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

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.