The word "reduces" in the title of the article clearly asserts causation.
Not to me it does not.
You need to work on your reading skills.
Aha. I'll get right on it. You know... so that I can impress all those who would rather pretend that a clearly stated assertion does not amount to an assertion because that would mean that they lost the argument. I am convinced that if I try just a little bit harder. If I (maybe?) take a remedial reading class?.. then and only then will they'll be impressed. Because if they ever got on a path of trying to defend the indefensible (go ahead... cut n paste this sentence... pretend there is irony because you are clever)... so if they got on a path of defending the indefensible, they'd agree that they erred as soon as a water-tight argument was presented to them. They are never wrong. Just misunderstood. So I'll go ahead and try to understand them better. Getting right on it.
Just one one thing before I do.
Why are so many medical studies reported as "we found a correlation so there must be a causation.
The slashdot article is not a medical study.
The bbc.com article is not a medical study
I've emphasized the verbs in that "argument" you were making. Reading comprehension. How bout them apples?
Oh, wait, I know what's comming... Let me guess, ok? It's fun. You claim that I make no sense. Then you claim that I am "still" not understanding your point. Then you realize that you can also throw in the (ever so ironic by now) accusation of ad hominem in my direction. Did I get close? Actually, I don't care what you think. Your arguments have proven my point well enough (yeah, yeah... you'll call me "delusional"... I know... it's always someone else... it's never you).