Put Down That Coffee. It Might Be Killing You.
That was an actual headline from a story the other day about a paper published online first by Mayo Clinic Proceedings pointing to an association – not proof of cause – between heavy coffee consumption (>28 cups a week) and higher death rate in people younger than 55.
Other headlines:
New study: Coffee can kill you – Atlanta Magazine
Drinking More Than Four Cups of Coffee A Day Raises the Risk of an Earlier Death (Business Insider story on San Francisco Chronicle website)
Four Cups of Coffee a Day Means Higher Death Risk – UPI story on HispanicBusiness.com
No it can’t…no it doesn’t…and no it doesn’t. At least there is no proof of “raising the risk of an earlier death” from the study in question. The researchers reported a “positive (statistical) association.” That’s not causation. So causal phrases such as “raises risk” or “can kill you” are unfounded. I always have to remind first-time readers that I’m not knocking the potential importance of observational studies. They are what they are and they ain’t what they ain’t.
At last check there were more than 170 stories about this study that turned up on a simple web search.
One of the study authors, in this video, explains that another of the team’s papers in another journal points to benefits or protective effects of coffee consumption. But that was a point that didn’t make it into many stories.
“Gregg Fonarow, co-chief of clinical cardiology at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, says, “Differences in other dietary factors, marital status and other socioeconomic factors that were not adjusted for in this study may account for some or all of these observations.”
Fonarow, who was not involved in this research, says observational studies that survey people about their coffee intake and tie that to how many died from any cause have yielded mixed results.
Consider a 2012 study that found that coffee drinkers ages 50-71 had a lower risk of death than their peers who did not consume coffee. In that study, researchers from the National Cancer Institute, part of the National Institutes of Health, and AARP found that the more coffee consumed, the more a person’s death risk declined.”
Look what happens when you make another phone call and involve another – independent – expert voice to scrutinize the evidence.
Coffee causation stories are getting stale with us. Just check out some past posts:
May 2010 – CBS is wrong on coffee “lowering risk” of uterine cancer
June 2010 – Wisdom of the crowds: news consumers tired of misinterpreted observational studies
February 2011 – Why would the Wall Street Journal post this Fox News video on coffee as cure & killer?
March 2011 – Coffee & stroke: what the study didn’t prove and what some stories got wrong
May 2011 – Story whips up confusion over coffee and breast cancer risk – hurts more than helps
October 2011 – Another day, another slew of misleading media messages on observational study
May 2011 – Coffee & prostate cancer: Some news reports got it right. Others .
May 2012 – Another coffee observational study – another round of misplaced emphasis
June 2012 – Coffee clichés and the tired old trend on observational study stories
July 2012 – As long as news keeps cranking coffee benefit stories, we’ll keep commenting on them
December 2012 – Please, Grey Lady, don’t spill more coffee observational studies on us
Anyone who wants to learn more about why the language matters in such stories should read our primer, “Does The Language Fit the Evidence? Association Versus Causation.”
ADDENDUM ON AUGUST 22: See Evelyn Lamb’s post, “Sex Makes You Rich? Why We Keep Saying ‘Correlation Is Not Causation.’ ”
——————
Tweet
Follow us on Facebook, and on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer
https://twitter.com/healthnewsrevu
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
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.
Comments are closed.
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