>So many opportunities for correlation not causation.
When people point this out (which they do on every single human-related study that makes the front page), it implies that the article is suggesting causation somewhere. I don't see this article suggesting that anywhere; what I find toward the end is this:
>The studies from the United States and Australia do little to answer these critical questions — but they do open a new avenue for research.
> Even so, the apparent protection extended to all age groups. In all, men who averaged 4.6–7 ejaculations a week were 36% less likely to be diagnosed with prostate cancer before the age of 70 than men who ejaculated less than 2.3 times a week on average.
Sure, they use "apparent" as a weasel-word but "protection" is clearly suggesting causation.
Unless you've discovered some secret research that you're not sharing, a 31% decrease in incidence is certainly enough of an excuse to speculate about a possible protective effect.
That's not a weasel-word, that word is there precisely to point out that the protection isn't verified. Combined with their conclusion that I already pointed out, there really is no suggestion of causation here.
There is no ambiguity in the statement "The studies...do little to answer these critical questions," it means the studies are inconclusive and shouldn't be treated otherwise.
When people point this out (which they do on every single human-related study that makes the front page), it implies that the article is suggesting causation somewhere. I don't see this article suggesting that anywhere; what I find toward the end is this:
>The studies from the United States and Australia do little to answer these critical questions — but they do open a new avenue for research.
Did I miss where the article suggests causation?