Coffee may cut risk for some cancers
Reviewed By
Rating
Coffee may cut risk for some cancers
Our Review Summary
What basics are wrong? The on-air and online stories still used terms like "benefit" and "lowers risk" – sometimes with the qualifier "may cut risk" which still doesn’t cover up the inaccuracy of using causal language to explain results that can’t prove cause-and-effect.
Why This Matters
Some of the online comments on the CNN website provide a glimpse of how readers react to such stories:
- "i love how an article starts with something positive and then slowly becomes a little gloomy. so is it good or not? i’m still where i was with coffee, it’s all in moderation, it ain’t gonna solve your health woes."
- "The statistics book in a class I’m taking right know uses coffee as an example of statistics run amok. It seems coffee has caused all the cancers and cures them at the same time."
- "Could it be that instead of having mysterious compounds, coffee drinkers just drink more coffee than they drink alcohol or smoke?"
- "I am so f-ing sick of these studies, or more precicesly how these "risk factors" are interpreted as "facts" by newspaper headlines. If you can’t explain why something happens other than surmising, stop wasting our time."
- "…correlation IS NOT causation!!!! So people that drink 4 or more cups of coffee have a lower incidence of two certain types of head and neck cancers, and this is supposed to mean that coffee is actually "warding off" these cancers???"
Criteria
Not Applicable
Not applicable – the cost of coffee is not in question.
Not Satisfactory
The online and on-air stories still used inappropriate causal language – as the WebMD story did – in describing the results of a study that can’t establish cause-and-effect.
The online story said "may cut risk" and "may lower the risk." Adding the qualifying "may" doesn’t detract from the inappropriate causal verb that follows.
The on-air story used the term "benefit" when benefit can not be established in this kind of study.
Inappropriate. Inaccurate.
Satisfactory
At least this story did what the WebMD story didn’t do in discussing some of the potential harms from drinking a lot of coffee.
Not Satisfactory
At least the story commented briefly on the nature of the study: "They looked at nine existing studies and analyzed how much coffee was consumed by more than 5,000 cancer patients and about 9,000 healthy people."
But it never stated explicitly that this kind of study CAN NOT establish cause and effect. That’s still a major shortcoming of such stories. It only takes a line to do so, and we’ve provided some sample lines in a primer on this topic elsewhere on our site.
Satisfactory
No overt disease-mongering in the story.
Satisfactory
One of the researchers and two independent sources were interviewed – something WebMD didn’t do.
Not Satisfactory
The story didn’t comment – as the WebMD story did – on other factors analyzed in the study such as tea, fruits and vegetables.
Not Applicable
Not applicable – the availability of coffee is not in question.
Satisfactory
The story at least briefly mentions other coffee research: "Other recent studies suggest coffee may have beneficial effects in other diseases like dementia, diabetes, liver and Parkinson’s disease. However, coffee alone may not be the answer according to some experts."
Satisfactory
Because of the number of sources cited, it’s clear this did not rely on a news release.
Total Score: 5 of 8 Satisfactory
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.
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