5 ms·

This study seems to take that into account[1]: > Restrictions on the import and sales of WHO Class I toxicity pesticides in 1995 and endosulfan in 1998, coinci

This study seems to take that into account[1]: > Restrictions on the import and sales of WHO Class I toxicity pesticides in 1995 and endosulfan in 1998, coincided with reductions in suicide in both men and women of all ages. 19,800 fewer suicides occurred in 1996-2005 compared to 1986 – 1995. Secular trends in unemployment, alcohol misuse, divorce, pesticide use and the years associated with Sri Lanka’s Civil war did not appear to be associated with these declines. Here's another study[2]: > Overall suicide mortality dropped by 21% between 2011 and 2015, from 18.3 to 14.3 per 100,000. The decline in pesticide suicides during this same period was larger than for overall suicides: from 8.5 to 4.2 per 100,000, a 50% reduction. This was accompanied by a smaller concurrent rise in non-pesticide suicide mortality with a 2% increase (9.9 to 10.1 per 100,000). [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3154644/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3154644/ [2] http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0172893 http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....

achileas 9y ago
Pretty much every time someone complains about the whole correlation != causation thing, it's a huge red flag that they didn't read the actual research or have no experience in academic research. It's easily accounted for and is the lowest hanging methodological fruit, and pretty much is always addressed when actually appropriate. It's an undergrad stats thing, and I know for my degree I had to have at least a year of graduate level stats, and the same for undergrad.
- toasterlovin 9y ago
  On the other hand, epidemiology is fundamentally incapable of proving positive causation. It can prove that something is not a cause by showing that there is no correlation, but that’s it.
- tomp 9y ago
  the kind of conclusion as "all of 70% decrease was caused by this single factor" (as the title implies) is incredibly intelectually dishonest to ever make. So I'm not looking at the data from the perspective "I bet they were too stupid/uneducated to think about correlation != causation", but rather from the "looks like they're trying to find data to substantiate their political agenda" perspective. Edit: having said that, yeah, I don't have any actual research experience, and the data does look pretty convincing - as in, banning pesticides probably does contribute to a reduction in suicides a non-trivial amount.
  - achileas 9y ago
    You're not looking at the data at all, and making assumptions about the scientists who did the research without even bothering to read beyond a podcast headline.
- Chathamization 9y ago
  It's an interesting reaction. "I didn't bother looking at the studies, but I bet the doctors who studied this didn't realize that correlation != causation, didn't realize that Sri Lanka had a civil war, didn't realize Sri Lanka's economy was growing, etc." It's worth keeping in mind when people wonder how there could be so many people who reject certain scientific findings. A lot of the time it's a similar attitude - "I'm not going to bother looking at the studies, but I'm guessing the people who studied it didn't think of the problem that immediately cam to my mind, and as such their results are probably wrong."
  - achileas 9y ago
    I've always wondered if it was a defense mechanism of some people with certain attitudes about their own intelligence or achievement.
  - tinymollusk 9y ago
    Outside of the slightly distasteful attitude ("I didn't bother" and "I bet" are slightly abrasive sounding), isn't the attitude one of the skeptic? It jibes with my understanding of how to make better decisions: don't start with the assumption something is true, question information before you store it in your brain. Annie Duke talks about this in her latest book.
    - achileas 9y ago
      No, that is being contrarian for its own sake. OP specifically said that they don't bother to look at or understand the actual research - that's not what a skeptic does.
      - tinymollusk 9y ago
        I suppose I believe it's less important whether or not we collectively determine the correctness of the other person, and more important that I use their contrarianism to question my own knowledge. I'm less interested in judging their argument and more interested in using their comments to evaluate my own. Kind of a "less wrong" approach, but focused on my own model of reality.
- pseudonom- 9y ago
  Whoa, that seems like a very strong claim claim and is contrary to my understanding. I know that instrumental variables can be a powerful approach, but it's not always easy to find a good instrument. And you can try to control for confounders, but it's hard to convince yourself you've gotten all of them. See, for example, https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.04692 https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.04692 where standard controls were of limited efficacy and it's only when they include an additional 3,700 controls that things start looking up. Then there are things like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parameter_identification_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parameter_identification_probl... and whole books like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality_(book) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality_(book) examining the problem and its' difficulty. Can you explain what you mean?
