Slashdot Mirror
What Can We Learn From The Retraction of the Mediterranean Diet Study? (vox.com)
Remember that landmark 2013 study that found that people on a Mediterranean diet had a 30% lower chance of heart attack, stroke, or death from cardiovascular disease than people on low-fat diets? An anonymous reader quotes Vox:
Last June, the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine pulled the original paper from the record, issuing a rare retraction. It also republished a new version [of the PREDIMED study] based on a reanalysis of the data that accounted for the missteps... But after spending several days talking with some of the brightest minds in nutrition research and epidemiology, I now feel the PREDIMED retraction is actually cause for hope -- maybe even a new beginning for the field.
Yes, studies with big flaws pass peer review and make it into high-impact journals, but the record can eventually be corrected because of skeptical researchers questioning things. It's science working as it should, and the PREDIMED takedown is a wonderful example of that. This process should bring us a step closer to what really matters: informing people who want to know how to eat for a healthy life.
Yes, studies with big flaws pass peer review and make it into high-impact journals, but the record can eventually be corrected because of skeptical researchers questioning things. It's science working as it should, and the PREDIMED takedown is a wonderful example of that. This process should bring us a step closer to what really matters: informing people who want to know how to eat for a healthy life.
You should go on systemic reviews published in high impact factor journals.
The reason is that the world is complex. When you look at it, even if your technique is flawless (which it won't be), you will find contradictory evidence. If you look back at landmark studies that have stood the test of time, you will just about always find procedural or analytical flaws that invalidate their conclusions. Note very carefully here: an invalid conclusion is not the same as an *untrue* one.
The moment of scientific discovery has immense romantic appeal, but it's only the start of a long process in which that discovery is repeatedly knocked down and then propped back up again. What a systemic review paper does is go back over the *entire* chain of contradictory findings and sum up the state of the evidence.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Any/all of Ancel Keys politically motivated bullshit studies? Let's retract his work and refigure our policy priorities in line with real science. Oh wait, can't do that and admit that 40+ years of food policy was wrong...
shut the fuck up, nerd
We can learn that if you really want to benefit from the Mediterranean diet, be Mediterranean.
One thing that irks me, is that the Mediterranean Diet claims that it is based on what people of that area eat.
Well, I am from the Mediterranean (Alexandria, Egypt), and I have to tell you that this diet is not based on reality. If anything, it is highly selective.
Yes, olive oil, nuts, pulses and fruit are part of the diet. But there is also all sorts of chicken, duck, doves, beef, lamb, and fish, mostly cooked in clarified butter (almost the same as the ghee of India).
If you look at Italy, Greece, Turkey, Southern France, and Spain, their cuisine has those claimed magical components, but also plenty of animal products (lamb, beef, pork, goat, rabbit, duck) and animal fat (lard, sheep fat).
And you find the same magical ingredients in countries far away from the Mediterranean, such as Iran, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, ...etc. Lots of nuts, raisins, lentils, beans, and fruit.
So, this Mediterranean diet is imaginary at best, regardless of whether it works or not.
2bits.com, Inc: Drupal, WordPress, and LAMP performance tuning.
to EAT three times a day.
But let's trust them anyways.
I don't even pay attention anymore. Just use common sense and you'll be farther ahead than you would be chasing whatever the current recommendations are.
specialty engineered food
Yep, those Hostess HoHos really hit the spot.
Definition of science: " Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. " Studies of current dieting fads should not be concerned at all as science. Correct diet is based on INDIVIDUAL needs of a person, that person's lifestyle and circumstances. No universal law can be applied to diet that would be as good for one person as to the other, aside from the fact that we NEED to eat to stay alive and we already know that without any science needing to get involved. So get these fake scientists off here and send them to the holistic section of the filing cabinet..
Fuck you you filthy mouthed creature
"Fake News" is a terrible term. The correct term would be "misinformation" and all sides do it.
When people define themselves by what they "hate" their is little chance of actually solving the problems we face. Rallies and marches do not solve problems thy only amplify the discord between those holding and supporting differing views. There are just too many people who think "Well I read it on the Internet so it must be true!"
What we are dealing with today fits the description of "Yellow Journalism".
