Mostly false Not supported by high-quality evidence Certainty of evidence: moderate provisional C-SRC-24

Tea is the second most dangerous and worst drink of all (after carbonated drinks); although it is full of antioxidants, it is a bad drink that causes constipation and acid reflux and thereby problems in the rest of the body.

In short: Mostly false: tea drinkers do not have higher death rates, tea is not a consistent cause of reflux, and no study shows that it causes constipation; its real downsides are reduced iron absorption with meals and very hot temperatures.
Conclusion: Tea is not a dangerous drink at usual intake; its real downsides (iron absorption, very hot temperature) differ from those he names.

Original statement

وتاني اخطر مشروب واسواقهم على الاطلاق الشاي الشاي اللي ملان انتي اوكسنت ده مشروب سيء يساوي امساك يساوي ارتجاع مريق دغري يساوي مشاكل بقيه الجسم

verbatim according to source. Translation by the project; the Arabic wording is authoritative.

Translation

Tea is the second most dangerous and worst drink of all (after carbonated drinks); although it is full of antioxidants, it is a bad drink that causes constipation and acid reflux and thereby problems in the rest of the body.

Origin

Source status
Video transcript (own words)
Attribution
Elawady (machine transcript)
Video
الجن . آلام العمود الفقري . الحقيقه والسراب (Open source)
Published
26 November 2025
Timestamp
0:42:42 (location in the original video’s automatic YouTube caption track; confirms where the words occur, not who speaks)
Attribution uncertainty
Archive transcript (YouTube CC or AI-generated); no timestamps; wording may contain speech-recognition errors; speaker turns are not marked, the excerpt was judged to be Elawady's own speech from context.
Claimed mechanism

Not stated; he acknowledges that tea contains flavonoids and antioxidants.

Claimed health effect

Constipation, acid reflux and downstream 'problems in the rest of the body'.

Population concerned

Tea drinkers in general.

Geographic restriction by Elawady

none found

Diverging source versions

ما هو الشاي هيعمل لك امساك الشاي هيعمل امساك بالرغم ان هو ملان في لافينويد وانتي اوكسدنت ومضاد للسرطان

Tea will give you constipation; tea causes constipation, even though it is full of flavonoids and antioxidants and is anti-cancer.

Source status
Video transcript (own words)
Attribution
Elawady (machine transcript)
Video
حقيقه جرثومه المعده . #ضياء_العوضي (Open source)
Published
15 December 2025
Timestamp
0:27:29 (location in the original video’s automatic YouTube caption track; confirms where the words occur, not who speaks)
Attribution uncertainty
Archive transcript (YouTube CC or AI-generated); no timestamps; wording may contain speech-recognition errors; speaker turns are not marked, the excerpt was judged to be Elawady's own speech from context.

Scientific assessment

Mostly false – Essential parts of the statement are not supported by the evidence or are strongly exaggerated.

Certainty of evidence: moderate – Further research may still affect the assessment.

1. What was claimed?

Tea is the second most dangerous drink and causes constipation and reflux, despite its antioxidants.

2. What is demonstrably correct?

Tea does have a real downside he does not mention: tannins in tea taken with meals inhibit the absorption of plant (non-haem) iron (I-INTA-04), which matters for people with iron deficiency or plant-based diets. Very hot tea (above 55-60 °C) is associated with oesophageal and gastric cancer (I-INTA-03). In East Asian studies tea drinking was associated with higher odds of reflux disease (OR 1.27, 1.07-1.51; I-INTA-01). He correctly notes that tea contains flavonoids and antioxidants.

3. What is wrong or exaggerated?

Calling tea one of the most dangerous drinks is contradicted by large cohort data: highest versus lowest tea intake was associated with 10% lower all-cause mortality (0.90, 0.86-0.95) and 14% lower cardiovascular mortality (0.86, 0.79-0.94) in nearly 2 million people (I-INTA-02), and an umbrella review of 96 meta-analyses found more benefit than harm at usual intake (I-INTA-03). Overall, tea was not significantly associated with reflux disease (OR 1.12, 0.98-1.27), and in Middle Asian studies it was associated with lower odds (I-INTA-01).

4. What remains unclear?

We found no human study showing that tea causes constipation at usual intake (PubMed search 'tea consumption constipation', 2026-10-25, returned mainly animal or unrelated studies). The observational design of the mortality studies cannot prove that tea itself lowers risk. Indirectly, caffeine intake was not associated with constipation in 13,941 US adults (I-SRC-122).

5. Which studies support it?

I-INTA-04 (iron absorption), I-INTA-03 (very hot tea), regional subgroup in I-INTA-01.

