09-24-2015, 04:59 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-24-2015, 05:05 PM by DocWils.)
I am sorry, but you are wrong - you are confusing studies with media reporting, each report claiming to be the latest, greatest and be all and end all of "scientific findings" - in fact, it is media sensationalism and nothing more - a single study is never enough to go on in science, and certainly not in medicine. As I have said, time and again, the best way to stop being confused is to stop reading these studies - they are not for public dissemination ultimately - they are more of, in medicine at least, a "here is something interesting - does anyone else want to follow this up?" The media doesn't know that, and uses it simply to feed the beast of the 24 hour news cycle. just ignore it and let your doctor be your guide - by the time it becomes medical "fact" (we don't have that, actually, just medical practice) it will have gone through years of rigorous testing to find out if it is falsifiable or not. So, what I wrote in the last above post from me is where we are at now in our medical understanding based on observation and testing, and the actual study quoted in the OP was not in fact telling me anything new at all. But any media hack wouldn't know that and would make big claims from small observations, which is all that it was.
In fact, there are only two points of real interest in the posting: "As the number of studies of coffee consumption and AF risk is quite limited, the authors say that more large prospective studies investigating this relationship are needed.
In sex-specific analyses, coffee consumption was associated with a non-significant increased risk of AF in men, but a non-significant decreased risk of AF in women. Whether men may be more sensitive to a high coffee or caffeine intake warrants further study, say the authors." And that, in reality is the only significant and interesting finding in the study. The rest we already knew. At most they confirmed it. A healthy heart is not at risk of AF from caffeine consumption. No argument there, never was.
Not sure what true science is, but people doing science are people - biased, fallible and prone to error - that is why science is designed to eliminate the human factor - doesn't always work, but only when people break the rules of science. That is why we have peer review for everything. Heck, we even bring in magicians sometimes - we consulted with James Randi on homeopathy to help us to understand where human bias might be creeping in in the observation process, for instance - it worked, our findings became conclusive, verifiable and falsifiable, and several other studies could then be done by others that came to the same conclusion, but the government didn't listen and included homeopathic medicine amongst the things to be treated on health insurance (along with a laundry list of other "alternative" medicines) - result: rising insurance costs that could be relieved by only covering evidence based medicine instead of crap, not that THAT is going to happen any time soon. So, actually, I conclude that the problem isn't science or scientist, it is politicians and other biased non-experts. And that conclusion is without coffee.