"Yellow journalism and the yellow press are American terms for journalism and associated newspapers and media that present little or no legitimate well-researched news while instead using eye-catching headlines for increased sales. Techniques may include exaggerations of news events, scandal-mongering, or sensationalism. "
Racist.
and peanut M&Ms
mostly cereals & vegetables with just a little bit of meat, and not raw vegetables because they can be hard to digest, i like them gently sauteed, i dont stick with any particular diet and just pay attention to my insides and what makes me comfortable and happy when it comes to foods, i stick with fresh fruit & veggies, sometimes frozen, but almost never veggies in a tin can
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
Diets have improved out of sight since my grandparents were young. Science can and does get things hilariously wrong, but on average, the correct ideas outlast the incorrect ones, if only on account of them being stronger memes. Scientific method should be seen as an accelerator for natural selection of beneficial memes; we're still nowehere clever enough to do this stuff without 95% of it being empirical study / trial and error.
eat my ass and suck my balls, fool
Good lord, welcome to the middle ages.
Is it common sense that the fructose half of sucrose is metabolized in the liver by much the same pathway that processes ethanol (which if abused, in either case, contributes to fatty liver disease)?
No, it is not.
Is it common sense that the pancreas contains a melatonin receptor, so that your metabolic response to carbohydrates varies throughout the day?
Is it common sense that ulcers are mainly caused by Heliobacter pylori?
Is the effect of Toxoplasma gondii on motorcyclist and mouse behaviour common sense?
Is it common sense that fecal microbiota transplants would prove more effective in treating C. difficile than vancomycin?
Is it common sense that wholesome fresh fish potentially contains toxic levels of methyl mercury that bio-accumulate in adipose tissues?
Is it common sense that the high-productivity crops introduced during the agricultural revolution (not yet using GMO breeding techniques) remain as nutritious as the original heirloom crops?
(Besides, that was a trick question. There were three separate agricultural revolutions as human population exploded, so there are—logically—three entirely different tiers of heirloom throwbacks; the only reason this hasn't shown up at a Whole Foods near you is that Amazon's marketrons have yet to figure out how to make Silver Heirloom, Gold Heirloom, and Platinum Heirloom sound appetizing—though it does accurately reflect viable price points, given the associated yields.)
Diet is super important. We can't go around making naive assumptions. Neither can we trust failed epidemiology to untangle these incredibly complex signals. However, from the microbiome (and proteomics) much truth shall flow, even if it proves to be slow going.
We should replicate studies and confirm analysis independently before we get too excited about any results. It is hard to run this kind of studies, there are lots of variable to consider, lots of potential misreported event. We need to be careful. I don't mean that the authors are always lying on purpose, but they could have missed something important, they could have made an error. Peer review does not quite catch these things.
Any kind of study should be taken with a grain of salt until it is replicated in multiple place.
And I say that as a computer scientist. There are things that appear to make a lot of sense when you describe them. It does not always mean they will work. And sometimes it works in one paper, and not in other ones. Machines are never quite the same, the instances could have slightly different characteristics. Lots of things can happen. We need to be careful.
Of course, the media just loves a good headline. So they'll print pretty much anything to sale some papers.
"What Can We Learn From The Retraction of the Mediterranean Diet Study?"
I learned that Slashdot Editors don't care enough about their job to capitalise "the" consistently.
Oh wow! Oh great! Apologists and astroturffers for McDonalds get a healthy diet paper pulled.
Burning calories gives you cancer. This should be obvious because metabolism with oxygen produces free radicals.
Low activity, and very low caloric intact is the only option. Marathon runners might be healthy as middle aged adults, but they don't make beyond their 90's.
Look at this XKCD comic.
The farther you get from pure mathematics, the more skeptical you should be of so-called 'scientific studies' and the more you need to question the study's methodology and statistical analysis.
What we should already know is that agenda-driven 'researchers' can do everything in their power to bias 'research,' submit their findings to non-trustworthy 'journals,' and most unskeptical people will tout the findings without knowing the bogus processes behind the results.
Why, this week alone, we've seen several 'studies' posted on slashdot with dubious research:
1. Study about violent video games without large samples, representative samples, and survey based data collection.
2. Study about glyphosate that purposefully used only 'high exposure' data to derive their 41% cancer increase.
3. Investigation into Tesla's 'autopilot' where a difference of 18 cars worth of data causes a 100 percentage point swing (+40 to -59).
