This is patently false.

Coronary heart disease is extremely prevalent in India, which has a very large number of vegetarians and an extremely low population of beef eaters.

It has been thoroughly talked about (except for those trying to push an agenda) that nearly any diet related study is severely flawed.

In most situations we either just simply can't collect data for a long enough period of time, struggle with people simply having different micro-biomes, or that when you make a change it often also has other unrelated changes that may be the actual cause instead of the change itself.

For example, if you eat less meat you will need to get your nutrients from other sources. Those other sources may be more veggies, beans, etc. So it may not necessarily be related to meat on its own but because of the additional other things. That is something that you could get more of while still eating meat.

If we want to have a moral conversation about eating meat, sure. But trying to bring up flawed studies can undermine your entire argument and make people less inclined to engage on the other conversations since you started your argument from a flawed place in the first place.

Edit:

Another example that often comes up, if someone is choosing to make healthier options with their food they may likely also be trying to be more active. Those 2 things are not necessarily related but are often done at the same time. How do you actually outline which of the 2 is actually benefiting the person?

Edit again:

Going further, look at just how easy it is for the food industry to get a study to show what they want, to support that their supplements or whatever other product is, is actually good for you.

Last Edit:

I find it quite interesting that in recent comments you complained about other studies being focused on Mice (and seemingly implying that it weakens their argument) and here you are citing a study being done on Mice without calling that out specifically?

Vegans still have ~70% of the normal risk for coronary artery disease. It’s often beneficial but don’t assume you’re safe because you’re on a plant based diet.

In a lot of industries the main issue is productivisme. A lot of what we do now could be made safer and better if we just slowed down and did it the right way.

But since all we care about is maximise the output and minimise the cost its a losing battle.

I mean, you aren't wrong, necessarily. I suspect you will find humanity has gone to amazing lengths to have safe food at the levels that we can have it today. Eye opener for many is to know that any wild caught food almost certainly has parasites and you better cook the heck out of it.

And this isn't limited to meat. Picking up food in the wild can be a very risky proposition. Even if you know what mushrooms are safe, good luck. Find some water? How long has it been sitting there?

Simply put, if you are hunting for things to scare you at the microscopic level, you don't have to hunt far. No matter what you eat, at a general level.

Is that for grain fed or grass fed beef?

Showing it’s bad in mice on a high fat diet is hardly evidence of anything in humans.

Mice typically don’t eat meat… why would we expect their response to meat to be at all related to ours?