Meat is a carcinogen (WHO)

[Deactivated] on 01/04/2022 - 13:31
Last edited 04/04/2022 - 07:36 by 2 other users

Is there a concerted attempt to discredit meat benefits and allege other illnesses to meat by food companies and sold out mainstream media?
For example, food companies can make potato chips for 10 cents and sell them for 5 dollars and it is shelf-stable.
Food companies can do monoculture and create fake meat and sell it for 10 times the profit once it reaches the scale.
What products can they make using meat and make 10 times more money and shelf-stable?
Do you believe in any of the medical dogmas like meat causes heart attacks?
Is there any person who doesn't eat any ultra-processed junk and eats the majority of his diet as meat has health issues?

I will say my personal story. When this meat is carcinogen news came I was eating meat weekly once and I was unhealthy. Later I removed ultra-processed junk from my diet and slowly increased the meat in my diet. Eventually eating almost daily now. And I am 20 kgs less weight and healthy as F.

Mod: WHO article for context

Poll Options

  • 61
    Meat is Carcinogenic
  • 517
    Meat is healthy
  • 23
    Eating meat will cause some health problems
  • 118
    Eat less meat to save the planet
  • 20
    Don't eat meat, because I love animals
Food & Grocery

Comments

  • Cluster on 01/04/2022 - 14:11
    +1

    Dig deep enough and almost everything is carcinogenic.

    https://www.eatthis.com/foods-most-likely-to-cause-cancer/

    If you like meat, eat it without going over the top.

    The important thing to remember is the media loves to latch onto outlier studies and report the results with breathless 'X Causes Cancer' and 'Forget Eating Y, You Should Be Eating Z' headlines. If there are 9 studies showing drinking coffee is fine, they'll report on the 10th that says it's slowly killing you.

    There is no room for nuance in reporting either. Study reported a 20% greater chance to develop X disease? Roll out the shocking headline.

    • mr-incredulous on 01/04/2022 - 14:30

      Wow scrolling through those photos got me salivating. I have to agree with your outlook here. Life is a fatal. I'll be eating BBQ brisket tomorrow.

    • Beanvee on 01/04/2022 - 17:51
      +1

      Another problem with these studies is people can't conceptualise numbers. The science can be absolutely solid and reproducible, and it may not be media clinging to an outlier study. But a 20% increase to 0.5% is 0.6%, the change is risk may not be as high as people imaging when they read "20% higher".

    • cookie2 on 01/04/2022 - 17:54

      Yup. I remember reading something 15years ago that said strawberries could be linked to cancer. In saying that education is key, staying informed and you can read up very easily now on known or probable carcinogenic foods.

  • Marty-69 on 01/04/2022 - 14:12
    +1

    Mankind has survived eating meat for a long time without health issues until we started to overdo it and process it.
    We still get old eating processed (and too much) meat, but that's thanks to medication and surgery to fix the results of it.

  • LFO on 01/04/2022 - 14:21
    +2

    What products can they make using meat and make 10 times more money and shelf-stable?

    Pemmican rings the bell.
    May be not 10 times profit but 10 years shelf life for sure.

    Sourcing all needed ingredients AND PASSING ALL ANTI-MEAT rules can be the biggest obstacle.

    Problem with "carcinogenics in meat" is what are the animals are actually eating.
    Stock feeding cows with cotton seeds and straw asks for trouble. Grass fed doesn't.

  • pharkurnell on 01/04/2022 - 14:25
    -1

    Peeled Onions will kill you too. Extremely carcinogenic ??

  • klonky on 01/04/2022 - 14:26
    +1

    Everything in moderation is the key. Everytime there is a xx causes cancer story, look at the research. Whats the sample size, was there a consistent diet across the sample, were members of the sample susceptible to cancer due to other lifestyle factors? Its just like all those artificial sweetener stories, what people fail to note is how much they consume and they are probably already coming off the back of an unhealthy, potentially cancer causing, lifestyle. ie, they decided to change their excessive consumption of coke to coke zero.