We as consumers of this information just need to be more skeptical that farther away the research gets from hard science. Sociology research should be ignored outright; medical research should be taken with a large grain of salt; physics/chemistry research should be relatively reliable.
But still be wary, snake-oil salesman exist in all areas of research -- anyone remember cold fusion?
Mosr people donâ(TM)t make it beyond their 90s. If marathon runners are making it to 90 then theyâ(TM)ve far exceeded the odds based on life expectancy in the US.
I ate pretty good in my younger days when we still had the 4 food groups: Carry-out, Frozen, Pizza, and Ramen. I also had generous servings of Malt, Barley, Hops, and Yeast!
The driving force in science today is grant funding, which is itself driven by citations. For example, the NIH measures "research productivity" primarily with # of citations/dollar spent. In nanotechnology, my field, we have also measured research effectiveness by number of citations. This is not some idle interest, but leads to how research funding is distributed by scientific field. This results in a negative financial incentive for in-field scientists to disagree, and positive financial incentive to show that related scientific fields are problematic (and thus less worthy of funding). In this context of correlation between funding and citations, reviews should be viewed with great skepticism.
In this case, science was advanced by introduction and acceptance of better statistical standards driven by competitive cross-disciplinary communication. (Leading to a main conclusion of TFA at Vox: the system works.)
In my experience, validation only happens when scientists from other fields are able to reproduce and expand upon your results.
The team that originally made the Mediterranean Diet claims ignored the similar results and longevity from non-Mediterranean countries in Europe. The marketing with those pesky other countries just didn't work.
The Germans were at the front of nutritional knowledge, but due to wars, those studies were suppressed. The USGovt need to make cheap food "ok" also had a hand in nutritional findings based on wishes instead of science. The USDA was (is?) owned by agribusinesses who demand that their products cannot be on the "limit eating" list, as most of them should. This goes for the flavored water and sugar and wheat industries too.
So, what should humans eat to stop the heart disease, obesity, diabetes that was seldom seen in the past? Eat like your ancestors did in 1900-1935. They didn't have access to many flavored waters, coffee, tea, wine, beer and spirits. They didn't have easy access to sugar except for sweets. A sweet was something eaten once a week, in small amounts. They had fresh breads, cheeses, limited meats, limited fish, limited fruits. So what did they mostly eat? Vegetables. Also, they preserved/pickled everything to have those foods over winter. Cabbage, carrots, beets, you name it - it was preserved, slightly fermented, then ready to eat with all those natural bacteria.
Not too much meat, fish, chicken - the very expensive stuff from the time.
No need to eat like cavemen, just like our grand and great-grand parents.
"I refuse to spend my life worrying about what I eat. There is no pleasure worth forgoing just for an extra three years in the geriatric ward."
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
Alcohol is a literal poison. Drinking a lot will kill you, drinking a medium amount is bad for you, drinking in moderation is still harmful.
You can drown in water. That's why I'm very careful to make sure I only have it in very small quantities and the rest is alcohol.
I've never heard of anyone drowning in alcohol.
No white flour? It sounds like you have not lived in the area. They eat a lot of white bread in Greece and Italy.
"Trust me, I'm a scientist" starts to sound at the same level as "Hold my beer and watch this". The guys with the degrees find that to find funding (which keeps them alive) they need to 'adjust to the agenda at hand', whether its big-pasta, big-oil, big-pharma or big-whatever.
Just ignore these guys, avoid processed sugar-laden (or now aspartame-laden) foods and carry on with life. Even the mighty MIT cannot unbundle itself from the money entanglement it is in due to overseas meddling and influence. Science needs a re-approach, all of it.
Alcohol is a literal poison.
That was the reason humans started producing it. It killed all of the microbes and other parasites that they didn't understand and couldn't see and meant that you wouldn't shit your own eyeballs out from illness you could get from water due to poor sanitation. Historically beer had much lower alcohol levels for the stuff that workers were drinking out in the fields or that was being served at meals.
Whoosh!
