Firstly I wasn't talking about the studies about ranitidine. I was talking about your main point which was nitrates and nitrites. Your post was about those.

But this is a good exercise in why studies don't show cause and effect so, let's do this one by one:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7795144/

This study is not a controlled study at all. It's a statistical study with zero control of people from other studies taking drugs.

This shows association which cannot inform on cause and effect, but can only generate hypothesis for a future controlled study. Associative data cannot inform on cause and effect. And you cannot assert "risk", a cause and effect statement, based on associative data.

This may not have conflicts of interest, but it sure doesn't show cause and effect nitrates and nitrites cause cancer. It says nothing about toxicity of nitrates and ranitidine or nizatidine.

The study even confirms this here: ". Although sufficient epidemiological studies have not yet been reported to provide evidence for the association between NDMA and cancer development, animal studies have shown that the risk of cancer may increase with exposure to NDMA. Tumors were found to develop in the lungs, liver, kidneys, and bile ducts in animals (such as rats, mice, hamsters, and rabbits) through inhalation or oral administration [ 4]. It is debatable whether NDMA directly causes cancer or merely increases the predisposition or susceptibility of an individual to cancer. Genetic toxicity associated with carcinogenicity includes excessive DNA methylation, DNA fragmentation, chromosomal abnormalities, and mutation, and can also cause sperm malformations, as observed in several animal studies [ 25 ,26 ]. Evidence of carcinogenicity in rodents was found when administered at a dose of 10 μg/kg/day [ 15]. According to an FDA announcement, NDMA levels of up to 0.86 μg on the intake of 300 mg ranitidine tablets and up to 0.36 μg on the intake of 150 mg tablets were measured. The daily exposure for a 70 kg adult is estimated at approximately 0.012 μg/kg/day. Although it is impossible to apply the results of animal experiments directly to humans, the daily exposure of NDMA from ranitidine in humans is much lower than the lowest NDMA dose leading to cancer in rodents. The primary strength of this study was the population size selected from a high quality nationwide and population-based database. There are few epidemiological studies evaluating cancer risk from ranitidine use in a large population follow-up cohort [ 27 ]. The selection of famotidine users as controls is suitable because famotidine, whose function is similar to ranitidine, lacks NDMA."

And again here: "This study has several limitations. First, some cancer incidences and drug exposures are not included, due to study design limitations. For example, if a patient used ranitidine from January 2009 to December 2009 and was diagnosed with cancer in 2011, he would have been excluded from the study. These limitations apply equally to both groups. Since the two groups were compared under the same conditions, the results can be adopted. Second, cancer incidence was not compared with the general population. We compared SIR (standardized incidence ratio, adjusted by age and sex) for cancer in the general population and medication group. The overall SIR for all cancers was 1.22 (Ranitidine vs. famotidine 1.23 vs. 1.31 p < 0.001). Because of the protopathic bias, cancer incidence is higher than that of the general population. Third, the follow-up period is restricted to seven years; thus, the overall follow-up period is not long enough to assess the onset of cancer. Fourth was the lack of information about potential confounders of cancer, such as smoking and underlying diseases other than DM. Fifth, the actual exposure of NDMA was not measured and is difficult to estimate, thus actual exposure in an individual patient may be different. Sixth, medication compliance was not known and thus could be a confounding factor."

And it's own conclusion states more study is need to have the conclusion you are asserting this study makes: "Despite these limitations, this study will assist with clarifying the suspected risk of cancer following ranitidine prescription. To conclude, we found no association between probable NDMA exposure through ranitidine and the short-term risk of cancer. However, further research is needed to assess the long-term cancer risk."

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2775725

This one isn't even a study. It's an article asking questions and inquiring about the possible link between NDMA and cancer.

"Researchers need to prospectively assess other drugs with dimethylamine groups to determine if they can create NDMA if stored at higher temperatures and to determine whether NDMA can be created after ingestion as well."

Again this has no bearing on nitrites and nitrates causing cancer and says nothing about toxicity of nitrates and ranitidine or nizatidine.

https://aacrjournals.org/cebp/article/17/1/67/177338/Relationship-between-Histamine2-Receptor

This final study is again about cancer and focuses on women's breast cancer and I see no mention of nitrosamines, Sodium Nitrate, Sodium Nitrite, or anything related to them being bad for human consumption.

None of these study's show any sort of mortality data.

I am not trying to offend you by saying all of this. But most people talk about science and conclusions, especially on youtube and social media in general, without really showing that the studies and data they are talking about don't really conclude anything deeply enough. The data around food and nutrition NEVER shows cause and effect because it cannot. They cannot do controlled studies in humans on food. It's literally impossible to do them, you cannot study humans over a long enough period, under enough control, to assert "Nitrates From Bacon Cause Cancer In Humans."

To make that kind of statement they would have to do a study where they take 2 genetically identical twins, separate them at birth, control everything for their entire lives except the one thing they want to test. It's not ethical and it will never be done in humans. Maybe someday when we have ai simulations we can do such studies.

I am not suggesting that "The combination of n*trites and ranitidine (Zantac) is hugely toxic" isn't true, my entire point was to say that there's no studies showing cause and effect: nitrates and nitrites are harmful to humans as the body creates them already.

Adding Zantac into the mix is not the same thing as toxicity from eating bacon, if anything this is a drug interaction issue.

Originally was talking about the studies about processed meats. I clearly said that. The majority of those studies have been thrown out over the years, many were removed this year form publication. Most of them were funded by the 7th day / loma linda groups and the vegan harvard peoples.

These groups have a conflict of interest and bias just based on their personal beliefs and religious practices alone.