Certain scientific criteria are used in assessing the evidence base of medicine. They seem to be taken as the 'gold standard' for scientific assessment.

Would those criteria in any way resemble the criteria that allow madly conflicting scientific reports to flutter onto our door mats, on an almost daily basis?

A few memorable examples:

It's healthy to eat eggs - It's not healthy to eat eggs.

It's healthy to drink milk - It's not healthy to drink milk.

It's good to drink wine - It's not good to drink wine.

Sun brings on ageing - Sun delays ageing.

Global warming is a myth - Global warming is reality.

It's bad to be fat - It's good to be fat.

Organic food is not better - Organic food is better.

Vegetarians are not healthier - Vegetarians are healthier.

Is it the science that's bad or those who use (abuse?) it or those who interpret it? Either way, how reliable is all this stuff?