Oil workers in Alaska would do fine on a Mediterranean diet, there's nothing "cutesy" about it. You're a moron who knows nothing about this.
Alcohol is a literal poison.
That was the reason humans started producing it. It killed all of the microbes and other parasites that they didn't understand and couldn't see and meant that you wouldn't shit your own eyeballs out from illness you could get from water due to poor sanitation. Historically beer had much lower alcohol levels for the stuff that workers were drinking out in the fields or that was being served at meals.
Exactly. Beer, with it's much lessened microbial hotel load, it's yeast provided B vitamins, and it's sedative effect has probably saved many more lives than it has hurt. But the puritans apparently believe they are going to live forever
BTW, the next big push will be eating insects. The UN is pushing that hard already.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Read Shakespeare's Richard III.
George Plantagenet, 1st Duke of Clarence, was allegedly drowned in a butt of Malmsey wine on 18 February 1478.
Low activity yields weak muscles and weak bones. Weakness is unpleasant and does not promotes a long life. Moderate activity and a good low calorie diet gives a better chance for a long, pleasant life.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Interesting parent comment: "Studies of current dieting fads should not be [considered] as science. Correct diet is based on INDIVIDUAL needs of a person, that person's lifestyle and circumstances. No universal law can be applied to diet that would be as good for one person as [for] [an]other..."
I think there are general facts about diet that are correct, but most articles and books say some things that are reasonable, but also add a lot of ideas that are imagination.
Readers didn't like my comment: "There is fake news everywhere. People don't think carefully." However, it seems to me that is the overall issue. There are literally thousands of diet books. All of the diet books I've seen are very limited in their understanding.
Actually this on only modern. The bread used to be rye or whole wheat
"Fake News" is a terrible term. The correct term would be "misinformation" and all sides do it.
When people define themselves by what they "hate" their is little chance of actually solving the problems we face. Rallies and marches do not solve problems thy only amplify the discord between those holding and supporting differing views. There are just too many people who think "Well I read it on the Internet so it must be true!"
What we are dealing with today fits the description of "Yellow Journalism".
"Yellow journalism and the yellow press are American terms for journalism and associated newspapers and media that present little or no legitimate well-researched news while instead using eye-catching headlines for increased sales. Techniques may include exaggerations of news events, scandal-mongering, or sensationalism. "
Fakely important. What's different is "social media". There has never, ever been anything even remotely similar in scope and immediacy. Not newspapers, not radio, not television. Nothing.
And the populations. They really are getting dumber, but I don't know if social media has influence there too.
Using seal blubber instead of olive oil
Burning calories gives you cancer. This should be obvious because metabolism with oxygen produces free radicals.
Low activity, and very low caloric intact is the only option. Marathon runners might be healthy as middle aged adults, but they don't make beyond their 90's.
Everyone already knows free radicals are isomers of Glyphosate Einstein.
That's because your not drinking literal
As a society, we in the west became enamoured of "experts" and scientists, probably as a result of all the breakthroughs we saw that occurred in WWII. In the post-war era popular films frequently portrayed some terrible problem being solved with the assistance of lab-coated experts. While this was rolled-back a bit in the 1970s with lots of movies depicting "experts" who were wrong or using their expertise for dubious ends, it seems we still as a culture cling to some elements of "the fellows in the lab coats will save us" meme.
I suspect this is why we so often fall for a headline touting some "study" by scientists or other "experts" to the point that we demand our politicians encode the findings into public policy, and many of us even re-order elements of our lives to comply with the "findings".
In all things it's wise to keep in mind that ALL humans are "only human". In an altogether different context president Reagan used to say "trust, but verify" - healthy yet perhaps too trusting attitude. The fact that some supposed authority or expert says it, does not necessarily mean it's true. It may well be easy to say "that expert over there told me this", but do you really know what methodology that expert used? Are you certain that expert has no bias?
No, what you call "Yellow Journalism" is what the rest of us call "Sensationalist Propaganda".
Chinese newspapers are "Yellow Journalism".
Define "moderate activity". How many times a day should I get up off the couch to get a beer in order to have "moderate activity"?
Truer words were never spoken. Day after day, APK silences his critics.
ALL HAIL APK
Interestingly enough, I can find no such study at the Pew Research Center.
