3 ms·

What's wrong with implying potential causation? Correlation is potential causation. The whole reason one says the boyfriend is linked to the murder case is beca

• headsoup 4y ago
  Probably just because it isn't a very high bar. "People who eat McDonald's linked to fewer car accidents." I mean some data might just show that, but causality is a lot further away there. Hence, while a correlation might be interesting, when presented we need to also understand the methodology and go into the detail a little bit to see how extra factors have narrowed down that finding. E.g, without looking into any of the data, 'more Flu shots reduces risk of Alzheimer's' might be because people predisposed to Alzheimer's have a poor diet and the flu shot just counters some other terrible health effect. So first bit of detail to look at is whether the selection factors for diet, comorbidities, environment, general health, history, etc. Not saying anything about this article, but context is always important, hence those claiming 'correlation !== causation' are only correct as far as not looking any deeper. Same for 'well it could be' is useless without knowing how close to 'could be' it is. More critical imo, is the use of '40% reduction.' If this is relative risk (this study is not, it's absolute), the actual risk could be 0.0037%, where a reduction of 40% is practically nothing. So next check is: is this relative or absolute risk? If relative, relative to what baseline? So many studies are distorted by using relative risks against a meaningless baseline.