>>509246752I would disagree with you. As the toothpaste nigger explains, you sound like you're new to the game.
Medicine is one of the fields where findings are routinely wrong. We're talking about more than 20% of peer reviewed studies just being plain wrong. Nutritional Science is way worse, I gather, because the experimental setup is essentially uncontrollable, much less even than for medicine.
A big case study for catastrophic, systematic failure of an entire subdiscipline is provided by the priming literature in psychology, and the related replication crisis in said field. Another example we're witnessing in the making is Climate Science (give it another 5-10 years).
Incentive systems in modern academia are aligned in a way that, on paper, would necessarily predict such failures. Peer review is part of that. Of course that doesn't mean that you and your advisor and friends from grad school are scheming fakers or flat out stupid. But on a large, statistically governed scale, the science industry doesn't produce Truth. It produces The Science.
You'll come to that conclusion eventually. This doesn't mean you have to discard all scientific results in the literature, of course, but that they should induce much smaller updates on your priors than what you are currently assuming. People are way wronger for way more profane reasons than what you think.