One article I found on some obscure site (fellowship of the mind...??) said it was a 2012 study but only links back to other pages on the same site. Not to the Pew Research Center.
Care to provide a link? There are thousands of Pew studies, and an hour search on the site found nothing, even using 2012 and searching.
Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
Every good scientist knows that.
-- Cheers!
The only countries in Europe that I can think of where they don’t eat primarily white bread are Germany and the Netherlands.
-- Cheers!
However, the evidence here in front of your very eyes is that some are more human than others!
The only thing we should demand of politicians is that they walk the plank.
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
You should go on systemic reviews published in high impact factor journals.
Systemic reviews aren't great, either. If it's a topic you care about, you should read the study yourself and evaluate it. Reproduce it if it's important enough, but with a knowledge of statistics you should be able to filter out most of the problematic ones.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Just use common sense
wtf is common sense?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
This is far too regular occurrence and it looks like ar too large a percentage of scientific studies are flawed and many are so badly flawed that their conclusions are completely wrong and sometimes the complete opposite conclusion is true.
So why aren't universities teaching people how to do science properly and why are scientific papers constantly missing all of the bad papers they are supposed to be reviewing?
The system looks very broken to me and I do not agree with " It's science working as it should," it's a mess that literally affects whether people live or die.
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
There's no gourmet Mediterranean food in Prison, Trump Traitors
And even there, a lot of the brown bread is just colored white bread; the mild taste and soft texture of white bread, and the healthy feeling of brown bread (win / "win"!).
Yes you're right. And then there is Waldkorn, with extra added sugar and other niceties. It's very tasty though.
-- Cheers!
How the populations and social media having anything to do with the corrupt science?
The scientists of Mediterranean diet did not find it of Facebook.
Everyone will shill their personal dietary preference because the scientists left the room.
You fell for the current Republican strategy of just making shit up. Your research and disproof of the statement is a waste of your time. It just spreads the original statement farther.
For me it's 6, but I'm trying to improve to 10 or so.
Nobody pays you to reproduce studies.
/. TROLLS learned about their "diet" vs. me: They now know that EATING THEIR WORDS != GOOD NUTRITION & they're dyring of MALNUTRITION due to it (lmao).
* ESPECIALLY when they RAM those words back down their CHICKEN-NECK whimp THROATS since they put their FOOT in their MOUTH to taste that "fine flavor" of EATING THEIR WORDS!
APK
P.S.=> They're STARVING but they do ENJOY the BITTER TASTE of SELF-DEFEAT vs. me, everytime - lmao.. apk
Systemic reviews are the best way for layman to evaluate evidence. If you *do* choose the read *a* study, you need to real *a lot* of studies that cite it before you put any credence in it.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Fuck! My life is devastated. Would you at least allow soy sprouts? Pretty please? No? Onions maybe?
I don't even think you are right. Systemic reviews tend to be written by the same crappy scientists who wrote the original crappy studies. In my experience they are poorly written as often as not. Ultimately if you don't understand statistics and can't calculate the margin of error on a study, then you are hosed and there is nothing you can do.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
When it comes to diet, common sense is to eat as wide a variety of foods as possible, in reasonable quantities.
People lack common sense because they think the quantities of food that get served to them are OK to eat all in 1 go - they're not. Your meals should not be 1000 calories unless you're bodybuilding. Every time I go out to eat, even just fast food, I usually have a third of it left over to save for later in the day.
Oh, metabolizing what you eat helps as well. That doesn't mean join a gym, it means don't sit motionless all day.
Common sense boils down to "Diet & exercise", somehow people manage to turn both these words into a gnarled mess of contradictory ideas as they look for an easy way out that doesn't involve standing up and lowering your intake. The researchers try to detach themselves from that wheel, but as the impetus behind their research is providing an answer people want to hear - magic foods to eat that make you healthy - they can't totally decouple from it. Thank God there's been a retraction on this one, my faith in the system of scientific inquiry is a little stronger today.
I've been saying it for years, I don't trust nutritionists or economists... The weather man has gotten quite a bit better these days, though.
