Bad reporting? It does a pretty good job explaining what was analyzed in the study. It talks about negative results (i.e. no effect in men, no COPD), and at th

Bad reporting? It does a pretty good job explaining what was analyzed in the study. It talks about negative results (i.e. no effect in men, no COPD), and at the end of the article it discusses the limitations. It is a Eureka report--It's a press release that I think is usually written by the researchers themselves or the University. Is the science valid? Maybe, maybe not. But I do not perceive this as bad reporting