I'm a card-carrying scientist (I'm browsing beesource as a way to avoiding working on editing a study), and I have to say, threads like this are hard for me to read. The degree to which the general public misunderstands how science works and how scientists operates is aggravating to say the least. A few points, in response to some of what was written in this thread.
Firstly, the vast majority (internationally, ~80%) of published research is performed by independent scientists (e.g. in university, research centre, or government labs) and is funded via governmental grants or funds from charities/NPO's. And when we are funded by a company or organisation that may create the appearance of a conflict, it is openly declared. The very reason you know that some science is funded by industry or other sources of conflict is because of the formal ethical framework we work under that requires us to disclose. Failing to disclose a conflict can be a career-ending event, as is faking results to make them match a desired outcome. To put that into context, those are two of the few things that can get a tenured prof like myself fired, and it (quite publicly) ends a number of careers each year.
Secondly, we rarely find the result we are "looking for", but when you author a study there is a degree of "storytelling" involved that can make it appear that way. As a general rule, less than one in ten tested hypothesis are found to be "correct" (meaning the data aligns with the hypothesis - it can still subsequently be found to be false). But failed hypotheses are rarely the focus of studies, and in many cases do not even get discussed. So when you read the literature you tend to see the 1-in-10 things that worked, while the 9-in-10 that didn't are either given minimal coverage or are simply unmentioned.
Thirdly, science is an iterative process. What that means is that any one study, on its own and in isolation, has nearly zero scientific value. Confidence in scientific conclusions comes not from single studies, but rather from consistent results between studies, results that build upon previous results, and replication.
Lastly, looking to the media for scientific information is guaranteed to lead you astray. Media isn't interested in accurately reflecting the science or what a particular study/advancement really means. What they are interested in is sexy headlines which drives revenue. As one example, back in 2003 I led a study that discovered a treatment that provided a modest improvement in one secondary clinical aspect experienced by HIV patients (we found that a very old and commonly used cancer drug could help reduce some of the susceptibility to infection HIV patients have, even when their infection is effectively controlled by antiretroviral drugs). And the drug had pretty horrible side-effects, so it would never actually be used in patients. According to a story carried by Reuters, we had discovered a new drug that cured HIV. A lot of Reuters affiliates bought the story - so Reuters got their $$$ - but they didn't even manage to spell my name right.
Also, 50-60% of scientists are women, so our discoveries are not "his discovery"
As for the question "is statistically significant also biologically significant"...that is actually an easy question to answer. Most fields use some sort of effect size measurement as part of their routine statistical analyses (e.g. odds ratios in clinical studies). These remove the question of how significant a significant result is, as it explicitly measures the size of the impact your experimental manipulation actually had.
One quick example - honey is often touted as a a treatment for a variety of infectious diseases (flu, infected cuts, etc). This idea is based on the well supported fact that, in its undiluted form, honey has a modest antimicrobial activity. The mechanism of that effect is known and well established (a combination of microbriostatic sugar concentrations + enzymes that create peroxides). But as a clinical intervention...it doesn't really work. Pure honey if placed on a wound is mildly antimicrobrial (about as effective as an OTC agent like neosporin), and is far inferior to conventional clinical treatments (e.g. sutures + medical-grade antiseptics). So it is not wrong to say honey is antimicrobial...but how we often see honey advertised to be used as an antimicrobial (e.g. consumed, in teas, in tinctures, etc) involves doing things that would eliminate that effect. For example, anything that dilutes the honey - even only slightly - dramatically curtails its antimicrobial effect. And that lost effect is completely predictable. The suppressible effect on microbial growth created by the sugar in honey is right on the verge of where suppression ends. As little as a 2% dilution (e.g. going from 18% to 20% moisture) eliminates that effect for many microorgnaisms, including many pathogens. Likewise, the peroxides in honey are created by an enzyme called glucose oxidase, which is instantly inactivated in even modestly hot water (65C/150F), in our digestive tract, and its activity slows quickly as honey is diluted.
Essentially, people who market in this way are taking a small truth and stretching it beyond both reason and into territory where studies have directly shown those effects to be eliminated.