Okay then - I agree with you that wording in the article seems rather shifty on this point. Like the way they start off in the title using neutral language, bu

Okay then - I agree with you that wording in the article seems rather shifty on this point. Like the way they start off in the title using neutral language, but then throughout the article they do seem to be spinning in such a way that it seems they want the reader to feel that in fact the relation is (or "may be") mostly causative. And that, for not addressing the elephant in the room (the correlative confound) overall the article can be said to be somewhat disappointing. What I'm not so sure about is to what extent we can, starting from that -- make inferences about the authors' broader motives, or to speak of their "gall" and how unmitigated it was. And frankly, I don't particularly care. Not that you shouldn't care, though. But if you want to criticize them "personally", perhaps a letter to the original journal would do the trick? Or at least get it it of your system? Because I kind of doubt they're taking the trouble to dig into the fine print of this thread, or to otherwise allow their morning coffee ritual to be upended by this withering analysis of yours.