 With the meat tax propaganda recently and vegan missionaries continuing on their crusade, I've been hearing a lot of information on meat causing cancer, being parroted, regurgitated, repeated, over and over and over again, as if it's a fact. If I hear the word heterocyclic aiming or polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon from a vegan again, I might actually have a stroke and then you vegans would be happy that I'm gone. But these two substances are formed when meat is cooked at a high temperature and they've been linked to cancer in rat studies. First problem, it's a rat study. Now the second problem is something that comes up a lot in epidemiological studies which is the dosage and if the dosage is incorrect then it just doesn't matter. Well in this case they injected this substance heterocyclic amines or polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons into rats at thousands of times the amount that would normally occur in the human diet. I mean if you drank a thousand cups of water on the spot you would drop dead right? So the dosage is completely inaccurate and incorrect. Not only that, they're taking this substance outside of the context of the food. If you remove the nutrients, the vitamins, the fat soluble vitamins, the minerals, all the nutrition that the meat has to offer and then you just inject the negative substance into rats and then you associate it with meat causing cancer, it doesn't make any sense. I think you guys understand the context of this study and why it's incorrect. The other thing is, and I'll appeal to nature, logic, God forbid I do that, humans have been cooking meat over fires for hundreds of thousands if not millions of years. But hey, go against your instinct because some vegan has told you that meat is bad for you, scary words, boohoo. So that's kind of the first thing that is associated that I've been hearing a lot. The heterocyclic amines, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons being formed when meat is cooked to the high temperature and then they isolated them at incorrect dosages in studies outside of the context of the whole nutrition of the meat, fed it to rats and they developed cancer. Yeah, no duh. Lots of problems with the study there, two main flaws, the dosage and the method used. The method is something that can be incorrect in these studies but it usually takes a lot of knowledge on the subjects to determine if the method is bad. In this case it was pretty easy to see that taking the negative substance outside of the context of the food was a flaw in the method. The next association is meat with colon cancer and when we look at meat consumption, I mean burgers, hot dogs, processed meat, we think of those. We're not thinking of horse meat, wild game meat, beef steaks. We're thinking more of those processed, those cheaper meats. So that's one flaw that we can look at in these studies. But the overarching thing for any of these studies and association with colorectal cancer comes with the understanding of relative risk. And Dr. Darren Schmidt, I'll try to link it in the description, has a great video explaining flaws in studies and basically if the relative risk of a study, which is a single digit number and 1.0 means 100% baseline, no relative risk increase and like 2.0 would be 200% so 100% increase in the risk of disease. And for example, cigarette smoking has like a risk over 20, like 2000 times the percent of increased risk of getting cancer when you smoke cigarettes. So that's relative risk. And if that relative risk is below 2.0, if it's below 200%, then it's not enough to account for confounding factors, which means that low of a relative risk doesn't account for lifestyle, reporting of incorrect information, other dietary factors. It does not account for that. And all of these colorectal cancer studies have an incredibly low relative risk like 1.2, 1.3. And if the absolute risk of a disease is 4.5%, that means that if that relative risk of a study is 1.3, they're trying to say, okay, in some people you now have a 5.4% chance of getting colon cancer instead of a 4.5% chance. There's a lot to be understood there, but none of that matters because the relative risk is below 2.0. So I really shouldn't entertain the idea, but I will. Now, what I'm about to talk about is inverse associations with meat and colorectal cancer because in these studies, we would actually see a relative risk below 1, which means that if the relative risk is like 0.54, that means people consuming meat actually had lower risks of colorectal cancer. And with all these inverse associations and opposite associations, it's easy to say that these studies are incredibly flawed. One study in the Netherlands, there was an inverse association in some cases with beef and wild game meat and a complete inverse association with pork, which means that people that consume pork had lower risk of colorectal cancer. And they said, oh, this cannot be explained and requires further study. Oh yeah, because meat doesn't cause colon cancer. There's other factors. In the epic trial, colorectal cancer risk increased with pork and lamb, but not beef and veal, more inverse association. Another study in Japan investigated the red meat subtypes and concluded they were not a risk factor for colorectal cancer. So they looked at pork, beef, veal, all of these meats, and they concluded that there was no risk for colorectal cancer. Then the second study they looked at in Japan actually found a higher relative risk of 1.45. So there's drastically different results, but even if it's 1.45, it's still not above 2.0, which means the relative risk is still too low. And there's a study in Denmark for colon cancer at 1.07%. And anyone that looks at a 1.07% study and tries to, you know, that's 7% chance. It's complete garbage in epidemiology. It's literally a waste of time. Like there's no point of even looking at this study and people spout it like, oh, you're going to die of colon cancer. It's completely ridiculous. The main issue I have with this is we're not looking at meat. We're looking at people that consume 70 to 80% of their calories from plants and the rest from meat. People eat the majority of their calories from plants in America, in most countries now. And people are saying, oh, meat is bad, meat is bad. But less than 30% of their calories are coming from animal foods. One other thing to touch on would be nitrates and processed foods and negative substances that are carcinogenic called nitrosamines do form in certain acidic conditions as well as high temperature frying. So nitrates themselves, as a lot of people say, aren't bad, but their interaction with certain types of fermentation and high temperature frying is dangerous, so to speak. And there's a specific direct dry fire heating process in these huge drums that produces nitrosodymethylamine. And this happens because of the specific heating element in these giant rotary cooking devices. The way to avoid this is just buy meat without nitrates, cure your own meat with just salt, make it the natural way. The heme iron topic drives me crazy. Vegans always talk about heme iron being carcinogenic, yet almost all of them are anemic. And you hear heme iron spouted all the time, but no one ever brings up, oh, well, fish has heme iron and fish actually has an inverse association with colon cancer. It doesn't really make any sense. The main problem is people are blaming high levels of iron in the diet, but the real problem is iron is being consumed in large amounts outside of the actual nutrition of what the meat is supposed to have. When you're consuming processed meats, cured meats, absent of their natural state, you're not getting the fat soluble vitamins, the normal nutrients that help your body absorb iron. I guess fish is a good example because fish has all the nutrients present when you typically eat it because fish is usually consumed in a wild state, not really as altered and as bad for us as a lot of conventional meat that we have access to now. And so I think I've kind of covered and debunked all of the cancer stuff for you guys, and I've given you guys enough information and research to figure this out on your own. It really drives me crazy that it doesn't take a lot of time to understand this. And I mean, I guess in this case it did take a little bit of time to understand the research for some of these things, but the heterocyclic amine, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon stuff, it just literally takes two seconds to look into and you're like, okay, this is BS. But thank you guys for watching. If you guys would like to support me, please just share the video. If you guys want to reach out to me for one-on-one consultations in regards to diet, health, fitness, improving your life, whatever, you can shoot me an email or contact me through my website below. You guys want to follow me on social media, that would be great. And of course, please subscribe to the channel. Keep forgetting to ask.