April 6, 2020
  • 3:53 pm Fun Meal Prep Idea: Yellow-Colored Lunch Box
  • 3:53 pm Gilbert’s on Main serves New York Style Deli in Bellevue – KING 5 Evening
  • 3:53 pm Keto diet Meatballs with tomato sauce ASMR cooking No talking
  • 3:53 pm John’s Texas Tenderloin Roulade
  • 2:53 pm Why You Should Try “Cook Once Eat Twice” Meal Prep | What We Ate Over a Weekend (Healthy Recipes)
Can Red Meat Cause Cancer? Dr Berry Explains.

hey this is dr. Barry let’s talk for a
few minutes about the very popular topic of discussion whether red meat causes
cancer or not not only is this a very popular subject recently but it’s also
very important we need to know the answer to this and we currently don’t
know this answer definitively but I’m gonna go through the research that you
may have heard about and I’m also gonna tell you some research that you may not
have heard about and help you make up your mind and rest easier with the
decision that perhaps you’ve already made so let’s talk about red meat and
does it cause cancer because if you listen to the World Health Organization
you think it does there’s processed meat cause cancer if
you listen to the World Health Organization you think it does now if
you know someone who’s currently afraid to eat red meat or processed meat
because of news articles parroting with the World Health Organization and their
sub organizations have said please share this with them share this on your
Facebook page share this with people who are currently afraid to eat healthy red
meat and healthy processed meats now let’s talk about this the World Health
Organization has an arm called the International Association for the
research on cancer the IAR C or IARC and they’ve put out numerous publications
saying that fresh meat is a probable cause of cancer and that processed meat
is a convincing cause of cancer now in a huge organization like the World Health
Organization says something like this the average person you and I think we’ll
gosh why would they lie like I know they have no reason to lie I mean that must
be true red meat fresh red meat and processed red meat must be bad for us so
let’s go into this in a little more detail and talk about this the the World
Health Organization’s say that they based their conclusion on over 800
different studies but thus far they’ve only published a handful of these
studies they’ve only made us aware of a handful we’re still waiting for the
other 800 and I I suspect we’ll be waiting quite a while for those other
800 studies because I don’t think they exist and if they do exist I don’t think
they show with the World Health Organization and
IARC purports that they show so let’s talk about on the very few studies that
they did publish this opinion that’s what it is is a learning opinion an
official opinion so they said that fresh meat is a probable cause of cancer and
it increases the risk of cancer by 17% and it had a confidence interval of 1.05
and a relative risk of 1.1 and I know you’ve probably never heard of those
kinds of numbers before and I’m gonna I’m gonna explain those to you we’re
gonna go into more detail about why these numbers really point out the the
silliness of what the World Health Organization has said now when it comes
to processed meat they say it is a convincing cause of cancer that it
increases your rate of cancer by 18 percent your risk of cancer and then it
has a confidence interval of 1.2 and a relative risk of 1.1 so that’s what they
say and based on those numbers that’s that’s why they say that you should
avoid red meat whether fresh or process because it is a cancer risk and they
even go so far as to put processed meat in the same category with cigarette
smoking and I’m gonna tell you why in a minute
that’s ludicrous and you should be offended by what the World Health
Organization has told you and I’m gonna explain why so these studies that they
cite are epidemiological studies they are self reporting studies they are
observational studies these are the weakest kinds of studies at all you can
never ever prove causation from an epidemiological study you can you can
say well this looks highly correlated this looks like it causes that but you
can never prove that beyond doubt with this kind of study with an observational
study and the self reporting studies basically they give people a multi-page
survey in their last questions like how many peaches have you eaten in the last
month how many ounces of red meat have you eating eaten in the last three
months and so anytime you have people self reporting they’re going to shape
their answers based on what they what they think they should be saying that’s
a known thing in epidemiology it’s in the epidemiology and the statistics
textbooks everyone knows that if they know anything about statistics and
epidemiology sample size is very important if you have 25,000 people and
then you only sample five of those people that that not that very small
sample size that doesn’t really tell you anything about the large group of people
right and so if you’ve got millions and millions or billions of people and you
take a sample of a hundred or two hundred people that doesn’t really give
you a true reflection of what the entire sample is doing and the entire samples
risk right now another thing that’s very important is if you take a non random
sample dr. Ansell Keyes is the prime example of this when he he took samples
of people in Cyprus when they were during the lent and so they were
avoiding all meat products and so when he sampled them of course they said I’m
not eating any meat it’s because it was Lent and that’s that’s how they do it
they’re they abstain from meat and so that’s a non-random sample in the
studies that the World Health Organization and I Ark site are full of
those those very small sample sizes and full of non ramp random samples also
another big thing in epidemiology is the researchers bias and this is a known
problem with epidemiological research it’s in the textbooks if if the
researcher has a bias one way or the other then that bias is going to show
itself in the research results this is this is human nature it doesn’t mean the
researchers are part of a conspiracy it doesn’t mean they’re bad people it’s
just human nature now if I were to do this study being a meat heavy key to war
or a carnivore my bias would slip into the studies even though I tried and hard
not to make that happen that would happen because that’s human nature
anytime you have self reporting as I said earlier people will be like well
gosh I you know I drink through a fifth of vodka at night but that sounds
terrible I’m just gonna say I have a couple of drinks there you know once a
week that and so you get all these errors from self reporting and then you
get all these errors from sample variability from if you have a wide
range of different variables so you have some people who eat almost all meat
some people who know me if you just take a very small sample in there you don’t
get any reliable reflection of the true habits of the population and so the
World Health Organization’s research are replete with all these errors man like I
said earlier an epidemiological study can never show causation so the fact
