Among the headlines that turn up on a Google search today:
Coffee and tea to the rescue in minimizing the spread of flesh eating bacteria
Tea Time; Drinking Beverage May Half MRSA Superbug Nostril Infection
Coffee and tea: MRSA fighters
Tea and coffee help fight superbug
Reminder: these headlines are based on an observational study, which can’t prove cause and effect. So all these statements – or even hints – of a causal link – are wrong.
If you need help understanding the limitations of observational studies, read our primer on association versus causation.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Fascinating case study in medical journalism... https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1547278045781819395
.@garyschwitzer nails it, again.
It doesn't have to be this way.
This: https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1547278045781819395
Someone please fund Health News Review again. Goodness knows we need a health news watchdog more than ever. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1547278045781819395
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Kip Hansen
July 16, 2011 at 12:30 pmRead the original study in the Annals of Family Medicine. They claim to find the effect in those who drink ONE or more cups of tea or coffee PER MONTH. — but for coffee only in the statistically transmogrified data.
That’s one powerful effect!
It appears again that advanced statistics in the hands of the statistically innumerate can produce the desired results from almost any body of numbers.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like