Far for being a Luddite, I do love some of the implications being raised in the previous comment thread about the implications of science qua science.
After all, we already know that many studies are corrupted, and even relate in abstract in a way that the full text doesn't really support (because so many only read abstracts). I'll go out on a limb and contend that human animals have been engaging in science for thousands of years, and perhaps tens of thousands or more. My talk at AHS11 was: Self Experimentation; The Best Science. I meant it. And I still do, bias and confounding variables notwithstanding.
If you're going to test how sitting on your ass and eating Hot Pockets and drinking Coke all day effects you, you're probably going to just eat Hot Pockets and drink Coke. It's only when you exercise your mind to undertake disciplined self experimentation do you try to deal with biases and variables. Because: you have a vested interest. Scientists, for all their fame, have no personal standing in the thing most valuable to you: your life and the lives of those you love. They just have a paycheck. Nope, no bias there. Nada.
My point is that bias will always exist, as will confounders—where you can't tell what's causing what, because too many variables are in play. But, I also presume you care about yourself; and such an audacious presumption, that. I'll go out on another limb: you care more about yourself than do scientists care about you, earning paychecks you didn't sign.
But yea, the work they do is valuable. It's just not all valuable, and it certainly never, ever trumps your own science. I didn't say experience. I said: your own science. If you observe the state of your environment, wonder what results you might get if you change something up, and you reasonablly take stock in that self experiment, you are the scientist as close to home as you will ever find...the one who care about you the most.
Take note: SHE blinded you. So, guys, now you know what all you're up against.