As usual we ought to be told how the studies were carried out. Were people polled, after the fact of a colorectal cancer diagnosis, about their diets? Or were volunteers fed scientifically measured diets for a long period of time and their health status followed? In the first example, people might be prone to understate the fatty and other purportedly unhealthy food they ate, making their health look more sensitive to these foods than it really was. Also, gobbling down a bunch of dogs at a sporting event doesn’t equate to a steady diet of them. Even rednecks know that it’s better to eat roast road kill than to turn it into sausage.
There is sooooo much junk science in medical studies. I have seen over and over correlations without true cause and effect.
So often the results are decided before the study is even done.