3 ms·
where? Last I checked speaking to scientists(few months back) the headlines were sensationalised. It showed correlation, not causation? I.e it could just be th
by LifeQuestioner 10y ago
where? Last I checked speaking to scientists(few months back) the headlines were sensationalised.
It showed correlation, not causation? I.e it could just be that people who eat red meat are generally more unhealthy.
p.s not trying to advocate its bs aand we can eat all the meat we like, im a vegetarian.
- DanBC 10y agoThe headlines were terrible. They were linking cancer and red meat and smoking. Here's one example of terrible reporting: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/oct/26/bacon-ham-sausages-processed-meats-cancer-risk-smoking-says-who https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/oct/26/bacon-ham-sa... > Processed meats rank alongside smoking as cancer causes – WHO > UN health body says bacon, sausages and ham among most carcinogenic substances along with cigarettes, alcohol, asbestos and arsenic This headline is mixing up 2 things: the quality of the evidence (which is now as good as the evidence we have that smoking etc cause cancer) and the strength of the effect (smoking is very much more harmful than eating red meat). It's frustrating that the news reporting was so bad, because it's caused people to reject the science: we know, with a high level of confidence, that processed red meat can cause cancer, although it probably doesn't cause very many cases of cancer.
- reflexive 10y agoHigh confidence of a low correlation suggests other factors at work.. maybe variations in genetics, or in the particular type of processed meat. Not worth giving up bacon and sausage :-D