we docs often hold "journal clubs" to dissect published articles, and often found flaws in the research: what is worse, the press often hyped these articles, even preliminary data that didn't prove anything.

My favorite was the "Statin" studies, which lowered your rate of heart attack, but not your death rate, since the death rate from cancer (in one study) or violence/suicide/homicide (in a second study) essentially made the death rates the same for both groups.

The cynical docs shrugged and said: I'd rather die of a heart attack.

And then you wonder if there is a relationship between the problems

For example, I just read that antihistamines increase one's chance of Alzheimers. Ah, but do they, or do those with allergies have an immune problem, and this immune problem makes them more prone toward Alzheimer's. And how did they diagnose Alzheimers: with an MRI or by a cognitive test?

You know, there is a study (on nuns) that show those who had low IQ's when they were young were more prone to "alzheimers" disease. Uh, maybe because they tested positve: so their IQ went from 100 to 80, whereas a drop from 140 to 120 might not be noticed.

Ditto for "dietary tests". My favorite is the nurses' diet study: I was once part of this (they figured I was a lady so must be a nurse), but quickly dropped out because heck, who remembers what you eat?

So the study would quickly lose the busy and the careless. But what is worse, it is assumed they are honest. (not putting down what they are supposed to be eating).

A recent dietary study shows the Mediterranean diet study had huge flaws. Well, duh.

from this article:

The authors have now reported that randomization had gone awry for 21% of the participants – 1,588 of the 7,447 people in the trial. About a third each were for one or more of these reasons: When more than one person in a house was recruited, instead of randomizing each, they were all assigned to the same diet; At one site, the randomization table hadn’t been used properly; and At one site, clinics were randomized instead of people.

I always get annoyed with those studies showing "long lived" people in some isolated area: Yugoslavia, a Greek Island, an isolated Indian tribe in South America.

What's left out of the reports? a population analysis to see if there really are more older folks there, and not just the hearty survivors of a population where the weak died off when they were young.

One: the high risk people died as infants.

Two: a lot died of Tb, partly related to malnutrition. So again, those with weaker bodies didn't survive.

Three: especially all those reports from Europe, you forget that they starved in the 1930s and 1940's.

I remember visiting Italy, and there were a lot of old, wrinkled ladies, hobbling along wearing black. Some were only in their 60s, but looked older.

But the little old ladies in our tour were wearing jogging suits and sneakers, and looked younger than their age.

--

in social science, the problem is worse.

Now there is a report that the "Stanford" prison experiment was not spontaneous, but the students playing the "guards" were coached.

Given the politicization of social science, including anthropology, all I can say is: DUH.