The title draws the opposite conclusion of the paper itself (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2666777 https://jamanetwork.com/journal

The title draws the opposite conclusion of the paper itself (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2666777 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/...): > Conclusions and Relevance: This study overcomes past limitations of studies of BLL and crime by studying the association in a place and time where the correlation was not confounded by childhood socioeconomic status. Findings failed to support a dose-response association between BLL and consequential criminal offending. The author of this Mother Jones article, a long-time supporter of the hypothesis, re-analyzed the raw data himself and concluded that (surprise) the paper reinforces his pre-existing beliefs. I really desperately want to read scientific information about the world that I can trust isn't being filtered through the biases and passions of humans. I want to be able to trust that people are following the data to wherever it may lead. In our hyper-partisan world, that seems harder and harder to come by.