Here's how science is reported;
After the full manuscript formula, including detailed descriptions of participants, how they were found, exactly what we did to them and why, all the previous data that makes us believe cancer is bad in the first place, etc etc, the very last paragraph is the conclusion. It tends to sound like;
"Participants who were treated for kidney damage consumed between 35 and 50mg of creatine over a 5 month period within 10 years prior." Then you'd refer to the graph that showed a spike in the 35-50mg range and see they calculated to correlation to r=0.75, or 75% chance they are connected. These are all fact and factors you then consider to make a judgement. However, the layman will just say "it's bad for ya" when in this made up study I just pulled out of my butt, the fact is it's only bad for ya' if you take over 35mg per day.
I don't have real numbers in my head at the moment but I'd imagine the factor of being bad would be overdoing to some degree.