It shows correlation, not causation. In the vein of this thread, it's not more or less useful than other anecdotes.

I posited a causation based on how the anecdotes countered the general trends in the data. I welcome counter arguments better than "I'm ignoring you because you don't have numbers".

Were I being paid to research this more deeply, I would. I'm not, and if someone doesn't like my argument, they're free to find one of their own.