When I see these studies you have to see who paid for them and who did them also who will benefit from them. When the American Cancer Association brings out a study it will be to benefit the ACA and if cancer was cured tomorrow their multi billion dollar business would be out of business. https://ca.shine.yahoo.com/warning--...232247966.html Interesting that selenium has 2,000 positive reports in pubmed [published medical studies] selenium helping to treat cancer but ACA found one study that said it causes prostate cancer and that is the only study on their web site.
I, too, am suspicious of studies. You have to look, not only at who funded it, but also how many participants there were, how long the study lasted, and, if it involved medication, whether it was a double-blind study - i.e., both the doctor and the participant don't know whether they are getting a placebo. You also have to ask if there's something else about the participants that may have skewed the results, for example - do they smoke, do they workout, are they overweight, etc.? I read a study the other day, used as an example of faulty thinking. It took about 50 people (way to small to determine anything). Half had diabetes, the other half didn't. It then asked the participants if they drank regular or diet soda. Surprise, they study found that most of those with diabetes drank diet soda, while the majority of those without diabetes drank regular soda. The study concluded, definitively (actually saying "Scientifically proven") that drinking diet soda causes diabetes. This study was actually published. The publication using it as a "bad" example, pointed out the fact that most people with diabetes start drinking diet soda to control their sugar levels. That instead of diet sodas causing diabetes - diabetes causes diet soda drinking. But, people reading the article are going to think that because it is scientifically proven, that it's correct. You really have to ask questions about studies before believing what they say.
I have to agree a bit with you here. To me there should of been more then one study conducted before coming to any conclusion. One study with fifty people isn't in my opinion going to give a real conclusive outcome. No wonder these drugs that are out there are now being found to have dire affects after having clinical studies along the way. If the study was only for a short time, this wasn't telling the whole story was it. No, studies need to take awhile and there also needs to be ore then one study conducted in order to get a clear view on the subject at hand. But then that is ust my opinion on this subject. I just think that some of these studies are too rushed, let me guess that study about coffee being good for the heart was conducted in pretty much the samr manner.