6. Which studies contradict it?

I-INTA-02, I-INTA-03, I-INTA-01 (overall). I-SRC-122 (caffeine and constipation), I-SRC-123 (tea and lower reflux prevalence in Taiwan), I-SRC-124 (tea/coffee not a reflux risk factor in Saudi studies).

7. What applies to Germany and Europe?

Tea is not restricted in European dietary guidance; no specific guideline was fetched for this review.

8. What is known about Egypt?

Tea is a very common drink in Egypt; no Egypt-specific outcome data were found. Drinking tea with or right after meals may matter for iron status where iron deficiency is common. In the closest regional data (Saudi Arabia), frequent tea or coffee drinking was not a risk factor for reflux (31.6% vs 31.3%; I-SRC-124).

9. What practical conclusion is appropriate?

Usual tea drinking is not dangerous for most people. It is reasonable to let tea cool before drinking, to avoid tea with meals when iron deficiency is a concern, and to cut down if tea clearly triggers personal reflux symptoms.

Assessment details

Rationale for certainty of evidence

Large prospective cohort meta-analyses and an umbrella review consistently associate usual tea intake with lower mortality and more benefit than harm; the reflux meta-analysis shows no significant overall association. Evidence is observational, and data on constipation are lacking, so certainty is moderate rather than high.

Source quality

Elawady's own words in an archive machine transcript (live stream); exact wording may contain recognition errors.

Regional transferability

Mostly transferable; Egypt-specific tea habits (strength, sugar, temperature, drinking with meals) were not studied in the sources read.

Individual exceptions

Some people notice reflux symptoms after tea or caffeine; people with iron deficiency or at risk of it may benefit from not drinking tea with meals.

Regional scope of the claim
general (biological/medical)
Last reviewed
26 October 2026 provisional

Scientific evidence in detail

Not supported by high-quality evidence – There is no good evidence for the claim; this alone does not prove it wrong.

Research question: Is usual tea drinking dangerous, and does it cause constipation and reflux?

Research question in detail (PECO)
Population
Adults
Intervention or exposure
Habitual tea drinking
Comparison
Low or no tea
Geographic scope
universal biology; tea type and temperature vary by region
Outcomes
  • Mortality
  • Constipation
  • GERD

Study results as reported by the authors. Our assessment follows below.

What speaks for the claim?

What speaks against the claim?

What does the overall evidence say?

Editorial assessment based on the studies above – not itself a study result.

Which position is better supported?

Usual tea drinking is not dangerous; associations with reflux are inconsistent and region-dependent; no evidence for constipation.

Why some studies weigh more

Large cohort meta-analyses weigh more than inconsistent cross-sectional reflux data.

Is a causal relationship established? Not established Observational evidence only.

Remaining uncertainty

Tea-specific constipation data are lacking.

Justified conclusion

The claim that tea is among the most dangerous drinks is not supported; real issues are iron absorption with meals and very hot tea.

Why do studies seem to disagree?

East Asian studies show positive tea-GERD associations, Middle Eastern and Taiwanese data neutral or inverse; tea type, temperature and study design explain the differences.

Does this depend on the country?
General biological effects
Universal.
Eating habits
Egyptians often drink strong black tea, sometimes with meals.
Origin of the food
Not applicable.
Contaminants
Not applicable.
National production conditions
Not applicable.
Legal rules
Not applicable.
Actual monitoring data
Arab-region GERD data (I-SRC-124) show no tea effect.

A regional difference that changes the conclusion is not supported by robust data.

Statistical re-check
  • OR CI symmetry – 0.843 (0.779-0.911) symmetric recalculated
  • Prevalence difference – 31.6% vs 31.3% (0.3 points) recalculated
Certainty of the overall evidence (GRADE, simplified)
Main outcome
Mortality with habitual tea drinking
Starting level
low (observational studies)
Reasons for downgrading
  • inconsistency (I2 ~80%)
Reasons for upgrading
  • dose-response
Result
low

Simplified assessment by a single reviewer, following the GRADE approach; not a formal GRADE panel. GRADE rates the body of evidence for one outcome, not individual studies.

Search strategy

Documented literature searches for this review (search strings in the original database syntax).

DatabaseDateSearchLooking forHitsIncluded
Europe PMC26 October 2026(tea OR caffeine) AND (constipation OR "bowel movement" OR "stool consistency") AND (NHANES OR cohort OR "cross-sectional" OR trial) AND PUB_YEAR:[2015 TO 2026]supporting evidence5606
Europe PMC26 October 2026(tea) AND ("gastroesophageal reflux" OR GERD OR "reflux symptoms") AND ("meta-analysis" OR cohort OR "Mendelian randomization") AND PUB_YEAR:[2019 TO 2026]both directions671

Open questions

Tea-specific constipation studies.

How deeply was this checked?

