The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
so many things that are sold to us today red meat causes cancer or red meat is associated with higher rates of cancer or associated with higher rates of heart disease they're all observational studies that need to be tested with intervention
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
this is the problem with epidemiology studies they are correlation not causation and they must be interpreted we can generate hypotheses which must then be tested by interventions and it's pretty difficult to test the hypothesis with an intervention saying oh red meat causes cancer that's going to take a long time to test we can't do the groups we can't randomize