Quoted By:
>1.4. Putting anti-meat studies into context
Vegans use appeals to authority or observational (non-causal) studies with tiny risk factors to vilify animal products. Respectable epidemiologists outside of nutrition typically reject these[1] because they don't even reach the minimum threshold to justify a hypothesis and might compromise public health[2]. The study findings are usually accompanied by countless paradoxes such as meat being associated with positive health outcomes in Asian cohorts[3]:
1) Vegans like to say that meat causes cancer by citing the WHO's IARC[4]. But the report actually says there's no evaluation on poultry/fish and that red meat has not been established as a cause of cancer. More importantly, Gordon Guyatt (founder of evidence-based medicine, pescetarian) criticized them[5] for misleading the public and drawing conclusions from cherry-picked epidemiology[6] (they chose only 56 studies out of the supposed 800+). A third of the committee voting against meat were vegetarians[7]. Before the report was released, 23 cancer experts from eight countries looked at the same data[8] and concluded that the evidence is inconsistent and unclear.
2) The idea that dietary raised cholesterol causes heart disease has never been proven[9].
3) Here's a compilation[10] of large, government-funded clinical trials to oppose the claims made to blame meat and saturated fat for diabetes, cancer or CVD. Note that these have been ignored WHO and guidelines.