    • 7ekn00 on 01/04/2022 - 14:43

      Good points, the "Meat" group in the WHO cited papers actually had 20% more smokers than their comparison group!

      • GrueHunter on 03/04/2022 - 11:37

        If only somebody would invent regression analysis back in the 19th century so we can make adjustments for these variables

  • RobBoss on 01/04/2022 - 14:36

    OP's profile pic definitely checks out.

  • SBOB on 01/04/2022 - 14:43
    +6

    Later I removed ultra-processed junk from my diet

    So you correlate that to meat being somehow related to your improved health?

    • [Deactivated] on 01/04/2022 - 14:46

      No, removing ultra-processed junk is. Eating more meat didn't make me sick again

      • GrueHunter on 03/04/2022 - 11:38
        +1

        Because population-level increases in colorectal cancer is something that you can observe in one person over a short period

        Why do I hear the theme from The Muppet Show whenever I read your comments?

    • mooney on 01/04/2022 - 14:46
      +4

      Ha ha.. I thought that too. I predict OP is a fan of Jordan Peterson.

      • cookie2 on 01/04/2022 - 17:56
        -1

        I actually find JP quite thought provoking on subjects.

      • leelemon on 01/04/2022 - 21:12
        +2

        Makes sense in conjunction with his other dumb thread

        • Eeples on 02/04/2022 - 22:28
          +2

          Or his dumb sunscreen thread.

  • jv on 01/04/2022 - 14:46
    +6

    Meat is a carcinogen

    No it's not, otherwise most of the animals or humans would have died out over the millions of years of eating meat…

    • mooney on 01/04/2022 - 14:46

      Some of them are literally MADE of meat.

    • Marty-69 on 01/04/2022 - 14:52
      -1

      We didn't eat too much meat and processed meat over the past millions of years. Since factory farming, overconsumption and processing it's a proven carcinogen.

      • [Deactivated] on 01/04/2022 - 15:00
        +3

        How do you know? Go to the wild and try to eat any plant and I will eat any animal. We will see who survives? Plants have defensive mechanisms because they don't have legs to run when in trouble. You can eat 99% of animals in the wild.

        • GG57 on 01/04/2022 - 15:26

          I'm pretty sure that eating plants will be better than eating certain meats only.
          Some meat (e.g. rabbit) is mostly protein, so avoiding protein poisoning requires a varied diet. Adding fish, nuts, grubs or edible mushrooms and berries to the mix will provide some much-needed fats.

          • [Deactivated] on 01/04/2022 - 15:35

            @GG57: I am talking about survival in wild

          • jv on 01/04/2022 - 15:39
            +2

            @GG57:

            I'm pretty sure that eating plants will be better than eating certain meats only.

            Lots of plants can kill you if you eat them.

          • Jazza80Four on 01/04/2022 - 16:04
            +1

            @GG57: Nope, you just need fat intake to be higher to avoid "rabbit starvation".

            • GG57 on 01/04/2022 - 16:27

              @Jazza80Four: Exactly. But OP made the statement:
              "Go to the wild and try to eat any plant and I will eat any animal"

        • cookie2 on 01/04/2022 - 17:58

          Portion sizes have increased over the years… with everything, including meat. Does anyone that eats meat actually eat the recommended portion? From memory the guide is inside palm area of your hand and 100/150gm?

      • jv on 01/04/2022 - 15:38
        +1

        We didn't eat too much meat and processed meat over the past millions of years.

        Depends which part of the world your ancestors came from.

        • [Deactivated] on 01/04/2022 - 15:46

          And unfortunately modern human history doesn’t span millions of years

    • GrueHunter on 03/04/2022 - 11:22

      I'll just add biology and statistics to the very long list of things you don't know about

      Unless you'd care to point out your evidence for how a slightly increased incidence of colorectal cancer might cause the deaths of "most of the animals or humans"

      • jv on 03/04/2022 - 12:03

        I'll just add biology and statistics to the very long list of things you don't know about

        You aren’t qualified to judge, so your opinion is irrelevant.

