>Their work has been significant enough to be published in Lancet which is a pretty good signal to this layman (though with a bachelor's of science in an unrela

>Their work has been significant enough to be published in Lancet which is a pretty good signal to this layman (though with a bachelor's of science in an unrelated scientific field, so no stranger to reading primary literature). i've no opinion on the topic at hand, but I would urge you to find a plethora of signals to form your opinions. The Lancet has been responsible for quite a few negative 'public health' trends. The Lancet is responsible, at least partially, for the whole 'vaccines == autism' thing of Andrew Wakefield's; and even ignoring that they have a history of poor review and retraction of work that ends up either being entirely wrong, or guilty of experimental misconduct. In 1992 they published stuff that suggested a causal link between HIV infection and the oral polio vaccines. In 1998 they published a (big tobacco funded) peper indicating that second hand smoke doesn't have as much risk as earlier thought. In 2000 they published a study that claimed that St Johns Wort was as effective an anti-depressant as conventional SSRIs and TCAs. Just because something has become 'prestigious' doesn't mean it should be trusted wholeheartedly.