[Chris Anthony]

Originally Posted by Akashic_Librarian

What has gotten in to everyone?

That'd be my job, actually. Full disclosure: I'm a data analyst working for a doctor at the School of Medicine at Johns Hopkins University. I'm the guy who runs the numbers for the studies you're dismissing, and it's in my personal and professional interest to make sure that those numbers are as accurate as they can possibly be, regardless of what conclusion they support. The funding for our studies comes from the National Institutes of Health, and we are not beholden to them to produce particular results or to study particular subjects.

In other words, I really do know whereof I speak.

Originally Posted by Akashic_Librarian

I saw, within a space of a week a magazine say that one food would kill you and then a few days later, that that same food would save your life.

But did you read the studies? That's my point in a nutshell - if you're going to dismiss medical studies based on their media coverage, then you're not actually saying anything about the studies, and you're doing a disservice to everybody involved in producing the study.

Originally Posted by Akashic_Librarian

I think ALL medical studies are NOT scientific because science is being able to repeat the same process over and over and get the same result. Now I would define Medicine as "Stupid" because the actual definition of stupid is:

Doing the same thing over and over and expecting the same results...

First off, I think you've got the joke backwards. The definition of stupid/insane is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

And, honestly, if two studies come out, one that says that Thing A is good for you and one that says that Thing A is bad for you, they're clearly not doing the same thing. In fact, the only similarities that can be assumed from that information are that a) they're both studies, and b) they're both looking at Thing A. Since they're drawing such wildly different conclusions, the reader has to assume that they're approaching the problem from different directions.

Let me throw out an example, just to illustrate the problem. Let's say that University of Lemuria puts out a study that says that Thing A reduces "bad" cholesterol by 95%, and Hy-Brasil State University puts out a study that says that Thing A impedes kidney function. They're looking at different things - and so they're seeing different results. And the media will report that U of L says that Thing A is good for you, and a week later, that HBSU says that Thing A is bad for you. If all you're reading is the magazine articles, you'll get the impression that there's waffling - but if you read the studies, you'll see that two different groups of people are looking at two different effects. They just happen to be looking at two different effects of Thing A.

Please, please don't base your judgments on media reporting like this. When you see a contradiction like the one you're reporting, look deeper. You can't really take control of your life if you're acting on superficial "knowledge" of what's going on.