  • garetz on 01/04/2022 - 14:58
    +4

    Humans have been eating meat since time immemorial.

    They are trying to demonise meat because of perceived issues with climate change.

    • cookie2 on 01/04/2022 - 17:59
      +6

      They're not perceived tho. They are facts. It's actually quite interesting.

    • GrueHunter on 03/04/2022 - 11:39
      +2

      Yes, them. They. You know, over there /waves hands vaguely

      Anyway, time to listen to more Joe Rogan

  • boomramada on 01/04/2022 - 15:25
    +2

    Anything too much is bad for you, hence standard portion of meat is healthy.

  • vitb1 on 01/04/2022 - 15:28

    From what I understand, oxidative damage causes cancer too, and how do we prevent oxidative damage..?

    • [Deactivated] on 01/04/2022 - 15:36
      +1

      Avoiding seed oils. Less oxygen. Doing breath work. Contrary to popular belief too much oxygen is a problem.

      • jv on 01/04/2022 - 15:40
        +1

        too much oxygen is a problem.

        As is not enough carbon dioxide…

      • Eeples on 02/04/2022 - 22:29

        The human body by mass is 65% oxygen. Kind of hard to avoid.

      • GrueHunter on 03/04/2022 - 11:24

        too much oxygen is a problem

        This explains so much about why you are the way you are

        How you ever thought about going full alpha and just doing without oxygen altogether? That would definitely show the cuck leftists who's boss

    • idonotknowwhy on 04/04/2022 - 10:38

      how do we prevent oxidative damage

      Going on a carnivore diet would be one way, because ketones cause less oxidative stress than glucose

  • Seraphin7 on 01/04/2022 - 15:40

    Practically anything can be a carcinogen, or otherwise deadly when consumed excessively.

    The Sun produces deadly melanoma for some who are overexposed to it … yet also is a vital component in the delivery of vitamin D and mood-regulating chemicals.

    Water is crucial to our survival … and yet over consumption in a short space of time can lead to death.

    • Raj09 on 01/04/2022 - 19:24
      -2

      Dude. Your body eliminates cancer cells on daily basis. However it needs to have the right fuel to do that. You don't help your body by injecting or having more cancer causing foods in you.

      It's great to make funny comments etc but once you face the big c trust me you'll want to find the answers and the right ones

  • contrafibularities on 01/04/2022 - 15:41
    +3

    Love the fact that under your poll was an ad for national bowel screening program, gotta love online ad tech.

    • Miami Mall Alien on 01/04/2022 - 18:28

      You still see ads in your browser?

      • ankor on 01/04/2022 - 18:45
        +2

        Pardon me for allowing websites that offer me a well used, free service from finding ways to make income by displaying ads..

        • Miami Mall Alien on 01/04/2022 - 19:14
          +2

          Forgive me, e-Father for I have sinned. I blocked ads on a site that actually delivers me legitimate content free of charge. I will now post 50 Tweets promoting OzBargain to atone for my ways.

  • prodrome on 01/04/2022 - 15:50
    +3

    Eating too much of anything is bad for you.

    On a related note, you should never, ever argue with a Vegan. They're not hurting anyone. Do not engage.

  • morse on 01/04/2022 - 16:09
    +4

    The WHO reference doesn’t say that eating meat in general is carcinogenic.

    The strongest, but still limited, evidence for an association with eating red meat is for colorectal cancer. There is also evidence of links with pancreatic cancer and prostate cancer.

    It does say that eating processed meat causes colorectal cancer

    The IARC Working Group concluded that eating processed meat causes colorectal cancer. An association with stomach cancer was also seen, but the evidence is not conclusive.

    It’s fairly well known that eating processed meats isn’t good for you - but still very popular.

    • [Deactivated] on 01/04/2022 - 16:22
      -7

      well known myth?

      • Herbse on 01/04/2022 - 16:33
        +6

        Just because you chose not to agree with the evidence, doesn't make it a myth.

        WHO is an advisory board. It's found peer reviews evidence that something can cause damage. It has done the same with lots of other things.

