Mercury pollution makes ducks more likely to get bird flu: study

The results, published in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B, showed that ducks contaminated with mercury were up to 3.5 times more likely to have had bird flu at some point over the last year or so.

The explanation makes sense and it is very likely to be true, but as a conclusion of this piece of evidence it is not properly defended. That is because there is no measurement of birds that died from the disease, so the results could be biased by selection.

Is like making a study of construction workers that wear or not a helmet and how it relates to accidents involving the head. if 5 out of 50 workers with helmets have had accidents involving the head, while none of the ones that don't wear anything had an accident, would this mean the helmet is related to more accidents? Not likely, the obvious explanation is that workers that don't wear a helmet and have an accident involving the head simply don't survive to be included in the study.

In the same way mercury could help ducks survive the influenza (not likely at all but possible in theory) so if you only examine evidence of prior infection you would find more birds contaminated, because those without mercury would be more likely to die from it.

Also makes them heavier and therefore more difficult for them to fly.

It do stop people for eating them

A study lead by a quantitative ecologist at the USGS Eastern Ecological Science Center, with the results published in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B, and hailed by another scientific expert as an "impressive" study on the one hand, or your "opinion" on the other hand???

What part of the argument can you demonstrate is wrong? your comparison is deeply flawed because the problem is not with the full article, just on one single piece of the discussion, which as presented here is not properly justified.

So, what arguments do you have against the argument made? none?

This is an excellent study lead by a quantitative ecologist at the USGS Eastern Ecological Science Center, with the results published in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B, and hailed by another scientific expert as an "impressive" study.

Makes logical sense in every aspect of viewing it. Anyone who disagrees is a science denier.

Anyone disagree?

Makes logical sense in every aspect of viewing it. Anyone who disagrees is a science denier.

There is one conclusion that is not reachable from the evidence presented here, do you have any actual argument about it? because if not then your judgment is flawed. Finding a problem with how a conclusion is reached is not antiscientific. Making an empty appeal to authority (specially when the authors have not said anything about this detail) is a much more clear example of it.