The interpretation of clinical research evidence is still characterized by wide subjectivity. This subjectivity is also visible when comparing guidelines and recommendations developed by institutions and learned societies. It is often due to bias and conflicts of interest experienced by the members of guideline panels: thus, the role of editors and publishers of journals and scientific media becomes increasingly important, and they should return to careful oversight of the content of what is published. To address the problem, however, it is necessary to return to teaching evidence-based medicine in order to restore its function as a "North star" in clinical practice and public health decision-making.