For me it's good to have a healthy dose of skepticism about these things, especially when it comes to social studies. I didn't like the conclusive tone of the m

For me it's good to have a healthy dose of skepticism about these things, especially when it comes to social studies. I didn't like the conclusive tone of the mother jones article personally. The mother jones author does a fairly amateur analysis and concludes: "I’d say that basic cohort analysis supports the lead-crime hypothesis, while age analysis might not." The article I posted is a counterpoint to this in which an academic cohort study is reviewed finding lead explains less than 1% of the variation in crime in a cohort, and another cohort study there reviewed found no association between lead exposure and murder -- so a relevant article to post here, I'd say. Do you consider the results in the MJ article to be as robust as a meta-analysis and if not, do you have the same criticism of that article? (in which case, fair enough)