The New York Daily News reports on an observational study by the Harvard School of Public Health and concludes:
“Men should back away from the bacon if they want to make babies.”
Here’s the nut graf – no pun intended:
“Researchers analyzed more than 350 semen samples from 156 men who visited a local fertility center and answered questions about their diet. They found that eating processed red meat has a negative effect on “sperm morphology” — the size and shape of sperm’s cell structures. Having abnormal sperm can contribute to infertility.”
No, they did not find that. You can’t “find that” by having men fill out a questionnaire and then comparing it with their sperm size and shape. You may be able to point to a statistical association – “we found more men who ate more bacon had more screwed-up sperm” – but you can’t prove a negative effect by this kind of study. No cause and effect. Just a statistical association.
And, in the way online news is often assembled these days, note how the Daily News story links to past “related” news:
Not necessarily related: ASSOCIATION and CAUSATION.
The Daily News was not alone on this. A web search turns up about 100 stories on the study, with headlines such as:
But why couldn’t every story include a simple caveat from a researcher who said, in a Huffington Post story:
“”We’ll continue looking into this question including the possibility that it is not processed meats that is driving the association but what they are replacing.”
Or, as the Boston.com Daily Dose reported:
“…the researchers could only make statistical associations and couldn’t prove that exercise or dietary habits directly affected sperm production.”
Between bacon and oreos, it has been an awful week for journalists purportedly reporting on studies.
For what feels like at least the 100th time, we remind people that we offer a primer, “Does the Language Fit the Evidence? – Association Versus Causation.”
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
Comments (2)
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