7 linked studies: 2 checked in full text (2 of them with a structured risk-of-bias assessment), 5 on the basis of the abstract, 0 bibliographically only. No formal assessment with two independent reviewers and no independent human expert review has taken place yet.

Last scientific review: 26 October 2026

History of the verdict
  1. 25 October 2026 · Phase 1 · Initial assessment: Mostly false (moderate)
  2. 26 October 2026 · Phase 4 (systematic evidence review) · Re-examined with extended evidence; verdict unchanged: Mostly false (moderate)
    New regional and constipation data are consistent with the existing assessment.
    New sources: I-SRC-122 I-SRC-123 I-SRC-124

In plain language

Dr. Elawady called tea the second most dangerous drink and said it causes constipation and heartburn. Studies of almost two million people found that tea drinkers had somewhat lower death rates, not higher. Across 30 studies, tea was not clearly linked to reflux overall. Tea does reduce iron absorption when drunk with meals, and very hot tea is linked to throat and stomach cancer. These are reasons to drink it cooler and between meals, not to call it dangerous.

Studies on this claim

Studies supporting the claim (1)

  • Does tea block iron from food?

    Disler PB et al.. Gut 1975 · PMID 1168162 · DOI 10.1136/gut.16.3.193
    Otherindependent cross-checkabstract checked

    Tea taken with meals reduced absorption of plant (non-haem) iron in volunteers.

    Supports a real downside of tea (iron absorption), different from the harms he names.

    Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    Tea and iron absorption

    How was the study done?

    Absorption studies in volunteers

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    Not stated in abstract

    What was actually found?

    Tea inhibited non-haem iron absorption

    How large was the observed effect?

    Not given in abstract

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    People at risk of iron deficiency may drink tea between rather than with meals

    What are the study's limitations?

    Old; short-term

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Supports a different harm than constipation/reflux

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    High

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    Effects on long-term iron status

    Scientific details →

Studies contradicting or limiting the claim (5)

  • Do tea drinkers live shorter or longer?

    Kim Y et al.. Epidemiology and health 2024 · PMID 38938012 · DOI 10.4178/epih.e2024056
    Meta-analysisindependent cross-checkfull text, structured risk-of-bias assessment★ key study

    Across nearly 2 million people, tea drinkers had about 10% lower death rates than non-drinkers.

    Tea drinkers had lower, not higher, mortality.

    Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    Tea and risk of death

    How was the study done?

    Meta-analysis of 38 cohort data sets

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    1,956,549 participants

    What was actually found?

    Lower all-cause and cardiovascular mortality with tea

    How large was the observed effect?

    All-cause 0.90 (0.86-0.95); CVD 0.86 (0.79-0.94)

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    Usual tea drinking is not linked to harm

    What are the study's limitations?

    Observational; high heterogeneity; benefit seen mainly in Asian studies, not in European ones

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Contradicts 'second most dangerous drink'

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    Moderate (no association in European cohorts, but no harm either)

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    That tea itself causes the lower risk

    Scientific details →

  • Is tea good or bad for health overall?

    Yi M et al.. Molecular nutrition & food research 2019 · PMID 31216091 · DOI 10.1002/mnfr.201900389
    Systematic reviewindependent cross-checkabstract checked★ key study

    Across 96 meta-analyses, tea showed more benefits than harms; only very hot tea (>55-60 °C) was linked to oesophageal and gastric cancer.

    Benefit outweighs harm at usual intake; only very hot tea linked to harm.

    Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    Overview of tea and health

    How was the study done?

    Umbrella review

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    96 meta-analyses

    What was actually found?

    More benefit than harm; harm only for very hot tea

    How large was the observed effect?

    Lower risks at 2-3 cups/day

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    Normal tea drinking is safe for most people; let it cool

    What are the study's limitations?

    Observational

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Contradicts 'dangerous drink'; supports a temperature caveat

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    Moderate

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    Causation

    Scientific details →

  • Caffeine and constipation

    Li Y et al.. J Neurogastroenterol Motil 2025 · PMID 40205901 · DOI 10.5056/jnm23181
    Cross-sectional studyindependent cross-checkabstract checked

    In 13,941 US adults, caffeine intake was not linked to constipation.

    Caffeine intake not associated with constipation (indirect for tea).

    Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    Test caffeine-constipation link

    How was the study done?

    Cross-sectional survey

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    13,941 adults

    What was actually found?

    No association

    How large was the observed effect?

    OR 1.01 per 100 mg

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    Caffeine drinks do not seem to constipate

    What are the study's limitations?

    Not tea-specific

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Indirectly contradicts the claim

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    Moderate

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    Effect of tea tannins

    Scientific details →

  • Tea drinking and reflux in Taiwan

    Kuo CM et al.. Int J Med Sci 2026 · PMID 42807308 · DOI 10.7150/ijms.139922
    Cross-sectional studyindependent cross-checkabstract checked

    Habitual drinkers of green or oolong tea had somewhat less reflux; black tea showed no link.