  - achileas 9y ago
    Easily accounted for doesn't mean just proving absolute causality - you can account for the issue by either certain statistical tests giving evidence for causation, but more easily you write about associations, what gives you evidence for the reduction of confounds (strengthening your evidence, as they did in this paper), and, of course, papers are written to an audience that understands correlation != causation, and are written as such. People pointing out such an obvious thing that is always accounted for in various ways in research shows their ignorance of the specific article as well as the philosophy of science in general. It's just a reflexive response for some people at this point.
manjushri 9y ago
Their "taking into account" seems like mere handwaving away. How would the ending of a civil war not be associated with an increase in mental health? >The decline in pesticide suicides during this same period was larger than for overall suicides: from 8.5 to 4.2 per 100,000, a 50% reduction The way they picked these statistics just seems self serving to their thesis. Another way of looking at the same numbers is that the drop in pesticide suicides accounted for only 10.75% of the total drop in suicides. The fact that this study focuses only on the immediate tool used to kill oneself rather than the plethora of long term contributing social factors that lead up to a suicide shows a willful ignorance of the root problems.
- shams93 9y ago
  Exactly I would bet the ending of the civil war is the real cause here, major improvement in the quality of life.
- Chathamization 9y ago
  > Their "taking into account" seems like mere handwaving away. How would the ending of a civil war not be associated with an increase in mental health? From the paper: > The temporal changes in suicide do not appear to correspond with the period of civil war (1983-2002).[27] By the time of the outbreak of the civil war in 1983, Sri Lankan suicide rates were already extremely high – 37.6 per 100,000 in 1982. In subsequent years, suicide rates stabilised. The civil war was still in progress at the time suicide rates began declining in 1995. By the time of the ceasefire in 2002 rates had already halved, and suicides rates were relatively stable in the 3 years after the ceasefire. They also link to studies showing that wars tend to be associated with decreased the rates of suicide.
  - manjushri 9y ago
    Considering the fluid nature of social dynamics, there still seems to be a relation there. >By the time of the outbreak of the civil war in 1983, Sri Lankan suicide rates were already extremely high Civil wars don't just spontaneously start for no reason. They start because people have been unhappy for a long time. Notice also that the suicide rate began peaking during the Elam War II phase of the civil war, a time of "unprecedented brutality", and then began declining at the time of the ceasefire. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lankan_Civil_War https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lankan_Civil_War
robertwiblin 9y ago
"Prevention of suicide with regulations aimed at restricting access to highly hazardous pesticides: a systematic review of the international evidence: FINDINGS: We identified 27 studies undertaken in 16 countries-five low-income or middle-income countries (Bangladesh, Colombia, India, Jordan and Sri Lanka), and 11 high-income countries (Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, UK, and USA). Assessments largely focused on national bans of specific pesticides (12 studies of bans in six countries-Jordan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Greece [Crete], South Korea, and Taiwan) or sales restrictions (eight studies of restrictions in five countries- India, Denmark, Ireland, the UK and the USA). Only five studies used optimum analytical methods. National bans on commonly ingested pesticides in five of the six countries studied, including four studies using optimum analytical methods, were followed by reductions in pesticide suicides and, in three of these countries, falls in overall suicide mortality. Greece was the only country studied that did not show a decrease in pesticide suicide following a ban. There were no high-quality studies of restricting sales to people for occupational uses; four of the seven studies (in three of the five countries studied-India, Denmark, and the USA) showed sales restrictions were followed by decreases in pesticide suicides; one of the two studies investigating trends in overall suicide mortality reported a fall in deaths in Denmark, but there were also decreases in suicide deaths from other methods. INTERPRETATION: National bans on highly hazardous pesticides, which are commonly ingested in acts of self-poisoning, seem to be effective in reducing pesticide-specific and overall suicide rates. Evidence is less consistent for sales restrictions. A worldwide ban on the use of highly hazardous pesticides is likely to prevent tens of thousands of deaths every year." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28807587 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28807587

