The study later got retracted due to backlash but the fact that it happened at all if fucking baffling.
Don't forget this study that instead of studying the causes or cures for endo studied the mental effects of the men in a relationship with someone who has endo.
I picked the first results with meaningful amounts of citations. Not an ideal metric but at least correlated with relevance.
It should be self-evident why those two things are related
But that's the entire point? Correlations that seem obvious MUST be proven by data. Also, why isn't it obvious that endometriosis may affect attractiveness? From the retracted study itself:
Multiple studies have contributed a general phenotype associated with the disease (3–12). Intriguingly, such an emerging
phenotype appears to be indirectly
linked with attractiveness, because
several of the physical characteristics
studied, including body size, body mass
index (BMI), and pigmentary traits (4, 5, 7, 8, 11–13), have an impact on
perception of beauty (14, 15).
I haven't actually read any citations or further. Still, this reasoning seems plausible to me. If endometriosis does actually correlate with a certain phenotype - which I don't know is true or not, as again I haven't read the citations - then this relation becomes self-evident just as much as the studies I quoted.
Also, I don't see why quoted studies must be about the same exact topic. "Caucasian" [why does English even use this outdated term still] female sexual health and its relation to attractiveness sounds like one of these hyperspecific topics where finding relevant studies requires knowledge about which keywords to look for. Knowledge I don't have.
And I have no clue about what other "junk science" there is in human health research. How would I even be able to point to any other topic there? Besides I am unable to determine whether any study in a field I have zero experience in is junk or not. From Wikipedia:
Junk science has been defined as:
- "science done to establish a preconceived notion—not to test the notion, which is what proper science tries to do, but to establish it regardless of whether or not it would hold up to real testing."[5]
- "opinion posing as empirical evidence, or through evidence of questionable warrant, based on inadequate scientific methodology."[6]
- "methodologically sloppy research conducted to advance some extrascientific agenda or to prevail in litigation."[4]
If you have experience in that general field and can point out why it is junk, please do so.