No one said it's a conspiracy. It is clearly a misunderstanding of our actual knowledge, which is why we have studies that show everything from associations between red meat and cancer, no effects whatsoever between the two, and even reduction in some cancers from red meat consumption. That is standard across the entire field of nutrition epidemiology, but "nutritionists" and health "experts" rely on the fact that, if they cite a single study showing a cancer connection, people will eat it up and accept it as fact.

I'm not sure what your point is: Do you disagree that red meat is a carcinogen?

The fact that we have studies that show the full spectrum of association is exactly what you would expect, and, assuming no biases, is a strong indication that it's not the most powerful carcinogen there is.

I would even hypothesise that for most people simply eating more vegetables and greens is more beneficial than leaving out red meat and not changing vegetable intake.

Also you are free to take as many risks as you want (mostly), and there are plenty of people smoking, drinking tons of soda etc.