achileas 9y ago

Pretty much every time someone complains about the whole correlation != causation thing, it's a huge red flag that they didn't read the actual research or have no experience in academic research. It's easily accounted for and is the lowest hanging methodological fruit, and pretty much is always addressed when actually appropriate. It's an undergrad stats thing, and I know for my degree I had to have at least a year of graduate level stats, and the same for undergrad.

toasterlovin 9y ago
On the other hand, epidemiology is fundamentally incapable of proving positive causation. It can prove that something is not a cause by showing that there is no correlation, but that’s it.
tomp 9y ago
the kind of conclusion as "all of 70% decrease was caused by this single factor" (as the title implies) is incredibly intelectually dishonest to ever make. So I'm not looking at the data from the perspective "I bet they were too stupid/uneducated to think about correlation != causation", but rather from the "looks like they're trying to find data to substantiate their political agenda" perspective. Edit: having said that, yeah, I don't have any actual research experience, and the data does look pretty convincing - as in, banning pesticides probably does contribute to a reduction in suicides a non-trivial amount.
- achileas 9y ago
  You're not looking at the data at all, and making assumptions about the scientists who did the research without even bothering to read beyond a podcast headline.
Chathamization 9y ago
It's an interesting reaction. "I didn't bother looking at the studies, but I bet the doctors who studied this didn't realize that correlation != causation, didn't realize that Sri Lanka had a civil war, didn't realize Sri Lanka's economy was growing, etc." It's worth keeping in mind when people wonder how there could be so many people who reject certain scientific findings. A lot of the time it's a similar attitude - "I'm not going to bother looking at the studies, but I'm guessing the people who studied it didn't think of the problem that immediately cam to my mind, and as such their results are probably wrong."
- achileas 9y ago
  I've always wondered if it was a defense mechanism of some people with certain attitudes about their own intelligence or achievement.
- tinymollusk 9y ago
  Outside of the slightly distasteful attitude ("I didn't bother" and "I bet" are slightly abrasive sounding), isn't the attitude one of the skeptic? It jibes with my understanding of how to make better decisions: don't start with the assumption something is true, question information before you store it in your brain. Annie Duke talks about this in her latest book.
  - achileas 9y ago
    No, that is being contrarian for its own sake. OP specifically said that they don't bother to look at or understand the actual research - that's not what a skeptic does.
    - tinymollusk 9y ago
      I suppose I believe it's less important whether or not we collectively determine the correctness of the other person, and more important that I use their contrarianism to question my own knowledge. I'm less interested in judging their argument and more interested in using their comments to evaluate my own. Kind of a "less wrong" approach, but focused on my own model of reality.
pseudonom- 9y ago
Whoa, that seems like a very strong claim claim and is contrary to my understanding. I know that instrumental variables can be a powerful approach, but it's not always easy to find a good instrument. And you can try to control for confounders, but it's hard to convince yourself you've gotten all of them. See, for example, https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.04692 https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.04692 where standard controls were of limited efficacy and it's only when they include an additional 3,700 controls that things start looking up. Then there are things like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parameter_identification_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parameter_identification_probl... and whole books like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality_(book) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality_(book) examining the problem and its' difficulty. Can you explain what you mean?
- achileas 9y ago
  Easily accounted for doesn't mean just proving absolute causality - you can account for the issue by either certain statistical tests giving evidence for causation, but more easily you write about associations, what gives you evidence for the reduction of confounds (strengthening your evidence, as they did in this paper), and, of course, papers are written to an audience that understands correlation != causation, and are written as such. People pointing out such an obvious thing that is always accounted for in various ways in research shows their ignorance of the specific article as well as the philosophy of science in general. It's just a reflexive response for some people at this point.

manjushri 9y ago

Their "taking into account" seems like mere handwaving away. How would the ending of a civil war not be associated with an increase in mental health? >The decline in pesticide suicides during this same period was larger than for overall suicides: from 8.5 to 4.2 per 100,000, a 50% reduction The way they picked these statistics just seems self serving to their thesis. Another way of looking at the same numbers is that the drop in pesticide suicides accounted for only 10.75% of the total drop in suicides. The fact that this study focuses only on the immediate tool used to kill oneself rather than the plethora of long term contributing social factors that lead up to a suicide shows a willful ignorance of the root problems.

shams93 9y ago
Exactly I would bet the ending of the civil war is the real cause here, major improvement in the quality of life.
Chathamization 9y ago
> Their "taking into account" seems like mere handwaving away. How would the ending of a civil war not be associated with an increase in mental health? From the paper: > The temporal changes in suicide do not appear to correspond with the period of civil war (1983-2002).[27] By the time of the outbreak of the civil war in 1983, Sri Lankan suicide rates were already extremely high – 37.6 per 100,000 in 1982. In subsequent years, suicide rates stabilised. The civil war was still in progress at the time suicide rates began declining in 1995. By the time of the ceasefire in 2002 rates had already halved, and suicides rates were relatively stable in the 3 years after the ceasefire. They also link to studies showing that wars tend to be associated with decreased the rates of suicide.
- manjushri 9y ago
  Considering the fluid nature of social dynamics, there still seems to be a relation there. >By the time of the outbreak of the civil war in 1983, Sri Lankan suicide rates were already extremely high Civil wars don't just spontaneously start for no reason. They start because people have been unhappy for a long time. Notice also that the suicide rate began peaking during the Elam War II phase of the civil war, a time of "unprecedented brutality", and then began declining at the time of the ceasefire. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lankan_Civil_War https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lankan_Civil_War

robertwiblin 9y ago

"Prevention of suicide with regulations aimed at restricting access to highly hazardous pesticides: a systematic review of the international evidence: FINDINGS: We identified 27 studies undertaken in 16 countries-five low-income or middle-income countries (Bangladesh, Colombia, India, Jordan and Sri Lanka), and 11 high-income countries (Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, UK, and USA). Assessments largely focused on national bans of specific pesticides (12 studies of bans in six countries-Jordan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Greece [Crete], South Korea, and Taiwan) or sales restrictions (eight studies of restrictions in five countries- India, Denmark, Ireland, the UK and the USA). Only five studies used optimum analytical methods. National bans on commonly ingested pesticides in five of the six countries studied, including four studies using optimum analytical methods, were followed by reductions in pesticide suicides and, in three of these countries, falls in overall suicide mortality. Greece was the only country studied that did not show a decrease in pesticide suicide following a ban. There were no high-quality studies of restricting sales to people for occupational uses; four of the seven studies (in three of the five countries studied-India, Denmark, and the USA) showed sales restrictions were followed by decreases in pesticide suicides; one of the two studies investigating trends in overall suicide mortality reported a fall in deaths in Denmark, but there were also decreases in suicide deaths from other methods. INTERPRETATION: National bans on highly hazardous pesticides, which are commonly ingested in acts of self-poisoning, seem to be effective in reducing pesticide-specific and overall suicide rates. Evidence is less consistent for sales restrictions. A worldwide ban on the use of highly hazardous pesticides is likely to prevent tens of thousands of deaths every year." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28807587 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28807587