 There have been about 10 news articles recently pushing an anti-animal foods agenda. In this case, red meat and processed meat. About two months ago we saw something similar happen with eggs. I guess we have to keep the general population afraid of meat and animal foods in general. God forbid we have healthy children with a normal IQ level. All of these articles are pushing the exact same study. Titled Association of Changes in Red Meat Consumption with Total and Cause Specific Mortality Among US Women and Men. Two prospective cohort studies. Sounds official, right? The first thing we have to look at is the authors and see if there is any affiliation with the Seventh Day Adventist Church. The Seventh Day Adventists are a religious group with a strong belief in the removal of meat and really animal foods in general from the diet. The media blitz on eggs that I mentioned happened two months ago was associated with them solely. So if you haven't seen my video debunking that, eggs and cholesterol, definitely check it out. Now let's take a further look at what these authors have done in the past. And by authors of the study, we simply mean the PhDs, the doctors, the medical professionals whoever reviewed the study and approved it. I don't want to say that Frankie Boy is always right, but if you look up any of the names in the study, you will find that every single person is bought and paid for, or they are not conducting research without modern bias. Look at any study, any single one of these authors is involved with. They only find positive associations with plant foods and negative associations with meat. In every single study they've reviewed, bit odd, isn't it? You can take a look at Yan Zeng's published work, Yan Ping Li, Ambicca Satia, same with Mercedes Soto's Prieto, Eric Rym literally works for General Mills Food Company, Walter C. Woolett has done his own studies on the Seventh Day Adventists, yet he says the author had no conflicts of interest. Yeah, and I'm six foot five. Frank Hu is on the dietary board with the Lancet, a heavily vegan affiliated association. So every single one of these people has a prior conflict of interest based on either the other studies they are affiliated with or the actual organizations they are involved with. It is far too much political, social, and religious influence in health and nutrition, and it's compromising our health, and that's an understatement, it's very obvious. Let's take a look at this actual study and see what type of dog shit they are selling. The first thing to understand here is relative risk. These studies apply the relative risk, which is actually only to be used in the context of a study, and then they take this and apply it as a blanket term to disease risk rates. So if they find a relative risk of 1.5, that would be a 50% increased risk for the disease rate in the context and method of the study. 1.0 means there is no change in the disease risk rate. 1.5 means 50%, but we see relative risk of 2, 3, 4, 10, 100. 100 relative risk means a 10,000% increased risk for the disease, but not every single person gets the disease even when they find relative risks that high. If a relative risk is not above 2, maybe even 3, the study is pretty much dismissed. However, in nutrition science, this basic research principle of dismissing studies with a relative risk below 2 or 3 is not used simply because the methodology and data collection we have access to is horrible. So you would literally have to dismiss every single nutrition study that has ever done and people really like grasping at straws and pushing their dietary agenda. As a reference point, the relative risk of cigarettes is 100 and there have been nutrition studies that actually show relative risks that are credible. One was the India Railway Study with a relative risk of disease over 7.0. Indians who consumed more grains and vegetable-based foods instead of animal foods had higher rates of heart disease, but this doesn't fit what we've been peddling our entire lives so that study was swept under the rug. There can be many issues with studies, it's not just about relative risk. The methodology could be wrong. They actually took information from questionnaires, which aren't really reliable, then they manipulate this data from the questionnaires. They alter the percentage of meat consumed, mortality rates, etc., based on confounding factors. This could be exercise, smoking, alcohol, maybe the person tripped on their staircase every morning, maybe the person had to walk up two flights of stairs. The point is they can pick and choose what variables they want to put in the study and that can shift the results drastically. Here's the thing. All 10 of these news articles said a similar thing. Meat is bad, increases your risk of disease, pure nonsense. You know what vegans always hide from? Statistics. Hong Kong has the highest meat consumption per capita and the longest life expectancy. These vegans would be shaken in their boots if they actually acknowledged statistics. It's very simple. Look at meat consumption per capita versus life expectancy. Look at processed food consumption, sugar consumption in the diets as well. Meat should be the last thing to blame if you look at statistics. There's a chart that is commonly pushed around in the keto carnivore zero carb community. If you look at meat consumption per capita since like 1970, beef has shot down drastically, chicken has gone up, we've shot away from pork as well. Pork and beef and red meat and processed meat have gone down by half, less than half. I believe it's like we eat one third of the beef we used to eat and things aren't getting better. People have it here to the nutrition guidelines. Vegans always like to say, oh, well, no one listens to the nutrition guidelines. People still eat meat and that's why they're sick. No. Look at statistics. Look at beef sales. Look at cattle sales. We consume less meat and we are getting sick and unhealthy and everyone is ignoring it. It's as clear as day. There's two problems with our modern diets. Not enough animal foods and too much crap. Vegetable oils, refined foods, sugar. If you can't procure it in the forest, you probably shouldn't be eating it. Our ancestors lived off of animal foods, wild plants, wild fruits and more recently grain. Can you be healthy on a grain-based diet? Yes, but what constitutes a grain-based diet? Americans already consume 70% of their calories from plant foods. Guess who else consumes 70% of their calories from plant foods? Blue Zones. So if Americans and blue zones have the same ratio of animal foods to plant foods in the diet, what's the difference? It's food quality. I did a video on blue zones I think last year. You guys want to check that out on my channel, but we're looking at the wrong thing here. You can consume 40% to 50% of your calories from wheat bread if the food is high quality. If you have heirloom varieties of wheat naturally fermented into sourdough, then maybe if you do that for 10,000 years, you'll be as funny as us Italians. If not, I mean, most important thing, guys, increase quality animal foods in the diet, reduce inflammation, vitamin D3, water. There's so many elements to health, but it's really disheartening how even someone like me who's aware of a lot of issues that goes on, reality is all of us have our own day-to-day lives where we have priorities and have to make a living. So I mean, it's safe to say it was much simpler when people used to live in tribes and small villages and as hunter-gatherers societies and we were all happy and healthy and doing what humans were meant to do, you know, live off the land, hunt animals and make babies and be happy. It doesn't happen anymore. So thank you guys for joining me today. If you guys can please like the video, subscribe, hit that bell icon and share it. If you can, it is 12.15 in the morning and I started working 6.30. So I'm on like an 18 or 19 hour day. You guys can spend three seconds clicking the like button. Outside of that, if you guys would like to support me further, check out some of the videos I mentioned. We did, I mean, I've done so many news covering videos. We did mention the Blue Zone video and we did mention the eggs and cholesterol video. I will link those at the end here. I have also launched Frankie's Free-Range Meat, my goal being to provide you guys with nutrient dense animal foods at an affordable price. If you want to know why Frankie Boy is killing himself for 18 hours a day, check out frankiesfreerangemeat.com and get Frankie's Meat in your mouth. In addition to Frankie's Free-Range Meat, I also have Frankie's Naturals, Minimal Ingredients Minimally Processed Hygiene and Cosmetic Products at frankiesnaturals.com. So if you want to look like a Roman statue cast out of bronze, chiseled out of marble on the inside and out, you can go to frankiesfreerangemeat.com as well as frankiesnaturals.com. Thanks again for joining me guys and enjoy the rest of your week.