        Whether governments or individuals decide to do anything about it is up to them.

        • [Deactivated] on 01/04/2022 - 16:38
          -8

          Peer reviewed studies is not case controlled or randomised control studies. Most of the diet studies are questionnaires. They will ask how often do you eat processed meat. But they don’t other factors into consideration because they don’t have data. Or they will do rat studies and feed them compounds in preserved meats in large quantities.
          what do you mean by processed meat? Do you mean preserved meat like bacon? We found a way to preserve meat using salt. Eating preserve meat is absolutely fine.
          Bill gates funds WHO. China funds it. That’s the reason they named covid variant as omicron instead of Xi.In Greek alphabet Xi comes before Omicron. Not to disappoint boss. WHO is a corrupt body.

        • 7ekn00 on 01/04/2022 - 16:44
          +1

          Um, the WHO paper was "Opinion" of a panel where 8 out of 9 panelist were vegan/vegetarian …
          They discarded the strongest "peer reviewed" studies, but then left other studies with mis-matched control/study groups :/

          • GrueHunter on 01/04/2022 - 22:48
            +4

            @7ekn00:

            Um

            And you should've stopped there, because you're thicker than a whale omelette. Let's have a look at what WHO actually said, and then let's see how that stacks up against your vEgAn CopnSirCyary hysteria, shall we?

            Red meat was classified as Group 2A, probably carcinogenic to humans. What does this mean exactly?

            In the case of red meat, the classification is based on limited evidence from epidemiological studies showing positive associations between eating red meat and developing colorectal cancer as well as strong mechanistic evidence.

            Limited evidence means that a positive association has been observed between exposure to the agent and cancer but that other explanations for the observations (technically termed chance, bias, or confounding) could not be ruled out.

            Feel free to the part that says "red meat is definitely carcinogenic".

            Could you quantify the risk of eating red meat?

            The cancer risk related to the consumption of red meat is more difficult to estimate because the evidence that red meat causes cancer is not as strong. However, if the association of red meat and colorectal cancer were proven to be causal, data from the same studies suggest that the risk of colorectal cancer could increase by 17% for every 100 gram portion of red meat eaten daily.

            Wow. More ifs, buts, and caveats. It's almost like they're qualified scientists and they want conclusive evidence before they start wetting their panties…you know, like a conspiracy theorist does.

            Should I stop eating meat?

            Eating meat has known health benefits. Many national health recommendations advise people to limit intake of processed meat and red meat, which are linked to increased risks of death from heart disease, diabetes, and other illnesses.

            Wow, look at those nasty vegans telling us to stop eating me…to stop ea…to st…well damn, that's inconvenient for you, isn't it? "Maybe cut back, champ" isn't quite the "leave Britney alone" directive you made it out to be, is it?

            Should we be vegetarians?

            Vegetarian diets and diets that include meat have different advantages and disadvantages for health. However, this evaluation did not directly compare health risks in vegetarians and people who eat meat. That type of comparison is difficult because these groups can be different in other ways besides their consumption of meat.

            There they go again, claiming that vegetarianism is superio…is sup…damn, they did it again! Look at them, being all measured and reasonable and sh*t.

            Hey, whaddya know? Tunrs out what they actually claim isn't anything like what you totally claim they claim! Who saw that coming?

      • morse on 01/04/2022 - 16:33
        +1

        I don’t think it’s a myth that processed meats like bacon and sausages are not healthy foods. Apparently it’s the combination of the sulphates with the meat that is the issue, despite the same sulphates in vegetables not being an issue. The cancer risk isn’t huge though, only 18% greater risk for certain cancers if you eat it everyday day. https://www.cancer.org.au/cancer-information/causes-and-prev… The other issues with processed meats is the salt which is not great for blood pressure and therefore increases risk for strokes and heart disease. It seems like you’re trying to make the WHO reference more controversial than it actually is.

        • [Deactivated] on 01/04/2022 - 16:44
          -4

          Did you ate sausage ever? It’s just meat. Bacon is just preserved meat. Eating salt doesn’t cause any diseases. If you excess sodium your body will remove it by peeing. You are talking flawed science using drug companies funded websites as reference. Science has moved on.

