A coworker linked the original study to me, and was quite glib about how this new study is quite reliable and so on. I checked it out, immediately got suspiciou

A coworker linked the original study to me, and was quite glib about how this new study is quite reliable and so on. I checked it out, immediately got suspicious by the article (that was even more nonsensical, since it was not written by a scientist), then went into the study's summary instead, which was already way more nuanced . What mostly stood out to me: the study did not even try to discredit the hard and overwhelming evidence that consuming red meat regularly does give you a single-digit percent incrase of various types of cancers. They then proceeded to give a summary that says that there is no point in worrying over such small percentage likelihood increases, basically (I am obviously paraphrasing here, so) After that, we concluded with the coworker that yeah, this was not a holy grail counter to "mainstream science", just one slightly fishy one. But this does not diminish my trust in the scientific method. This just adds one more example to the book 'why you should always try to at least verify/clarify claims before blindly believing them'.