Gary Schwitzer is the founder of HealthNewsReview.org and has been its publisher for 14 years. He has been a health care journalist for 47 years. He tweets as @garyschwitzer or as @HealthNewsRevu.
This is the way many of my days begin.
I check for messages – across all media – and I see this on Twitter from Adam Cifu, MD, one of our former editorial contributors:
I think this article was published just to irritate @VPrasadMDMPH and @garyschwitzer https://t.co/KWVqMEk3K8
— Adam Cifu (@adamcifu) June 30, 2020
Once again, it’s the New York Times making causal statements about an observational study, confusing a study that shows a statistical association with one that shows cause-and-effect – which this one did not. And once again, it’s in the Times’ Well column.
In this case, the Times acknowledges the study can’t prove cause and effect – as early as the second sentence. However, by then the story had already used wording suggesting causation twice:
So readers heads were spinning like Linda Blair’s in The Exorcist – just in the first two sentences.
But I’ve often felt that the way you end a story is the most important because it leaves the reader with a take-home message. And in this case, the Times turned over the take-home message to one of the researchers:
“The tangible takeaway is that we can tell people they do not have to go out and run a marathon” to potentially reduce their risk of dying from cancer, she says.
I argue that there are no proven grounds to deliver that ‘tangible takeaway.’ It’s an interesting study, blown way beyond the boundaries of evidence with this story and with that quote.
As always, smart readers weigh in with criticism of the Times’ continued Un-Well coverage. One wrote:
With these correlational studies, you can’t control for every single variable that may be contributing to the picture and I do not agree with the stark message of “Don’t sit too long or you’ll die from cancer.” That’s too simple and terrifying a picture to be useful to anyone.
-0-
Even earlier today, I saw this on Twitter:
I can’t wait for the popular press to go with this (clearly spurious) association. Is this the same or worse than epidemiological studies of diet? @VPrasadMDMPH @adamcifu
Association of Low to Moderate Alcohol Drinking With Cognitive Functions in US Adults https://t.co/vnKrzb2NEt— Michael Ostacher, MD, MPH (@RecoveryDoctor) June 29, 2020
Well, he didn’t need to wait long to see a headline like this in The Telegraph from the UK: Alcohol is good for you, study finds.
No, that’s not what the study found. It found a statistical association. Not proof of cause-and-effect.
CNN’s story – “ Moderate drinking may improve cognitive health for older adults, study says” – used a qualifying term – ‘may improve’ – which still implies that cause-and-effect ‘may’ have been established when it hasn’t. Overall, though, the CNN story provided context and caveats in the body text.
As I’ve done dozens of times through the years, I refer readers and journalists to the primer that’s been on this website for more than a dozen years: Observational studies: Does the language fit the evidence? Association vs. causation.
Now it’s time to sit down and have a drink. I’m worn out already today and I’m barely beyond breakfast.
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