"Weak evidence" is a term of art, not a pejorative. The original article frames this study as an attack on prior studies and vindication of red meat. My point is that this is extremely dishonest, and the authors of the study do not intend to convey that at all. They instead say that the evidence is there, but it's not yet strong enough for them to recommend any policy actions.
> The available evidence suggests that eating no unprocessed red meat may minimize the risk of disease incidence and mortality compared to consuming any, but there is insufficient evidence to make stronger or more conclusive recommendations. More rigorous, well-powered research is needed to better understand and quantify the relationship between unprocessed red meat intake and chronic disease.
> The available evidence suggests that eating no unprocessed red meat may minimize the risk of disease incidence and mortality compared to consuming any, but there is insufficient evidence to make stronger or more conclusive recommendations. More rigorous, well-powered research is needed to better understand and quantify the relationship between unprocessed red meat intake and chronic disease.