Healthy user bias is a real concern and limitation of large prospective studies especially for nutritional epidemiology and adjacent fields. With that said, when results predominantly point in one direction and are supported by various molecular and cellular mechanisms which explain the source of the harm, it becomes impossible to ignore. One big challenge in the case of red meat is to stratify the effect by meat quality. It is very clear that processed and over cooked read meat is particularly harmful. Could it be that what is called "unprocessed red meat" is also hiding less noticeable layers of negative effects that need to yet be understood for a better assessment of the damage, and potential benefits of red meat? Maybe it is helpful then to evaluate red meat eaters who are otherwise healthy in all their habits (eating red meat because they are contrarian to the evidence). New studies could focus on recruiting smaller numbers of "well vetted" healthy subjects that differ in meat consumption in context to their overall diet and their belief that red meat is “good” for you.