In Part 1 of this series, we presented evidence that a not insignificant amount of published science and the “knowledge” resulting from it is wrong. There are many reasons, including experimental carelessness, differences in how researchers approach statistical analyses, journals’ bias against publishing negative results, and outright dishonesty by investigators. Part 2 describes how activist scientists can use meta-analyses to manipulate data to reach a predetermined, but flawed, conclusion.
meta-analyses
Much published science and the "knowledge" resulting from it is likely wrong and sends researchers chasing false leads. Without research integrity, we don’t know what we know, so it is incumbent on the scientific community to find solutions.
The risk of colon cancer from nitrite-preserved meat has been debated for so long that even the preserved meat has gone bad. A new study tries to back up this claim -- and fails miserably.