> It doesn't strike me as fair to dismiss studies like the ones quoted (from the article) as simple correlations.
I didn't see the particular studies and I am not dismissing them out of hand, but I've seen a lot of studies, lost a lot of battles against all sorts of unsound statistical analysis. When I taught Intro Stats, I had no trouble finding examples of what not to do to illustrate in class: Just look at the front page of the campus newspaper which seemed intent on filling pages with bogus "studies".
Again, I am not calling this one[1] bogus, but I am going to point out that study seems to consist solely of finding people who have Parkinson's and have worked around the chemical.
I didn't see the particular studies and I am not dismissing them out of hand, but I've seen a lot of studies, lost a lot of battles against all sorts of unsound statistical analysis. When I taught Intro Stats, I had no trouble finding examples of what not to do to illustrate in class: Just look at the front page of the campus newspaper which seemed intent on filling pages with bogus "studies".
Again, I am not calling this one[1] bogus, but I am going to point out that study seems to consist solely of finding people who have Parkinson's and have worked around the chemical.
Causality requires (not p) => (not q).
[1]: https://hero.epa.gov/hero/index.cfm/reference/details/refere...