Not really, their conclusion is simply worded in a highly misleading way. They say the increase in mortality is due to hyperinsulinemia and inflammation, however both of those are caused at least in part by obesity.
> both of those are caused at least in part by obesity
You're letting the word "are" carry a lot of weight where "often" or "can be" might be more accurate.
They're correlated with obesity, which means that they're more likely to be present in obese patients. But they exist independent of it: not being present for all obese patients and sometimes being present for non-obese patients. And since they're measurable on their own, it's kind of a big deal to draw them out as obesity-associated factors more closely correlated with all-cause mortality than obesity as a whole.
Of course you can have inflammation without being obese, no one here is arguing for that. The point is it's very rare to find someone who is obese without inflammation. In other words, A implies B does not mean B implies A.
Can you more specifically characterize what you mean by that and what your references are?
Because you're taking a statistical correlation and a hypothesized mechanism and turning it into logical entailment. It's hard to believe that even a extremely high correlation is anywhere near 100% but I would love to see real data saying otherwise.
For whatever reason you seem to be building a lot of strawmen here. No one prior to you was talking about 100%. Similarly for shifting the onus, you can pick up most any study on obesity and inflammation. Not liking medical facts does not make them go away.
Sorry. Maybe I lost sight of the context of your original reply.
I think I took it to mean you saying the study hadn't meaningfully narrowed down mortality risk to less noisy factors than obesity, when I see now that you may have just been helping the prior commenter see that obesity itself is still correlated with mortality through these. Probably because I can't even grok how they got to that idea. :)
This is not the way to react when asked for evidence of your claim. Instead of talking about 100%, subtract "very rare" from 100%, and supply evidence for that. It's difficult not to like "medical facts" when none have been offered.
