Als je nog twijfelde aan wetenschap als teken van krankzinnigheid...
- Onderwerp starter Webmaster
- Startdatum
Imagine a doctor who spends his life checking other scientists’ work—like a detective for research—and discovers that a huge amount of what we “know” about food and health is shaky or just plain wrong. That’s John Ioannidis.
John Ioannidis is one of the most respected scientists in the world. He is a professor of medicine and statistics at Stanford University. His famous 2005 paper, “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False,” has been read millions of times and changed how people think about science. He studies how research is done and why so many studies turn out to be wrong. Scientists and journals listen to him carefully.
When he looked at nutritional epidemiology—the science that tries to figure out which foods help or hurt us by watching large groups of people—he said the field is in serious trouble and needs a big fix.
Here’s what he found, in plain language:
Most of these studies just ask people what they remember eating and then look for links to diseases. Almost every food ends up looking “significant.” That leads to crazy claims if you take the numbers at face value. For example, the math can suggest that eating 12 hazelnuts a day adds 12 years to your life, or that two slices of bacon a day shortens your life by a decade (worse than smoking).
Ioannidis says those results are almost certainly not real. They mostly show bias, errors in how people report their diets, and other problems that create noise instead of truth.
He argues that small differences in ordinary foods rarely cause big changes in how long people live or whether they get major diseases. Extreme problems (like not getting enough of a vitamin, or eating way too many calories) matter. Everyday variations usually do not.
Ioannidis has said the field has largely become a “null field”—meaning most of the single-food or single-nutrient findings are probably zero or close to zero once you account for biases. He has even said nutritional epidemiology has “grown old and died” and that researchers should stop producing more of the same observational studies and move to better methods, especially large, carefully done randomized trials where people are actually assigned different diets.
In short: He respects the hard work of people in the field but believes the main tools they have used for decades produce mostly unreliable results. That is why headlines about one food being a miracle or a poison keep changing—and why he says the science needs radical reform.
His warnings matter because he is not an outsider. He is a top expert who has spent decades showing how science can go wrong, and many other researchers take his critiques seriously even when they disagree with parts of them.
Mike
John Ioannidis is one of the most respected scientists in the world. He is a professor of medicine and statistics at Stanford University. His famous 2005 paper, “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False,” has been read millions of times and changed how people think about science. He studies how research is done and why so many studies turn out to be wrong. Scientists and journals listen to him carefully.
When he looked at nutritional epidemiology—the science that tries to figure out which foods help or hurt us by watching large groups of people—he said the field is in serious trouble and needs a big fix.
Here’s what he found, in plain language:
Most of these studies just ask people what they remember eating and then look for links to diseases. Almost every food ends up looking “significant.” That leads to crazy claims if you take the numbers at face value. For example, the math can suggest that eating 12 hazelnuts a day adds 12 years to your life, or that two slices of bacon a day shortens your life by a decade (worse than smoking).
Ioannidis says those results are almost certainly not real. They mostly show bias, errors in how people report their diets, and other problems that create noise instead of truth.
He argues that small differences in ordinary foods rarely cause big changes in how long people live or whether they get major diseases. Extreme problems (like not getting enough of a vitamin, or eating way too many calories) matter. Everyday variations usually do not.
Ioannidis has said the field has largely become a “null field”—meaning most of the single-food or single-nutrient findings are probably zero or close to zero once you account for biases. He has even said nutritional epidemiology has “grown old and died” and that researchers should stop producing more of the same observational studies and move to better methods, especially large, carefully done randomized trials where people are actually assigned different diets.
In short: He respects the hard work of people in the field but believes the main tools they have used for decades produce mostly unreliable results. That is why headlines about one food being a miracle or a poison keep changing—and why he says the science needs radical reform.
His warnings matter because he is not an outsider. He is a top expert who has spent decades showing how science can go wrong, and many other researchers take his critiques seriously even when they disagree with parts of them.
Mike
Forum statistieken