that they say they say it for fact to process meat causes cancer no doubt
that’s just that scientific dishonesty you cannot make that kind of statement
from the research that they’ve done so all these studies can show is
correlation perhaps this is the case if you’ve read lies my doctor told me you
know I used the example of Nicolas Cage movies there’s there’s a study that
shows that for every time a new Nicolas Cage movie is released there’s an
increased in-home swimming pool drownings now that you think what the
hell that’s ridiculous right obviously Nicolas Cage is not
responsible for the deaths of these people in their own swimming pool but
you can show that correlation but that does not mean that there’s any causation
there whatsoever and if your google causation versus correlation you can see
hundreds of examples that scientists have done little studies like this just
to show that epidemiological studies cannot ever show causation they’re not
designed to do that so these types of studies can only show correlation now
the relative risk remember I talked about that up there a minute ago
relative risk can give you the strength of the correlation and if the strength
of the correlation is strong enough then you can you can say oh man it’s very
very likely that this is causing that and so the way that we now know that
smoking causes lung cancer is from epidemiological studies but the relative
risk there was a 15 to 30 times greater risk for smokers having lung cancer than
never smokers having lung cancer say that’s a huge relative risk and so on
the strength of that high relative risk you can make this the the statement that
it is highly highly likely that cigarette smoking increases your risk of
lung cancer and that’s basically how we came to know that fact today and I do
this and say fact like that because we still don’t have a randomized controlled
trial showing without doubt and so it has never been proven but the the
relative risk is so insanely high for smokers and risk and lung cancer that we
know that’s that is probably the case now remember before I said fresh meat
was a probable cause of cancer according to the World Health Organization in IARC
and the relative risk was 1.1 not 15 to 30 but 1.1 now the way studies are set
up the relative risk a relative risk of one means null it means nothing it means
there is no correlation whatsoever and so if you go up one tenth of a point
that’s where fresh meat fell with with these research studies the
epidemiological studies that the IAR see are quoting now processed meat it must
be much higher right because they equated it with cigarette smoking the
relative risk Grint was also 1.1 not 15 to 30 times but 1.1 which is essentially
no correlation whatsoever and I’m not making this up you can google this and
read the studies for yourself so that’s the problem with all this if the
relative risk of an epidemiological study is very very high then you can say
golly gee it sure looks like that there’s just no way around it smokey be
increasing risk of lung cancer but when you say oh yes fresh meat meat is a
probable cause of cancer and the relative risk is 1.1 anybody who knows
statistics or epidemiology me ology is gonna go what that doesn’t show anything
that shows that red meat probably doesn’t probably is almost as protective
from cancer same goes with processed meats you know that that demon devil
processed meat that has nitrates in it it has a relative risk of 1.1 so you can
stop worrying about red meat and processed meat causing cancer because
there is no epidemiological research that shows any kind of relative risk
high enough for us to make that kind of categorization and now I just wish that
we had some some real studies some controlled trials of red
well guess what we do they just never talked about them there are actually two
very large studies that I’m gonna tell you about one is the polyp prevention
trial it was and is a very large trial that went on for a very long time and
you guys may have heard me say before that a meaningful medical study has a
lot of participants and goes on for a long time that gives it gives it the
power to say gosh here’s the correlation and it’s much more reliable than if you
do a sample of 5 or 10 or 20 people like some of the World Health Organization
studies did so the polyp prevention trial was looking specifically for
things that increase the risk of colon cancer they studied 2,000 people both
men and women for four years right and then they also had an eight-year
follow-up what did the polyp prevention trial find and they look specifically at
red meat they said gosh you know what people who ate more red meat had a
decreased cancer occurrence and if that person had had cancer before they had a
decreased reoccurrence rate then the people who ate less meat true story and
I’ll put a link to that study down below so you can peruse that at your leisure
and see that I’m not making this up the second trial was even larger it was
called the woman’s health initiative and this study studied 49,000 women right
and they studied them for eight years and a very large arm of this study had a
group of women who had a very large red meat intake and so certainly a study
this large if there’s any relationship between eating red meat and increased
cancer it should have shown it right well
the women’s health and health initiative showed that red meat intake decreased
overall cancer rate by 20% yeah and when back in the pala prevention trial the
relative risk of eating red meat as regards to cancer of all types and
mainly colon cancer the relative risk was one which remember I said that’s
null that means there’s no association whatsoever and so when these two very
large very well-done studies the relative risk is one and actually eating
red meat decreases your risk of kin now with all that being said we need
randomized control trials but they’re very hard to do they’re very expensive
but what I’m saying is in a nutshell the studies that that iiar see and the World
Health Organization are quoting as fact or bullshit
they are epidemiological observational self reporting studies all the
researchers had bias all of the researchers took very small sample sizes
they took non-representative sample sizes samples and so you you basically
can’t prove or disprove anything from the World Health Organization studies
I’m still eagerly awaiting the other 800 studies they promise but I predict we’ll
never see those other 800 studies because they also either are
non-existent or they suck just like these do now if you enjoyed this video
please consider clicking the subscribe button and then there’s a little bell
right beside the subscribe button looks like it looks like a bell if you click
that then every time I post a new video you’ll get a notification so every time
I get a bright idea you’ll be one of the very first to know if you’d like to help
me make more videos like this you can click on the patreon link down below
it’s a quick sign up and you can throw a buck or two my way to help me make more
videos just like this one to help people understand which foods are actually good
and which foods are actually just okay this is dr. berry I’ll see you next time

Randall Smitham