          • morse on 01/04/2022 - 17:33
            +2

            @[Deactivated]: Yes I eat sausages, bacon, salami, the whole lot, with the knowledge that it's not healthy for me (only around once a week). Just like I drink wine and eat ice cream. My point is that you're misrepresenting what WHO wrote as some sort of anti meat conspiracy, when they are just summarising research evidence around meat and cancer.

          • cookie2 on 01/04/2022 - 18:06

            @[Deactivated]: Some people want to learn, others just want to keep thinking what they think and keep justifying it. I'm glad you've made changes that you feel have made you a healthier person tho. That's great.

          • GrueHunter on 03/04/2022 - 11:43

            @[Deactivated]: Japanese epidemiologists: Damn, we've been wrong about salt. All of us. For decades. And somehow nobody noticed. This is just more proof that the anti-salt lobby - you know, THEM - is trying to take over the world, because reasons I can't explain but they make me feel like I have special inside knowledge so I'm not human garbage after all

        • cookie2 on 01/04/2022 - 18:05
          +1

          Not being rude but are you joking by saying that the increase of 18% isn't huge? Almost 1 in 5. Yeah i think it's sulfates and nitrates. I wonder if the way these meats are preserved now (cheaply and quickly), is worse in respect to carcinogens, than more traditional methods.

          • morse on 01/04/2022 - 18:17
            +1

            @cookie2: 18% increased risk, not sure what the risk is if you don’t eat processed meat (would be a small sample over a lifetime in Australia). It’s not 1 in 5 people who eat processed meat will get colorectal cancer, it’s that you’re 18% more likely than someone who doesn’t eat it.

            There is bacon available without the sulphates now, but it’s expensive - probably not as expensive as bowel cancer though.

            • cookie2 on 02/04/2022 - 17:57

              @morse: My family has a high amount of cancers so to me, the increase of 18% risk is something I couldn't know and still be ok with. I don't believe ignorance is bliss (not that I'm calling you ignorant btw).

              • morse on 03/04/2022 - 13:15

                @cookie2: Yeah that’s fair - definitely nothing wrong with avoiding processed meat.

        • funnysht on 02/04/2022 - 09:16

          https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/general-info/kno…

          They list bitumen chloral cisplatin methyl azacitdine as '2A probably carcingoenic'.

          • morse on 02/04/2022 - 09:24

            @funnysht: Different website to the one I posted but yeah, I imagine bitumen would be carcinogenic if you ingest it - who knows what would happen if you ate or inhaled bitumen daily. 2A just refers to the level of evidence. Something might be more carcinogenic but if it hasn’t been studied there’s limited evidence. Alcohol is a common carcinogen that is widely enjoyed. Drinking very hot drinks also has been linked to mouth cancers - which makes sense as it would be damaging the cells, potentially making it more likely they’ll mutate.

      • cookie2 on 01/04/2022 - 18:01

        i think you're getting the definition of myth and evidence based views, a little mixed up.

  • macfudge on 01/04/2022 - 16:16
    +5

    Would it be inappropriate to mention here that Vic's Meat (www.vicsmeat.com.au) is currently having a 15% off sitewide sale to celebrate their birthday? (ends Sunday). I am not associated with them in any way apart from being a very good customer :-)

    • holdenmg on 01/04/2022 - 17:03

      Nah, I'm not offended.

      I was going to post a Meat-Lovers Recipe or a photo of a Costco Pizza.

    • GrueHunter on 03/04/2022 - 11:44

      Thanks for letting us know how you're triggered but totally not triggered

  • juzza87 on 01/04/2022 - 16:38

    Meat is healthy. Every time I go to Bunnings and get a sausage in bread with onions (a vegetable) I'm doing my body a favor.

