> Did this particular study control for that, is what I asked, because this particular study is what's on the front page of HN.
Where it or not it did, your comment certainly didn't add any useful information. Perhaps read the study and declare whether they control for the aspects you are concerned about? Bearing-less skepticism adds no value.
> Also, "countless" studies have shown negative correlations between coffee and human health.
I have never seen a study with negative correlation all-cause-mortality for coffee consumption. I'm sure one could exist, but it's a topic I've looked into a good bit, and I think it's pretty fair to stay the evidence for coffee overwhelms that against.
Funny enough, in your less-than-clever search on google scholar for "coffee disease", *literally* the first hit results reads:
"During follow-up, 102 men were identified as having PD. Age-adjusted incidence of PD declined consistently with increased amounts of coffee intake, from 10.4 per 10,000 person-years in men who drank no coffee to 1.9 per 10,000 person-years in men who drank at least 28 oz/d (P<.001 for trend)..."
Gee, in this study, which you apparently linked to support the idea that there are studies that imply negative health consequences associated with coffee consumption, coffee seems to be associated with a fivefold reduction in risk for Parkinson's Disease!
Did you really assume that any hit with both "coffee" and "disease" in it necessarily must be a study that concluded that coffee caused a disease?