“no causal link has been established.”
A causal link may be determined if a study or research has been thoroughly explored. To date, no such research has been carried out so whether there is a causal link cannot be established. Given the number of deaths that correlate rather too closely with the limited figures available from the government the question becomes: Why would any responsible government refuse to advocate a study or independent research into whether or not their policies are killing people. I think it’s called abdicating responsibility.
Kitty Sue explains it in her usual insightful tradition.
I’ve written more than one lengthy critiqueof Tory notions of what passes for “research” methods (so I’ll make this one relatively short), and often criticised Tory refusals to accept the research findings of academics regarding, for example, established links between the Work Capability Assessment, increased suicide and mortality, the link between sanctions and increased mortality. The Tory plea for the universal and unqualified dismissal of whatever they deem to be criticism of their policies is often based on the claim that “no causal link has been established.”
As I have pointed out on many occasions previously, whilst correlation certainly isn’t quite the same thing as cause and effect, it quite often strongly hints at a causal link, and as such, warrants further investigation.
It is therefore inaccurate to say that correlation doesn’t imply causation. It quite often does. The tobacco industry has…
View original post 826 more words
wgrovedotnet 