I have a beef with the latest red meat “research”
We’re all going to die of something—but it won’t be because we have an affinity for red meat.
A few months ago, the Archives of Internal Medicine published a study claiming that eating red meat increases your risk of premature death. The leftist, meat-hating media jumped on it like a vegetarian dog on a soy bone.
The Associated Press, Reuters, you name it…they all fell in line and reported the researchers’ conclusions like they were gospel. They claimed that consuming just four ounces of red meat per day increases your risk of dying by 30 percent. They said it increased your cancer risk by 20 percent and your heart disease risk by 27 percent. They said sausages and hot dogs may as well be roasted in hell for all the good they do you.
Oh, these news reports and their lackey mainstream medical “sources” said a lot of things. But here’s one thing they should have said…
The “red meat study” wasn’t science—it was comedy
What did you eat for breakfast, lunch, and dinner exactly seven months ago today? If that question sounds absurd to you, well, then so is the entire red meat study. You see, researchers claim they studied more than 500,000 people over a 10-year period.
It’s how they studied them that is the problem. Back in 1995, AARP mailed questionnaires to its members who were between 50 and 71 years old. Among other things, the questionnaire listed 124 food items and asked the respondents to estimate how often they had eaten certain foods over the past year.
I don’t know about you, but I have trouble remembering what I ate last week for dinner—let alone last month, or six months ago. But a year ago? Give me a break!
Over 500,000 people returned the questionnaire. Do you think anyone bothered to confirm those answers? Was even one person ever examined? Of course not. Still, that didn’t stop these results from becoming the basis of the “National Institutes of Health-AARP Diet and Health Study database.”
This is another one of those epidemiological studies I keep warning you about. Scientists (if you can call them that) take a bunch of numbers, throw them in a blender, and see what comes out. The fact that these types of studies are notoriously inaccurate is only a small part of the problem. No, the real problem comes in when you realize that the researchers can manipulate the data to say whatever they want it to say. Just as conveniently, they only report on the findings that support their viewpoint.
For example, isn’t it possible that the very people claiming to eat the most red meat actually eat more of everything? Perhaps they are chronic over-eaters, which would explain the higher heart disease risk. Maybe they also make other poor health choices, which could explain the cancer, too.
There’s nothing valid or scientific about this study. Yet it made headlines over 3,000 times the week it came out. Don’t for one second think that any one of those reporters dug deep enough to realize it was full of you-know-what.
Poll a large enough group of people, and you’ll be able to interpret their answers to mean pretty much anything you want. And this study is the prime example.
In fact, they’ll never tell you this, but the study found a few other interesting “facts”:
- Married people had a 30 percent higher risk of dying. (Who would ever walk down the aisle if that were really true?)
- Having a college diploma lowered your risk of premature death. (Maybe you can use it as a shield?)
- Men who ate the most red meat had the highest chance of dying from injuries. (Maybe they’re slipping on the slaughterhouse floor?)
Despite the shoddy research methods, the results were still unimpressive and did not warrant the kind of media attention the study got. Over the 10-year period, 16,433 of the men studied died of cancer. There was only a 1.4 percent difference in the number of deaths between those who ate the most meat and those who ate the least. Hardly earth shattering.
Government big wigs take on red meat
Why would so many people be going to such great lengths to put red meat out to pasture? You might think it’s because of the vegans who can’t stand the thought of eating Bambi or Bambi’s mom.
I wish it was that simple. No, a comment from Bary M. Popkin, a professor of global nutrition at the University of North Carolina, reveals the REAL reason governments worldwide are committed to its demise.
“There’s a big interplay between the global increase in animal food intake and the effects on climate change,” he said. “If we cut by a few ounces a day our red meat intake, we would have a big impact on emissions and environmental degradation.”
He went on to talk about other ways eating less red meat would “benefit society”—such as cutting energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, and reducing water shortages and pollution.
Could it be any clearer?
It’s the exact same thing I warned you about last month with obesity. The government didn’t start taking such a big interest in the “obesity epidemic” until it started worrying about having to foot the bill. And when threats of increased risks of diabetes and heart disease didn’t scare the doughnuts out of the fatties, government health organizations started drumming up stories of obesity causing cancer.
It’s nothing more than propaganda. Mind control. And you know whenever that’s the case, your health is the LAST thing on their mind.
Don’t listen to a word they say. Eat red meat, and lots of it. I’ll stand by all the previous research that raves about it’s health benefits.
Research, by the way, that didn’t depend on your recall of meals eaten a year ago.