Science's meta analasis and media's wrong interpretation

Recently when a meta analysis was done on research papers regarding saturated fats, media quickly jumped into the arena saying that

Ghee, butter and cheese not tied to heart disease? Experts: No Proof That Saturated Fat Is Unhealthy
Then my reaction to it proved to be true. I wrote to several news papers that published this study :
Take this with a pinch of salt! Your genes will definitely determine whether you are susceptible or not. And the amount of work you do too determines whether you will get effected or not! In earlier times when people used to walk long distances and did everything using their hands, fats might not have effected them as much as they do now. You cannot compare those situations with the present situations! You cannot put all the people in one bracket to come to a conclusion! The results are unclear and flawed and the study was done without taking several things into consideration. 

Now several scientists around the world criticized this study and pointed out several mistakes like I did!

The earlier report by the media 0n 20th March, 2014: A dollop of ghee or butter in your diet does not cause as much harm to your heart as it was believed till now. Researchers from the University of Cambridge and the British Heart Foundation have found there is actually no evidence that confirms changing the type of fat you eat from “bad” saturated to “healthier” polyunsaturated cuts heart risk.
The researchers analysed data from 72 unique studies with over 600,000 participants from 18 nations and found total saturated fatty acid, whether measured in the diet or in the bloodstream as a biomarker, was not associated with coronary disease risk in the observational studies. Similarly, when analysing the studies that involved assessments of the consumption of total monounsaturated fatty acids, long-chain omega-3 and omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids, there were no significant associations between consumption and cardiovascular risk.
Saturated fat is the kind of fat found in butter, biscuits, red meat, sausages and bacon and cheese and cream. There has been a big drive to get more people eating unsaturated fats, such as olive and sunflower oils, and other non-animal fats instead. But the latest study raises questions about the current guidelines that generally restrict the consumption of saturated fats and encourage consumption of polyunsaturated fats to prevent heart disease.
“These are interesting results that potentially stimulate new lines of scientific inquiry and encourage careful reappraisal of our current nutritional guidelines,” said Dr Rajiv Chowdhury, lead author of the research at the University of Cambridge. “Cardiovascular disease, in which the principal manifestation is coronary heart disease, remains the single leading cause of death and disability worldwide. In 2008, more than 17 million people died from a cardiovascular cause globally. With so many affected by this illness, it is critical to have appropriate prevention guidelines which are informed by the best available scientific evidence.”
The research collaboration led by the University of Cambridge analysed existing cohort studies and randomised trials on coronary risk and fatty acid intake. They showed that current evidence does not support guidelines which restrict the consumption of saturated fats in order to prevent heart disease. The researchers also found insufficient support for guidelines which advocate the high consumption of polyunsaturated fats (such as omega 3 and omega 6) to reduce the risk of coronary disease.
Examples:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk,
Times News Network ( http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/usrmailcomment2.cms?msid=3232545... )

Now the scientists criticism:
Scientists Fix Errors in Controversial Paper About Saturated Fats
http://news.sciencemag.org/health/2014/03/scientists-fix-errors-con...
Going nuts. Critics have panned a paper that questions whether unsaturated fats, common in nuts, are healthier than saturated ones.

When a paper published on 17 March questioned whether fats from fish or vegetable oils are healthier than those in meat or butter, it quickly made headlines around the world; after all, the study seemed to debunk a cornerstone of many dietary guidelines. But a new version of the publication had to be posted shortly after it appeared on the website of the Annals of Internal Medicine to correct several errors. And although the study's first author stands by the conclusions, a number of scientists are criticizing the paper and even calling on the authors to retract it.

"They have done a huge amount of damage," says Walter Willett, chair of the nutrition department at the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston. "I think a retraction with similar press promotion should be considered."

Health officials have long argued that so-called saturated fatty acids, which are found in butter, meat, chocolate, and cheese, increase the risk of heart disease, and that people should instead eat more unsaturated fatty acids, the type that dominates in fish, nuts, or vegetable oils.

In the new study, a meta-analysis, scientists from Europe and the United States pooled 72 individual studies to gauge how different fats influence the risk of a heart attack or other cardiac events, such as angina. These included trials in which participants were randomly assigned to different diets, as well as observational studies in which participants' intake of fatty acids was determined by asking them about their diet or by measuring the fatty acids circulating in the bloodstream.

When the researchers compared people with the highest and the lowest intake of saturated fats, they found no clear difference between the risk of heart disease or other cardiac events. Similarly, they found no significant difference between those consuming high or low amounts of the supposedly healthy unsaturated fats. "Current evidence does not clearly support guidelines that encourage high consumption of polyunsaturated fatty acids and low consumption of total saturated fats," the authors concluded.

But even before the paper was published, other scientists began pointing out errors, says first author Rajiv Chowdhury, an epidemiologist at the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom. For instance, the authors took one study on omega-3 fats, one type of unsaturated fats, to show a slightly negative effect while, in fact, it had shown a strong positive effect. The correction means that the meta-analysis now says people who report eating lots of this particular fat have significantly less heart disease; previously, it said there was no significant effect.

Critics also pointed out two important studies on omega-6 fatty acids that the authors had missed. The errors "demonstrate shoddy research and make one wonder whether there are more that haven't been detected," writes Jim Mann, a researcher at the University of Otago, Dunedin, in New Zealand, writes in an e-mail. "If I had been the referee I would have recommended rejection."

Mann and others say the paper has other problems, too. For instance, it does not address what people who reduced their intake of saturated fats consumed instead. A 2009 review concluded that replacing saturated fats with carbohydrates had no benefit, while replacing them with polyunsaturated fats reduced the risk of heart disease. Several scientists say that should have been mentioned in the new paper.

Chowdhury says the paper's conclusions are valid, however, even after the corrections. Randomized clinical trials are the "hardest" kind of evidence, he says, and they don't show a significant effect of saturated or unsaturated fats. But even one of the paper's authors, Dariush Mozaffarian, of the Harvard School of Public Health, admits that he is not happy with the key conclusion that the evidence does not support a benefit from polyunsaturated fats. "Personally, I think the results suggest that fish and vegetable oils should be encouraged," he says. But the paper was written by a group of authors, he points out. "And science isn't a dictatorship."

Another study author, Emanuele Di Angelantonio of the University of Cambridge, says the main problem is that the paper was "wrongly interpreted by the media." "We are not saying the guidelines are wrong and people can eat as much saturated fat as they want. We are saying that there is no strong support for the guidelines and we need more good trials."

Willett says correcting the paper isn't enough. "It is good that they fixed it for the record, but it has caused massive confusion and the public hasn't heard about the correction." The paper should be withdrawn, he argues.

The controversy should serve as a warning about meta-analyses, Willett adds. Such studies compile the data from many individual studies to get a clearer result. "It looks like a sweeping summary of all the data, so it gets a lot of attention," Willett says. "But these days meta-analyses are often done by people who are not familiar with a field, who don't have the primary data or don't make the effort to get it." And while drug trials are often very similar in design, making it easy to combine their results, nutritional studies vary widely in the way they are set up. "Often the strengths and weaknesses of individual studies get lost," Willett says. "It's dangerous."

----

I have requested the media several times not to jump to conclusions so easily and readily and analyse the work fully before reporting. But would they listen? No, they wouldn't! Can't they understand they are putting the health of people at risk. When people read these reports they think, they are true and throw caution to the winds! Proof of how careless media can get!