Paul Saladino· MD
and anyone listening to this will know the problems with epidemiology it's a survey based Center and there are many other demi ology studies which contradict that right so this is the problem with epidemiology is it's a survey based study it's not interventional there's never been a study where people ate more red meat and got more breast cancer that's baloney safety 5% or risk it's 65% of our breast cancer right so you can pick in epidemiology study which is likely going to be confounded by unhealthy user bias who needs more red meat over the last 60 years the men and women who are rebels these are the James Dean types like because we've been told because there's a narrative in our society that red meat is bad for us so who eats more red meat the people who ignore mainstream Dogma now sometimes that can be a good thing but in this case probably what's happening is they're also smoking more exercising less less socioeconomics that less ability to do preventative measures less breast exams they're going to do less health measures less sunlight exposure that may also be affecting their breast cancer risk one of the things we know about breast cancer is that vitamin D levels correlate with breast cancer well that is that sunlight exposure is that exercise while you're in the Sun or is it actually might've indeed so that's the problem with epidemiologist we they want to pin this on me and say people who eat more meat have more breast cancer therefore correlation equals causation this we know is false right but she's spouting this off with her histrionic personality