[pierrebai]

But your example is not reflective of the study. Are you saying that the 17% reduction is for some reason significant but the other ones, all of which would inconveniently disagree with the result you want, are not, even though they are in the same study?

IOW, you're saying that among the study results, all that agree with your POV are valid, all that don't are invalid. That's quite some bias there.

[KempyKolibri]

The answer to your question is literally answered by my comment that you’re replying to. Frequentist statistics cannot be used to affirm the null. That is, you cannot say “cardiovascular deaths was not significantly associated, therefore SFA does not cause CVD mortality”.

So I’m not disagreeing with or omitting anything in the study. The study said no significant association with CVD mortality. Ok, no problem. That doesn’t mean SFA doesn’t cause CVD mortality.

However, the study does show that SFA is associated with CVD events. So there’s a significant finding. It’s not cherry picking, this is just how frequentist statistics works.