Chart of the Decade: Why You Shouldn’t Trust Every Scientific Study You See
I 100% agree with the headline; especially for research papers even more than clinical trials.However, I'm a bit puzzled by the weird direction the journalist ran with this, which is straight to his preconceived notions that are not that supported by the data he's looking at.But there's a bit more to this than just that one chart. In addition to self-correction (e.g. beginning to require pre-registration of trials), science is somewhat additive. Is it not possible that the low-hanging fruit had been found earlier, in the 1970s-1990s, and the problem got harder? With the advances in treatments for cardiovascular disease couldn't the problem just be harder?And look at that "harm" study. Turns out it's one of many from the Women's Health Initiative [1], and it's the test of whether hormone therapy for post-menopausal women causes heart problems: that is, it's not a test of a drug to prevent heart conditions, but a test of side effects.How many other of these studies are like that: studies about effects on the heart, not trials for new drugs to treat the heart? How did the ratio change before and after 2000?In any case, don't trust every popular news article you read about science, particularly if it's written by Kevin Drum and posted on Mother Jones.[1] https://www.whi.org/SitePages/WHI%20Home.aspx