"Our findings do not provide strong support for the hypothesis that calcium and dairy foods increase the risk of prostate cancer. The results from other large...studies, with adequate numbers of advanced and fatal prostate cancers, may shed further light on this question," Park's team concludes.

I agree with you DM, these reports and the people who report them are asinine.

Simply put, scientists can talk all they want about what is good or bad for you but in the end other scientists refute these claims and shoot back with their own.

It's one of the types of stories you'd just as soon never hear about because 2 or 3 years from now they'll change their minds again.

If you want to tell me something useful, why don't you work on plants that have valid medicinal purposes so I can help kill the drug monopoly.

:D

I agree that the reporting on these studies can be dubious. In this case, though, what you're seeing is mostly bad writing: There are two, somewhat related, studies in the same journal plus a third, older, study being referenced in the report.

To be fair, I almost took the bait myself, having switched to skim myself a few years ago, but let's look at the press release:

"Further analysis, however, **suggested** that low-fat or nonfat milk did increase the risk of localized tumors.."

Ah, "suggested", that hallmark of science.

The article continues:

"Our findings do not provide strong support for the hypothesis...studies, with adequate numbers of advanced and fatal prostate cancers, may shed further light on this question"

In other words, "We're not sure, but maybe another study will prove it?"