This increase occurred between 1950 and 1964, and leveled off thereafter.
Hm, this data doesn’t feel horribly strong to me. What happened from 1965-1969, why is that data point relatively low, seems inconsistent with the poisoning theory? My prior is that data is noisy and it is easy to see effects that don’t mean much. But this is an interesting and important topic, and I’m sorry it’s infeasible to access better data.
Correct. The data is suggestive, but does not make for very strong evidence of poisoning. Personally, I think the case for increased osteoporosis is strong for a variety of reasons, but we need information to answer if this was because of a mass-poisoning. .
Hm, this data doesn’t feel horribly strong to me. What happened from 1965-1969, why is that data point relatively low, seems inconsistent with the poisoning theory? My prior is that data is noisy and it is easy to see effects that don’t mean much. But this is an interesting and important topic, and I’m sorry it’s infeasible to access better data.
Correct. The data is suggestive, but does not make for very strong evidence of poisoning. Personally, I think the case for increased osteoporosis is strong for a variety of reasons, but we need information to answer if this was because of a mass-poisoning. .