Science

As PSUD said, plus the question is what are we comparing against? Observational studies are comparing against people's FFQs filled in on a annual basis.... its not really a AB test of any measure.

Association is not causation!

a standard western diet is mostly poison anyway. Is meat bad in the context of lots of sugar and fructose? Probably. Are the people self reporting zero meat consumption also healthier eaters avoiding sugar and fructose? Probably. This is the healthy user confounder, a healthy person is following current advice and limiting sugar and meat already, this doesn't mean meat is bad. It might mean sugar is bad and people who ignore the meat advice (which is wrong imho) also ignore the sugar advice and have bad outcomes.

Without having full access to the paper (can't find it), I have to speculate, but did they control for sugar and fructose in their comparison groups? (probably not).

We run across these observational hit pieces pumped out every 2-3 months from the same FFQ observational studies, occasionally we get a meta analysis of observational studies to mix things up a bit.

Standard Anti-Meat response with references:

https://www.dietdoctor.com/low-carb/red-meat

We have seen amazing work being published on the effect of ketones for NDDs (neurodegenerative diseases), which shows actual causation... not associative risk reduction.

A ketogenic diet includes carnivore, (keto) vegan, etc. For cognitive decline: sugar and insulin resistance are the real bell weathers of bad outcomes, not meat.

I'd love to see a paper comparing a PBF vs ASF ketogenic intervention in retirement homes on humans - then we could get science on the meat / plant debate. So far we have to settle with mice.