It was mentioned above that coffee appears as both beneficial and harmful in scientific studies. That was implied to impugn scientific research. A new study supports the benefit side: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-00409-y Different reported results are common in science, and do anything but impugn its process. Our rise from ignorance must include some understanding of statistics, here namely unbiased sampling from large populations. I do not know how many humans consume coffee, but guess about one billion. Small samplings from that population could show anything from biased sampling. Above study was N=130 thousand; still a small fraction of population, but larger than previous studies. If anyone funded research into net effects of coffee on many million people, it could aspire to achieve unbiased sampling. This does not look like our highest priority for research funding. == What does anyone want from science to lift us from ignorance? What costs should be paid for the lifts? These are questions for all, not to be defined by me.
Ah.....weather guessers..... They gleefully tell us every year in February that they're more accurate than a subterranean rat. To be fair, they ARE fairly accurate out to about 10 days. THEY claim 90-percent. YMMV.
Sometimes they’re right, and sometimes they’re wrong. Can’t trust them if it’s important. Err on the side of caution
