…in the New York Times today.
I like the lede here, comparing how scientists view their own research versus, oh, say, Frankie Avalon shilling for vitamin supplements:
Then came three large, rigorous clinical trials that randomly assigned people to take beta carotene pills or a placebo. And the beta carotene hypothesis crumbled. The trials concluded that not only did beta carotene fail to protect against cancer and heart disease, but it might increase the risk of developing cancer.
It was “the biggest disappointment of my career,†said one of the study researchers, Dr. Charles Hennekens, then at Brigham and Women’s Hospital.
But Frankie Avalon, a ’50s singer and actor turned supplement marketer, had another view. When the bad news was released, he appeared in an infomercial. On one side of him was a huge stack of papers. At his other side were a few lonely pages. What are you going to believe, he asked, all these studies saying beta carotene works or these saying it doesn’t?
Read the whole thing, it gives some great examples of how things that are reported in the media often fall apart in strong clinical trials. I wish it went a little deeper to provide casual readers with a few more tools on how to judge the strength of a study design. And It could use some graphics. Still, good stuff.