This is not at all correct. By your definition looking at anything in greater detail is P hacking.

For example, peanut allergies don't exist because most people don't have reactions to them. You absolutely can ask the question for if peanuts are good or bad for a subpopulation.

The alternative is just sticking your head in the sand.

The difference is in the motivations for asking the question and what's done with the answer (so agenda). People are assuming and agenda of others in this thread, and are crafting responses to head of that perceived agenda without actually answering the question, which is rarely productive, IMO. Better to ask than assume, or if the answer is known, provide it with a caveat that it doesn't actually support the specific cases you're worried it might be used for erroneously.

Wrong, I do not have a hypothesis (or any sort of preconceived notion). I am just curious to see what the data shows about risk stratification across age groups with and without common risk factors. Do you have any references to recent peer reviewed studies on that topic?

I'm not sure why you're trying to derail the discussion by bringing up data dredging. That would only potentially be relevant as a possible criticism of the methodology in a particular study. So what's your point?