I made a different comment in the other article about this study that was in the Guardian (I think it's the same study?); essentially I thought it was fear mongering, and the likely increase in risk, while mathematically probable, was likely so low as to be virtually the same to priors. I mentioned Bayes theorem, but I am not certain or not if it applies.<p>But anyhow - reading this article - that last part (my summarization):<p>"While this study doesn't offer a definitive causative answer about sugar and cancer...the message from the totality of evidence on excess sugar consumption and various health outcomes is clear -- reducing the amount of sugar in our diet is extremely important," Lake told the Science Media Centre in the UK. She was not involved in the current study.<p>So just grab some rando "reader in public health nutrition at Teesside University" (is a "reader" just someone who reads things? Is this an actual job position?) and have them give you an opinion - one that basically says "yeah...this whole study may mean almost nothing...I really don't know...but limit your sugar intake people!"<p>Again - this article, and the Guardian one, both seem like your standard "omgweregonnadie!" fear article to sell papers and advertising, via the use of out-of-context numbers and percentages, and the fact that people don't understand probabilities.<p>Sigh.