Science has been canceled until 2028

It's this comment that made me realize that Dennis is the human embodiment of our capitalistic system

Most of the studies include processed meat like salami, which has known carcinogens and conflates the result to all red meat.

Would you be able to give examples of healthier behaviors that vegans and vegetarians perform that the general population does not?

If one made their choice to abstain from meat for ethical reasons and not health reasons I'm not sure their lifestyle would be drastically different from their counterparts, then again I'm not sure what particular behavior patterns you are referring to which could throw off studies.

Not to mention most of the antimeat studies are observational food surveys with weak hazard ratio outcomes.

Most annoyingly the classification of "meat" is infuriating and biased. In some of the studies any sandwich, any pizza, any sugar covered possible meat containing item counts as meat. It's well established that sugar is very detrimental for health.

The only people avoiding sugar at large care about their health, so there is tremendous healthy user bias, and the advice for the last 50 years or so has been to avoid meat if you want to be healthy... Reinforcing the healthy user bias.

A high quality disciplined study to show the effect of meat on health would include metabolic markers like ketones, track sugar independently, and not use a once every 4 year food questionnaire.

The key to knowing if the study is serious, or sensational, is if they use relative risk or absolute risk in their findings. Nobody publishes absolute risk with respect to meat consumption....

https://www.dietdoctor.com/low-carb/red-meat#potential-harm

Did you read how any of the referenced studies were structured to confirm this assumption?

That may be a problem, but it wouldn't explain the differences in results due to sponsorships.

From a health perspective you can simplify it to mammals = red meat. Birds, fish, reptiles, insects etc = not red meat.

And yeah it's dosage based. Generally speaking you want to stay under 350g (by cooked weight) red meat a week. More than 500g a week is when it starts to be consistently linked with higher health risks. If you want to be really technical it could be said 0g is better than 350g, but in this range the increased risk tends to be near insignificant.

What if the sponsor is the blanket university funding for a professor's research? It may have some bias, but there is no steak in the actual result.

I expect to see "these results call for more research on the topic", but that's pretty much it.

Hi, please, don't. These baseless "corrections" that are really just semantics aren't helping anyone, and just contribute to anti-intellectualism.

We know what an impartial sponsor is in the context of this study - it's a sponsor that doesn't have a profit motive.

Obviously humans are biased. Scientists know that. Scientists train on that concept from day one. Observational studies are hard to control for bias, but that doesn't mean the field of science is silly for trying anyway.

The placebo-controlled double-blind study is the gold standard of scientific experiment for a reason.

An impartial sponsor is not a sponsor that is inhuman and has no preconceptions. We all know that's impossible.

An impartial sponsor is one that does not have clear signs of partiality - like a literal profit motive. That's all.

Edit - and for the record, in science, everything requires study. If you want to claim that conflicts of interest are impacting scientific results, you study it.

That's what it means to be impartial. To not trust assumptions based on your preconceptions. Assume as little as possible, consider as many possible explanations as you can, and verify everything.