  • freshofftheplane on 01/04/2022 - 16:49

    ultra-processed junk != meat

  • prisonmike on 01/04/2022 - 16:52
    +1

    Who what when how

    • s1Lence on 01/04/2022 - 19:54

      why

  • [Deactivated] on 01/04/2022 - 17:12
    +11

    You're saying meat is now considered a carcinogen and your answer to that is…you eat meat every day now and you're healthy 'as (profanity)'.

    I'll attempt to respond to that honestly. If i've got it wrong I apologise already, but here goes. Carcinogens are considered to increase cancer risk. Cancer develops over time and risk increases with age.

    You lost 20kg, you're eating meat daily now and by your account you're healthy… that's actually great and good for you man, really. But it isn't really proof of anything as far as the article you've posted suggests. You would have to determine this over a much longer time frame, in other words you could lead an otherwise healthy lifestyle now and still may get cancer at some point, and meat consumption will have been a contributing factor to that.

    However you may not get cancer (here's hoping), and its not due in any part to meat consumption… you may just not get cancer, period. You may also get cancer, period. You could have cut out meat entirely and you still would have got cancer, period. There isn't a definitive response here one way or the other, its simply to say that high consumption of meat (particularly processed meats) is associated with a higher risk of developing cancer down the line.

    It isn't purely a matter of carcinogen = bad either. There are other compounds found in meat which affect overall health and moving beyond meat, high protein intake alone could affect hormone production and factor in and contribute to the growth of certain cancers. Soy for instance has been associated (true or not) in the past for increasing cancer risk and tofu is not meat and unless you're delusional never will be. Its quite complicated but again, we're still talking about an associated increase in risk not, meat makes you sick or gives you cancer. Its purely, you're increasing risk in the same way that taking up smoking right now will increase your risk of developing lung cancer at 60. A pack a day will increase that risk further, stop smoking and your risk starts going back down. I think you get the point by now. At the end of the day, how much is too much is entirely up to you. The amounts actually considered in the WHO study were overkill if I remember correctly (often the case when you want to study the effects of something) and certainly not the 2-3 times a week as per the general health advice.

    Bonus round: and this is partially linked to cancer (as a common morbidity) so i'm including it, but alot of the current health advice to reduce meat intake is based on the fact that longevity in certain populations is higher where ONE of the common threads is, lower meat/mostly plant-based diets. There are multiple factors of course, exercise, genetics, etc. but this is one. Longevity is achieved in this sense not only by naturally living more years, but a reduction in age-associated diseases like cancer, heart disease, etc.

    If I can insert my personal opinion as well (if you've read this far then why not), I see alot of the response to this kind of science hinging on personal philosophy really. There are alot of people out there who 'smash' protein and go gym, and plenty who just enjoy a good steak. They're not going to like any result that suggests this is sub-optimal for health. Same as there's plenty of vegans who will relish in the opportunity to demonize meat consumption and affirm why THEIR choice is clearly the right one. Me, I couldn't give a shit, but I'm data driven and I see both of those claims as pure dogma. I eat meat, I enjoy it. I accept that a certain amount of it leads to an increase cancer risk but that its hopefully a negligible one.

    • [Deactivated] on 01/04/2022 - 17:20
      -5

      So point of your dribbling is meat increase risk of cancer?
      Good that’s what you believe.
      I believe there is no association with cancer and meat.

      • [Deactivated] on 01/04/2022 - 17:34
        +8

        lol fella, if the point of all of this was to find out what we all 'believe' then I might as well be telling to you to switch to Kosher.

        You can believe what you want obviously, but can you not post it in future and dismiss anyone that offers actual science and arguments then ? You've wasted both of our time. I mean you've literally posted a link to an article, asked people what they think.

        I've given you a detailed response with what the science is actually referring to and your response is to call me a dribbler, and say "well that's just what you believe, I choose to believe otherwise". Like what is the point of asking then ?

        You don't believe meat consumption increases cancer risk. Its highly likely you're wrong. I'll just write that next time.

