This is a meta-analysis, not new research. I’ve written about those before – it’s where you get a bunch of similar studies, amalgamate the data and see what the larger data set tells you. At its best you can draw wider and more accurate conclusions. But at its worst, you basically get a bunch of dog turds, mix them together and claim the result is a pot of gold.
I’ve kebbabed the British Medical Journal, no less, on dodgy meta-analyses in the past so this sort of stuff is more common than you think.
However, results for specific parameters reported in this study were variable, and both previous reviews covering livestock products and the present study acknowledge serious deficiencies in the evidence, which result in considerable uncertainty.
Or when you try to mix all the colours in the bucket you inevitably end up with brown.
“Serious deficiencies”. No fucking shit, Sherlock! And in the above quote the authors explicitly acknowledge that the evidence has “serious deficienceies” but thought it would be helful to release the conclusion they wanted based on bullshit. Or”
“We’ve all dipped their hands in a bucket of shit and given ourselves a great big round of applause”