One has to read a wide spread of studies and read the complete text to understand what the authors are truly saying. I for one think it is almost impossible to rule out confounding variables - other things the researchers couldn't control but may have affected the result- when studying the relationship between eating animal proteins and cancer. One might say, for example.... "cancer rates rose during the 20th century. Indoor plumbing increased during the 20th century. Therefore indoor plumbing causes cancer". Another example of a confounding variable came to light in the mid 20th century. It was found that smokers recovered faster then non-smokers after heart attacks. Turning out, the smokers would get out of bed frequently to walk to the smoking lounge back when hospitals had them. The non-smokers got out of bed much less frequently. We now know that early out of bed activities aids recovery, but back then it was reported that smokers recovered faster. So you see that one can't take just one media report of one study and base robust inform on that. It was good that you asked, as we need to continue to question conventional wisdom.