It is now exactly 30 years and 15 days since “The scandal of poor medical research”
When I tell friends outside medicine that many papers published in medical journals are misleading because of methodological weaknesses they are rightly shocked. Huge sums of money are spent annually on research that is seriously flawed through the use of inappropriate designs, unrepresentative samples, small samples, incorrect methods of analysis, and faulty interpretation. Errors are so varied that a whole book on the topic,7 valuable as it is, is not comprehensive
In 2025 we are talking not about one but dozen books. You can now find a peer-reviewed article to support almost any opinion, effectively proving it to be “true” in your view—whether you are a climate change denier, an anti-vaxxer or an advocate for tobacco smoke.
This phenomenon mirrors the way people interpret religious texts, such as the Bible, to justify vastly different beliefs. Just as proponents of the prosperity gospel find scriptural backing for wealth accumulation, Franciscans draw upon the same text to support their vow of poverty. Or the recently disputed ordo amoris (family is important but migrants can be deported) which is stark contrast to the parable of the Good Samaritan.
Back to science and The Atlantic article by Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky from where the ocean metaphor originates
… While stating truthfully that the work originated in a peer-reviewed, academic publication, reveals an awkward fact: The scientific literature is an essential ocean of knowledge, in which floats an alarming amount of junk. Think of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, but the trash cannot be identified without special knowledge and equipment. And although this problem is long-standing, until the past decade or so, no one with both the necessary expertise and the power to intervene has been inclined to help.
https://bsky.app/profile/alala55.bsky.social/post/3lhya4k3zls2p