The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
if you look at the literature like if you just look at the literature there are interventional studies with red meat that do not show any harm anything that suggests that meat is bad is epidemiology and you you know as well as I do that can be incredibly misleading with things like health user bias
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.
and that's exactly why these studies are so darn misleading to answer the dm that i got on instagram i said hey look there are so many studies that are epidemiology that have conflicting results on cancer if you look from the east versus the west this one clearly shows that red meat intake is associated with lowest rates of cancer in women and what's going on there is red meat not bad for women and gi cancer why is red meat associated with gi cancer in american in westernized humans in some cases well it's possible that it's happening because of unhealthy user bias
so this is unhealthy user bias and healthy user bias and they rear their ugly heads consistently in observational studies specially observational studies looking at red meat and cancer specifically studies looking at red meat and colon cancer
again this is unhealthy user bias at play in Spades clearly clearly Illustrated that the people that were eating more red meat in this community were unhealthy in other ways and so the red meat was correlating with other unhealthy behaviors other chronic illness and that can again be confounding