I totally agree with you. However, I rationalize this in my mind (in a very biased manner) with this mental gymnastics.
If there was a paper that very thoroughly proved that caffeine was detrimental, it would rocket up into a high tier journal. So I suspect many people may try to look for negative outcomes but aren't finding them. But also I haven't searched for negative chronic effects of caffeine and only hear of results like this. So maybe I'm totally wrong and there's a conspiracy against publishing results on negative effects.
> If there was a paper that very thoroughly proved that caffeine was detrimental, it would rocket up into a high tier journal.
I find this assertion to be farcical. Follow the money - coffee is multibillion dollar market in the US alone. Also it serves the government. Many people in positions of power drink coffee and enjoy it.
Money has power and influences what gets researched.
If there was a paper that very thoroughly proved that caffeine was detrimental, it would rocket up into a high tier journal. So I suspect many people may try to look for negative outcomes but aren't finding them. But also I haven't searched for negative chronic effects of caffeine and only hear of results like this. So maybe I'm totally wrong and there's a conspiracy against publishing results on negative effects.