Think the news media is untrustworthy? Try reading the medical journals.

Major studies are being retracted almost daily for everything from lousy data to outright fraud — and that’s just scratching the surface, because the studies that haven’t been retracted could actually be worse.

A leading medical journal says most of today’s studies are published without key data — omissions that could hurt or even kill patients as doctors unwittingly rely on an incomplete picture of a drug’s risks when they make treatment decisions.

BMJ recently published no less than seven papers on the problems with today’s research — but the biggest are those sins of omission.

One paper shows how quickly incomplete data can turn a snowball into an avalanche as research that combines data from earlier studies — called meta-analyses — ends up magnifying all those flaws and omissions.

Researchers reviewed 41 meta-analyses on nine different meds and found that 38 of them would have had different results if the researchers had access to the missing data.

Think about that next time your doctor offers you a med and cites some important-sounding study in a major medical journal.

In another paper, researchers checked to see how many studies complied with a rule that requires summaries of every single study to be posted on a government Web site, ClinicalTrials.gov within a year of completion.

They found that just 22 percent complied with this “mandatory” rule.

Looks like “mandatory” just ain’t what it used to be, but there’s a reason for that: When a study shows a drug doesn’t work or comes with too many risks, Big Pharma would rather sweep it under the rug — and researchers are often willing to grab a broom and help out.

One study a couple years back found that 85 percent of published company-funded studies found a benefit for the drug — an unbelievable success rate no doubt aided by the fact that only 32 percent of company-funded trials are even published in the first place.

You can probably find the other 68 percent in the nearest shredder. (Read more about why drug studies can’t be trusted here.)

Put it all together, and you get what an editorial in BMJ calls a “culture of haphazard publication and incomplete data disclosure” that makes any true risks-benefits analysis “almost impossible.”

I’d say we’re way beyond “almost.”

Talk about missing the point!

Blood thinners are supposed to reduce the risk of the blood clots that can lead to a heart attack or stroke — but a new drug that’s intended to slash the risk of stroke can actually increase the odds of a heart attack.

That’s not a benefit — that’s trading one deadly risk for another.

The drug, called dabigatran but sold under the brand name Pradaxa, is most commonly given to atrial fibrillation patients, who have a higher risk of stroke to begin with.

It’s also the first in a series of new blood thinners specifically aimed at preventing strokes — but there were problems with it right out of the gate: Even in the studies used to get it approved, that heart risk kept popping up.

Now, a new analysis shows this wasn’t just a fluke, as the drug’s maker no doubt hoped, but a genuine threat that should have anyone thinking twice before popping these pills.

And get this: While the drug is supposed to slash the risk of stroke by a third, the new numbers show that it increases the risk of heart attack and acute coronary syndrome by pretty much the same amount — nearly a third — when compared to the older blood thinners as well as a placebo.

That’s not the only serious problem with Pradaxa. This drug hasn’t been on the market very long, but the FDA is already looking into reports of serious bleeding problems (being the FDA, however, you can bet that “look” is all they’ll do).

I’m sure this sounds like a win for warfarin and the older generation of blood thinners, but warfarin itself is so dangerous it’s actually been used for years as a rat poison — and patients who take it need to be closely watched, lest they end up like those rats.

Like all blood thinners, warfarin can also cause serious bleeding problems, not to mention swelling, bruising, flu-like symptoms and more. It’s even been linked to gangrene.

It’s nuts to take those risks when there are completely natural options on the table — including ordinary fish oil, safe for men and mice alike.

Talk to your doc before making any changes, but a skilled naturopathic physician can wean you off risky meds and help you find the right amount of your safe alternative.

And you can leave the warfarin in the garage for the rats.

The best way to protect your prostate is to keep it far away from doctors who want to screen it — and even further from the surgeons who make a living off prostate cancer procedures.

Not long ago, this was considered a rogue approach.

Today, it’s mainstream science — and another study confirms again that all the screenings in the world don’t save lives.

Simply put, the government-funded study of 76,000 men who were tracked for 13 years finds that annual PSA tests don’t make a bit of difference in determining who lives and who dies.

It’s not hard to see why: PSA tests can’t sort the rare, aggressive and deadly tumors from the ones you don’t need to worry about — and even when they do detect high-risk cancers, it’s too late.

As a result, men in both groups — those who were screened every year, and those who were not — died of the disease at the same rate, according to the study results published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

But don’t be fooled by the scare tactics: Most men who have prostate cancer live with it for years or even decades, and eventually die of something else entirely.

And until screenings came along, most of these men never even knew they had prostate cancer.

Ignorance was truly bliss.

Today, when men find out they have the disease, they panic and get treated for it — but if it doesn’t reduce the death rate, why bother even finding out in the first place?

That’s the bottom line here, and if you’re thinking “better safe than sorry,” think again. Prostate surgery won’t keep you safe… and it’ll almost certainly leave you sorry — sorry you ever agreed to surgery.

The procedure that’s been proven NOT to save your life can ruin it more than your doctors will ever let on. Men who wake up after prostate surgery often find they’ve lost all control “down there” and face long battles with incontinence and impotence.

Plenty of men never recover.

When you consider the decades you can live after a prostate cancer diagnosis — with or without surgery — that could add up to a quarter of your life or more, in diapers and unable to have sex.

Of course, you’ve probably heard commercials and seen ads for newer “robot” procedures that make it sound like they have fewer of these risks — but that’s just not reality.

Keep reading for the truth behind robot-assisted prostate surgeries.

I wouldn’t wish prostate surgery on my worst enemies.

Not only is it often completely unnecessary since prostate cancer isn’t nearly the killer it’s been made out to be — but the treatments themselves are often worse than the disease and come with more risks than your surgeon will ever let on.

And that’s true even if your surgeon happens to be made of metal.

Robot-assisted prostate surgeries have become all the rage in recent years, involved in up to 85 percent of all procedures in the United States.

But that’s not a triumph of technology so much as marketing: Many patients agree to them because they’ve been led to believe robo-surgeries are safer and better than traditional surgeries.

They’re not.

Researchers asked 600 Medicare patients who had undergone prostate surgery about their side effects, and a full 90 percent of them reported moderate to severe sexual dysfunction 14 months later.

It didn’t matter if they were among the 400 patients who got a robot-assisted procedure… or the 200 who got the traditional surgery. The results were the same either way.

And in both groups, about a third of the patients reported incontinence problems — with slightly more men in the robot group battling the leakage.

This isn’t some groundbreaking study, either. In fact, the research has been consistent: These high-tech procedures don’t lower the risks of side effects or even improve outcomes.

But while robots aren’t bringing better results to the OR, they’re delivering big on the balance sheet: Hospitals charge up to $2,000 more for robot-assisted surgeries.

They have to. The machines alone can cost several million dollars, not to mention training and maintenance fees.

Most hospitals have to take out loans to cover it all — and when you’ve got payment deadlines coming up, you’ve got extra pressure to make sure the machine starts bringing in cash the moment it’s plugged in.

That’s why hospitals that buy robots launch big, misleading ad campaigns — and that’s why studies have shown that facilities that get the machines begin doing more procedures almost overnight, even in areas where prostate surgeries in general are on the decline.

In a nutshell, that means hospitals and surgeons are aggressively pushing patients to not only get a surgery that research shows they don’t actually need, but a more expensive high-tech version of the procedure that doesn’t improve outcomes or even decrease the risk of side effects.

And people wonder why the healthcare system is a mess!