Originally Posted by soccertese

http://www.healthnewsreview.org/2013...lways-so-well/

excerpt:
The words matter. Accuracy matters. I shouldn’t have to tell the New York Times that. But read some of the comments left online by readers of the “Some Fruits Are Better Than Others” piece. Readers are telling the Times to get with it as well. Excerpts of those comments:

Type 2 diabetes is to a large degree a disease of poor people. So any factor that is related to socioeconomic status will correlate to lower diabetes risk, because wealthier, more highly educated people tend to have a lower diabetes risk.Blueberries are probably a good surrogate for wealth/education. If you can afford $5 a pint for blueberries twice a week, you probably have a higher income and education level and less chance of coming down with diabetes.The exact same correlation would be found for French wine, truffles, and good balsamic vinegar.Likewise, you can “reduce your diabetes risk” by buying Fendi purses, Ferraris and first-class airline tickets.
Anyone who buys blueberries five times a week would probably have an intense interest in health & probably not be rounding out their diet at McDonalds the rest of the week.I doubt blueberries cause reduction in diabetes. They are just proof that having access to fresh produce you can afford, year-round, will keep you healthier. I’m not sure that’s news.
As my Statistics professor tried to drum into our heads:“Correlation is not causation!”
These comments are very helpful. It is a new journalistic phenomenon that the NYTimes comments contain as much wisdom as the original articles.
This was a poorly written article that created more questions than it answered.
I wish these articles would always put a disclaimer that studies like these do not prove causation or prevention.