Virtually, all nutrition studies are funded, with the party funding the study having a preconceived desired outcome. Since the study costs money, the person funding the study in many cases hopes to use the results as a marketing tool. Thus the person funding the study desires a desired result. Hence, data that goes against a desired result may be excluded from the final study results. Other things and aspects to consider are the people conducting any particular study. For example, let us say that a university or a research agency or laboratory is given funding to study global warming. And let us say the people funding this study wanted the outcome of the study to show man is causing global warming. If so then you as a researcher are faced with several decisions. Do you exclude information that goes against the desired result? And risk loss of study funding? Or do you simply sweep such data under the rug?

Usually the research group conducting the study will know the desired outcome that is trying to be proven before the study begins. The group is looking for evidence and support for an ultimate desired objective and may tend to ignore evidence that goes against the pre-desired study outcome. So why would a study agency tend to do this? Well, consider this; if you are receiving large amounts of funding to conduct this study and your reported results tend to contradict the desired outcome most likely funding will be pulled and there is a likelihood that you may not receive future grants to conduct future studies.

This is an inherent flaw in most studies for which this author has no definitive answer to always produce studies with true objectivity. So, what is the purpose of this article.

Simply to make the reader aware that when a study comes out talking about let us say, the harmful effects of coffee or tea or soy. Or promoting a particular form of diet, simply be aware that there are usually financial interests behind the positive and or negative results of the study. In conclusion, look for other studies that may support a conflicting view of the topic at hand and use sound reasoning to weigh the sited evidence. For example, say you you are shopping for nutrition supplements and you read the reviews, and you find a few negative but the majority of the reviews are positive. Thus, it is probably a good supplement. On the other hand, if most reviews are negative its probably a supplement to avoid. And one last thing to consider about reviews is who is saying what about the product. And what their bias or lack of bias might be.