As a writer, not an expert or an investigator, Parker-Pope derails anyone who seems to disagree with her report on the findings or a skewed study, really one that is only a analysis of 'selected'studies utilized to prove a specific point. That in itself is an exceptionally clear indication of bias.
Not unusual for the NYT, as I understand lately, they have fallen off their once repected high horse, and are just another USA Today style rag.
This isn't a surprise because the NYT travel writer recently spewed out all the hype on the Silver Valley in N. Idaho that developers don't want you to know - it's that the Silver Valley is a toxic nighmare, one you can't cover up by moving dirt.
One NYT reader comments below on Parker-Page's reference
I would take anything that the Tufts University CV research team has done with a large grain of salt. My experience is they are more interested in getting a trial published than reporting quality information. They take prior trials do a Meta-Analysis and leap to conclusions which they've done with statins in the past. It is inherently hard combine large numbers of trials with different populations and designs etc.. and get a quality result. However, they will hang their hat on it.