        • [Deactivated] on 01/04/2022 - 19:45
          -2

          Sorry, I don’t mean to degrade you. My argument is the studies are flawed and has no actual science in it. Because most of the studies aren't case controlled studies. They are either poor standard questionnaire or rat studies. When you do such studies you can’t exactly figure out what is the cause. There will be so many variables and unknowns. Organisations like WHO and cancer council will use such poor studies to push food and drug companies narrative.

          • [Deactivated] on 01/04/2022 - 20:59
            +4

            @[Deactivated]: Appreciate the civility, I respect theres more to this than on the surface, but I have to respectfully disagree.

            It isn't all lab rats and questionnaires, you're misrepresenting the research big time. Here's just one example.

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4698595/

            There's clearly a wealth of case controlled studies, which you say don't exist and besides the point, cohort studies are perfectly valid in evaluating cancer risk as well given their occurrence in large populations experiencing similar conditions over a significant period of time.

            Just because a study isn't case controlled doesn't mean it isn't 'real' science and should be automatically discounted basically.

            Now if you question the validity of any or all of it, and you should to 'some' degree of course, then that's your prerogative. We can argue that the observations made still don't suggest increases in risk, or try and pick apart the methodology, but it can't be dismissed entirely wholesale like the data doesn't exist. It clearly does.

            And If we're talking narratives, as if the meat industry alone doesn't have a huge dog in this fight. It goes both ways.

            • 7ekn00 on 02/04/2022 - 15:47

              @[Deactivated]: A meta-analysis of epidemiology studies is no more relevant than the original epidemiology study …

              Epidemiology studies are traditionally used in "Science" to form a hypothesis of an actual experimental or observational study, not to draw conclusions … all your conclusions are drawn from epidemiology only!

              Now days, especially for nutrition, epidemiology is held up and waved around as "Science Says", it's doesn't, far from it as epidemiology can only show correlation, not causation!! Epidemiology can not be mechanistic like real science …

              Funny, Asia and Eastern "Epidemiology" show exactly the opposite regarding red meat - or are you going to claim those studies are "faulty" to cherry pick your "science"?!?
              https://www.adelaide.edu.au/newsroom/news/list/2022/02/22/me…
              https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/98/4/865/4577166
              https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29999423/
              https://www.dovepress.com/total-meat-intake-is-associated-wi…

              • [Deactivated] on 02/04/2022 - 21:07
                +2

                @7ekn00: Did you even read the article ? FYI

                The second meta-analysis was published by Norat et al., from IARC in 2002.15 In this analysis, red meat was evaluated in 14 case-control and 9 cohort studies to estimate average RR. Processed meat was also evaluated separately in total 23 studies selected out of 22 case-controls and 7 cohorts.

                The point of posting a link which includes multiple meta-analysis was in response to OP's contention that there aren't case control studies out there. There are, he's wrong about that. That's it. Posting 3 or 4 individual studies doesn't really show that.

                But then you come in with 3 or 4 articles and ranting about epidemiology and "correlation does not equal causation'". One doesn't even consider cancer risk and is specifically looking at other health outcomes. One of them is based on a cohort study which you contend isn't science, so… why did you include it then ???? Another isn't even an article, just the abstract LOL.

                Seriously, before you accuse other people of cherry picking, perhaps read the definition and then read the articles you intend to post. You want to lecture anyone about doing 'real science' and then dont even follow the rules yourself.

                The best part for me though is at no point have I even claimed that there is a causal link between meat consumption and cancer. I've only ever said that it's an associated risk. I fully accept there isn't a known causal link between meat consumption and cancer. If there was we wouldn't be having this conversation, surely ? Not having a causal link though doesn't invalidate all of the research that currently shows a positive correlation. It's not a lack of 'real' science, it's just science. Turns out it's incredibly difficult to study the effects of a disease with multiple factors involved and decades of observation required in a statistically significant way, who knew.

                • 7ekn00 on 02/04/2022 - 21:38

                  @[Deactivated]: Case controlled studies are still epidemiology … all flawed by confounding variables that don't get controlled for, except "mathematically" ..

