Yeah, some scientists these idjits are. Look here:
This systematic review and meta‐analysis including prospective cohort studies of red meat and processed meat consumption provides evidence that higher consumption of processed meat is associated with higher risk of breast cancer. However, red meat was not a significant cause of breast cancer. Moreover, we did not find evidence for differing associations according to NAT2 genotypes. Further studies examining molecular subtypes of breast cancer are needed.
...was not a significant cause
That's the phrasing somebody uses when he's trying to show causation (but fails). In spite of the fail, the message is clear - red meat causes breast cancer.
I just figured out a trick. This is how it's done. An example to illustrate.
Let's say I wanna show pepper causes flibbits (who knows what flibbits is, I'm just trying to turn pepper into a bad guy). So I look at both pepper and aflatoxin consumption in the same meta-analysis of a series of prospective cohort studies that look at that, then I title this study something like so.
Consumption of Pepper and Aflatoxin and Flibbits Incidence: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of prospective studies
I name pepper first, see? In the conclusion, of course, based on truly mindbogglingly extensive data massaging, I report that pepper does not cause flibbits, cuz it just doesn't, but I report it, cuz I looked at it so deeply and wrote every little bit of insignificant data I looked at and massaged all that data in every imaginable way, and then some, just so I could justify writing about pepper and flibbits at least a few times in every paragraph. Now for the clincher. When that reporter reports about all that, he smartly omits to report that pepper does not cause flibbits, cuz it's just not newsworthy. Instead, he focuses only on the aflatoxin.
Yeah, two guys got accused. One found innocent. But nobody talks about him. It's all about the guilty. In the end, the innocent is still guilty in our eyes, cuz everybody thought he was guilty, and nobody was notified that he actually isn't.
Now let's look at a more honest paper, my favorite, the all-meat trial. They tested meat consumption. This wasn't a comparision with some other potential culprit, it's just meat. In the conclusion, they couldn't possibly report about anything else, so meat is the only thing they report on. And guess what? It's the same conclusion as this retarded meta-analysis. Consuming meat in literally any quantity does not cause any bad thing whatsoever, ever. Ever.