shred of evidence that a Vegan diet provides better health, I think it is the opposite, as the standard Vegan foods are high carb in general and the bio-availability of combinations of say the equivalent of steak do not work for everyone. I have posted on other discussions the blood glucose results of some of the foods within the standard Vegan protocol, this website does many tests of different foods, and is perfectly in line with what is expected i.e. spikes:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmKsQWqGmDPIWgrVqGYbc3w
I am sure you can rollout a number of studies, I can also, so where's the truth for those who are making up their mind. I think the truth lies in history first i.e. for example obesity was 2% in the UK at 1970 and diabetes was more than 3 times less, whilst meat red meat was proportionately eaten more, similar can be shown in other industrialised countries, and there is probably no need to cite how indigenous populations in say the Amazon have got on without being Vegan. Those who publish have to answer why diabesity, cancer, alzheimer's etc were significantly less when diets were closer to LCHF (e.g. meat and 2 veg in the UK) than now....the silence would be deafening as meat, fish and dairy have featured in all societies - the problem is a recent one of propaganda. Vegan diets would not be possible without science, which I why it is not a choice for my family and I. Vegan options tend to waved through without challenge, for example on a recent Jamie Oliver and Jimmy food programme children were made aware that their almond milk had just 2% almond content (what were the fillers then), Jamie compared cow's milk and there was no contest, earlier that week even the BBC reported cows milk as the gold standard. I think every single study, claim should be independently verified and rubbish removed.
Nutrition.org is a Vegan authority not a general population independent site, of course the views on there by one of the most prominent Vegans Dr Michael Greger are bound to put down anything animal based.
The absolute longest lived persons have meat in their diet (they also had some bad habits like smoking). When the seventh day Adventists are shown to live long and health the Mormons who eat meat live longer. The studies which show that plant based diets do better, never compare to a well formulated LCHF / Keto diet they compare to the standard diet in that country - anything beats the SAD diet; I think it would be fair to compare to say Dr Fung's, Virta Health, Eric Westmans, David Unwins etc's patients. It is not scientific but on YouTube there are stacks of Vegan to low carb / Keto converters, if you do a search the other way note the lack of cases. The studies self reference and tend to funded by vested interest parties, but they never meet the scientific standards i.e. hazard ratios that trigger a concern - yet they are still relied on. The latest eggs are bad within the last week is a meta study which had results, long story short the relative risk found was 1.06, well below 2, so another scare tactic for the bin - by way of contrast smoking has relative risks of 70+.
Nick, it is up to you, but I would suggest you go deep on research i.e. who is doing the writing, who is paying for it, how was the research conducted (e.g. low carb studies have been done where the carb content was 40% of the meal), are the results the actual results e.g. relative numbers or absolute, were confounders taken into account and finally what does history and common sense tell you.