good point- another point is that we do NOT know what else these folks ate, how they did or did not exercise, what kinds of chemicals they may have been exposed to during the trial periods- whether they lived in areas with more pollution, more exhaust from cars- or out in areas with contaminated ground water-
on and on and on it goes-
Did any of them chew gum? Did they drink milk with their meals? Did they use a lot of bathroom chemicals to clean with? As someone pointed out- correlation does not = causation
There is just too much that isn’t known about this study- It could very well be that those that developed the cancers- somehow increased their chances by some lifestyle changes, by not exercising, by increasing the consumption of unhealthy foods during the trial period
We don’t know that it was the chicken that increased their chances- Just because they may have eaten more chicken than other people i n the study doesn’t mean something else they did or didn’t do during the period couldn’t have been the cause
See my post number 35.
Is practically impossible to control for all variables in this type of research. You really end up having to have some heavy duty major facter like cigarette smoking and lung cancer. Otherwise all the interactions and the variables are just too damn complex.
While I commend the search for the truth in science, I think there’s a great deal of hubris involved here on the part of the researchers.