They (OP) completed their study and published it (not in the most prestigious publication). If the press covers it, so be it. What really needs to be done is more independent studies to either prove whether or not there is a link. Just because they found a link doesnt mean it's definitely there.
Problem is that these studies are often epidemiological -- X went up, and Y went up as well. Which is fine, and worthy of publication in a scientific journal (usually). Maybe X causes Y, maybe Y causes X, maybe Z causes X and Y, maybe A causes X and B causes Y and the apparent correlation is coincidental. (Maybe the original work has a stronger basis for the claim, I dunno).
By the time the news of the study has been they've been through the digestive tract of the media it morphs into "scientists say X causes Y!!!". No ifs, no buts. Even if some media outlets report it responsibly, there's always some which will tend to use the scare to sell more papers, etc. Anyone who denies a link is suddenly in the pay of the big drugs companies, or a lying politician, etc. The MMR example shows that these stories can have a real impact and can potentially cause real harm to kids, way beyond the original claimed effect.
I don't like the idea of scientific research being withheld from the general public -- that's not what we're here for, that's not what we're paid for with tax-payers money. However I like even less the way that putative or tentative links reported in scientific journals end up when they've been through the reality distortion field of the media.
Your post sounded like they just randomly picked what they would publish.
No, my comment was more aimed at the media (sorry for the confusion!).
