I don't understand what you're complaining about. The finding that red meat is probably carcinogenic isn't advice and doesn't pretend to be. The evidence isn't that strong and the WHO goes out of its way to acknowledge that. They have done everything they can to put their findings in context so people can understand them. Would you have preferred they not publish at all?
You ask a number of questions which the WHO has already answered. I don't think you tried very hard to find information. You can read the original monograph:
It's a common fallacy that increasing the dose necessarily increases the effects. There are a whole lot of chemicals where the relationship is more complex. There are drugs where negative effects only occur when the drug is discontinued, where the effect of the drug increases or decreases as it it taken continuously, where the effect rapidly saturates and does not increase with increasing dose, and so forth.
I know enough about pharmacology to know that I know nothing.
> It's a common fallacy that increasing the dose necessarily increases the effects.
Can you provide an example of a chemical which has effects on the human body that are completely unrelated to the size of the dose? Just because the effects of a carcinogen may be non-linear in relation to the dosage, that doesn't mean that a greater risk of cancer incidents with a greater dose is an unreasonable expectation. Some thing can be assumed unless an exception is identified.
You ask a number of questions which the WHO has already answered. I don't think you tried very hard to find information. You can read the original monograph:
https://monographs.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/m...
Or if you want a more approachable layman's explanation:
https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/can...
In some cases the answer will be "we don't know". You had best get used to that.