YMMV of course, which is why I suggested restricting your search to leading journals that are difficult to get published in. But looking at an *individual* study is useless, unless you are committed to looking at a large number of of other papers that cite that study. Most researchers get a lot of things wrong on the first go, even the good ones.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Anecdote: I failed a class once. We had a mandatory final project, and I chose to reimplement an algorithm from a paper and try it on some new data.
Their code didn't work.
Their ideas, rewritten in new code, didn't work.
I couldn't get anything at all to work, and so I handed in nothing, took a ZERO on the class. Professor never once hinted to me that maybe (I was a naive undergrad) they'd falsified their data.
Ah well. Nobody will ever care about that zero now. But it stopped me from getting into grad school.
I don't think it's that bad. Most papers follow a format kind of like this:
1) Assuming X (which relies on other studies)
2) We tested Y
3) And conclude Z
Usually the parts you are interested in are Y and Z. So the first thing to look for is the methodology. Is it an experiment you could reproduce and get the exact same results (assuming you had funding, of course)? In other words, did they describe it in enough detail to be reproducible?
The next thing to look for is error bars. Have the calculated the margin of error, and does the calculation make sense?
The next thing to look for is the effect size. A lot of studies baaaarely show any significant effect at all, and that's a good sign that the paper isn't very good.
If you get past those things, there's a good chance the study would be able to be reproduced if someone tried. Of course, that's the next step: reproducing the study if you want to be sure.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I would say Finland, as well. I've heard many a Finn complain about how difficult it is to get good rye bread outside of Finland.
Then again, perhaps diets have changed. This is just based on my experience.
"Nothing shocks me. I'm a scientist." -Indiana Jones
This is actually the funniest APK post I've seen in a long time. Bravo, good sir.
Conservatively speaking? Get a beer or two (no more) per day anytime you want. But also make sure you have 30 minutes of moderate activity (brisk walking or better) at least 4 times a week. More is better, but this much is known to have significant benefits.
Nonaggression works!
Good advice IMO.
There's a lot that remains unknown and/or disputed, but there seems to be a growing consensus regarding the following, including both alternative and mainstream schools of nutritional medicine:
* Aim for more nutrients (vitamins/minerals) and less calories, especially empty ones.
* Avoid sugars and high-glycemic carbs (white, refined starches). At most they should be consumed as rare treats, not part of one's regular, daily diet.
* Eat healthier things first; this will reduce one's appetites/cravings for less healthy things.
* At least 30 minutes of moderate exercise, at least 4-5 times per week. Brisk walking seems sufficient for most people, though strength training has proven benefits as well.
* Most people need more vitamins C and D than can be provided via diet and sunlight exposure alone, and should consider supplementing (but NOT all vitamins and minerals can be supplemented adequately or safely; most can and should be derived from food). B12 deficiency also is very common, and can be treated by occasional (at most monthly) injections since the body can store a lot, but can't always process dietary B12 properly.
* While there is still debate around high vs. low carb, high vs. low fat, high vs. low protein in general . . . and individual health circumstances that could either require or proscribe any of these . . . most people need a diet that is neither excessively high in, nor devoid of, any of these.
Nonaggression works!
Eat what thou wilt shall be the whole of the diet.
I don't necessarily disagree, but I would like to respond to this:
If you get past those things, there's a good chance the study would be able to be reproduced if someone tried.
This is true, but it does *not* necessarily mean that other equally valid but contrary studies could take place. The more complex a system you are talking about, the more apparently contrasting evidence is bound to be found. This is particularly true in fields like nutrition, where the funding available is low relative to the complexity of the problem being studied. It's like trying to paint a 360 degree panorama that you're studying through a drinking straw.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
This is particularly true in fields like nutrition, where the funding available is low relative to the complexity of the problem being studied.
Most studies in the field of nutrition fall into the "inconclusive" category.
The more complex a system you are talking about, the more apparently contrasting evidence is bound to be found.
Now you're talking about this kind of thing. Fortunately, if someone does yet another study to determine whether coffee causes cancer, they summarize previous research briefly, in order to explain why their study is special.
A lot of times the problem is the media misrepresenting a study in order to be sensationalistic, and if you read the actual paper instead of the reports, it's more tame and accurate. (and sometimes scientists are complicit in it, by the title of their paper something surprising or by giving interviews to the media that are not entirely supported, or they are misquoted.)
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."