                  There is still healthy user bias (ie a "vegetarian" is more likely to be "health aware" and do other "healthy" behaviours like exercise, non-smoker, non-drinker, meditation, sun exposure, avoid drugs, etc) …

                  There is also unhealthy user bias (ie. somebody that "shirks the norms" are also more likely to smoke, drink, sedentary lifestyle, drugs, etc) …

                  No "mathematical" equations can tell you how all these confounding variables affect relative risk ..

                  Epidemiology also finds a correlation between Nicholas Cage movie releases and childhood drownings, but Nicholas Cage's retirement didn't solve childhood drownings … https://jborden.com/2021/05/01/spurious-correlations-nichola…

                  When one considers smoking vs cancer risk, the RR is over 2000% compared to at the top end of the confidence interval for red meat vs cancer RR of 18% … the confidence interval of red meat vs cancer RR also means there could also be a negative RR, but you neglect that ..

                  You are the one contending epidemiology is "real science" and dismissing any dissenting "science", even though none of it has any mechanistic value at all ;)

                  • [Deactivated] on 02/04/2022 - 22:17
                    +2

                    @7ekn00: Mate you're cooked honestly.

                    You just posted a link to a blog post that in itself is intended as a joke, a repetition at that of a well known joke. The punch line is that these types of studies are flawed and can't draw fully accurate conclusions, not that they're entirely useless.

                    I mean you continue to put forward this idea that ALL epidemiological studies are useless, and that an entire field of research is junk. If that's what you think, fine. I'm not an esteemed graduate of YouTube medical school, so I'll just stick to the old methods personally.

                    Again though, you haven't read the article clearly and still just go off on your tear about bias and causation. You've avoided talking about any of the points raised in the article or about your own 'research'.

                    I also didn't dismiss the articles you presented, some just didn't even support the argument, or even provide anything beyond the first paragraph in one instance. I fully accept the results but they're no more compelling than what I've posted, and rely on significantly less data.

                    If all you have to offer is repeating 'epidemiology is junk' like a 5 year old then this is pointless. You certainly can't refer to epidemiological studies to argue in the negative after saying they don't count.

                    Here's an idea, post some articles that ARE adequately controlled to the standard you've demanded above. The the findings must show there is absolutely no causal link between cancer risk and meat consumption, preferably in the amounts OP is talking. You should have this handy obviously since you're so confident in your position.

                    • 7ekn00 on 02/04/2022 - 22:23

                      @[Deactivated]: Ah, playing the man and not the subject, a true sign of a typical school yard bully that even this 5 year old can spot from a mile away ;)
                      Or do you want to explain how your "science" controlled for healthy user bias and unhealthy user bias ;)

                      • [Deactivated] on 02/04/2022 - 22:33
                        +2

                        @7ekn00: A three line response, true sign of a man with nothing valuable to add.

                        This is all very rich coming from the guy that says ALL information needs to be considered and then says Epidemiology is bullshit and doesn't read. LOL

                        • 7ekn00 on 02/04/2022 - 22:38

                          @[Deactivated]: Didn't think so ;)
                          Why didn't your meta-analysis assess each paper considered under the standard GRADE evaluation system?
                          I guess they would have nothing to analyse if standard GRADE criteria were applied :P

                          • [Deactivated] on 02/04/2022 - 22:44
                            +1

                            @7ekn00: Sorry mate, still waiting to see this conclusive evidence you've managed to get a hold of. Stop obfuscating.

                            Provide some actual evidence. I've considered what you've posted so far, doesn't meet your own standard, let alone mine.

                            If you post a link to a Facebook post next I might actually get cancer.

                      • [Deactivated] on 02/04/2022 - 22:34

                        @7ekn00: Post your research that DID control for healthy user bias, and all environmental controls and still found no link between meat consumption and cancer risk.

          • GrueHunter on 01/04/2022 - 22:53
            +1

            @[Deactivated]: "All of the scientists are wrong! Only I and my fellow random amateurs and the occasional fringe lunatic know TEH TROOF!"

            Onya champ

            Point to the drug they're pushing when they say "maybe ease up on the bacon". You know, the magical imaginary anti-bacon pills.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join