> which is the opposite
Huh? Are you saying that my source claims that chewing ice causes anemia?
Huh? Are you saying that my source claims that chewing ice causes anemia?
So from that source you can't conclude that anemia "often" leads to chewing ice, it may very well be quite rare.
Abstractly, "A is often a consequence B" does not logically goes to "B often leads to A".
To use an extreme exemple, crossing paths with polar bears (chewing ice) is generally linked with dieing (anemia), but death is quite rarely caused by crossing paths with polar bears.
It also seems to miss the central point of my metaphor.