It seems to me that the reason most original clinical research is exaggerated and controversial is because that is the way hacks generate their federal grants.
"Initial study finds that mother's milk is bad for babies, federal funding for further research is needed."
After further research it turns out is not as serious as they had originally thought.
As a physician who has published and reviewed articles and as an expert witness for the defense on numerous occasions, I agree 100% with the artcle. However, the conclusions some may draw are not correct. NEJM, Lancet, JAMA and all of the Medical Journals publish several different types of articles. What should be taken seriously are lengthy review articles, consensus reports etc. Research articles are initial impressions. They may be right or wrong; many factors may influence an article being wrong. That is why I have always been against what I have called the "CNN medical report." Most of you don't remember the first article from the 80s in the NEJM, the title of which was essentially "Blood Does Not Transmit HIV." The authors were wrong, not deliberately. How many times have you heard coffee causes this or that only to have it refuted. Science is not exact and this is why we need to take a deep breath when an article appears which is simply a research paper. Docs have known this for years but the public needs to be aware now.