Here we go again.
They Dazzled Me With Science
This NY Times article on scientific misconduct contains a passage inadvertently explaining conservative distrust of the liberal academic establishment:
...All of [the issues in gathering and interpreting data] makes the most popular food and health studies problematic and frequently contradictory.
In one recent example, an observational study of thousands of people published in The Lancet last year made headlines with its findings that high-carb diets were linked to increased mortality rates and that eating saturated fat and meat was protective. Then in August, a separate team of researchers published an observational study of thousands of people in a related journal, The Lancet Public Health, with contrasting findings: Low-carb diets that were high in meat increased mortality rates.
“You can analyze observational studies in very different ways and, depending on what your belief is — and there are very strong nutrition beliefs out there — you can get some very dramatic patterns,” Dr. Ioannidis said.
No doubt. And the idea of "motivated research" - that data has not been collected and analyzed correctly until it confirms the researchers world-view - surely does not exist only in the field of nutrition science.