[hsuduebc2]

It's strange to question the work of scientists in this way. Precisely because they are only human the studies are peer reviewed and the meta studies have the most explanatory value and weight.

Unless you are assuming there is some global conspiracy of scientists to have jobs the system it selfs manages it by it's transparency.

Simplifying it in a "check population health data in countries where cold exposure is traditional" way is exactly the wrong approach. How do you know what kind of diet, genome and culture they have? There are so many variables that the mere fact of whether one diverse group does something different than another doesn't really say anything. It's so difficult to try to isolate individual problems. That's why we have the scientists.

[d-k-blackthorn]

Don’t both things have value, when measured on different axes?

I think it’s just a bit more gray.

[ninetyninenine]

You haven't heard of the replication crisis?

[hsuduebc2]

Not till now. Thanks. But as weird as it can sounds. The failing and iterationg over and over is integral part of science. Which includes method itself.

[ninetyninenine]

The "method" was never fixed. It was identified but we have no way of correcting it. A ton of science is still completely dubious.