The key sentence most are probably looking for is:

> The median HR was 0.94 (IQR, 0.83-1.05) for the effect of red meat on all-cause mortality — ie, not significant.

However, the article (and the study) are absolutely worth a read. Another main take-away is:

> I hope you read this paper and think about it every time you read an observational study that finds a positive or negative association between two things. Ask: What if the researchers were as careful as Zeraatkar and colleagues and did multiple different analyses? Would the finding hold up to a series of plausible analytic choices?