It would fit my definition of causality, but the Times suggested the
research found that the impact of additives on behaviour were not alwaus
large and not always stat. sig. So maybe the FSA are confusing that with
causality?
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/diet_and_fitness/article2395611.ece
But perhaps you should write to the FSA?
Mike
PS it annoys me that the Times thinks this is an article about "diet and
fitness" for "women", but that's another subject...
Ted Harding wrote:
> That, to me, looks like the kind of study design which
> is -- precisely -- capable of establishing causality
> and eliminate mere association. No?
>
> So what is the Chief Scientist at the Food Standards
> Agency doing, abusing the "association" cop-out?
>
> Adding a little colour with some Extract or other,
> in the hope of inducing Attention Deficit?
>
> [Unfortunately I can't even get at the rest of the
> Summary, owing to "technical difficulties" at the Lancet
> website].
>
> Best wishes to all,
> Ted.
--
Mike Brewer
Programme Director, Direct Tax and Welfare
Institute for Fiscal Studies, www.ifs.org.uk, 020 72914800
Registered Office: 7 Ridgmount Street, London WC1E 7AE
Registered in London, Company number 954616, limited by guarantee
IFS is a registered charity, number 258815
******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
to [log in to unmask]
Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the sender and cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of views held by subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out more about Radical Statistics and its aims and activities and read current and past issues of our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site www.radstats.org.uk.
*******************************************************
|