Reviewing the Assumptions of Processed Meat causing disease

processed-meats

(PJ) #1

So it turns out the prior meta-analyses which assured us all that salami would give us cancer, were… biased, inaccurate, incomplete, in error, etc. You don’t say.

In summary, there are severe methodological limitations to the majority of the previously published systematic reviews and meta-analyses that examined the consumption of processed meat and the risk of cancer. Many lacked the proper assessment of the methodological quality of the primary studies they included, or the literature searches did not fulfill the methodological standards needed in order to be systematic and transparent. The primary studies included in the reviews had a potential risk for the misclassification of exposure, a serious risk of bias due to confounding, a moderate to serious risk of bias due to missing data, and/or a moderate to serious risk of selection of the reported results. All these factors may have potentially led to the overestimation of the risk related to processed meat intake across all cancer outcomes. Thus, with the aim of lowering the risk of cancer, the recommendation to reduce the consumption of processed meat and meat products in the general population seems to be based on evidence that is not methodologically strong.


(Old Baconian) #2

I’ve only gotten halfway through section 2, and already they’ve managed to skewer most of the so-called “objective reviews” out there. On the one hand, I’m glad to see someone fighting back; on the other, it says sad things about the state of the current science that an article like this was even necessary.

Georgia Ede went through the IARC review that came out a few years ago under WHO auspices, and showed that most of the studies used to justify their conclusions didn’t even address the issues the IARC claimed they did. To judge from this link, that sort of shoddy work is more common than I thought.


(Doug) #3

Yum, salami…


(Michael - When reality fails to meet expectations, the problem is not reality.) #4

I’ve linked the following video a couple times and possibly others have as well. But, it’s totally relevant to this discussion: