They want science to say you MUST take this vitamin and you will NEVER get cancer if you do so. Elsewhere on the thread it mentions how results come out prematurely or even where the paper itself may only talk in terms of likelihood and not absolute certainty, it gets report as being the authority and telling people that this is the whole truth and nothing but... and then next week someone else will have a new truth.

People don't understand that the whole process very often is 'experiment, experiment, experiment and oh ok what's going on here...? It probably isn't this or that, but it's likely to be that. Give the same dataset to someone else, and their answer can be different.'

Migeru is right, you want certainty, go to a priest. Science isn't religion, it's exploration, there's infinite possibilities to surf on, all sorts of amazing things jump out and throw you off and then you sit there and think until your brain hurts and try to work it out again.  

It is magic! And it's foolish to think we can provide all the answers. If the public could be more realistic about that, perhaps we'd all seem to be a bit more human to the non-science bods. Then perhaps they'd find the quest for answers more interesting too.

Research wouldn't be called research if you knew all the answers. (I can't remember where that quote comes from)

Ad astra per aspera