This is a pretty standard science article in a mainstream newspaper in which a “science” journalist reports on a study and tries to interpret the science jargon and put things in terms that “regular folks” can understand. In the process the journalist misinterprets or misrepresents what was actually true based on the research. Below are some comments from the comments section of the article that point out some of the mistakes. Article linked below that.
“Blurs distinctions distinction between correlation with causation, as dietary science (and bad science reporting) often do. Are there other aspects of a coffee-drinker’s life and habits (income, nutritional habits, lifestyle choices) that may contribute to a longer life? Coffee reduces suicide? Really? At least the scientist himself admits it’s hard to know if the positive effect is causal or not. Since we can pretty much cherry pick nutrition science “data” to fit our whims these days I’ll go on drinking my coffee (for the placebo effect if nothing else) and my beer, and eating a high cholesterol diet to boot. Maybe pure pleasure is the best medicine of all.”