People who eat at least one serving of oranges every day may be 60% less likely than people who never eat oranges to lose their sight to macular degeneration, according to a new study spanning 15 years.

Falsifying findings goes beyond merely finding something statistically significant. Like altering what "significant" means. A significance level of 95% isn't a requirement. It's something people most commonly use. Nobody is stopping you from using 90% and calling it significant.
Or, like in this study, people used an old survey, picked a single attribute and attributed something else to it.

What I'm saying is that if you find something unusual, something you didn't even look for, you'd first need to make sure you actually have something of significance in front of you and not some creative number/attribute shuffling.

If you could find that kinda stuff by accident you would simply conduct as many surveys as possible until you hit a goldmine.

What would you do if you actually thought this attribute was legitimately significant?

Search for it instead of finding it by accident.
If there's a significant correlation it shouldn't be too hard to prove it exists. Gravity doesn't disappear after it has been proven once.

Or, like the study itself says,

Additional prospective cohort studies are needed to validate these findings.

/r/science Thread Parent Link - sciencealert.com