Willard spotted this in the New York Times and asked me to pass it along for your consideration:
This is as good (or bad) as it gets, the closest thing to causation and a smoking gun that we will see. (To prove “scientific” causality you’d have to completely control the diets of thousands of people for decades. It’s as technically impossible as “proving” climate change or football-related head injuries or, for that matter, tobacco-caused cancers.) And just as tobacco companies fought, ignored, lied and obfuscated in the ’60s (and, indeed, through the ’90s), the pushers of sugar will do the same now.
I think it over-reacts a bit, but it’s germane. The notion of “proof” is seriously misplaced in public discourse. “Proof” is a property of mathematics, not of science. You can only prove things about your models.