Red/processed meat papers this week were most rigorous-ever review of the science. Top paper linked here. Please read and RT! Concl: only weak evidence supports idea that meat causes disease of any kind. More on this 1/ bit.ly/3310AT2 
Means only "low" or "very low" quality evidence exists to support idea that meat causes heart disease, cancer, T2 diabetes. So if you want to eat red meat, v. unlikely to cause harm. That low-quality data is from epidemiological studies which show association only 2/
Nutritional epidemiology has been shown to be highly unreliable. When tested in clinical trials, it's confirmed only 0-20% of the time. Therefore 80-100% of the time it's wrong. This weak science is what's responsible for flip-flopping advice: eggs (cholesterol), total fat etc 3/
Epidemiologists, mainly from Harvard @HSPH, were predictably v. upset that their science had been contradicted by more rigorous evidence. Said study would "confuse" the public. Complex motives here-Not just professional but also financial conflicts of interest are significant. 4/
Media covering this story should report conflicts of interest on all sides. All signers of letter demanding retraction of paper are members of @TrueHealthINIT, a vegetarian advocacy group. Also some have sig. links with/ $ from plant-based industries @NPRHealth @NYTHealth 5/
Leader of THI, David Katz (no longer at Yale: bit.ly/3310AT2) is CEO/Founder of plant-based company DietID, with @HSPH's Willett and another letter signer on his board. 6/
Walter Willett who is aggressively attacking Annals paper is vegan/vegetarian and while head of @HSPH, had $100Ks if not millions given to his dept. by the nut industry, plus other plant-based promoters. These conflicts not disclosed. @thecrimson 7/ scribd.com/document/39760…
Willett, Katz et al. claim methodology in Annals paper, called GRADE, not designed for nutrition, yet Nat'l Acad. of Sciences recommended GRADE as one of only a few methods for US nutrition guidelines. bit.ly/2nnewru. GRADE also used for US nutrient guidelines (DRIs) 8/
Same Nat'l Acad report says our nutrition guidelines "lack scientific rigor." We've had so many reversals in diet advice that was originally based on weak epidemiology. Any scientist should try to welcome rigorous analysis, even if result is contrary to long-held beliefs. 9/
Last! Annals paper simply says: currently, there's no strong evidence for meat -> ill-health. Maybe more trials will be done and maybe those will show something different. Science evolves! (disclosures: i get no $ from any industry for my work) fin. amazed if u got this far.
