Woe to a world that has The Business Press Maven pontificating on anything I don't know about. So when it comes to either love ... or the legitimacy of a scientific study ... I tend to keep it simple. In love: The Business Press Maven just admits he's wrong. And in reading about scientific research, The Business Press Maven just makes sure the business media mention whether the study they are talking about has a decent sample size and possibly involved a control group. That's not asking the world, is it? Actually, maybe it is. The Business Press Maven read big news this week about AstraZeneca's ( AZN) cholesterol fighter Crestor with undisguised irritation. Here's the first headline The Business Press Maven and many traders saw, a possibly misleading eight words from Reuters: "Statin drug shown to reverse plaque in arteries." Hey, it looked good at first. There's nothing as comforting as a headline about a drug that can help you live a longer and richer life, if you invest as well as ingest. But before we get ahead of ourselves and let an excitable media put a coverlet over our eyes, let's see how they did on the all-important sample size/control group issue. The Reuters story went on to sum up how Crestor was shown to partially reverse plaque buildup in coronary arteries and how that was the first time the AstraZeneca's drug was shown to be effective in that way. Now hear this: From all I've heard, AstraZeneca is a decent company and the drug effective on cholesterol. But if The Business Press Maven's experience on Wall Street and in journalism has taught him anything, it is to always read with an interrogative gaze -- especially when you are predisposed to believe. The first quote we got from Reuters was how the results were "shockingly positive." That quote came from the study's lead author, i.e. not the dude I want putting things in overall perspective. So I skimmed down, looking for information on sample size and control group, and what I got was a few more quotes from the study's author. It was only three-quarters of the way down that someone other than the auteur weighed in, a Johns Hopkins professor who deemed the study "intriguing" but pointed out that more study was needed. From there, we were told that AstraZeneca's shares rose sharply, as if this means anything.