YOUR FIRST THOUGHT SHOULD BE: WHAT CONTRIVED OR SELECTIVE SCIENCE METHODS WERE USED?

studies that do not show impacts, and these studies exist, they practice confirmation bias. But try and get a scientist to admit he holds a bias in their research when he does this.

Science is the methods, not the evidence. If the methods are flawed, the evidence is flawed. In almost any study, evidence for the null hypothesis (meaning the result shows no impact) review is even true. Journals and their editors favour publishing novel research and many simply reject studies that do not show health impacts (here we have publication bias).

Media like to dress up science stories and to them methods are messy details. In the process of making science stories lively for viewers, they introduce errors of omission, emphasis and fact.