It seems like every other week there are conflicting studies.
Quite a bit of science reporting is straight up bad and tends to muddy the waters in the search of digestibility and clickability. When you can get your hands on the actual studies you’ll often find something like, “Large doses of caffeine in mice increased the incidence of seizures by 3.2%.” was turned into “Coffee gives you seizures!” then the next year an observational study on coffee consumption doesn’t find a statistically significant correlation between it and seizures and it gets turned into, “Coffee won’t give you seizures!” This is not to say that you don’t encounter dueling studies, invalidated studies, or reversals in scientific understanding but how stuff gets reported is just prone to cause whiplash.
Quite a bit of science reporting is straight up bad and tends to muddy the waters in the search of digestibility and clickability. When you can get your hands on the actual studies you’ll often find something like, “Large doses of caffeine in mice increased the incidence of seizures by 3.2%.” was turned into “Coffee gives you seizures!” then the next year an observational study on coffee consumption doesn’t find a statistically significant correlation between it and seizures and it gets turned into, “Coffee won’t give you seizures!” This is not to say that you don’t encounter dueling studies, invalidated studies, or reversals in scientific understanding but how stuff gets reported is just prone to cause whiplash.