Nutrition epidemiology studies are not scientific experiments; they are wildly inaccurate, questionnaire-based guesses (hypotheses) about the possible connections between foods and diseases. This approach has been widely criticized as scientifically invalid [see here(1) and here(2)], yet continues to be used by influential researchers at prestigious institutions.
Even if you think epidemiological methods are sound, at best they can only generate hypotheses that then need to be tested in clinical trials. Instead, these hypotheses are often prematurely trumpeted to the public as implicit fact in the form of media headlines, dietary guidelines, and well-placed commission reports like this one.
Tragically, more than 80%(3) of these guesses are later proved wrong in clinical trials. With a failure rate this high, nutrition epidemiologists would be better off flipping a coin to decide which foods cause human disease.
It's true it's not feasible to feed people in a clinic for 10 years to see if they eventually get cancer. What scientifically valid method would you recommend instead?
As there is no scientific evidence to prove that meat-causes-(bad thing), and as I share no such belief, theory or hypothesis why would I deliberatly want to set out to create an experiment to prove or disprove such a thing?
I like eating meat. I'm healthy eating meat. No scientific evidence exists to suggest the contrary. I would have to be pretty silly to waste my time trying to prove otherwise.
Tragically, more than 80%(3) of these guesses are later proved wrong in clinical trials. With a failure rate this high, nutrition epidemiologists would be better off flipping a coin to decide which foods cause human disease.
(1) https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2018.00105...
(2) https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2698337
(3) https://rss.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1740-...
Ref: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/diagnosis-diet/20190...