Researchers Pull off the "Red Meat Causes Cancer" Scam Again in 2005

The "red meat causes cancer" scam goes like this. Researchers have known for years that processed meat such as smoked ham, bologna, hot dogs and other deli meats increase the risk of cancer. A review of the nutritional label will show why. These meats are loaded with sugar, bad hydrogenated vegetable fats and bulked up with soy protein. The nitrites and/or nitrates have also been independently implicated. Nitrates are reduced to nitrites by bacteria found in the meat. Nitrites in turn become nitric oxide, which cures the meat.

Researchers simply design the study to include both fresh red meat and processed meats in the same category knowing perfectly well that the process meats will implicate the entire group as increasing the risk of colon cancer.

Next, the researchers emphasize red meat in the reports and say very little about the processed meats. Many reporters cleverly delete the reference to processed meats and make the statement about red meat only. The same fraudulent study is repeated year after year at tax payer's expenses. This is simply an animal rights agenda supported by ignorant news reporters.

The truth is that vegetarians have a very high incidence of inflammatory bowel disease and colon cancer because the real cause of colon cancer is the high consumption of carbohydrates and fiber.

Read the truthful study proving red meat is innocent and process meats are guilty as well as the fraudulent research story about red meat below.

Study Links Processed Meat to Cancer, not Unprocessed Red Meat.

Kent

The 'real' numbers in this so-called study are a joke.

They studied 146,000 people for some 20 years.

They ASKED people what they ate. And the asked them on only TWO occasions over 20 years.

They found 1667 cases of colorectal cancer.

That means on average, you have a 1.5 chance in 100 of contracting the disease.

Relative risks in the study were RR 1.50 for the HIGHEST consumption. (Relative risks less than 3.00 are virtually meaningless. With smoking, for example, your RR for lung cancer is something like 20.0. That is a strong effect. 1.50 is miniscule.)

That means 'meat' raised the risk from 1.5 % to 2.2%. One half a percent absolute risk.

This 'effect' is so tiny, it could easily be a fluke or skewed by a few people 'guessing' wrong about that they actually ate.

This is the state of epidemiology. Pretty sorry stuff.

Thanks KWalt, for expressing those beautiful thoughts much better than I could.
I HATE epidemiology for these reasons...

Here's what science journalist Steven Milloy has to say about the study.

http://www.junkscience.com/jan05/meatcancer.htm

Right as usual, Kent. Good to see you!