    Tea drinkers had lower GERD prevalence; black tea neutral.

    Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    Test tea and reflux

    How was the study done?

    Cross-sectional study

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    27,119 adults

    What was actually found?

    Lower reflux with green/oolong tea; black tea neutral

    How large was the observed effect?

    OR 0.843

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    Tea does not generally cause reflux

    What are the study's limitations?

    Self-report; tea types differ

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Contradicts the claim

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    Low

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    Causation

    Scientific details →

  • Reflux risk factors in Saudi Arabia

    Alhafid IA et al.. BMJ Open 2026 · PMID 42303406 · DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2026-118665
    Meta-analysisindependent cross-checkabstract checked

    Painkillers and smoking were linked to reflux; frequent tea or coffee drinking was not.

    In Saudi studies frequent coffee/tea was not a GERD risk factor.

    Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    Find reflux risk factors in the Gulf

    How was the study done?

    Meta-analysis

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    14 studies

    What was actually found?

    Smoking and NSAIDs, not tea/coffee

    How large was the observed effect?

    31.6% vs 31.3% prevalence

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    Tea is not a main reflux cause

    What are the study's limitations?

    Heterogeneous data

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Contradicts the claim (regional)

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    High for Arab region

    Scientific details →

Studies with mixed or unclear results (1)

  • Does tea cause heartburn?

    Cao H et al.. Medicine 2019 · PMID 30681584 · DOI 10.1097/MD.0000000000014173
    Meta-analysisindependent cross-checkfull text, structured risk-of-bias assessment★ key study

    Across 30 studies, tea drinkers did not have significantly more reflux disease overall (OR 1.12, 0.98-1.27).

    Overall no association with GERD; some regional subgroups show higher odds.

    Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: low · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    Link between tea and reflux disease

    How was the study done?

    Meta-analysis of observational studies

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    30 studies from 23 articles

    What was actually found?

    No significant overall association; higher odds in East Asia, lower odds in the Middle East; cohort studies null

    How large was the observed effect?

    OR 1.12 (0.98-1.27)

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    Tea is not a proven general cause of reflux

    What are the study's limitations?

    Mostly cross-sectional, mostly unadjusted studies; high heterogeneity; no protocol; reporting inconsistencies

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Contradicts 'tea equals reflux' as a general rule

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    Moderate

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    Whether tea triggers symptoms in a particular person

    Scientific details →

Regional context

Germany / EU

Tea is not restricted in European dietary guidance; no specific guideline was fetched for this review.

Egypt

Tea is a very common drink in Egypt; no Egypt-specific outcome data were found. Drinking tea with or right after meals may matter for iron status where iron deficiency is common. In the closest regional data (Saudi Arabia), frequent tea or coffee drinking was not a risk factor for reflux (31.6% vs 31.3%; I-SRC-124).

What applies in my country?

General scientific assessment

Mostly false Tea is not a dangerous drink at usual intake; its real downsides (iron absorption, very hot temperature) differ from those he names.

This statement concerns biological or medical relationships. The scientific assessment above applies regardless of the country; country-specific food data do not change it.

References

  1. The effect of tea on iron absorption.. Disler PB et al.. Gut 1975 · PMID 1168162 · DOI 10.1136/gut.16.3.193
  2. Tea consumption and risk of all-cause, cardiovascular disease, and cancer mortality: a meta-analysis of thirty-eight prospective cohort data sets.. Kim Y et al.. Epidemiology and health 2024 · PMID 38938012 · DOI 10.4178/epih.e2024056
  3. Tea Consumption and Health Outcomes: Umbrella Review of Meta-Analyses of Observational Studies in Humans.. Yi M et al.. Molecular nutrition & food research 2019 · PMID 31216091 · DOI 10.1002/mnfr.201900389
  4. Association Between Caffeine Intake and Stool Frequency- or Consistency-Defined Constipation: Data From the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2005-2010.. Li Y et al.. J Neurogastroenterol Motil 2025 · PMID 40205901 · DOI 10.5056/jnm23181
  5. Habitual tea consumption is associated with a low prevalence of gastroesophageal reflux disease in a Taiwanese population study.. Kuo CM et al.. Int J Med Sci 2026 · PMID 42807308 · DOI 10.7150/ijms.139922
  6. Prevalence and risk factors of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease in Saudi Arabia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.. Alhafid IA et al.. BMJ Open 2026 · PMID 42303406 · DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2026-118665
  7. Association between tea consumption and gastroesophageal reflux disease: A meta-analysis.. Cao H et al.. Medicine 2019 · PMID 30681584 · DOI 10.1097/MD.0000000000014173

← Back to overview