[rewma]

> I think the issue comes when results are reported and consumers try to use those results to determine which behaviors are risky.

Well, consumers are doing it completely wrong if they're looking up to papers as established and definite references regarding scientific findings.

Papers do not define reality, at most they only describe the author's perception of reality give their circumstances and current understanding, and reflecting the current state of the art. Thus observations might be off, but still interesting enough to spark further work to build up knowledge and clarify misconceptions.

It's like the parable about the blind men and an elephant[¹]. We might have an academic paper describing a novel species of trees that have a strong correlation with snakes, and consumers would be using that paper to justify shooting at treetops just to be sure they aren't attacked by a snake.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant