Ned Kock at Health Correlator has provided a nice little refresher on the interpretation of quantitative research results.
Now personally I am a bit skeptical about how robust the original China Study data set actually is, so the current squabble between those who live in Banarnia and those who walk on the wild side might actually be more akin to two bald men fighting over a comb.
For the record, by pure coincidence I am half way through reading "Statistics Hacks: Tips & Tools for Measuring the World and Beating the Odds". (Yes, I am that sad). I recommend it especially if you are a bit rusty when it comes to stats.
Whilst I am at it, one of my favourite books is "The Most Beautiful Mathematical Formulas: An Entertaining Look at the Most Insightful, Useful and Quirky Theorems of All Time". Please do not pre-judge this book. If you can get your hands on it you will find it quite entertaining whether you are an armchair mathematician or not. If you are math-phobic then this book will leave you invigorated as it takes you gently by the hand through key areas of number science.
If you ARE an uber-genius when it comes to numbers, you might want to tackle "Mathematics: From the Birth of Numbers". In a word; awesome. Much more than a maths text it goes in to the history of mathematical language (including counting in different languages), numerology and all sorts. It lost me in a few places (I am no uber genius, more of a maths-monkey!), but is the kind of book you really could keep going back to over the course of your life.
Anyway, Ned's post is worthy of wider recognition and it will explain why umbrellas cause rain!