The use of statistics becomes misleading in medical and social research when data is collected from biased samples, statistical tests are incorrectly applied, or results are selectively reported to mask limitations or exaggerate effects. Misinterpretation also arises when correlation is presented as causation or findings lack transparency regarding methodologies and assumptions

Commentary by Dr. Dalia Abdallah Abd El-Ghani Ghanem:

As an academic and researcher in the social sciences, it is important to approach statistical findings such as those reported in the Danish study with due caution and critical scrutiny.

The study observed a correlation between marital status and reduced mortality rates among patients with multiple sclerosis — particularly among married women. However, several important points must be emphasized:

First:

Correlation does not imply causation.

The fact that married individuals were found to have lower mortality rates does not, in itself, prove that marriage is the causal factor. Nor does it justify interpreting the purpose of marriage as being primarily for social care or longevity.

Second – and this is of central importance:

The sample size, while seemingly substantial (approximately 9,900 patients), cannot be taken as representative of the entire Danish population — let alone applied to other countries with distinct cultural and social structures.

The statistical proportion observed is relatively narrow and must be interpreted within its methodological and societal context. Using it as a basis for broader generalizations constitutes a methodological overreach.

Third:

Even within the Danish context, significant variation exists across demographic, socioeconomic, and regional lines — including differences in age, education, income, and access to care. These factors are crucial in understanding outcomes and must not be disregarded.

It is essential to avoid the misuse of statistical data in service of ideological narratives or moral generalizations. Particularly in matters involving health, family structure, and survival, scientific integrity demands a clear distinction between descriptive statistical trends and normative social interpretations.

–

Dr. Dalia Abdallah Abd El-Ghani Ghanem

PhD in Environmental Studies

Expert in Social Affairs (African Region) and Fellow of Social Research Institutions

Could you be more specific about the problems that you see in the Danish MS study, and could you supply a reference to that study so that others can assess it as well?

Reply to Professor Dr. David L. Morgan:

Thank you very much for your thoughtful question, Professor Dr. Morgan.

Regarding the Danish MS study, I would like to clarify that my intention was not to discredit the study's scientific contribution, but rather to highlight certain contextual and methodological limitations that may affect the generalizability of its findings.

As a scholar in social anthropology and social welfare policy, I believe that any interpretation of such results must be situated within the broader national context—particularly the structure of the Danish healthcare and welfare systems, which are uniquely comprehensive. These institutional frameworks provide an exceptional level of medical and social support for individuals with chronic conditions such as MS, and therefore, the outcomes observed in that study may not be easily replicated in societies with different healthcare models.

While the study appears statistically sound, my concern is whether it sufficiently accounts for the qualitative variables and cultural diversity that would affect outcomes in less homogenous or less supportive settings. Referring to "marriage" or "social ties" in isolation may oversimplify the deeper structural advantages embedded in the Danish system, particularly those related to access to care, long-term support, and institutional trust.

I am currently finalizing my academic portfolio for a forthcoming research affiliation, and prefer to remain focused on that effort rather than diverge into extended reference exchange at this stage. I nonetheless appreciate the opportunity for dialogue and look forward to further constructive academic discussions.

Warm regards,

Dr. Islam Abdullah Abd El-Ghani Ghanem

Fellow of the Royal Anthropological Institute (UK)

UNESCO Expert in Social Anthropology and Youth Welfare