Ed -
The study was for xxxxx. It wasn't a study on the effects or workings
of this additive.
When you start out a research that defines the goal it tends on proving
that and nothing else. We in Physics are taught to roll the dice and
see what happens. They load the dice.

Martin

I can't interpret your first sentence. It was a study that used Framingham Study data to find some associations between known risk factors and incidences of stroke and dementia.

This is a straightforward and common type of statistical medical study. The Framingham Study data is the world's largest database of risk factors and their correlations with disease. I referred to it extensively when writing about metabolic syndrome. So does practically everyone else who works in the field or who reports on it.

Did you read it? Did you read the abstract? Or did you just read the CNN news article?

Here is the study's abstract, with links to the full study:

http://stroke.ahajournals.org/conten...AHA.116.016027

Nobody "loaded the dice." They had plenty of anecdotal data to suggest the risk-factor correlation. Then they applied straightforward statistical methods to see what the data tell us.

Don't guess about this. If you haven't read at least the abstract, and if you don't know how these associations are researched and measured in medicine, find out before jumping to conclusions.

QUOTE FROM ABSTRACT:
"Background and Purpose€”Sugar- and artificially-sweetened beverage
intake have been linked to cardiometabolic risk factors, which increase
the risk of cerebrovascular disease and dementia. We examined whether
sugar- or artificially sweetened beverage consumption was associated
with the prospective risks of incident stroke or dementia in the
community-based Framingham Heart Study Offspring cohort.

Methods€”We studied 2888 participants aged 45 years for incident stroke
(mean age 62 [SD, 9] years; 45% men) and 1484 participants aged 60
years for incident dementia (mean age 69 [SD, 6] years; 46% men).
Beverage intake was quantified using a food-frequency questionnaire at
cohort examinations 5 (1991€“1995), 6 (1995€“1998), and 7 (1998€“2001). We
quantified recent consumption at examination 7 and cumulative
consumption by averaging across examinations. Surveillance for incident
events commenced at examination 7 and continued for 10 years. We
observed 97 cases of incident stroke (82 ischemic) and 81 cases of
incident dementia (63 consistent with Alzheimers disease)."

Just as I said. They start out with what they want to prove. They
claim in support of their proposition a positive link to cardio /
cerebro issues and simply log those who drink and in dataloging so many
died this way or that or had strokes (head hits something and stroke...)
Argument and gets stroke. Oh yea drinking 'known bad stuff in our
minds' does this so this is caused by drinking. Poor logic.

Poor data reduction and it hides the facts. Was this a BLIND test - no.
Was there any attempt to determine any other cause and effect or just
effect occurs and cause is assumed.

Martin