>Did you read it? Yes, the problem is that I read it. It indeed attributed the possibility, but at least from the article alone, the supporting evidence is in

>Did you read it? Yes, the problem is that I read it. It indeed attributed the possibility, but at least from the article alone, the supporting evidence is incredibly weak. at the end of the study, a group of 20 people who quit had larger erections than a group of 40 who didn't. Were they larger before the study too? Unstated. Were they significantly larger? By how much? Unstated. Were all of them larger, or did a few just skew the average? Unstated. Was the quitting group larger than before they quit? Unstated. All we have is that, in the end, the quitters had the larger, presumably average, erections. On a sample size of 20, and 40. And of course, knowing that the article's headline is bullshit (claimed on results the writer himself acknowledges as statistically insignificant), it's probably likely that any other interpretation the author so freely takes is also bullshit. That article isn't the gold standard of proof; its not even bronze. It goes very close to blatantly lying with its headline, and I think its safe to assume that out of everyone involved in determining those results, only the article's author would be so confident about it (at least, as much as he is). If you're going to cite things, then use things worth citing. In the worst case, read the study itself. But don't go around feeding others such low quality summaries.